Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

I think it is a bit of an albatross. I'm not sure the UK will be able to "solve" illegal immigration.

Oh sure- neither do. I think it can shut down small boats. This is a new phenomenon that's started in the last 6 years or so (in part because of successfully closing down people using the Channel Tunnel as a route which took about a decade).

There'll always be illegal immigration and most of it will be people arriving here lawfully staying when they shouldn't because their visa expires or moving into grey economy work etc. I don't think that dramatises a state failure in the way that tens of thousands of people arriving by boat (or crossing the Channel Tunnel). I also think that there is more of an evil profiting on people in the boats - I think they are organised by people making money out of it. It was noted that two years ago a large number of people arriving by boat were Albanian women who were then receiving asylum - that's because they were victims of modern slavery and basically sex workers being trafficked by the gangs who are exploiting them. I think that sort of thing alone is a reason why Labour needs to end it.

I only bring up Ireland because it is shocking. This should be a golden age for the Irish by any measure. So the revelation they are having a cost of living crisis is shocking.

Yes and no. Every golden age is normally built on someone suffering. That's normally what we call progress - it's always Janus-faced.

But also part of this is a double edged sword. Ireland's growth is, in part, because it's a small, open, liberal economy - that also means it is going to be particularly exposed if there's global supply shocks (as we've seen). Every country in the world has experienced some form of cost of living crisis in recent years because global supply chains have faced a lot of shocks - pandemic and associated lockdown measures, recovery from it with a lot of spare cash floating round, a major energy producer invading a major agriculture producer, Yemen shutting down the Red Sea. There's no state or model that's immune to those types of factors - I suspect we'll face more of them for both geopolitical and climate reasons. I suspect that will make the small, open, liberal market economy a less attractive model in the future.

With housing the sector's never recovered and Irish banks and financiers do not want to get too deep into property again. Those developments were also not what people want now (I feel like it's been similar in the US - they built basically big suburban estates of McMansions and the demand is actually in the cities). And Ireland, like the UK, Canada, parts of the US seems to find it particularly challenging to build from a planning perspective. Plus there is increased immigration (so Ireland, like the UK, has asylum seekers in hotels because of housing costs) and emigration has fallen which increases population pressures.

Yes. Economic growth is great and I am not saying Ireland was much better than back in the potato famine or whatever you think I am saying.

Sure but I'm not talking about the great famine - I'm talking about Ireland's Celtic Tiger economy (which is only really from the mid-80s to the 00s and now recovering again) v before. I'm not comparing with deep Irish history but exactly the economic model that the Celtic Tiger model replaced. I don't know what you're talking about in describing Ireland having all this growth if you don't mean that.

I've no doubt that it could all have been handled better and more sustainably that there were paths not taken - but I'm not really sure what they are. And the vast majority of Irish people have hugely benefited from all that growth compared to what preceded it. But even then back in the good years Ireland's model was "sharing the proceeds of growth" so revenue would grow massively - half would go into new public spending, half into tax cuts (which was fine - until the revenue stopped). It wasn't through massive tax cuts for the rich.

I think the criticism of Ireland is around their tax and regulation system. Corporation tax is one of the biggest (and fastest growing) revenue lines for the Irish growth - precisely because it's corporation tax that should be being paid elsewhere in the rest of Europe.

[Sheilbh]

I'm broadly on board with saying the rules should be followed.

But in the case of channel boat crossers they basically are following the rules. The rules are so fundamentally broken there is no way to do things "right".

I'm all for following the rules... Unless the rules are stupid.

I don't think this is anywhere near true.

It's a really new phenomenon that is more similar to Sangatte and the issues with the Channel Tunnel in the early 2000s (followed by a decades of working with the French to close that route). Nothing has changed fundamentally on this.

There are big problems with the asylum system but most of them are not new and go back to at least New Labour. It's because one route that was commonly used has closed and this is an alternative.

[Josquius]

I'm broadly on board with saying the rules should be followed.

But in the case of channel boat crossers they basically are following the rules. The rules are so fundamentally broken there is no way to do things "right".

I'm all for following the rules... Unless the rules are stupid.

