Richard Tice of Reform UK has tweeted,: “Starmer needs to explain why he does not have leadership & courage to use 1982 UN Convention of Law at Sea to pick up & take back”.
On 19 September, Nigel Farage told BBC Radio Kent that part of Reform’s plan for migrants crossing the Channel in small boats would be to “take them back to France”.
In June, he said on Question Time: “We’ll pick them up in the Channel and take them back” to France.
He said he would use the Royal Marines to do this, if necessary.
Why the UK Cannot Simply Return Migrants Intercepted in the Channel to France
The English Channel has become a focal point of the migration crisis in Europe, with thousands of individuals attempting to cross from France to the United Kingdom each year. The sight of small boats filled with migrants risking their lives to reach British shores has prompted widespread concern and debate. Some argue that the UK should simply return these individuals to France, where many of them embarked on their perilous journey. However, the reality is far more complex, with legal, diplomatic, and humanitarian considerations preventing such an approach. This article will explore the reasons why the UK cannot just take migrants picked up in the Channel back to France, delving into international law, bilateral agreements, and the logistical challenges involved.
1. International Law and the Principle of Non-Refoulement
One of the primary legal barriers to returning migrants to France is the principle of non-refoulement, a cornerstone of international refugee law. Enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the UK is a signatory, this principle prohibits countries from returning individuals to a territory where they may face persecution, torture, or inhumane treatment. This applies not only to refugees but also to asylum seekers whose claims have not yet been assessed.
Even if the UK authorities intercept a migrant boat in international waters or within the UK’s territorial sea, they are still bound by this principle. Simply returning these individuals to France without assessing their protection needs would constitute a violation of international law. The UK would have to ensure that each person’s claim for asylum is thoroughly examined before any removal could be considered. In fact, Article 19 of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR Convention), says that if a “foreign ship” enters another country’s territorial waters it will “be considered to be prejudicial to the peace” if “it engages in the loading or unloading of any… person contrary to the immigration laws” of that country.
2. The Dublin Regulation and Post-Brexit Changes
Before Brexit, the UK was part of the EU’s Dublin Regulation, which allowed for the transfer of asylum seekers back to the first EU country they entered. This mechanism enabled the UK to return some migrants to France or other EU countries if it could be demonstrated that they had first arrived there and were not the UK’s responsibility under the regulation’s criteria.
However, since leaving the EU, the UK is no longer part of the Dublin system. Consequently, there is no legal framework or agreement in place that obliges France or any other EU country to accept the return of migrants who cross the Channel. This change has created a legal vacuum, making it significantly harder for the UK to send migrants back to France based on their previous presence there.
3. Bilateral Agreements and Diplomatic Relations
The UK and France have a series of bilateral agreements aimed at managing migration across the Channel. The most prominent of these is the Le Touquet Agreement, which allows UK border controls to operate in France and vice versa. While this arrangement has helped reduce the number of illegal crossings, it does not provide a legal basis for the automatic return of migrants intercepted at sea.
France has made it clear that it will not accept the return of Channel migrants unless a formal agreement is reached. The lack of such an agreement has led to strained diplomatic relations between the two countries. The UK government has sought to negotiate a new returns agreement with France, but progress has been slow, with both sides unable to agree on terms. France’s reluctance is partly due to domestic political pressure and the burden of hosting a large number of asylum seekers already present on its territory.
4. Logistical and Practical Challenges
Even if a legal or diplomatic framework were in place, returning migrants intercepted in the Channel to France would present significant logistical challenges. Migrant boats are often overcrowded and unseaworthy, making it dangerous to attempt a mid-sea transfer back to French waters. The process of identifying and verifying the nationality and status of each individual would also be time-consuming and complex, especially given the lack of cooperation from some migrants who may not want to return to France.
Furthermore, France has consistently refused to allow British vessels to return migrants directly to its shores. In practice, this means that UK authorities would have to bring the migrants back to the UK for processing, even if they intended to return them to France later. This is both impractical and politically contentious, as it undermines the very goal of reducing irregular migration across the Channel.
5. Humanitarian Considerations and Safety at Sea
The safety and well-being of migrants attempting to cross the Channel is a major concern. Many are fleeing conflict, persecution, or poverty, and undertake the journey out of desperation. The Channel is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, and the small boats used by migrants are ill-equipped for the crossing. This has resulted in tragic incidents where lives have been lost.
Turning these boats back to France could endanger lives further, as it may lead to panic, capsizing, or other dangerous situations. The UK’s Border Force, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI), and other rescue services are primarily focused on ensuring the safety of all individuals at sea, regardless of their legal status. This humanitarian imperative often supersedes other considerations, making immediate returns unfeasible.
