Rick Perry goes in hard at his first presidential debate

"Maybe it's time to have provocative language in this country."

Rick Perry, the Texas governor, made his debut appearance in a presidential debate last night - and he went in hard, defying those who had predicted he would seek a quiet, safe approach.

From the word go, Perry went for Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. The collision between the two dominated the 105-minute debate, appearing to confirm that these two are the frontrunners, as the other six candidates remained on the sidelines.

The strategy seems to have worked, with Perry almost instantly over-taking Romney in the opinion polls. But did he go a step too far with his comments on social security?

His views on the issue have long been seen as potentially damaging in the context of a general election, but Perry refused to back down on the matter, saying:

You cannot keep the status quo in place and call it anything other than a Ponzi scheme

Romney pointed out that Karl Rove, Perry's former adviser, said that language would be "toxic" in a general election, to which Perry replied:

You know, Karl has been over the top for a long time in some of his remarks. So I'm not responsible for Karl anymore.

Romney's campaign has gone hard on the social security question, firing off an email headlined "Perry Does Not Believe Social Security Should Exist," backed up with multiple quotes.

In this debate, Perry proved himself to be a serious and credible candidate, although Romney may still have broader appeal. Over at the Washington Post, Michael Gerson writes that Romney "seemed more electable than anyone else on the stage".

However, there were some alarming reminders of how far the parameters of this contest have shifted to the right. At one point, the moderator, Brian Williams, said to Perry: "Your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times." The audience interrupted with a spontaneous burst of applause. Williams continued with: "Have you struggled to sleep at night with the idea that any one of those might have been innocent?" Perry's response? "No sir. I've never struggled with that at all."

As American politics becomes more partisan, and rhetoric more heated than ever, the Republican primary is perhaps not the place to look to for restraint. Asked at one point if he wanted to reconsider his language, Perry said:

Maybe it's time to have provocative language in this country.

The Tea Party certainly agrees; it remains to be seen whether the majority of GOP voters do too.

 

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for 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.