14th November 2022
Brexit, we are told, was about “taking back control” – of our borders, our money, and our laws.
Yet, if you read the news, it would seem the United Kingdom is less in control of its borders than it was before we departed the European Union.
It would seem that simply declaring that we were “taking back control” was not enough for us to, well, take control.
A less-than-a-moment’s thought should explain why.
It is difficult, if not almost impossible, to have absolute control of a border from one side alone, if a significant amount of people want to cross that border.
In extreme situations, of course, resorting to coercion and lethal force can give the impression of control, at least in the immediate term.
But for there to be effective and sustainable control of a border usually requires those on both sides to cooperate.
As such, the simplistic unilateralism of “taking back control” will not work in practice.
And it is thereby not surprising that the current home secretary has had to agree with France a form of cooperation about the channel crossings.
Though, as Zoe Gardner points out on Twitter, this is not the first time such a thing has been announced:
Oh I see it’s time to bring back out this thread of Tory Home Secretaries signing THE deal with France that is going to end unauthorised journeys to the UK… #r4today https://t.co/NgWMhO0ewv
— Zoe Gardner (@ZoeJardiniere) November 14, 2022
*
Another misconception is that deterring those crossing the channel will work.
That one can remove the “demand”.
That by threatening people with flights to Rwanda or keeping people in horrible conditions the United Kingdom will somehow reduce the number of those seeking asylum here.
The demand seems, to further use economics jargon, “inelastic”.
All that appears to be happening is that, by using various hostile, inhumane and illiberal measures, is that the same number of people are still coming – but we are treating them less well.
The “push factor” does not seem to care about our unpleasant ways.
And there is little that the United Kingdom can do to directly address the “push factor”.
*
So what we have are high significant numbers of asylum seekers.
[Word ‘high’ replaced, as some commenters complained it was misleading.]
What should be done?
Well, as Gardner further says, the dealing with the actual claims themselves should be the priority:
And to reiterate: no, there’s no need to process asylum claims in France or anywhere else. Let people travel here safely. Process their claims here fast and fairly. That’s it. #r4today
— Zoe Gardner (@ZoeJardiniere) November 14, 2022
*
What we can take control of is not our border – but our internal processes, and how well those processes are resourced.
That is what is within our control.
Anything else either requires sincere international cooperation or is outside of our or any other receiving country’s direct control.
And that is control we cannot take – either “back” or otherwise.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
The comments policy is here.
What are the extra French controls expected to achieve? Is it actually illegal for those seeking asylum in the UK to leave France in a small boat?
Apparently it’s illegal to evade immigration controls on arrival in the UK but not merely to arrive in a small boat. Most of the migrants apparently seek asylum and most applicants are apparently successful. I say apparently because experts say this, contradicting the govt.
I don’t see what difference it’ll make.
“What are the extra French controls expected to achieve?”
Positive headlines in the Right wing media and YouTube channels, Phil – it’s all they can achieve, given that this latest arrangement is only a slight modification extension of a £55m pa deal we’ve had with France for years, which apparently hasn’t helped much at all.
It’s a question of framing – if the solution is to strengthen French coastal patrols, the problem must have been that France was too lax in the past.
A varient on the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent that if A=>B, then B=>A.
In a different life, I spent time patrolling the Sino-HK border to limit “illegal immigration”. Even there, on the border with PRC, there had to be (and was) co-operation between both sides, including significant communication via “back channels”.
As ever, very sound. Gardner’s “let them come” point, though, is only viable if there is a robust way of ensuring that those who are not entitled to stay do leave. That is far from easy.
In this context, @GavinBarwell’s suggested approach to this problem included the use of ID cards (to control who may work, access service/benefits and who may not). That would help.
ID cards raise hackles but, like it or not, our IDs are already scattered far and wide, precious nuggets freely given to banks, shops, airlines, hotels, dentists, government departments and so forth. Some such government system is inevitable and would help the border control issue (though it wouldn’t solve the problem of where to send someone with no right to stay).
Like many British people, I am deeply resistant to the idea of compulsory ID cards, to being asked in the UK to “show us your papers”.
But if the realistic political alternative is a deeply xenophobic and authoritarian Home Office led by the likes of Priti Patel or Suella Braverman, ID cards might not be such a bad idea after all, if they go some way to assuaging public fears about migration, whether by small boats or through official channels.
But to have this debate would require an acknowledgement of trade-offs in policy which I fear is far beyond Westminster politics in its current state…
ID cards are not an alternative to authoritarian policies – they’re a complement and assistance to them.
