The PM will have to make many difficult decisions over the next five years. Today he needs to make one. A very simple one Downing Street isn’t saying whether David Cameron has seen the photo of the little boy in the red shirt and the blue shorts. I’m not entirely sure why.
Actually, the little boy is still wearing his shoes. I’ve only just noticed that. I think it’s his shoes that make it look like he’s only sleeping.
Anyway, it doesn’t matter. He doesn’t have to look at it. In fact, he shouldn’t have to. None of us should.
There are lots of very difficult decisions you have to make as prime minister. Whether to go to war. When to make peace. Where the axe of austerity should fall. Where the hand should be stayed.
Should Britain do its part in attempting to alleviate the worst refugee crisis since the second world war is not one of those difficult decisions. Over the coming hours and days a lot of very clever people will try to convince us it’s actually much more complicated than we all think. But they’re wrong. It isn’t.
First, there is the moral case. The simplest and most compelling case. When people have a genuine, well-founded fear of persecution, we help them.
We have signed treaties to that effect. It has been the stated policy of all governments of all persuasions. It is a position that all the opinion polls show enjoys widespread national support.
We have concerns about what we call “economic migrants”. But those genuinely seeking sanctuary will find it here in the UK. It is an inviolate principle. Our humanitarian red line.
Then there is the practical argument. Can we cope? Approximately 4 million people are estimated to have fled Syria as a result of the conflict there.
No, we can’t help all of them. But the argument “we can’t help everyone, so we shouldn’t help anyone” has always been a bankrupt one.
As it is now. Earlier this week Yvette Cooper proposed we open our doors to 10,000 of these migrants. I think she estimated that would be 10 for every borough in the United Kingdom.
We can afford to do that. We can use resources from the existing aid budget. We can use resources from other budgets.
The government could establish and manage a special fund. I’d pay into it. So would many others.
David Cameron and George Osborne can deploy their financial wizardry – “is it really that hard for the government to find a saving of £1 in every £10 it spends?” We can cope.
Then there is the argument that to open the doors to these refugees will exacerbate the problem. Create a “pull factor” to use ministerial jargon.
Which was the argument used when we reduced search and rescue cover in the Mediterranean. The “drown a refugee to save a refugee” policy. They would drown, word would get around they were drowning, and then they would stop coming.
Well, they have drowned. In their thousands. And still they’re coming. In their hundreds of thousands.
“But it will send the signal Britain is a soft touch”, some people argue. By the end of this year Germany will have absorbed 800,000 refugees. The number we have currently accepted would fit into a single tube train. Trust me. Europe, the world. They do not currently think we are a soft touch. Far from it.
Then there is the argument we are all ready to doing huge amounts to help the crisis. And we are indeed providing millions of pounds of aid on the ground in nations bordering Syria. But it isn’t working. They’re still coming. In their hundreds of thousands.
“But we’re living through hard times”, people say. “We need to look after out own”. A powerful argument. But one David Cameron himself has already answered. “I am proud of the fact that we have taken 0.7 of this year’s GDP and given it to the poorest countries in the world.
I think there are lots of countries, and lots of politicians as well, I could probably name them, who would have broken that promise.
I don’t think you break your promise to the poorest people in the poorest countries in the world."
And then, of course, there is the political argument. If David Cameron “lets them in” he will reap a political whirlwind. Never mind the hand wringing from the chattering classes.
The British public may feel sympathy for those fleeing persecution in far away lands. But they also feel that enough is enough. Britain is full. Charity begins at home.
And it’s a legitimate calculation. Politicians weigh the political odds whether we like it or not. It’s why they are politicians.
So while he’s doing so, David Cameron should consider this. At the moment the British people are placing a premium on hard-headed – at times harsh – leadership.
They understand we are living through difficult and dangerous times. The refugee crisis is a reminder of that.
But there will come a time soon when the sense of impending danger will recede a little. People will start to feel a bit more comfortable.
A touch more confident. And then they will look around them. And they will say “OK, we came through. But at what price?”
We know what happens then. We know what happens to the political party that is branded “the nasty party”. A party that is seen to favour callousness over compassion.
That allows its opponents to point the finger and say – with legitimacy – “when the moment came they chose to walk by on the other side”.
And finally, for the sake of argument, let us reverse the argument. Or reverse the proposition. Let’s say we don’t act. David Cameron “holds firm”.
His heart remains unmoved. Our borders remain closed to those fleeing the Isil butchers and Assad’s barrel bombs (though not, as his opponents will remind him, to those who we want to do our plumbing).
One of two things will happen. The crisis will worsen. The torrent of humanity will become a flood. Thousands more will drown. Then tens of thousands. Then hundreds of thousands. The chaos of Calais and Budapest and Kos will spread.
And as it does we will stand there, in glorious isolation, watching the chaos unfold. How will history judge us then? How will history judge David Cameron then?
Or, the crisis will slowly be alleviated. Germany will welcome its 800,000. The rest of Europe will reach agreement to share the burden.
Those seeking sanctuary will find it. Europe will have faced, and successfully met, one of the great humanitarian challenges of our fledgling the 21st century.
And as it did, we stood apart. We did indeed walk by. Not on the other side, but along that beach. We saw the little boy in the red shirt and the blue shorts, still wearing his shoes. We just kept calm, and carried on.
How will history judge us then? How will history judge David Cameron then?
Our Prime Minister will have many difficult decisions to make over the next five years. A number of them will relate to how – as he correctly said yesterday – we bring long term stability to Syria and the surrounding region.
But that is for tomorrow. Today he has one decision to make. And it is a simple one.