I don't think this is anywhere near true.

It's a really new phenomenon that is more similar to Sangatte and the issues with the Channel Tunnel in the early 2000s (followed by a decades of working with the French to close that route). Nothing has changed fundamentally on this.

There are big problems with the asylum system but most of them are not new and go back to at least New Labour. It's because one route that was commonly used has closed and this is an alternative.

And how does this add up to what I said being untrue?

People have the right to claim asylum in the UK.

Things are setup so they have to physically get into the UK to claim their legal right.

Many desperate people on the run don't have any practical options for legally entering the UK.

This all adds up to saying they have to enter illegally using dangerous methods. It's baked into the current setup. Blunt force methods of just continuously trying to make it harder to use this one route won't stop anything.

[Sheilbh]

The UK's approach on asylum has been like this for basically 20+ years. But the small boats have only been an issue in the last 6.

So I don't think it can be because things are so fundamentally broken - because otherwise it would have been an issue for the last 20 years. I think the state successfully closed one path and a new one opened. Now its job is to close that one - again because I think the impression of a loss of control undermines public trust and consent to wider asylum reform. Although my approach would be we take people through official UN channels only - again in hopefully to deter dangerous Channel crossings but also people crossing Europe to get here. The way to claim asylum should be through official UNHCR channels.

And, personally, I think that needs to be balanced and the principle should be that the UK will continue to broadly prioritise economic migrants. Also there are other important pull factors such as lanugage, existing diasporas etc - but these are desperate people leaving France, and I know your views, but it's not that bad

[Admiral Yi]

But either way any government that wants to survive these days must be militantly anti-immigration, legal or not.

In the Trump era I've never heard anyone, elected official or "the people," say they want to reduce or eliminate the green card lottery.  Except maybe when Trump did whatever he did with Arabs/Muslims.

[Josquius]

The UK's approach on asylum has been like this for basically 20+ years. But the small boats have only been an issue in the last 6.

So I don't think it can be because things are so fundamentally broken - because otherwise it would have been an issue for the last 20 years. I think the state successfully closed one path and a new one opened. Now its job is to close that one - again because I think the impression of a loss of control undermines public trust and consent to wider asylum reform. Although my approach would be we take people through official UN channels only - again in hopefully to deter dangerous Channel crossings but also people crossing Europe to get here. The way to claim asylum should be through official UNHCR channels.

And, personally, I think that needs to be balanced and the principle should be that the UK will continue to broadly prioritise economic migrants. Also there are other important pull factors such as lanugage, existing diasporas etc - but these are desperate people leaving France, and I know your views, but it's not that bad

They're not fleeing France. Let's not just accept that rightist fallacy.
If you pass through a place on the way to your destination that doesn't mean you're fleeing that place.

Sure the system is little different to 20 years ago. But the world is massively different.
We've got a situation where there's more people facing threats that push them to want asylum and a more globalised world where the possibility of making new life in the UK is sold to people who might previously not have considered this remotely possible.

The main trouble with saying just rely on the UN is where does this leave say gay Iranians, Egyptian journalists, and so on.
People from countries that are broadly stable and not subject to UN refugee aid ala Syria... But very definitely where there's a clear case for certain people to end up as refugees.

There's also the problem of even if we follow this path - then what do we do who do enter via other routes?
Just ship the Afghan who is on the taliban hit list back home? Push back the boats in the middle of the sea to drown?
Ship people to France and destroy relations and shit on international law  there?

No system is perfect so what of those who slip through? How do we stop the black economy?

[Admiral Yi]

If you pass through six buffets on your way to the king crab legs and shrimp it means you're not starving.

[Josquius]

If you pass through six buffets on your way to the king crab legs and shrimp it means you're not starving.

This is nonsensical.

If you're fleeing from something then there's a lot of logic for getting as far away from it you can and not stopping until you're somewhere you're sure you can be safe (in more ways than just the immediate problem).

The problem with this logic is it assumes going through France, Italy, and wherever is just as bad as the situation they are fleeing from.

