Cllr. Gavin Ayling

I’ve upset a couple of the regulars by allowing discussion to get to libertarianism in immigration policy. I exacerbated it by sticking to ideology and allowing caveats to get in the way of straight, pragmatic disagreement.

Well now, here’s something for those of you who were worried I was turning yellow. Let me make quite clear, first of all, that anyone genuinely fleeing persecution has my utmost sympathy and I would hope that France would welcome me if England went V for Vendetta on us.

Many make a lot of noise about the number of asylum seekers who come here when there are no oppressive regimes in our proximity. Rightly, in my opinion, they ask why we take 13% of the world’s asylum seekers and why, when we are so overcrowded that house-prices are expected to rise 50% in the next ten years (which means they’ll grow by 75% at least), we take more than France which is closer to Africa and the Middle East no matter which route you take.

And they’re right — there’s no answer to that question that is acceptable to me. But I do know that if I were fleeing England, I would try and go to France, the US or Canada first as I am more conversant in the languages spoken there than Germany, Norway or Denmark. Is the US cultural hegemony causing England’s popularity in asylum seeker’s minds?

Anyway, my point wasn’t that! My point was rather this:

If we’re so concerned about the plight of those in oppressive regimes — if we really believe that every person in Nepal, Tibet or Sudan could reasonably be fleeing persecution, shouldn’t we be chartering ships or planes to ferry people from these countries? What makes someone who has paid the triads or other smugglers their life savings to bring them to England more deserving than those in the refugee camps of the world?

The UN Conventions that oblige countries to take refugees are completely out-of-date and do not reflect a world that is largely polarised in terms of whether the country is stable or unstable.

There are several solutions to this deliberately provocative post:

1) Stop accepting refugees
2) Ship refugees from Sudan etc. at English taxpayers expense
3) Start wars with these countries
4) Carry on doing what we’re doing

The only ones here which make any logical sense are options 2 and 3. Neither of option 2 or 3, though, would be acceptable either to me or, I would suggest, the electorate.

So what of 1 and 4? 1 seems cruel but as I hope I showed above, if we are not doing option 2, then we’re using double-standards when we don’t do option 1. 4 patently does not work and allows people to use asylum as a way of getting a foothold for economic reasons.

I would welcome your fifth options as I believe there lies the answer!

Daniel Hannan (my favourite MEP) has written the following. As always, if you’d like to receive these gems directly, e-mail dhannan@europarl.eu.int.

Another Strasbourg Scam

The European Parliament, it seems, has been swindled. We MEPs – or, rather, you taxpayers – have been paying €1 million a year over the odds to the city of Strasbourg (see the excellent coverage online at www.thefirstpost.co.uk).

It is, of course, quite normal to over-invoice when dealing with the EU. Contractors know that Eurocrats are not spending their own money. They are like builders asking “Insurance job, this, is it?” – only on a far, far grander scale.

What distinguishes this little scam, though, is that it reignites the argument about the location of the European Parliament. MEPs generally meet in Brussels; but, once a month, we travel Strasbourg. (We also maintain a permanent seat in Luxembourg, for reasons which are too complicated to go into now.) The expense of migrating between these places is awesome. Even when we factor out the cost of interpretation, each MEP costs the taxpayer nearly €2.5 million a year. It’s not just the 732 MEPs who make the monthly peregrination, you see: it’s the chauffeurs, the committee clerks, the man who advises your secretary about her pension rights – oh, and some twelve tons of papers, shuttling back and forth in a dedicated train.

Many MEPs, sick of having to place themselves in the clumsy hands of Air France each month, want to end the Strasbourg sittings. But there is no way that this can happen: the French have managed to sneak a clause into the Treaties specifying that the Parliament must meet in Strasbourg twelve times a year. This commitment cannot now be removed without the unanimous consent of all 25 states; and there is no way that France will give its consent.

Interestingly, though, the Treaties make no mention of Brussels. So there is a way to end this wasteful and absurd charade: we could cut out Brussels and meet permanently in the chief town of Alsace. Moving away from the grey and soulless streets of Brussels would horrify the Euro-fanatics: they see the town as Europe’s federal capital. But meeting permanently in Strasbourg would bolster the old idea that the EU is an association of states, its institutions spread among its members. Whenever I suggest this idea to other MEPs, they say: “But we have to be at the centre of power. If we were separated from the Commission, it would be harder to pass legislation.” Yes, it would. As the French say: “Et alors?”

Charles Clarke: Resign you irresponsible man. It is the only honourable thing to do. One thousand released foreign criminals…. I shake my head. We should, apparently, be reassured that Mr Clarke is going to resolve the problem which he was too incompetent to manage himself.

John Prescott: How on Earth?