The UK already issues BRPs (biometric residence permits) and BRCs (biometric residence cards). Most people resident in the UK who’ve come from other countries and are staying for more than 6 months will have them, or can apply for them. They are used to confirm legality of residence for a range of purposes.
If Lord Barwell is anxious that people may question his own status he is free to carry his passport with him wherever he goes.
To ‘”take back control” implies that that:
1) control was previously held &
2) is now with somebody else.
It appears to me (even if a simplistic view) that the deal as discussed implies France will now be in control of the border, assuming of course that anyone can be as so well pointed out by DAG.
This Government wanted to “Take back control” but has been unable to actually do so. The whole concept and reality have been an example in complete and utter failure. To me this perfectly illustrates the saying : “be careful what you wish for” !
GB is coming up against a down side of being an island.
If you have land borders you can, if you care to, put up fences, high walls fortified and patrolled as intensively as you like, and thereby funnel most would-be entrants into your territory through official customs and immigration posts.
But our border with France is an imaginary line running across the English Channel.
Even if you know exactly where the line runs, it is inherently difficult to defend, because what you can do about frail and unsafe vessels crossing it is limited (a) by a natural reluctance to endanger the people on board, and (b), if ordinary human compassion fails, by the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea.
If there’s a simple answer to a problem you can be sure that this government will avoid it like the plague. See also NIP, EU regulatory regime etc, etc
The problem with the narrative on “taking back control” of borders is that we can stop free movement of workers, and control visas and work permits – arguably to the detriment of domestic businesses that now face difficulties in recruitment – but we can’t realistically control people who need to seek asylum.
If we really want to reduce the “push” factors, we need to create a world where people don’t feel they need to leave their country to escape conflict or persecution. Most would rather be at home anyway, in a culture and environment where they grew up, among their friends and family.
Some numbers and context over here: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migration-to-the-uk-asylum/
It is not an accident that in 2021 more than half of the 56,000 people seeking asylum in the UK (still less than 0.1% of the UK population) came from just six unstable countries: as Iran, Iraq, Eritrea, Syria, Afghanistan, and Sudan. Some 80 or 90% of asylum claims by people coming from most of these places (other than Iraq) will probably be granted eventually.
(An outlier in the top seven countries by claims is Albania, which in 2021 was nearly 5,000 people, in fourth place, but even so a third to a half of the claims may be granted. Albania appears to be a particular issue in 2022.)
And if we want to discourage people from risking their lives on small boats in the English Channel, we need to provide a route to claiming asylum which does not entail such danger, rather than using bureaucracy and delay (and rhetoric, and the armed forces) in an expensive but futile attempt to deter them. Desperate people will do desperate things.
With the world population approaching 8 billion, and another 2 billion likely by the end of the century, and little sign of climate change being tackled, the pressure for population movement is only going to increase.
The whole premise here is based on a perplexingly wrong-headed understanding of how the World works.
I can put razor wire on top of my fences; CCTV on every corner of my house; and signs all over saying that I have a monitored security system: but if a burglar wants to try and break in anyway, he will.
It’s not a perfect analogy – I am absolutely not drawing a parallel between asylum seekers and house-breakers – but the point is legitimately made that if someone wants in, they’ll try anyway, and any notional “deterrents” which we can control as a sovereign nation, happen too late in the process to be of any real value.
The possibility of a flight to Rwanda – the supposed silver bullet to the “problem” when it was announced – has apparently had no deterrent effect whatsoever; and Braverman herself has now – finally – cottoned on to the notion that there is no magic bullet.
Which brings us back to Zoe Gardner’s contribution: if there’s a need to control immigration, it is best delivered by putting in place proper, safe, secure mechanisms by which asylum seekers can engage with the system; and fund proportionally to actual need.
“Take back control” suggests we lost control. The truth is we have never “counted them in and counted them out”, instead relying on an extraordinarily arcane system of estimating immigrant entries but apparently no system at all of immigrant exits. Instead we never had “control” to begin with. Inhumanity, casual cruelty and deliberate tardiness in processing immigrants will not ameliorate the situation, but is designed to cause maximum system stress and play to the gallery of the popularise red tops. “Control of our borders” like “sovereignty” is an ethereal chimera propounded by unscrupulous bigots masquerading as patriots.
“Taking back control” never seems to have extended to rescinding the Le Touquet Accord which the average British voter will know nothing about.
The British Press seem oblivious to the fact that Macron was the only major French Presidential candidate to have favoured keeping the Accord so what will happen when he finishes his Presidency is anyone’s guess and of course completely out of the control of the UK.
Paying more cash to the French simply puts more pressure on their own (arguably) understaffed forces and has many French taxpayers thinking they are subsidising essentially an English (British ?) problem.
