Rishi Sunak is due to meet Emmanuel Macron on Friday 10 March and they are expected to discuss small boat crossings. Sunak has also indicated that he intends to deny asylum seekers, who arrive via the Channel, settlement in the UK. Prior to determining if France can assist the UK further, Macron should think very carefully about becoming complicit in the UK’s attempt to undermine international refugee law and standards.
Small boat crossings are in no one’s best interests
Small boat Channel crossings are dangerous and risk lives. But while the UK government may wish to see the risks reduced, stopping all asylum seekers from entering the UK is its primary objective. Since the end of the government’s ‘vulnerable people’ and ‘family reunion’ schemes in 2019, the government has closed all safe routes to the UK and it almost never grants visas to people from any country that is poorer than the UK or is currently unstable.
It has permitted British citizens from Hong Kong to come to the UK and it has offered three-year visas (not refugee status) to those fleeing Ukraine. It has also opened a route for Afghans who worked for the British government but has made it so difficult to access that it cannot be included as a safe route.
In this, it is not dissimilar to the EU. In recent years the EU has built more fences and walls at its borders, engaged in pushback activities at sea, and has paid Libya to detain and return to Libya, asylum seekers crossing the Mediterranean in the full knowledge that they will be persecuted there.
Asylum seekers attempting to cross the Channel by sea or lorry has long been a problem for the French authorities. It means asylum seekers congregate at the ports or where crossings are feasible and those who are unsuccessful may remain in France; a large homeless and undocumented population, unwilling to register in France while there may be some slim chance that they might reach the UK.
To deter them from congregating, the French police attack them and destroy their camps. While this had led to increased cruelty – and a greater need to find a safe country – it has failed to deter asylum seekers from making the journey to the UK.
Reasons for coming to the UK
Most of those claiming asylum in the UK do so because they have family or kin here or community connections which will help them settle. Others come because they speak English or worked for the British government in Afghanistan. The UK government, when implementing the UN resettlement scheme, also provided a high standard of care and support to aid integration. Some asylum seekers may be under the misapprehension that they may be treated similarly.
In the past year, more people from Albania have sought asylum in the UK, many of whom have been trafficked. UK legislation and guidance is complicated but ‘protection’ covers both those seeking safety from war and those who might be trafficked for work, sexual or criminal exploitation. President Macron has previously said that the UK is a magnet for illegal and exploited labour. There is some truth in this and an analysis of the Albanian situation can be found here.
Briefly, as Albanians can enter the EU for 90 days without a visa there is less opportunity for their exploitation and work coercion. Whereas, since leaving the EU the UK has experienced acute labour shortages particularly in construction and agriculture (Albanian specialisms) and UK businesses, rather than go bust, have been tempted to employ workers illegally – not just Albanians, but also asylum seekers who are trapped in hotels, unable to work, often for years. Exploited workers may not always understand the country’s laws or the likely consequences of breaking them and sometimes they will just ‘take their chances’.
The UK takes very few of Europe’s refugees
In the year ending September 2022 the UK received 72,027 asylum applications and the EU 418,495. Germany received the highest number 127,730, and France 96,510. The UK figure equates to 14.7% of Europe’s (490,522) total, an exceptional year.
In previous years the UK has received about 5% of the EU’s applications. In 2022 the number of applicants fell in the EU (by 4%) while it rose in the UK by about 60%. The reasons for this are unclear – the impact of Brexit; post -coronavirus ‘catching up’; the rise in Albanian exploitation and trafficking; and the withdrawal from Afghanistan may have all played a part. There is no evidence for the effectiveness of punitive deterrence and it is clear that the UK’s draconian measures have had no impact on reducing the number of those crossing the Channel.
The UK government is beginning to accept that it is almost impossible to police the Channel and stop the crossings without causing death and so its preferred approach is to return refugees to a first safe country and, if this is not possible, to send asylum seekers to a third country. The UK lost the right to return asylum seekers to an EU safe country following Brexit but a new agreement could be negotiated.
The EU and especially France may not be averse to such an arrangement in an effort to resolve the border problems with refugee camps along the coast. However, a simple return scheme would not be in France’s interests given that France already has nearly twice the number of refugees as the UK. If there is to be a returns scheme, it needs to work for both countries and the rest of Europe, which is already shouldering the greatest burden.
According to UNHCR, at November 2022, there were a total of 231,957 refugees (i.e. excluding pending asylum decisions) in the UK. There were 455,295 in France and 1.24 million in Germany. Past and current figures indicate that the UK has considerably fewer refugees and asylum seekers than its European neighbours. And it is this that will inform the negotiations.
A fresh approach?
Many people have suggested the current problems might be resolved by a ‘one-for-one’ approach whereby France takes back an asylum seeker for every refugee or asylum applicant the UK accepts from France. There are merits to this. It would create a safe route and (depending on how such a scheme is implemented) could negate the need for the dangerous crossing and destroy the exploitative trade. It is a proposal that merits serious consideration.
Longer term, in an increasingly unstable world it may not be sustainable. But short term, the main difficulty may be Conservative Party intransigence towards the UK accepting any refugees. Since 2019 the government’s energy and budget has been spent on strengthening borders and the punishment of those who manage to get through, no matter how inhumane and ineffective. It has closed every safe route to claim asylum, leaving only the Channel crossing as a viable option.
The government now intends to deny those using that route the right to, ever, settle in the UK. There is a risk that the UK government could agree a returns scheme which accepted a certain number of refugees from France, but continued to implement its current policies that criminalise and punish asylum seekers already in the UK – or who arrive via some other route other than from France.
To prevent France becoming complicit in the UK’s cruelty, Macron will need to ensure Sunak commits to:
- The UK taking its fair share of refugees arriving in Europe.
- The UK guaranteeing no asylum seekers will be denied making an application in the UK or be at risk of being sent to a third country.
- Granting those who meet Refugee Convention criteria for asylum leave to remain in the UK.
- The UK conforming to the Refugee Convention and the rulings made by the European Court of Human Rights.
