France vs Rwanda: Which will stop the boats?

TWO deals with foreign countries were made to stop boats of migrants coming to our shores. But which was best? We compare and contrast the two. 

Proximity

France: Just across the channel and where the boats are coming from, so physically in good position to affect them

Rwanda: 4,376 miles away and landlocked

Governance

France: Western democracy with strong history of keeping deals made with the UK, key ally in two World Wars

Rwanda: Corrupt one-party state with record of taking money from Western governments, not providing the promised service and keeping it regardless

Deterrent

France: A nation of lovers, gourmets, and artists that only occasionally indulges in police brutality against non-white residents. Maybe 15 major incidents a year, maximum

Rwanda: Scary to migrants entirely ignorant of Rwanda despite being from the same continent, who know of it only from the terrifying sponsorship on Arsenal’s sleeves

Cost

France: Not yet revealed but it will be too much

Rwanda: £700 million for four migrants, or £175m per migrant

Proposed by

France: A traitor who doesn’t love Brexit in cahoots with an EU technocrat

Rwanda: A prime minister with vision, sagacity and a statutory fine for breaking lockdown rules received the previous day which he was desperate to distract from

Chance of success

France: If allowed by the EU and expanded beyond a pilot scheme could vastly reduce the numbers of migrants coming illegally to the UK

Rwanda: None but that wasn’t the point. It provided a valuable fixed point of xenophobic cruelty for lefties to abhor and the right wing to rally around, which is more important

Chance of being reported as a success

France: Zero. The media is already furious that the boats weren’t stopped by a press conference about it and are committed to four years of stories about Reform’s momentum

Rwanda: An absolute and total success abandoned only because of whiners and traitors, like the poll tax. This was our finest hour