Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

The most disingenuous part of the debate is the supposed danger of crossing the Channel and pretend caring for the victims of such crossings.

Obviously it is perfectly safe to cross the Channel using P&O ferries or EasyJet. It is a deliberate policy choice to make it dangerous by denying these people safe transportation methods.

And an example of cooperation with France. Twenty years ago when Channel crossings were a big issue it was people hiding in trucks or going through the Channel Tunnel. Now we talk about the Jungle, then it was the Sangatte camp.

The French and British governments worked together to effectively close the Channel Tunnel as a route, on the assumption that crossing by boat was so dangerous no one would try it. Now we're at the point where people are - and when they get here around 70% of small boat crossers have a successful asylum claim. There needs to be a way of making applications and processing claims made in France (though I'm not sure if the French government would be keen on that - and obviously the UK needs to work with them on a solution).

Same for the Mediterranean Sea of course.

Well, yes. I think the latest figure I saw was an estimated 24,000 deaths in the Med since 2014. The whole situation at the Med and the Channel and the attitudes in power driving it are monstrous. It makes me incredibly angry.

[Zanza]

There needs to be a way of making applications and processing claims made in France (though I'm not sure if the French government would be keen on that - and obviously the UK needs to work with them on a solution).

Why does there have to be a way to make an asylum claim for Britain in France? The "safe third state" thing is not part of the UN refugee charter the UK signed. If a refugee wants to go to Britain to claim asylum, he has the right to do so under international law and Britain may not deny that person entrance (or France safe passage).

The real issue is that most countries are not willing to fulfill the obligation they signed up to and build all kinds of inhumane hurdles to stop asylum seekers from coming in the first place. That's not a specific British thing of course, but most countries are not willing to handle the Refugee Charter in good faith.

[Sheilbh]

Why does there have to be a way to make an asylum claim for Britain in France? The "safe third state" thing is not part of the UN refugee charter the UK signed. If a refugee wants to go to Britain to claim asylum, he has the right to do so under international law and Britain may not deny that person entrance (or France safe passage).

The real issue is that most countries are not willing to fulfill the obligation they signed up to and build all kinds of inhumane hurdles to stop asylum seekers from coming in the first place. That's not a specific British thing of course, but most countries are not willing to handle the Refugee Charter in good faith.

Fair points - I suppose I'm wondering how it would work in practice. It feels like you'd need a system for people to declare that they're seeking asylum in order to get the relevant paperwork to travel out of France (and into the UK) because they would still need that to get through security at Calais or (especially) any airport.

My thought is more to make it possible to apply for asylum in the UK remotely - there'd probably need to be certain embassies/consulates that are set up to do anything that's required in person - so you can receive a decision (and appeal it) in a third country so there's a safe route. Obviously it wouldn't just be France either.

The reason I'd look at that is even if there's safe travel from France or Europe to the UK - it still requires an often unsafe journey to get there and not every country on the chain will necessarily be respecting or even have a state to respect any rights for refugees (e.g. Libya). So it's fixing a portion of the journey, while I think remote applications might be a way of removing the need for those journeys at all (beyond the need to get out of the country you're fleeing because I imagine Iran or Eritrea does not want embassies issuing visas to refugees).

[Crazy_Ivan80]

There needs to be a way of making applications and processing claims made in France (though I'm not sure if the French government would be keen on that - and obviously the UK needs to work with them on a solution).

Why does there have to be a way to make an asylum claim for Britain in France? The "safe third state" thing is not part of the UN refugee charter the UK signed. If a refugee wants to go to Britain to claim asylum, he has the right to do so under international law and Britain may not deny that person entrance (or France safe passage).

The real issue is that most countries are not willing to fulfill the obligation they signed up to and build all kinds of inhumane hurdles to stop asylum seekers from coming in the first place. That's not a specific British thing of course, but most countries are not willing to handle the Refugee Charter in good faith.

maybe countries would be more willing to deal with refugees if so many claiming to be refugees weren't actually economic migrants.
and of course: it's not because you request asylum that you have a right to get it. States have the right to refuse.
and if refused those that had their request denied need to go away again.
and then, if the situation in the country of origin is resolved asylum ends and people should go home again.

It's not like we have an obligation to let everyone in, always.

