How can we prevent so many desperate people from risking their lives in the English Channel? Gerald Darmanin, the French Minister of the Interior, gave us his advice. He says the British must “take responsibility” – by making our country “less attractive” to immigrants.
It is, of course, a reason for Mr. Darmanin to give us the benefit of his wisdom. However, I hope he expands on his suggestion. Because to me, however, it doesn’t seem entirely clear what it means.
Presumably, it does not mean that we should give asylum seekers less money. After all, we already give them less than other major countries of Western Europe. We give asylum seekers £39.63 a week – far less than they would get in Germany (£65.63 a week). In fact, it’s less than what they could get in Mr Darmanin’s country (£42.84 per week).
So when Mr. Darmanin asks us to make Britain less attractive, he can’t tell us to cut off asylum seekers’ benefits. He cannot ask us to limit their chances of finding work. In the UK, asylum seekers are not allowed to find work while their application is being processed – no matter how many months this process takes to complete. Whereas in Germany they can start working only three months after submitting their application, in France it takes six months.
Whatever Mr. Darmanin has in mind, I am not convinced that he will succeed. Most of the people who tried to cross the canal traveled from the most infernal regions of the Middle East. So it will not be easy for us to make Britain “less attractive” than, say, Syria or Afghanistan. And if we somehow achieve this unusual goal, it will cause an even bigger migrant crisis than the current one. Because 67 million Britons will rush in droves to flee to France.
Fortunately, there is an alternative solution. Instead of making the UK more unattractive, we need to convince potential entrants that it is indeed unattractive. This should be easy enough. Simply recruit a horde of die-hard Corbynistas – and pay them to walk up and down the French coast every day with your loudspeakers, telling everyone how awful Britain is. How racist her voters are, how cruel her government is, how miserable her future is, etc.
After all, it’s something that they’re already saying for free on Twitter. So they sure would love to be paid for it. In the meantime, we’re getting them out of the country a little bit. Everyone wins.
sad sad sad
Hope all is well with Sir Mick Jagger. Over the weekend, the great man was photographed wearing a huge pair of very strange looking glasses. However, he did not start receiving fashion advice from Sir Elton John. Apparently, what Sir Meek was wearing were special “phototherapy” glasses. They emit a delightful glow, designed to lift the spirits of the wearer during the dark winter months. It is especially popular with people with seasonal affective disorder, or SAD.
Does Mr. Mick have a sad one? I certainly hope not. Because sadness doesn’t just cause a general feeling of melancholy. It also impairs sex drive. Which, for fans of Sir Mick, would be a troubling development.
Sir Mick may be 78 years old. But he had a four-year-old son when Sir Mick was 73. This indicates a sexual desire that is nothing short of extraordinary. Keep in mind that he became a father for the first time in over 50 years. Yet he is still going strong. In fact, he has had so many children over this long period of time, and he has a great-great-granddaughter who is two years older than his last son.
Think about this fact for a moment. It’s amazing. The man is superhuman.
So it would be a huge shame if he lost interest in having more children. The birth rate in this country is already alarmingly low. Without the heroic efforts of Sir Mick, we would never get it back.
The University of Aberdeen has added “sensational warnings” to classic literary works, to ensure students are not shocked by their contents. It definitely looks very useful. Potential readers of Julius Caesar, for example, are warned that the plot is “centered around a murder”, while those about to study A Tale of Two Cities—set during the French Revolution—were warned that it “contains scenes of violence, execution and death.” .
Most useful of all, the warning given to the kidnapped Robert Louis Stevenson tells readers that the novel contains “images of kidnapping.” It might be argued that in this particular case, the headline actually acts as a motivating warning, but these days you can’t be too careful.
I wonder if they would add an immediate warning to War and Peace. On the one hand, it contains images of war. But on the other hand, it also has images of peace, so maybe it balances it out.