Fact is under international law people have the right to apply for asylum wherever they like.
Complain this law is wrong and needs changing if you will, but as things stand it is the law.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Or do like all those other countries, who also signed up to those treaties, and just ignore the law and do what is best for our interests. It's not like anyone is going to send an army.
And that's not letting everyone in.

[Josquius]

Or do like all those other countries, who also signed up to those treaties, and just ignore the law and do what is best for our interests. It's not like anyone is going to send an army.
And that's not letting everyone in.

Yeah... Unfortunately Britain can't just start murdering people. Drowned kids washing up on the beaches around the channel are sort of a bad look.

[Sheilbh]

They're not fleeing France. Let's not just accept that rightist fallacy.
If you pass through a place on the way to your destination that doesn't mean you're fleeing that place.

I didn't say they're fleeing France but they're leaving France. And there are very important pull factors - language, existing communities etc. But ultimately France is a safe country - as is Italy, Spain or other countries that you need to pass to get to the Channel.

My view is that we should have a system that takes in some asylum seekers every year through formal routes. We need to make those legal routes work but the trade off with that - and I'd argue, the way to make that work, is to try and close the dangerous and profitable route over the Channel (and across Europe).

I've said before but, the vast majority of refugees are in camps in their own country or very near neighbours - in Turkey, Colombia, Sudan and South Sudan, countries around Burma. Across Europe the refugees and asylum seekers we receive are the ones who are able to get here (and, often can with support from wider family, afford to get here via people smugglers). I'm not sure that's a fair way or the right way to give refuge to the people who need it most. I think we should be aiming to help the vulnerable, so prioritise the poor and those who are physically not able to get to Europe rather than basically giving a backdoor, unstated preference to the young, physically fit and (often) from middle class backgrounds in their home country.

Sure the system is little different to 20 years ago. But the world is massively different.
We've got a situation where there's more people facing threats that push them to want asylum and a more globalised world where the possibility of making new life in the UK is sold to people who might previously not have considered this remotely possible.

To be clear making a new life is not a valid case for asylum. This came up on a Newsnight piece I saw where they interviewed someone who was identified as a refugee from, I think, Cameroon who'd made the crossing. And his point was exactly that he wanted to come to the UK in order to make a better life for himself - and I absolutely sympathise, but it's not refugee status.

I think we need to update the asylum system both nationally and internationally, but I don't think that means we should be encouraging basically global disorder of saying the key is that you physically get here, however you get here. We should update the system to work better precisely to end that. And again to the point that it is mainly neighbouring countries who take refugees, I don't think it's right that, say, Turkey or Colombia are primarily holding the can because all of Europe is doing the thing of building its walls ever higher but also basically saying if you get here you've got a chance.

The main trouble with saying just rely on the UN is where does this leave say gay Iranians, Egyptian journalists, and so on.
People from countries that are broadly stable and not subject to UN refugee aid ala Syria... But very definitely where there's a clear case for certain people to end up as refugees.

Yeah I think that's the sort of thing you can easily fix legally. As I say I'd back remote applications for asylum from the first safe country - but there are still 30 million refugees in the UN system globally, plus another 5 million plus UN registered asylum seekers. There are (and always have been) exceptional cases that can be handled exceptionally - but I think we should be focused on the great mass.

And I'd add that, including appeals, the UK has one of the highest rates of successful asylum claims in Europe at around 85-90% of claims are successful, which is a bout double the EU average and compares with, say, 30% in France. I think we should probably look at how case law has developed in this area.

There's also the problem of even if we follow this path - then what do we do who do enter via other routes?
Just ship the Afghan who is on the taliban hit list back home? Push back the boats in the middle of the sea to drown?
Ship people to France and destroy relations and shit on international law  there?

I'd look at Sangatte and a lot basically depends on rapport with France. Blunkett and Sarko got on very, very well (when the PS were in charge it was more of a problem).

But most of the people in the camps around Sangatte were from Afghanistan and Iraq (I do question quite how much has changed in 20 years). The deal was basically the UK took people who were already in Sangatte - people were forced onto buses and across the Channel - and the French shut down the camp and then proactively stopped new camps emerging. That significantly cut the numbers crossing through the Channel Tunnel from 60,000 to low thousands and it was then reduced further. That's easier because there's one entry point but I think that the deal will be something similar - the UK takes people who are already there, ready to go and processes as normal (which means about 40% will have their claims rejected and be deported because small boats have a lower rate of success than other asylum channels) and (possibly with UK money) the French very actively police areas where the crossings happen to prevent camps forming.

