If in doubt, blame the French – that seems to be the Tory mantra over Channel tailbacks

Multiple factors – yes, including Brexit – have contributed to the disruption at Dover but don’t expect nuance from Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak, writes Sean O’Grady

Cars queue at the check-in at the Port of Dover in Kent as many families embark on getaways following the start of summer holidays (PA)

When in doubt, blame those on the continent. That was certainly the political tactic adopted by Nigel Farage and the Europhobic wing of the Conservative Party when the UK was actually still in the EU and public disquiet about all manner of social and economic issues was growing, particularly after the opening up of the British labour market to eastern European workers, not to mention the financial crash and subsequent era of crisis and austerity.

Genuinely startling things were happening. Few Eurosceptics admitted the complexities and were all too willing to ignore the taxes EU workers paid and emphasise the state of (underfunded) public services and (underinvested) housing.

In any case, in the 2016 referendum it worked as a political weapon. Yet now that the UK is out of the EU, has taken back control of its borders and ended free movement, blaming our European neighbours, and particularly the French, for our problems is still the first instinct of politicians who should know better. Over the fishing disputes of the past, the continuing refugee crisis in the English Channel and now the travel chaos in Dover and Folkestone, the first recourse of a desperate politician is indeed to blame the French.

There are none more desperate at the moment than Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss – currently fighting to become the new leader of the Conservative Party and the next prime minister – and, all too predictably, they have loaded the problem onto unwilling French shoulders. Sunak, who fears a trade war more than he lets on, has asked our major trading neighbours to stop blaming Brexit and start getting the staff required to match demand.

Truss, still the foreign secretary, has imperiously ordered the French to sort themselves out, like a latter-day Castlereagh putting Napoleon in his place. “We need action from France to build up capacity at the border to limit any further disruption for British tourists and to ensure this appalling situation is avoided in future.”

Such is the entrenched Leave/Remain position still held by much of the electorate, there seems almost no point in trying to get the truth and the facts. It seems the British Treasury (prop: R. Sunak) was asked by the Port of Dover to find more border posts but refused. It’s also plain that the Brexit deal intended UK citizens to be “third party” travellers and thus subject to slightly more stringent checks, such as stamping passports and determining that there are at least three months before they expire.

On the other hand, delays and even chaos at the Channel crossings are nothing new. Ferries that break down, the sheer volume of holiday traffic, the weather and all manner of logistical risks can conspire to make a holidaymaker’s life miserable and a trucker late with their cargo. Blaming Brexit as a knee-jerk reaction is almost as unrealistic as instinctively blaming the French.

The truth, for what it’s worth, seems to be that Brexit makes things a bit more slow and a bit more costly than they were pre-Brexit. When things are going well, the extra delays might seem relatively tolerable; but when something goes wrong, the delays can multiply exponentially. Our heroic correspondent Simon Calder, a man without prejudice, has observed cars at the border checks and suggested a typical time of 90 seconds for a family of four in a car to have their documents checked. With an average of 3.5 people in each vehicle, that means a typical wait of 80 seconds – probably three times longer than before the post-Brexit rules took effect.

But, politically, so what? Over many years, including before Britain joined the EU in 1973, “Europe” was viewed with a mixture of envy and disdain, leading to a sense of frustration that Britain couldn’t be fully prosperous and its people free to move and travel in Europe without also “pooling” sovereignty, and “losing control”.

Instinctively, the British wanted to have their cake and eat it, and many balked at the necessary compromises to make a supranational entity function properly. The stories about chaos at the ports are merely the latest incarnation of a very old tale. And, as so often before, facts take a firm second place to prejudice and blaming the French.