Bardella and Farage’s immigration promise is a provocative pipe dream

When Jordan showed up at Nigel’s party, it was not quite clear who was hoping for what from whom.

On the stage at Reform’s party conference in Birmingham in September were two politicians, French and British, with very little in common except a hope of becoming prime minister of their respective countries.

Nigel Farage, aged 62, is a veteran of political campaigns in which he has been able to promise whatever he wanted without having to deliver. (He does not talk about Brexit these days).

Jordan Bardella is much younger, only 31 years old. He served as an MEP but has little experience and no great achievements to his name other than charming his boss, Marine Le Pen, into making him president of her party.

While Mr Bardella is fresh and relatively untainted by scandal, Nigel Farage is steeped in accusations of grubby financial dealings.

What did they want from each other? Was Mr Farage expecting the sight of the French heir apparent to boost his poll ratings? Did Mr Bardella hope that some of his British counterpart’s charisma would rub off on him?

Joining forces cross the Channel

Together these two men unveiled an outsized version of a ‘memorandum of understanding’ (protocole d’accord), which looked like one of those giant cheques that competition winners have to accept. That, or the preposterous ‘EdStone’ unveiled by then-Labour leader Ed Miliband before the general election in 2015, which saw his key campaign promises carved in limestone.

The Birmingham document was an agreement between two as-yet-powerless men to do something about their joint obsession – migration – which carries with it a whiff of racism and Islamophobia.

The unveiling of the document was, of course, a stunt meant for their respective domestic audiences. “Look,” they were saying, “I am behaving as the next prime minister-in-waiting. I’m a statesman engaged in diplomacy.”

For most people, I suspect, it was hard to take seriously. The event received widespread coverage on both sides of the Channel – and almost universal derision.

Mr Bardella was ridiculed in France for agreeing to recuperate all those migrants who did not make it to the beaches of Kent so that he could send them back “where they came from”.

No one should be taken in by this for a minute. International agreements are not negotiated prenatally by ‘not-yet-somebodies’. And, besides, what these two pretenders had to offer was of little substance.

They were agreeing to promise to do better than politicians are currently trying to do – to stop small boat crossings from France to England.

The reality of the situation

The trouble is, their logic is likely to come a cropper when faced with reality. 

If one or the other – or both –  get into power, it is doubtful that they will keep up the common cause because their ideologies are so nationalistic.

Once in Downing Street/Matignon, they are going to see that rhetoric is easy during campaigns but politics-in-post is complicated, involving difficult decisions and stretched budgets.

Anti-immigration policies cost money and can have a negative impact on the economy. They also have human costs. It is not so easy to deport someone, especially if he or she is stateless or will be tortured when they get back “home”.

It would be folly for France and/or the UK to vote either of these two men into office based on their memorandum. Anyone can produce a giant print-out, but that does not mean they are competent to lead a complex modern country.

Before the next election – presidential in France next year and general in the UK at an unspecified time – their policies need to be tested in debate.