[Sheilbh]

In fact though, in the UK, successful (as a rate) asylum claims are at the highest level in decades. 70% who make the small boat crossing are successful and there are refugees from certain countries where it's about 90% successful (for example Afghanistan and Eritrea).

There's nothing wrong with economic migrants and I think we are back, in the UK, to something like the Blair era immigration policy: fairly relaxed about economic migrants and, frankly, despicable to asylum seekers. Of course the difference is this government isn't removing people whose claim has failed, while Blair's did. But it is striking that I thought the Rwanda policy would need a change of law - and it doesn't because a scheme like this was authorised under legislation passed by New Labour.

It's also interesting that actually in the UK there is broad public support (and it's always important to distinguish the public from the press - though both create political difficulties) for taking more refugees. There's been polling recently and 78% support taking more Ukrainian refugees, 74% support taking more Syrian and Afghan refugees or generally think the UK should take more refugees (according to accompanying focus groups people think priority should be given to women and children). That's not reflected in our policy and it isn't reflected in our press.

Looking at it all I think the "average" view of a voter here is broadly supportive of fairly relaxed rules for economic migrants, fairly generous to refugees/asylum seekers, but very strict on enforcement - so if claims fail or people stay without a visa they are deported. That's not where we are and I think the big issue is the press which this government is particularly sensitive to, but also that we have a generation of politicians who were socialised in a time when immigration was very unpopular. So instead of that, or even a Blair style policy mix (strong enforcement, open to economic migrants, very restrictive on asylum seekers), the Home Office is just doing really unjust and cruel policies - in part because they're not a fucntioning department.

[Zanza]

maybe countries would be more willing to deal with refugees if so many claiming to be refugees weren't actually economic migrants.

Maybe. But to deny refugees their legal rights because e.g economic migrants misuse these same rights is obviously not correct. But that is what most countries do.

and of course: it's not because you request asylum that you have a right to get it. States have the right to refuse.

Not if you fulfill the criteria of refugee status.

It's not like we have an obligation to let everyone in, always.

Agreed. Not everyone, only refugees.

[Tamas]

I don't really have a problem with immigration per se but I can understand the ambivalence toward applying refugee policies to migrants.

If you come through most of Europe to land in the UK you are not fleeing for your life. You may very well had to flee for your life when you left your home and your best bet for economic safety may be in the UK, but its not the same as Syrians pouring over into Turkey or Ukrainians into neighbouring countries.

And if we removed all restrictions, that probably would be fine but on the other hand, why anyone in Africa or most of the Middle East would want to stay where they are? Even the poorest existence in a West European (heck, even East European) country would be markedly better than their lot in their birth countries. The 2015 situation showed that if you put up a sign for desperate people to come freely they will come. I fully understand I would do the same in their place, but I also understand the inflow must be controlled to keep the cultural and economical effects managable.

Now, with all that said obviously, the whole Rwanda thing is just incredibly evil and cynical, and there's no defending of it. 

[Crazy_Ivan80]

and of course: it's not because you request asylum that you have a right to get it. States have the right to refuse.

Not if you fulfill the criteria of refugee status.

No. The status is granted by the receiving state. That state is under no obligation to do so. That's why the people requesting the status get vetted by that state.
It's not because activists want to stretch the conventions on refugees to such an extent that borders become meaningless that this should be allowed to happen.

People need to remember that a state's first duty, especially if that state is a democracy, is towards its citizenry and their interests. Letting everyone in, or giving the impression that everyone can get in (and never has to leave again, even if ordered to) is not in our interests.

[crazy canuck]

There is some indication on my Twitter feed that labour is making sounds about reversing Brexit. But no real details.

[Sheilbh]

I think it does have an impact on perceptions of the small boats. I think people struggle with the idea of why people want to seek asylum here when they're in France which is a similarly rich liberal democracy with human rights. I remember after one of the flare-ups about this when you had two French ministers offering basically different reasons.

Clement Beaune who is probably the most Macronist of Macron's ministers said it was the UK economy was so deregulated that the UK's economic model was "quasi-modern slavery", so it is easier for migrants to find low-paid work in the UK. Gerard Darmanin who's the Interior Minister and very hard-line said it was because the UK didn't have national ID cards so police couldn't demand documents from migrants to prove they had a right to stay, so it was easier to disappea (incidentally Blair still thinks ID cards are essential for this).