Zoe Gardner’s tweets of today indicate possibly the only realistic long term solution.
Control is a complicated process. It starts with information about the element that needs controlling. If that information is complex, then the system to control it must likewise be complex. In this situation, where, whatever the politicians and their followers say, the act of travelling in a small boat across the channel, whilst risky, is not illegal. And, if you follow the comment above from Phil Jones, the act of surrendering to the Border Force (or police I guess) makes them legal, if not documented or accepted as refugees. Thus the problem of cost lies with the speed and reliability of processing. Both the control problem and the processing problem would be aided by doing work further upstream before migrants fall into the trafficking system. Managing the flow will make most of the opportunities for hate creation by the usual suspects go away. And having a source of resourceful additional people in the labour market can’t be a bad thing. In another generation, this flow may become much stronger because of climate change, but then almost very migration policy on the planet will have to change.
“Managing the flow will make most of the opportunities for hate creation by the usual suspects go away.” You have a point, but it seems that some of the key creators of hate are government ministers. There have been such frequent references to the people arriving by boat as ‘illegals’, ‘economic migrants’ and ‘invasion’ – none of which is correct. I have even come across ‘undocumented’ as a description, again this is not correct.
It’s small comfort that one minister was referred to the parliamentary and statistics authorities for his incorrect use of language, but this doesn’t change the fact that the tone of the conversation has shifted. Away from accepting that they are human beings (just like us) and moving to an ‘othering’ of these people.
This worries me. I fear that this will encourage acts of violence, which will further increase the suffering of these very vulnerable people.
It is also very difficult to take back control of our money if we have not understood that our standard of living depended on the availability of a massive overdraft financed by other people’s money!
This would be hard enough in the best circumstances, but to do so while choking labour markets with the end of freedom of movement and restricting export trade with our largest partner while encouraging more imports by milder less restrictive measures….is frankly illusory.
The cause of all this: profound ignorance in the political classes across the board in the understanding of how our country actually runs. Sadly it is clear that they are economically and administratively illiterate. Not what one needs from Government.
Sadly, the rhetoric is designed purely for the consumption of the voter, or the intended voter.
The implementation of the policy may or may not be effective, and I fear the latter.
What matters is a) the headline in the desired newspapers, and b) the readers of said newspapers to be satisfied that their “something must be done” demands are seemingly being heard and acted upon.
I am unconvinced that this grand ceremonial signing, the latest of many as pointed out by Zoe Gardner, will do anything other than buy precious time and favourable headlines.
I don’t know the causes, but it is worth noting that, even with increased numbers (from 2021) this year, applications are only at about 50% of the level they were in 2002. The myth of the ‘ever-increasing wave of invaders’ is exactly that.
True. And it is important to mention it.
Madness – doing same thing over and over. Obviously this is £8 million – and the rest – chucked away.
But what might take away the pull factor. Perhaps various brutal and oppressive means – Mrs Patel in a speedboat or Mrs Patel with an AK47. Maybe not.
Something more directly aimed at the pull factor perhaps. Change our language from English to Old Norse. Road signs, court papers, buy your own translator. A crash course should see that done by Easter. A bit inconvenient though and if Mrs Patel and I can learn Old Norse so can immigrants. Another rubbish idea.
The bottom line is we can’t control our borders. We might as well give each arrival a pile of bricks, a skip full of sand and cement and a bit of Ducal or Royal land and tell them to build. Fair do’s, we offer the same to our own young people.
Or we could hasten the process of becoming a poor and wretched place. No housing, no money, no jobs and no health service. Ahhh, now I see.
It seems to me that someone needs to “take back control” of this country. One only has to look at the daily announcements in the news to see that 12 years of Tory austerity has finally caused a perfect storm – strikes/ NHS in chaos / Tory councils bankrupt and a backlog of immense proportions in the asylum system to name but a few issues facing us. This government has no plan for anything but to further grind the UK into the ground.
Thanks David for yet another thought-provoking post. Here in Australia we have adopted what I consider to be ‘hostile, inhumane and illiberal measures’ of intercepting asylum seekers in their boats before they land and either turning them back or sending them to Manus Island (Papua New Guinea) or Nauru in the Pacific Ocean. Nevertheless, the policy seems to have worked as the boats have stopped coming. After reaching a peak of 20,587 asylum seekers arriving by boat in 2013, the number fell to zero two years later. In other words, deterrence defeated the ‘push factor’. Also, after many years of anguished debate that divided the Australian community, the policy was adopted by both major parties, an indication of its popularity, at least in the eyes of the politicians in those parties. I suspect that the success of my government’s ‘Pacific Solution’ might have influenced your government to adopt its ‘Rwanda Solution’. On reading your post I wondered whether you had considered the Australian precedent and, if so, whether you concluded that the two cases are distinguishable.