Blunkett mixed that by looking at other measures to deter people trying to come here for asylum such as moving people to a third country while claims were processed, or using decommmissioned cruise ships as asylum centres etc (again, I query how much has changed).

And part of the reason I think that worked for Blunkett and would work here is that I think people's object less to taking asylum seekers than to scenes of visible disorder on the borders - whether through small boats or the Channel Tunnel.

[Josquius]

I didn't say they're fleeing France but they're leaving France. And there are very important pull factors - language, existing communities etc. But ultimately France is a safe country - as is Italy, Spain or other countries that you need to pass to get to the Channel.

Yet international law says nothing about first safe country or anything like that. It says anywhere.
There's perfectly valid reasons why someone may feel more comfortable claiming in one place but not another.
Also we shouldn't forget those countries do get far more refugees than the UK. Those that come here are a minority.

My view is that we should have a system that takes in some asylum seekers every year through formal routes. We need to make those legal routes work but the trade off with that - and I'd argue, the way to make that work, is to try and close the dangerous and profitable route over the Channel (and across Europe).

The legal routes don't really exist though. Making the illegal routes as difficult as possible without providing a legal alternative just increases the casualty rate and the power of the criminal gangs.

To be clear making a new life is not a valid case for asylum. This came up on a Newsnight piece I saw where they interviewed someone who was identified as a refugee from, I think, Cameroon who'd made the crossing. And his point was exactly that he wanted to come to the UK in order to make a better life for himself - and I absolutely sympathise, but it's not refugee status.

Seeing the UK as the best choice for economic reasons isn't a valid reason to claim refugee status.
However nor does this instantly invalidate any valid reasons for claiming refugee status.

Also, technically wanting to go somewhere safe from imprisonment, torture, death, etc... Does count as wanting a better life and a valid reason for claiming asylum.

I think we need to update the asylum system both nationally and internationally, but I don't think that means we should be encouraging basically global disorder of saying the key is that you physically get here, however you get here. We should update the system to work better precisely to end that. And again to the point that it is mainly neighbouring countries who take refugees, I don't think it's right that, say, Turkey or Colombia are primarily holding the can because all of Europe is doing the thing of building its walls ever higher but also basically saying if you get here you've got a chance.

Exactly my point.
People shouldn't be forced to make the journey to have a chance.

Yeah I think that's the sort of thing you can easily fix legally. As I say I'd back remote applications for asylum from the first safe country - but there are still 30 million refugees in the UN system globally, plus another 5 million plus UN registered asylum seekers. There are (and always have been) exceptional cases that can be handled exceptionally - but I think we should be focused on the great mass.

Everyone is an individual, there is no easy great mass. We should always consider the fringe cases to ensure mistakes aren't made setting things up.

My ideal situation would absolutely be that you can apply for asylum from wherever. Get somewhere you think is safe and then apply. But I can really imagine a lot of people, both rightfully and trying to game things, would claim nowhere in Africa or Asia is safe for them.
Refugee camps as a concept for instance are pretty notorious due to the bad examples put there.

Here for instance define safe country. Say you've pissed off the Saudi government... I'd say on evidence turkey probably isn't a safe country though it may officially be classed as one.

And I'd add that, including appeals, the UK has one of the highest rates of successful asylum claims in Europe at around 85-90% of claims are successful, which is a bout double the EU average and compares with, say, 30% in France. I think we should probably look at how case law has developed in this area.

It could be a problem in the system...
But it could be just the nature of who claims asylum in the UK. It'd an arduous journey so far fewer people risk it than claim in France or Germany - maybe those who do this are more likely to have a valid case.
I'm very skeptical of criticisms of this area.

I'd look at Sangatte and a lot basically depends on rapport with France. Blunkett and Sarko got on very, very well (when the PS were in charge it was more of a problem).

