20th December 2022
Let us talk briefly – again – about “banning” things.
It is a topic which I have addressed before on this blog and elsewhere.
In essence: law is not magic, and so just “banning” something does not make that something somehow disappear in a puff of theatrical smoke.
And usually the something being banned will just continue, but will be attended with different legal consequences than before.
*
Take for example the “illegal” asylum seekers (and, yes, we know – or should know – that seeking asylum is not itself an offence).
The clumsy government just wants to ban such asylum seekers harder, with “tougher” measures and “crackdowns”.
A sensible response would be to provide a safe route for asylum seekers to make their applications, and to provide proper resources for the applications to be adjudicated, but: no, we have to ban, harder and harder.
And yet asylum seekers still come, but through criminal gangs.
Or take for an example, the idiotic “war on drugs”.
The supply and use of drugs still continues, but with accompanying criminality and extortion.
Banning the drugs has not made the problem disappear, but instead made it more dangerous for everyone involved.
*
None of the above means – or should be taken to mean – that prohibitions do not have their place.
There are many things that should be prohibited.
But any prohibition, in and of itself, is not enough – it instead needs to be part of a wider legal and policy framework.
Law and policy need to be resourced and able to deal with what happens when that prohibition is breached, and what happens next.
And politicians need to realise that banning something is stage one or two of a process of dealing with a perceived social or moral wrong, and not the only stage.
But politicians will not realise this.
We will get “crackdowns” and “tougher” measures instead.
Perhaps we should be “tough” on “crackdowns” instead.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
What prompted your 2011 article in the NS? The pandemic regulations required careful drafting and the government lawyers had their work cut out for them. But migrants crossing the channel is not a new situation.
This country seems unable to plan for the future even when trends are clear. When there are plans they are overwhelmed by events or the failure to maintain and update them.
Reorganisations following untried and untested policies and above all taking decisions without a plan may need to be banned in future.
“Law without policy”
Oh, that is a good point, well framed.
I may use that line!
“Take back control”
Legitimate activity with investment in regulation (and possibly tax to cover costs) creates government control.
Prohibition with barely any enforcement resources gives control to criminals.
The UK government, following a spectacular loss of control over international relations due to Brexit, has now created the level of control over domestic policy last witnessed in 1920’s Chicago.
Perhaps it is easier and/or more effective in political terms (to secure re-election) for a government minister to say “we will ban it” and to pass legislation through parliament – legislation to send a political message, as it were – than to give proper attention to the causes of a problem, to identify steps that can be taken to effectively address those causes, and to devote sufficient resources to persevering with those steps until some effect is seen on the problem.
Can we learn from the past?
Refugee numbers are not quite back to the peak levels seen in 1999 to 2002, when applications for asylum were over 90,000 each year.
Rather than implementing new and ever more draconian measures to punish desperate people fleeing persecution, as if that will deter them from coming, perhaps we could look back to see why numbers peaked two decades ago, and what happened to reduce them to 40,000 or less in the following years until recently.
In that period, there were many people fleeing from Somalia and Yugoslavia and Iraq and Afghanistan. A combination of failed states in Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, and the war on terror coming home, as it were.
And now? Many people fleeing Syria and Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran and Sudan and Eritrea. And Albania. A combination of failed states in Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, and the continuing fallout from the failed war on terror.
The words change, but the song remains the same.
Why did numbers stay relatively low from 2004 to 2020, and can we get back there again?
The last 12 years of British politics make much more sense, with the perspective that the protagonists were high on crackdowns
Good point and quite evident really, to anyone with experience of life in general and a practical bent.
That it was worth saying, illustrates the pass we have come to with this so-called government.
Given that it appears from the news that most of these asylum seekers actually are workers seeking jobs and that we are short of workers would it not make sense to have an option for these asylum seekers to be allowed to work and support themselves rather than paying for hotels to accommodate them? We could take tax and national insurance from them to help pay for it all.
If that’s true your answer is too sensible.
If it’s not true how would you sort out them into two categories?
As I suspect it is largely true what is the downside of at least opening a route into the country deciding?
I only know what I hear on the news but it looks as if we cannot move beyond “seizing control of our borders” then sitting on our hands not knowing what to do with it!
We could give it a try and see what happens.
You make complete sense!
I’m thinking Occam’s Razor here and the whole Government could do with a shave!
King Lear effectively banned Cordelia and look what happened.