For clarity on the legal position of the refugees/asylum seekers trying to reach the UK by crossing the Channel in small boats.
This, by an international refugee law specialist
An asylum seeker is entitled to seek asylum, without penalties as to manner of entry, specifically due to the circumstances necessitating their flight from persecution. This is a matter of international rather than domestic law, not EU specifically
Safety, as understood through case law, is subjective. Now France may be considered safe for you and I, however, as evidenced by reports of police brutality and its being found guilty of breaching refugee rights by ECHR, among other things, it may not be for asylum seekers.
This hasn't stopped 150 thousand plus individuals applying for asylum there, however, the multiple factors involved in determining an individual feeling of safety have meant that a small fraction, 4,300 roughly, have felt unsafe enough as to make a dangerous channel crossing
As an aside, the same can be said throughout the EU, for example Germany has approximately 166+thousand applications, yet people may not feel safe there due to the 1,600 record attacks against asylum seekers last year.
The Dublin III Regulations, cover a member state's responsibilities. They are not the governing instrument regarding asylum seekers however, which is the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.
Neither these regulations, nor the convention, nor any refugee law instrument by the way state that an asylum seeker has to seek asylum in any specific country. Leaving the EU does not remove the UK's obligations under international law
Leaving Dublin III Regulations all but guarantees it becomes harder for UK to send asylum seekers back to France, Particularly case as France routinely deports them to Libya, which is an active conflict zone, and thereby risks breaching non-refoulement
Non-refoulement is not a specifically refugee law focused tool. It is covered by a number of human rights instruments and means you cannot deport someone to an unsafe country, or a third country where they may then subsequently be deported to an unsafe country
Use of the phrase "economic migrants". The only way to demonstrate that someone is not a "genuine asylum seeker" is by processing their application. A failure to do so is also a breach of international, not EU, law.
Now, it is is also worth mentioning that while the channel is governed by international maritime law it is not illegal to cross it, It is, however, illegal for the navy to violate French waters or for a vessel to fail to render assistance to those in need on the seas.
Again, this has nothing to do with the EU and is a matter of international law which the UK will still be subject to upon the ending of the transition period. As a sovereign nation the UK is at liberty to remove itself from these treaties though
I would argue that anyone who had the "country's best interests at heart" would not suggest that making it a pariah state and diminishing its influence in the international community, which this would undoubtedly do, was the way to go about this.
This is from a twitter thread responding to a letter written by an MP. This is the thread writer's recommendation to her. I echo his sentiments in that people should be properly informed before commenting...
From start to finish this letter is full of inaccuracies and misconceptions. I would suggest that in the genuine interests of the country it would be best for a serving MP to learn at least a basic level about the laws governing it before spouting tripe.
Dan Sohege
Human rights advocate, international refugee law specialist, immigration economist
