The returns agreement is intended as a deterrent to Channel crossings. However, the announcement of a pilot “one in, one out” scheme marks only the initial stage of a potentially complex process.
The plan stipulates that for each migrant the UK returns to France, another migrant with a strong asylum claim in Britain will be admitted. The Home Office has refrained from speculating on the weekly expulsion rate, acknowledging potential fluctuations during the pilot phase.
During a joint press conference alongside French President Emmanuel Macron, Prime Minister Starmer declined to elaborate on the specifics, citing concerns that doing so could undermine its operational effectiveness.
Regardless of specific details, the agreement is likely to encounter legal, political, and logistical hurdles, and demonstrating a viable “proof of concept” will present a significant challenge.
Nonetheless, the underlying legal principle is generally sound. The UN Refugee Convention does not grant migrants the right to choose their country of asylum, suggesting that transferring individuals from Britain to France for processing is not inherently unlawful.
The previous government’s Rwanda scheme faced setbacks due to court concerns regarding the East African nation’s safety and compliance with the Convention. France, conversely, is unlikely to elicit such reservations.
Legal challenges are anticipated to focus on the process’s specifics, including the fairness of the selection system and the potential treatment of individuals upon arrival in France.
A key political obstacle will be reassuring EU member states that migrants returned by Britain will not re-enter their territories. Information from the EU’s Eurodac asylum database, inaccessible to Britain post-Brexit, might be used to identify migrants who previously sought asylum elsewhere in Europe.
In addition to legal challenges concerning returns to France, practical difficulties may arise in determining which migrants in France should be sent to the UK. The decision-making process and criteria remain unclear.
Britain has historically resisted the concept of assessing asylum claims outside its borders, fearing such a facility would attract migrants seeking passage across the Channel.
However, precedent exists for schemes identifying asylum seekers with strong claims for refugee status in the UK.
In 2002, Britain and France collaborated to close the Sangatte camp, a hub for migrants attempting to reach the UK. As part of this arrangement, the UNHCR oversaw a registration process, conducted by British officials in France, to determine which migrants would be granted permission to pursue their asylum claims in Britain.
Each aspect of the current Anglo-French arrangement will require thorough scrutiny, making the desire for a small-scale initial rollout understandable.
The ultimate effectiveness remains uncertain, as understanding the risk-reward calculus of migrants boarding unsafe vessels is inherently difficult.
The proposed pilot scheme may lack the scale necessary to serve as a significant deterrent, yet officials believe the arrangement holds potential as a valuable tool in preventing Channel crossings.
Even if the arrangement proves effective, questions will arise regarding the cost and practicality of scaling it to a level that discourages migrants in Calais from attempting the Channel crossing.
Decisions were paused more than seven months ago, following the fall of the Assad regime.
Research finds that almost all young people struggled with the process and some found it traumatising.
A former Dover coastguard, an ex-border security chief and a customs boss recall the first landings.
The PM says the “one in, one out” deal with France would prove trying to get to the UK via the Channel would be “in vain”.
“We’re going to try again and again to cross to the UK,” one migrant told the BBC