“”On reading your post I wondered whether you had considered the Australian precedent and, if so, whether you concluded that the two cases are distinguishable.
There’s little doubt that the UK’s current approach is strongly influenced by Australia’s; but still, it’s not working in the way our xenophobes want, because numbers continue to increase.
As Ian points out, we’re still at nothing like historic levels of movement, a fact which is conveniently left out of the anti-immigrant rhetoric; but they’re still high enough (increasingly so) to show that the “hostile environment” isn’t proving to be the deterrent its meant to be.
What is curious is that, like so much connected with Brexit, the notion of ‘Taking back control’ is really projection: in reality, the UK is belatedly recognising that the control sits on the other side of the UK’s external border. The only way the UK could ever practically manage immigration of this nature was by working with the French and other EU countries through which these benighted immigrants must pass. The notion of control, like sovereignty, is seductive but highly illusory. It was never accurate to blame membership of the EU for the UK’s pathetic policies and processes on immigration; the current debacle merely brings home the responsibility, even if the UK continues to try to assign the accountability elsewhere.
‘Twas always the case – our problems were and are in Westminster, not Brussels, Strasbourg or anywhere outside this island.
Maybe if we spent a fair amount of foreign aid in the places it is needed, we might improve conditions there and reduce the demand. Although aid should be targeted to the greatest needs, not reducing immigration.
I still believe that the point of potential control is commercial.
Traffickers have demanded a substantial sum from attempted migrants.
Offering an alternative cheaper package where migrants buy a return flight plus their accommodation costs for a fortnight whilst their asylum claim is considered would provide substantial competition to the traffickers.
The return portion of the flight ticket would be used for those who fail the asylum test.
The problem is, of course, that this requires the Home Office to be competent.
I sat as an immigration judge for 10 years and have now been retired for almost 12 years so my views may be out of date.
As others have mentioned, the number of asylum seekers in the early 2000s was over double the number now being experienced. There were serious administrative problems that caused delays but not on average nearly so long as now. The standard of decision making by officials was poor but does not seem to have improved with many decisions still being overturned on appeal.
The government tried changing the law to reduce numbers to little effect. In particular was a law that failing to apply for asylum in another safe country on the way to the UK (without reasonable excuse) would undermine their evidence of need for asylum. The problem there was many then claimed that they were under the control of smugglers whilst in the back of a lorry traveling to the UK and had no opportunity to apply elsewhere.
A second aid was the EU Dublin agreement which allowed countries to return asylum seekers to another EU country where they could have applied. The problem with that was in most cases it was not possible to prove that the asylum seeker had been in any particular country and had such opportunity. Most claiming to have travelled across Europe in lorries and not seeing the light of day until arriving in the UK.
There has been little public debate about it but it is my belief that the route by boats across the Channel only became a viable option to the smugglers once we left the EU and the Dublin agreement no longer applied to us. It is clear that almost all of those crossing the Channel have come from France and it is also clear that many remain in northern France awaiting the opportunity to cross to the UK. They would have had the opportunity to claim asylum in France and therefore could be subject to return to France.
Rather than being able to take control of our borders an effect of Brexit as agreed by our government has weakened our control.
Thank you for your insightful comment, David, about the greater likelihood of people, who come to the UK in small boats to claim asylum, being returned to France under the Dublin Agreement, if the UK were still within the EU.
Another factor, as I understand it, is that steps were taken to make it easier to detect and so prevent the previous preferred route – the back of a lorry.
But closing down one route presents a market opportunity for others.
The manufacturers and sellers of large inflatable boats must be making windfall profits. What other uses do they have? Perhaps the sale of such boats needs greater regulation?
Voters must see that we are a small and still relatively prosperous and stable part of a rather wee world with many nasty neighbourhoods. The only way to dissuade real refugees is to be nastier to them than the rulers of wherever they come from.
But don’t we need labour and need even more, skilled labour?
The Brits blanche at the notion of id cards while happily suffering the widest camera cover outside China. One attraction of the British isles is that once you are in you are in, no further checks unless you break the law. So wake up.
Wake up also and be the first country to officially create and recognise Second Class Citzenship. This allows you in to work, to contribute by taxes to the general good and only after building up a certain credit do you get better than lifesaving health assistance.
Penal collonies for thise who truly abuse such systems would cause less of a stir. And after a few years, if you stay clean and we need you, then you can gain permanent status. Like the Romans did.
And as a olus, we reduce the cash being paid to trafficers.