US press: pick of the papers

The ten must-read opinion pieces from today's US papers.

1. Hospitals aren't hotels (New York Times)

We hurt people because it's the only way we know to make them better. This is the nature of our work, which is why the growing focus on measuring "patient satisfaction" as a way to judge the quality of a hospital's care is worrisomely off the mark, says Theresa Brown.

2. Mitt Romney meets 'peasants with pitchforks' (Washington Post)

When Pat Buchanan ran for president in the 1990s, the conservative commentator lovingly referred to his partisans as "peasants with pitchforks." The pitchfork brigade now enjoys more power in Republican politics than even Buchanan thought possible, writes E.J. Dionne Jr.

3. Viral video, vicious warlord (New York Times)

I'd like to thank the makers of the "Kony 2012" video for goading me to write about Joseph Kony. Yes, the video glosses over details, but it has left the American public more informed. Last year, Rush Limbaugh defended the Lord's Resistance Army because it sounded godly, writes Nicholas D. Kristof.

4. The secret of Santorum's success (Politico)

Though Santorum's received the most intense scrutiny of all, he endures because he has taken his message, and himself, directly to voters. And the more voters see of the real Rick Santorum, the more they like him, writes Gary Bauer.

5. Bombing Syria risks making things worse (USA Today)

Despite the blood-soaked images from Syria, the proper course is to methodically align the forces that will remove Assad while limiting the risks, preferably as an alternative to an attack but at least to prepare the way for one, says this editorial.

6. Obama dribbles from mandate to man date (San Francisco Chronicle)

One month the White House sniggers about an overly male GOP not backing its birth-control mandate. But Obamadom doesn't want to seem too metrosexual, so the president jumped from mandate to "man date", says Debra J Saunders.

7. Romney and the un-Romney (LA Times)

With no disrespect to Gingrich or Ron Paul, the Republican race is down to two serious contenders: a doctrinaire conservative and an erstwhile moderate whose repositionings have created confusion about his core convictions, writes this editorial.

8. Gingrich's ego is a win for Romney (Boston Globe) (£)

Since Iowa, Gingrich and Rick Santorum have been fighting for the right to take on Romney as the one and only true conservative in the 2012 contest. The trouble is, they are still fighting each other, writes Joan Vennochi.

9. Romney turns his pandering skills to gas prices and whiffs again (St Louis Today)

The ploy of presidential candidates blaming sitting presidents for rising gas prices is nearly as old as the internal combustion engine, says this editorial.

10. GOP hitting reset every election night (Politico)

It could take an entire college semester to make sense of the formula devised by the Republican National Committee, writes Trey Hardin.

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.