But most of the people in the camps around Sangatte were from Afghanistan and Iraq (I do question quite how much has changed in 20 years). The deal was basically the UK took people who were already in Sangatte - people were forced onto buses and across the Channel - and the French shut down the camp and then proactively stopped new camps emerging. That significantly cut the numbers crossing through the Channel Tunnel from 60,000 to low thousands and it was then reduced further. That's easier because there's one entry point but I think that the deal will be something similar - the UK takes people who are already there, ready to go and processes as normal (which means about 40% will have their claims rejected and be deported because small boats have a lower rate of success than other asylum channels) and (possibly with UK money) the French very actively police areas where the crossings happen to prevent camps forming.

Blunkett mixed that by looking at other measures to deter people trying to come here for asylum such as moving people to a third country while claims were processed, or using decommmissioned cruise ships as asylum centres etc (again, I query how much has changed).

And part of the reason I think that worked for Blunkett and would work here is that I think people's object less to taking asylum seekers than to scenes of visible disorder on the borders - whether through small boats or the Channel Tunnel.

Would be nice.
Though I'm not sure how reliable France will be on this. There's quite the populist rage building on the other side of the channel about refugees, and with the scum creeping closer to power....

One idea I've seen mooted that I quite like is copying Norway who set up a really nice asylum seeker village on an island.
Keeps them safe from far right agitators (and provides a life jacket in the bath to those afraid of asylum seekers) and decent conditions whilst their claims are processed.
Of course with how long things take in the UK, our inability to build, and so on... Lots of preconditions before it'd be practical.

Then of course the old standard of ID cards and stricter rules about employment, renting, etc... Why the immigration enforcement folks don't just have a guy sitting outside McDonald's special second entrance for delivery drivers I don't know. They'd meet their quotas in 5 minutes I expect.

[Sheilbh]

Yet international law says nothing about first safe country or anything like that. It says anywhere.
There's perfectly valid reasons why someone may feel more comfortable claiming in one place but not another.
Also we shouldn't forget those countries do get far more refugees than the UK. Those that come here are a minority.

I don't find international law a persuasive argument on this (or, frankly, much else). You're absolutely right, it's also well established in domestic law. But - which is an important but - it does not confer a right to entry.

As I say my view is that you have a lawful, safe route to asylum (which you should be able to access outside the UK) but that's it - that is the lawful route. And for credibility in the lawful route, you need to be able to stop the unlawful, especially the most visible, dramatised routes.

You're right that France and Italy get more claims for asylum - both around or above 150,000 to the UK's 70,000. However in the UK 85-90% of claims are successful. In France it's 25-30% and in Italy it's about 10% (in an age with mobile phones that may also be a pull factor - with language, existing diasporas etc).

The legal routes don't really exist though. Making the illegal routes as difficult as possible without providing a legal alternative just increases the casualty rate and the power of the criminal gangs.

Yes but it needs both and the measure of success from a policy and political perspective will be ending the Channel crossings. And I'd argue if the public don't think the state can stop the unlawful route and is in control of the border, then they won't trust the lawful routes or that the state has control over that.

Everyone is an individual, there is no easy great mass. We should always consider the fringe cases to ensure mistakes aren't made setting things up.

There is a great mass. There are 36 million people living in refugee camps or registered asylum seekers with the UN right now. I'm not saying the exceptions don't matter but they're exceptions. And we shouldn't hand-wave away those millions.

My ideal situation would absolutely be that you can apply for asylum from wherever. Get somewhere you think is safe and then apply. But I can really imagine a lot of people, both rightfully and trying to game things, would claim nowhere in Africa or Asia is safe for them.
Refugee camps as a concept for instance are pretty notorious due to the bad examples put there.

Yeah but again this assumes people who are able to move easily and have the resources to do that. This is already what happens. The largest group of refugees are displaced in their own countries, the next largest are in neighbouring countries. They're not stuck in refugee camps permanently (with a few exceptions like Palestinians who don't want to vacate their national claim) because they're a good solution but because the international system has broken down and the rest of the world aren't taking those refugees.

