Migration and the Border

The unforeseen consequences of a treaty

Letters to the Editor. Illustration: Paul Scott

Sir, – Strange that you would use the word “fatuous” when referring to Rishi Sunak’s invitation to Ireland to join in the UK plan to send certain asylum seekers to Rwanda (“The Irish Times view on the Belfast High Court decision on the Rwanda Bill: the UK government must take note”, May 14th).

Fatuous was exactly the word that had already come to mind when reading your editorial, long before I reached where it appeared in your sermon to the British government.

It is indeed absolutely fatuous to expect the British to convenience us with regard to the unforeseen consequences of a treaty we and the EU shoved down their throats, or to the consequences of a Northern Ireland court judgment that is likely to further increase the flow of asylum seekers into the Republic.

Given the far greater likelihood of never actually being required to leave irrespective of the merits or otherwise of your case for asylum under our overwhelmed, loophole-ridden, seldom enforced, asylum and immigration regime, it is unlikely that having crossed into Northern Ireland, putative asylum seekers would not just keep going southwards across the non-border.


As an aside, and trying not to sound too fatuous, can anyone explain to me why any person would have a legal or valid reason for “fleeing” France, one of the safest countries on the planet? – Yours, etc,



Co Cork.

Read More