That article says exactly what I’ve been saying although it again does not distinguish between the numbers of asylum applications and the numbers of requests that are granted. Odd that. Still, at least one of us can see it from both sides.
Isn’t that actually an EU rule under the Dublin regulations that the UK rejected as part of Brexit?
That’s not strictly correct, though it was the original intent. The individual can seek asylum onward, but can be returned to the first safe country - but the definition of ‘first safe’ includes being allowed to be returned. Hence the mess.
1 Like
So presumably you now agree that the increase in these illegal attempted crossings is partly a result of the EU rejecting the UK’s request for the Dublin protocol to continue?
I’m confused, which was it?
1 Like
The mood coming out of France is anger, which is palpable, because the French feel that they spent years doing - a lot - to protect the UK from a truly international refugee crisis.
Not only does it not get thanks, or even the money promised, it gets lectured.
There comes a moment when you wonder why it bothers …
Imo, they have to try to solve this “affront” diplomatically.
2 Likes
Yeh right, of course they did.
1 Like
Not sure why you would expect the EU to continue on in a framework that as far as I can tell would provide benefit largely to the UK while having the EU bear the costs. The Canada-US framework is far more balanced in effects, and it was extremely difficult to negotiate.
I guess ‘we won’t be able to send asylum seekers back’ would not have made a compelling bus.
2 Likes
The UK requested that the Dublin protocol continue as modified to take into account the UK no longer being within the EU. The EU rejected that request.
As you point out, the UK was simply asking for the accepted international approach (and that under the Dublin protocol) whereby those seeking safe haven can be returned to the first safe country they arrived in.
The alternative would have the UK effectively bearing the brunt for the failure of the EU to manage its own borders.
There is absolutely nothing in there supporting your claim. That article is about the economic integration of refugees. I presume you’ll want to refer to the graph about the origin countries of these asylum claims, but considering that (a) the Middle East isn’t the only source of people who need asylum (and for that matter, places like Yemen weren’t included in a separate breakdown), and (b) 89% of them had already been granted protection or were in the process of being granted protection (with no details on those other claims which had been rejected, but could also have included those who were in the process but did not have authorisation to work yet). That latter point doesn’t seem to lend itself to them being “economic migrants”, which is as always, just another right-wing talking point with no bearing in reality. Not that such people don’t exist, but the cases aren’t anywhere close to the same magnitude at which it is being talked about.
2 Likes
Where is that the case?
Large numbers of those applying for asylum in Germany would not demonstrate a need for asylum anywhere else. Germany deliberately opened up the ability for migrants to claim asylum as it needed increased labour.
A source for your claim please, especially with regards to the demonstrating a need for asylum?
3 Likes
The problem is that it isn’t the accepted international approach, except as a guiding sentiment. The UN framework and treaty allow for the implementation of agreements that do that, like the Canada-US or the Dublin one, but they are not the default - and in fact have approved quite difficult to reach agreement on, because the benefits and costs are so asymmetric across parties.
Failure to control one’s borders is sort of the essence of the refugee problem - we aren’t generally comfortable with the measures necessary to achieve the required level of control.
3 Likes
Why not the UK signing an agreement that had no contingency in place?
To me it looks like “Get Brexit Done” *
I took the amendment to mean the UK could simply return asylum seekers to the EU when in reality they haven’t originated from there. It’s kind of passing the buck back a bit when the UK should be sorting the issue themselves.
*We’ll sort everything out afterwards but it’s done, honestly, we’ve sorted every detail, we’re golden.
1 Like
The only two solution that (may) work are to:
- Build a wall.
or - Mine the channel.
Everything else is too complicated, will take too long and be too difficult to sell (at home and abroad). I don’t pretend to know the solution but it has to be linked with inequality. If there’s more chance of your kids having a better life somewhere else then any/most risks are worth the effort of getting them there. The problem of stopping migrants at a border is just too complex. For example, where do you stop the them? At the border of France? At the boarder of Italy, Turkey, at the border they are trying to leave, where? Obviously stopping the desire to leave in the first place is always the best solution but policies, recent wars and imperial occupations (all where we have played significant roles) will mean that the instability left behind will breed groups that will want something better - and so all roads will always lead (mostly) to England. It is the most advertised (next to the US), continues to project the Rule Britannia mentality and or course remains geographically within reach of Asia, Africa and the Middle East.
One thing to understand here that the numbers seeking UK entry are high but compared to the numbers entering the EU, for example, they aren’t. The UK has an obligation to accept legitimate cases of asylum etc. Given the situation I would prefer that the UK actively manages it, with France’s blessing / cooperation to provide a safe and properly organised route across the channel.
The numbers are a concern but for my money the real concern is people are jumping into anything that floats to try and get across. I’d like to see the UK actively work to remove the need for criminal gangs to profit from supplying dinghies, kayaks, pigs bladders whatever.
1 Like