As I say I think the approach in the UK and Europe inadvertently prioritises those most able (both in terms of resources and physically) to get out of their country, to get out of neighbouring countries and get to Europe. I'm very doubtful that is necessarily aligned to greatest need or vulnerability and that I think that should be our focus as a policy (which means prioritising that route over any other and shutting down alternatives).

Here for instance define safe country. Say you've pissed off the Saudi government... I'd say on evidence turkey probably isn't a safe country though it may officially be classed as one.

The Saudi embassy anywhere is unlikely to be safe.

Would be nice.
Though I'm not sure how reliable France will be on this. There's quite the populist rage building on the other side of the channel about refugees, and with the scum creeping closer to power....

Arguably it may be easier. New Labour basically found the PS government had zero interest in this because they didn't want to effectively clear the camp - force people onto buses over the Channel and dismantle it. It was very based on Sarko and Blunkett getting on - both outsiders, both pretty hardline etc.

There may be a similar dynamic at play possibly with the new government - after all Michel Barnier called for zero immigration from outside of Europe and the new interior minister has already deported people to the DRC. We'll see if Cooper can work with them.

One idea I've seen mooted that I quite like is copying Norway who set up a really nice asylum seeker village on an island.
Keeps them safe from far right agitators (and provides a life jacket in the bath to those afraid of asylum seekers) and decent conditions whilst their claims are processed.
Of course with how long things take in the UK, our inability to build, and so on... Lots of preconditions before it'd be practical.

But practically speaking Norway has 5,000 applications a year. The UK has about 70,000 (excluding Ukraine and the Afghan scheme). It's basically about the population of the Isle of Man each year so it'd be a big project.

Then of course the old standard of ID cards and stricter rules about employment, renting, etc... Why the immigration enforcement folks don't just have a guy sitting outside McDonald's special second entrance for delivery drivers I don't know. They'd meet their quotas in 5 minutes I expect.

This is the stuff I don't like

I think Blair (and Tamas) might be right on ID Cards and I think it could support other aspects of a wider digitalisation of services.

But the rest is Theresa May's hostile environment - you make employers and landlords etc enforce your immigration rules. I think it's bad in principle because you're basically outsourcing or privatising something the state should be doing (and then wondering why the state is becoming ever more ineffective) - I also feel it's a bit shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Immigration enforcement and border control is the job of the state and they shouldn't rely on every interaction a person has with others. But also I think there's many problems with the hostile environment more generally and this route ends up with anyone who is a minority being hassled by police and immigration enforcement people for their papers.

I tend more to the strict enforcement on the external border then relaxed af domestically - bluntly I don't really want police or immigration people prowling our streets for foreigners.

I'd add that EU and World Bank statistics estimate the UK has a similar sized black economy as most EU countries, if not a little smaller. The flipside of it being more liberal and easier/lower cost to do business is that there is less incentive to avoid doing it lawfully.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Or do like all those other countries, who also signed up to those treaties, and just ignore the law and do what is best for our interests. It's not like anyone is going to send an army.
And that's not letting everyone in.

Yeah... Unfortunately Britain can't just start murdering people. Drowned kids washing up on the beaches around the channel are sort of a bad look.

I doubt there are many children in the boats leaving from our side of the channel. Plenty of young men though.

It's also not murder. Britain isn't forcing them in the boats, they chose that themselves, knowing the risks.

[Admiral Yi]

This is nonsensical.

If you're fleeing from something then there's a lot of logic for getting as far away from it you can and not stopping until you're somewhere you're sure you can be safe (in more ways than just the immediate problem).

Yet strangely enough we don't see that many people climbing into rubber boats and making a dash for Greenland.

The problem with this logic is it assumes going through France, Italy, and wherever is just as bad as the situation they are fleeing from.

No, that is the opposite of my logic.  I'm saying Italy and France are *not* as bad as where they're fleeing.  If it's safety they truly want they should be set.

Fact is under international law people have the right to apply for asylum wherever they like.
Complain this law is wrong and needs changing if you will, but as things stand it is the law.

Fact is under international law countries can institute any procedure they want for asylum seekers as long as those who have followed the procedure are given a hearing.