6. The Impact of Domestic Politics and Public Opinion
The issue of Channel crossings has become highly politicised in the UK. Public opinion is divided, with some calling for tougher measures to deter illegal crossings, while others advocate for more compassionate and humane approaches to migration. The government faces pressure from various quarters, including from those who argue that the UK’s asylum system is too lenient and those who believe it is failing to meet its international obligations.
Any attempt to return migrants directly to France would likely provoke a strong reaction, both domestically and internationally. The political costs of such actions could be high, particularly if they resulted in further diplomatic tensions with France or led to accusations of inhumane treatment of migrants. The UK government has to balance these considerations carefully when formulating its migration policies.
7. Legal Rights of Migrants and Asylum Seekers
Migrants intercepted in the Channel have legal rights under both UK and international law. If they express a desire to claim asylum, they must be allowed to do so and cannot be summarily removed without due process. This means that their claims must be assessed fairly, and they have the right to legal representation and to appeal decisions.
Returning migrants to France without providing them with the opportunity to claim asylum in the UK would breach these legal rights and could lead to challenges in domestic courts. The UK has a legal obligation to process asylum claims, and this cannot be circumvented simply by returning individuals to France or any other country.
8. The Role of Human Smugglers and Criminal Networks
The surge in Channel crossings has been fuelled by organised criminal networks that exploit vulnerable individuals, charging exorbitant fees to facilitate their passage. These smugglers are highly adaptable, changing their methods and routes in response to enforcement measures. Simply returning migrants to France would not address the root cause of the issue and may, in fact, embolden smugglers to use even more dangerous tactics.
A coordinated approach involving both the UK and France, along with other European countries, is needed to combat these criminal networks. This includes intelligence sharing, joint operations, and targeted interventions to disrupt smuggling activities. Such efforts are more effective in the long term than unilateral actions like returning migrants at sea.
9. The Broader European Context
The migration crisis is not confined to the Channel; it is a Europe-wide challenge that requires a collective response. Many of the migrants attempting to reach the UK have travelled through several EU countries before arriving in northern France. This complex journey is influenced by various factors, including asylum policies, border controls, and the actions of traffickers.
Addressing the issue of Channel crossings requires cooperation not only between the UK and France but also with other EU countries and beyond. A sustainable solution involves improving conditions for asylum seekers in France, enhancing border security, and creating legal pathways for migration. This broader approach is necessary to reduce the pressure on the Channel route and to ensure a humane and orderly migration system.
10. Possible Solutions and the Way Forward
To address the challenges posed by Channel crossings, the UK government has explored various options. These include increasing patrols in the Channel, investing in technology such as drones and radar, and enhancing cooperation with French authorities. However, these measures alone are unlikely to be sufficient.
A comprehensive approach is needed, which includes the following elements:
- A New Bilateral Agreement: The UK and France should negotiate a new agreement that allows for the managed return of migrants in certain circumstances, while also ensuring their protection and rights are upheld.
- Improved Asylum Processing: Streamlining the asylum process in both the UK and France could help reduce the backlog of cases and ensure that those in genuine need of protection receive it more quickly.
- Legal Pathways for Migration: Establishing safe and legal routes for those seeking to come to the UK, such as humanitarian visas or resettlement schemes, could reduce the incentive for dangerous Channel crossings.
- Addressing Root Causes: Greater efforts are needed to tackle the underlying drivers of migration, such as conflict, persecution, and poverty, through international aid and development programmes.
- Enhanced Cooperation on Law Enforcement: Strengthening collaboration between UK, French, and EU law enforcement agencies to disrupt smuggling networks and hold traffickers accountable.
In conclusion, while it may seem like a straightforward solution to return migrants intercepted in the Channel to France, the reality is far more complex. Legal, diplomatic, humanitarian, and practical considerations all play a role in shaping the UK’s response to this challenging issue. A balanced and comprehensive approach, rooted in cooperation and respect for human rights, is essential to managing migration in the Channel and beyond. Sadly, these are not the characteristics of The Reform Party and some of their supporters. Ultimately, the responsibility is not on France but on those who propagated for and voted for Brexit. If they had told the truth and done their homework all of this could have been avoided.
KEEP US ALIVE and join us in helping to bring reality and decency back by SUBSCRIBING to our Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ1Ll1ylCg8U19AhNl-NoTg AND SUPPORTING US where you can: Award Winning Independent Citizen Media Needs Your Help. PLEASE SUPPORT US FOR JUST £2 A MONTH https://dorseteye.com/donate/
