European system of asylum in chaos

Brexit, and the extra uncertainties it has added to migration policy, is the fundamental reason why some French politicians are taking the opportunity to launch some unhelpful and counter-productive initiatives

Home Secretary Amber Rudd will meet her French counterpart this week (PA)

The European system of asylum, already no model of order, justice or efficiency, is about to be thrown into an even worse state of chaos, should the latest suggestions from the regional Calais authorities be acted upon.

In a misguided attempt, no doubt, to relieve pressure on local resources and solve the humanitarian disaster that is the so-called Jungle, Xavier Bertrand, president of the Hauts-de-France Nord Pas De Calais-Picardie region, says that migrants should be able to claim asylum in Britain, but on French soil. He suggested that the conscious creation of such a “hotspot” would be helpful all round.

The reality would be anything but. Already atrociously overcrowded and squalid, and run by criminal gangs, the migrant camp would immediately become more attractive to those wishing, genuinely or not, to gain passage to Britain. That would mean an upsurge in people trafficking. If, as seems likely, many would be refused asylum then they would remain marooned in limbo around Calais. For those who would be granted asylum there is, true, a better future for them and a potential gain for the UK, as the country would continue to benefit economically from immigration.

The problem with that is the orderly allocation of migrants, including refugees, across the EU, at least for as long as Britian remains a member. Under the EU's Dublin protocols, refugees should claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in, and not in the last one they manage to enter. The EU has consistently failed to assist the Mediterranean nations under the greatest strain from the refugee crisis – Malta, Greece and Italy. Germany and Sweden aside, EU members have also shirked their humanitarian responsibilities to share the job of welcoming and settling people who have been fleeing for their lives from Syria and elsewhere. Only the EU's initiative with Turkey over the return of illegal migrants seems to be working.

So when Home Secretary Amber Rudd meets her French counterpart later this week she should open up the dialogue on the best way to preserve the present arrangements, under the Le Touquet Treaty, which allows for UK checking of passports in France and vice versa, in a post-Brexit world. She should also stress to the French authorities that the idea of a “hot spot” at Calais would make a difficult situation worse.

Looking ahead, Ms Rudd is also bound to suggest how a Britain outside the EU can still be a part of a continent-wide effort to deal with this unprecedented, at least since 1945, movement of human beings across Europe. That should involve states to the north, south and east currently not part of the EU, such as Norway, Macedonia, Serbia and Russia, for example, all of which have felt the impact of the migration crisis. It means supporting states that are the first point of entry; providing humanitarian support to the camps; ensuring law and order, and above all fixing fair quotas for safe settlement.

The track record so far in international cooperation on the migrant crisis has been poor; Brexit, and the extra uncertainties it has added to this as so many policy areas, is the fundamental reason why some French politicians are taking the opportunity to launch some unhelpful and counter-productive initiatives. At least we understand that part of this abiding human tragedy.