Peers reveal escape plan for refugees sent to Rwanda: just nick a Toblerone
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
We were joined for the Lords debate on Rwanda by Peter Mandelson, who did what he always does – sat on the front row and glared at people, as if taking notes for a police state roundup.
Is he malevolent or a gentle soul with bad eyesight? If the latter, he might have wondered why a small boy called Chakrabarti was speaking so passionately against the Rwanda Plan, telling peers that they must stand up for the rule of law and be “a little more muscular than usual.”
This was met with befuddled stares among a chamber packed with Zimmer frames, slings and wrists broken in brave attempts to open a jam jar. The peers are old. They are also 90 per cent spivvy lawyers, which means that if ever “hurt in an accident that wasn’t your fault”, they don’t have to go far for representation.
The argument contra the Government’s new UK/Rwanda treaty was well made (and I quote the best speeches). That it’s not “offshoring” refugees but “offloading” (Lord Kerr); that the final destination is far from safe (Lord Alton said that there are five people in the UK accused of genocide who we won’t return to Rwanda because we can’t guarantee a fair trial).
Lord Razzall noted that Rwanda was originally chosen precisely because it was perceived to be a “hell hole”, but now the Government finds itself in the paradoxical situation of trying to prove it is a paradise.
We can’t even be certain deportees will stay there, said Chakrabarti: if they commit a crime in Rwanda, they might be deported to the UK. In which case, why worry about the ethics of a plan that is so easy to get around?
If you are a refugee, if you find yourself sent to Kigali International, simply nick a Toblerone upon arrival and you’ll be on the first flight back to London.
Lord Howell questioned the idea that we could ever define any country as 100 per cent safe. Is Britain safe? “Our postmasters” might disagree, he said. One could add that it isn’t very safe to cross the Channel in a dinghy.
As for the author of the anti-government motion, Lord Goldsmith: “You know who that is?” one wise hack said to another in the press balcony. No, came the reply. “That’s Peter Goldsmith: he was Blair’s attorney general during the war in Iraq.”
“We went to war? In Iraq?”
The older hack whispered: “Don’t tell me you’ve forgotten?”
“Well, first of all dear, I’m only 30,” his friend lied with a smile, “and second, it was Cool Britannia, so I was too high on ecstasy and coke to notice.”
Being of a similar fake age, I must concur that if you can remember the War on Terror, you weren’t really there. But the hypocrisy remains part of the historic record. How can Lord Goldsmith be taken seriously on this subject?
Or Baroness Chakrabarti, who owed her appointment to Jeremy Corbyn? Maybe the Rwanda Plan is flawed, but so are its critics.
