'John Major condemned the Rwanda scheme as 'un-British' but there is nothing un-British about deterrence' - Ann Widdecombe

I always had severe doubts if it would get off the ground and only a fool would fail to foresee the havoc caused by left-leaning lawyers and too great a willingness to bow down to the ECHR.

Of course, we should leave the latter and shake the dust off our feet as we do so, but even as members we can always say that we treat the view of the court as advisory not binding, which is what plenty of other countries do and what Sunak should have done from the outset.

However, that would still have left the problem of our own courts, which is why I consistently claimed the plan was going nowhere.

That does not however mean that it was without merit or that it somehow offended British values. It was merely difficult to implement. So is it un-British to send unlawful immigrants to Albania, as Italy is planning and which Starmer seems to find acceptable?

Would John argue that Albania must be frightfully civilised as it has applied to join the EU whereas Rwanda is merely a member of the Commonwealth?

What precisely is British about people dying in the channel? How on earth can it be un-British to want to stop the trade and what better way to do that than to deter people from making the journey in the first place?

What precisely is British about allowing the population to grow by the size of a town every year? What is British about making the British face longer queues for housing and the NHS?

What is British about spending British taxpayers’ hard-earned cash on hotels for unlawful immigrants at the rate of £6m a day?

There is nothing un-British about the concept of deterrence, but it must be effective, and the Rwanda scheme was not.

Deterrence involves turning the boats around and when some still get through immediately detaining the occupants.

Deterrence involves saying that nobody arriving that way will ever be granted asylum. Reform UK alone seems to recognise this and to build policy accordingly.

LATEST OPINION FROM MEMBERSHIP:

• 'Chris McCausland can be BBC Strictly's saviour - but bosses mustn't make a familiar mistake'
• Young people wielding machetes and assaulting shop workers is sickening - Peter Bleksley
• Decline of BBC as a trustworthy source on its Middle East reporting is saddening - Laurence Julius

Offshore processing is now rapidly gaining favour in those EU countries most hard-pressed by waves of illegal immigration. Ironically, Germany is reported to be eyeing up the facilities we paid for in Rwanda.

If John admires the EU so much, why does he feel it is so wrong for Britain to want the same? Starmer of course never had any plan at all beyond dropping the admittedly precarious deterrent of Rwanda, so the boats arrive daily, and they will go on doing so.

Hotels will eventually run out of space and tensions will inevitably rise. Promising to smash the gangs is pie in the sky. You might as well promise to eliminate the Mafia or drug smuggling. Our Prime Minister makes King Canute look sensible.

John Major, having condemned the Rwanda scheme as un-British, also offered no other solution. In short, he and Starmer simply surrender to the current influx and what, pray, is British about surrender?