Beltway Briefing

1. The House of Representatives is set to vote against a bill authorising the US action in Libya in a further blow to Barack Obama's authority. Republicans and Democrats are furious that the US President failed to seek congressional authorisation before the start of the mission as required under the 1973 War Powers Resolution. "The war in Libya is illegal, unconstitutional and unwarranted. It must end," Democratic representative Dennis Kucinich said.

The House will also vote on a bill to cut off funding for US military attacks in Libya. "The president has ignored the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, but he cannot ignore a lack of funding," said Republican Tom Rooney, the sponsor of the bill. "Only Congress has the power to declare war and the power of the purse, and my bill exercises both of those powers by blocking funds for the war in Libya unless the president receives congressional authorisation."

The measure would allow US forces to remain engaged in non-hostile actions in Libya such as search and rescue efforts, intelligence, surveillance and refueling. The bill is expected to pass in the House but it is almost certain to fail in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

2. Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney has released a new video entitled "Obama's Misery Index: Ryan's Story". In the video, Ryan King of Midland, Michigan, reflects on the woes of unemployment: "I buy bologna and bread, commonly, because it's cheap - what I eat."

The Misery Index, an unofficial chart totalling unemployment and inflation rates, is at one of its highest levels in 28 years. In a sign of how fragile the US economic recovery is, the Index is set to register at 12.7 for May - 9.1 per cent for unemployment and 3.6 per cent for inflation.

3. A new Sarah Palin documentary will premiere in Iowa next week, according to reports. The Undefeated , directed by conservative filmmaker Stephen K. Bannon, chronicles Palin's rise from Alaska governor to vice presidential candidate.

Palin, who has yet to announce whether she will enter the 2012 presidential race, has been invited to attend the premiere. A preview of the film can be seen below.

4. Republican hopeful John Huntsman has opened his campaign office in the bellweather state of Florida. Huntsman, who officially entered the presidential race on Tuesday, said he chose Orlando for his campaign's headquarters because his wife, Mary Kaye, grew up in the area.

In an address to staff and volunteers, he pledged to avoid personal attacks on his opponents. "I want people who work in this office to remember that civility means something," Huntsman said. "I believe that you don't have to run down another human being to run for president of the United States."

5. Barack Obama is to visit Iowa on Monday as part of his "Winning the Future" tour of companies and manufacturing plants. The US President will tour a Davenport Alcoa plan to highlight the role of advanced manufacturing in American job creation and exports. Obama's visit will follow that of Republican hopeful Michele Bachmann, who is due to officially launch her presidential bid in Waterloo, Iowa, on Monday. Obama won the state in 2008 by 54 per cent to John McCain's 45 per cent.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Q&A: Would Brexit really move “the Jungle” to Dover?

The 2003 Le Touquet treaty was negotiated outside the EU.

What is David Cameron’s most recent claim about Britain leaving the EU?

The Prime Minister is claiming that Brexit could result in France ending the agreement by which British immigration officials carry out checks on those seeking to enter the UK in France.  

More specifically, Cameron thinks that a vote to leave the EU would give the French government an excuse to revoke the Le Touquet treaty of 2003, and that this would cause refugee camps akin to the Calais “Jungle” to spring up along the English south coast.

What’s the Le Touquet treaty?

In February 2003, Tony Blair went to the northern French resort of Le Touquet to try and persuade President Jacques Chirac to support British and American military action in Iraq. (He failed). 

Blair and Chirac hogged the headlines, but on the summit’s sidelines, Home Secretary David Blunkett and his French counterpart, an ambitious young politician named Nicolas Sarkozy, negotiated a treaty establishing juxtaposed controls at each country’s sea ports.

This agreement meant that British border police could set up and run immigration checkpoints at Calais – effectively moving the British border there from Dover. The treaty also enabled French border police to carry out checks in Dover.

British border police had already been operating at French Eurostar terminals since 2001, and manning the French entrance to the Eurotunnel since 1994.

What’s all this got to do with the EU?

Technically, nothing. The Le Touquet treaty is a bilateral agreement between the UK and France. Both countries happen to be member states of the EU, but the negotiations took place outside of the EU’s auspices.

That's why eurosceptics have reacted with such fury today. Arron Banks, the co-founder of Leave.EU, said the Prime Minister was “resorting to scaremongering”, while Ukip’s migration spokesperson, in a surprising role-reversal, said that Cameron’s argument was “based on fear, negativity, and a falsehood”.

Cameron’s claim appears to be that Brexit would represent such a profound shift in the UK’s relationship with other European states that it could offer France an excuse to end the agreement reached at Le Touquet. That is debatable, but any suggestion that the treaty would instantly become void in the event of a vote to leave is untrue.

Does France actually want to revoke the treaty?

Local politicians in Calais, and in particular the town’s mayor, have been arguing for months that the treaty should be abandoned. Le Monde has also criticised it. The current French Interior Minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, hinted today that he agreed, saying that a British vote to leave “will always result in countermeasures”.

On the BBC's Today programme this morning, Rob Whiteman, a former head of the UK Border Agency, said that it was “almost certain” that the treaty would end if the UK left the EU. He said that France has benefited less from the deal than it expected:

“I think at the time the French felt there would be an upside for them, in that if it was clear that people could not easily get to Britain it would stop Sangatte building up again. The camp was closed. But history has shown that not to be the case. The French authorities still have a huge amount of pressure on their side.”

That said, the French government receives money from the British to help police Calais and its camps, and various French officials have acknowledged that their ports would receive even more traffic if refugees and migrants believed that it was easier to travel  to the UK than before.

If the treaty ended, would “the Jungle” just move to Dover?

There’s little doubt that because of linguistic and familial ties, and perhaps the perception that the UK is more welcoming than France, many refugees and migrants would come to the UK as quickly as they could to claim asylum here.

Whiteman also said on Today that since the 2003 agreement, the annual number of asylum claims in the UK had declined from 80,000 to around 30,000. So the UK could expect a significant spike in claims if the treaty were to end.

But the British asylum process makes it unlikely that anything like “the Jungle” would spring up. Instead, those claiming asylum would be dispersed around the country or, if authorities are worried they would flee, held in an immigration detention centre.

Why is Cameron saying this now?

This looks suspiciously like one of the Tories' election strategist Lynton Crosby’s dead cats. That is, in an effort to distract his critics from the detail of the renegotiation, the PM has provoked a row about migrants and refugees. Cameron is clearly keen to move the debate on from the minutiae of different European agreements to bigger questions about security and terrorism. Though getting bogged down in competing interpretations of a treaty from 2003 may not be the best way to move onto that broader terrain.