British America correspondent Janan Ganesh recently visited his hometown of London and was amazed.

Just a few days after his arrival, he noticed that there were more people from India and Hong Kong than before on the streets, and at the same time fewer from Eastern and Central Europe.

"Life is becoming more colourful, not less colorful, in a city that has rightly called itself the most cosmopolitan in the world," wrote Ganesh in the "Financial Times" - and acknowledged the development as one of the few advantages of leaving the EU .

Jochen Buchsteiner

Political correspondent in London.

  • Follow I follow

More colorful due to Brexit?

The observation of the Londoner with Sri Lankan roots contradicts the general perception of the kingdom.

The British government is once again in the pillory, not only for its post-Brexit course, but for the asylum policy derived from it.

The plan to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda to prevent them from crossing the Channel in a rubber dinghy has sparked outrage at home and abroad.

The UN refugee agency and British opposition politicians see a violation of international law, the Anglican bishops speak of a "nation in shame".

Even Crown Prince Charles is said to feel "repelled" by the new asylum policy.

52 refugees drowned in the English Channel

The Spectator recently asked why these critics didn't also see the "immoral side" of illegal boat crossings.

After all, the migrants and refugees would be endangered by criminal trafficking gangs – 52 have drowned in the English Channel since 2018.

The government's defenders thus point to a moral dilemma: on the one hand, the British government is depriving refugees and migrants of the opportunity to live in Britain with family members or friends.

On the other hand, she does not stand idly by as people smugglers enrich themselves from the desperation of people and throw them into extreme risks to life and limb.

The legal question has also not been finally clarified.

It is up to the courts whether the deal with the government in Rwanda, which is to receive money from London to process asylum procedures, will ultimately go through.

So far, the High Court and the Supreme Court in London have not seen sufficient reasons to stop the deportations with an urgent application.

This was reserved for the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which stopped the new policy for the time being.

A landmark ruling from the High Court is expected in the coming weeks;

this shouldn't be the end of it either.

The legal situation is more ambiguous than the protests suggest, and even the Labor Party has so far not been able to bring itself to announce that it will withdraw the Rwanda deal if it comes to power. Outrage from the EU has also been relatively muted so far what might have to do with the UK's asylum deal with Rwanda being different from what has come to be known on the continent as the "EU-Turkey deal".

But didn't the agreement with Ankara also serve as a deterrent, and didn't it also create the basis for sending back refugees and migrants who had made their way to Europe to a comparatively unattractive but safe country?