There may be elements of that but froom what I understand from research among those asylum seekers - it's the normal stuff. They have family or friends in the UK already or there is an existing diaspora so some support network. My understanding is 70% of the small boat crossings are made by people from Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria and Vietnam - my guess would be that a lot of the Iranians and Iraqis are Kurds. But all of those countries have established presences in the UK which is why that's their destination. I also thought this thread by an immigration barrister about the reasons she's heard is similar - at least two of these are people who have relatives in the UK:
https://twitter.com/SqueakinglyJen/status/1536725423039598593?s=20&t=gQ_zRaV6s3oKkQ6dhi3zGQ

But the points you make are partly why I think we need to look at opening remote paths to claiming asylum so people aren't required to make a really unsafe trip - normally involving crossing the Med - until they get to France. It won't happen because it's impossible but I also always wondeer if the Refugee Convention which is written in the 50s in the context of the war and huge European refugee crises is fit for purpose - in particular I just wonder if we even have the right framework to understand, far less deal with the refugee crisis we are likely to face as a result of climate. It could be fine but I just wonder if it was shaped by a particular context and an experience from a limited area (that included multiple imperial powers) and if it works for a global crisis like climate or even modern conflicts which are really complicated with multiple parties and interventions and non-state actors like, say, the DRC.

[Sheilbh]

There is some indication on my Twitter feed that labour is making sounds about reversing Brexit. But no real details.

That's not going to happen.

A Labour shadow minister (relatively junior, but close to Starmer) was recorded making comments at a Labour meeting, that a Labour government would renegotiate the Brexit deal to re-join the single market. She should be fired from the Labour front bench (and probably come back in a year or two).

As it is she's walked back the comments but I'm not sure that's enough.

[Zanza]

No. The status is granted by the receiving state. That state is under no obligation to do so. That's why the people requesting the status get vetted by that state.

Most states signed up to the UN Refugee Charter which defines who is considerd a refugee. Of course each case needs to be checked. But states may not just make up their own rules as long as they are bound by that Charter.

It's not because activists want to stretch the conventions on refugees to such an extent that borders become meaningless that this should be allowed to happen.

Full agreement from me. Refugees and economic migrants are very different cases and need to be treated different. Sadly they are often treated the same and the distinction is lost in policy debates where often the target seems to be to just reduce all types of migration regardless of cause.

People need to remember that a state's first duty, especially if that state is a democracy, is towards its citizenry and their interests. Letting everyone in, or giving the impression that everyone can get in (and never has to leave again, even if ordered to) is not in our interests.

Sure, I doubt that anybody forgets that. I would even go so far that politicians being acutely aware of this is the root cause for the inhumane policies we enact at our borders.

[Zanza]

But the points you make are partly why I think we need to look at opening remote paths to claiming asylum so people aren't required to make a really unsafe trip - normally involving crossing the Med - until they get to France. It won't happen because it's impossible but I also always wondeer if the Refugee Convention which is written in the 50s in the context of the war and huge European refugee crises is fit for purpose - in particular I just wonder if we even have the right framework to understand, far less deal with the refugee crisis we are likely to face as a result of climate. It could be fine but I just wonder if it was shaped by a particular context and an experience from a limited area (that included multiple imperial powers) and if it works for a global crisis like climate or even modern conflicts which are really complicated with multiple parties and interventions and non-state actors like, say, the DRC.

I agree, very important discussion to be had. But sadly our politicians and societies are apparently not capable of such a discussion. 

We might get a huge refugee wave from hunger due to Russia's war this year. And we have not come any further in a discussion since 2015. Only tried to build higher walls.

[Grey Fox]

I don't really have a problem with immigration per se but I can understand the ambivalence toward applying refugee policies to migrants.

If you come through most of Europe to land in the UK you are not fleeing for your life. You may very well had to flee for your life when you left your home and your best bet for economic safety may be in the UK, but its not the same as Syrians pouring over into Turkey or Ukrainians into neighbouring countries.

Now that's an alien perspective to a Canadian. We would have no refugees at all.

[Tamas]

Brexit isn't going to be reversed, I am sure there's zero appetite within the EU to have the UK back as a full member. In a slow and loud process we will grudgingly adapt a Norway-like status over the course of a decade or so.