Brexit stopped UK returning half of asylum seekers, shadow home secretary claims
Chris Philp, the Tory frontbencher, said leaving the European Union meant Britain could no longer send illegal migrants back to the European country where they first claimed asylum.
In remarks leaked to Sky News, he said deporting asylum seekers was now more difficult because the Dublin III agreement no longer applies to Britain.
The EU law allows member states to return illegal migrants who had previously claimed asylum in another member state to those countries.
'Because we're out of the European Union now, we are out of the Dublin III regulations, and so we can't any longer rely on sending people back to the place where they first claimed asylum,' he told an online meeting of Tory members on April 28.
'When we did check it out, just before we exited the EU transitional arrangements on Dec 31 2020, we did run some checks and found that about half the people crossing the Channel had claimed asylum previously elsewhere in Europe – in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, somewhere like that, and therefore could have been returned.
'But now we're out of Dublin, we can't do that, and that's why we need to have somewhere like Rwanda that we can send these people to as a deterrent.'
A number of EU countries, including Italy, do not accept Dublin III, therefore illegal migrants who first claim asylum there cannot be returned there.
A spokesman for the Conservative Party said Brexit was the 'democratic will of this country'.
'The Conservative Party delivered on the democratic will of this country, and left the European Union,' the spokesman said. 'The last government did have a plan and no one – including Chris – has ever suggested otherwise.
'We created new deals with France to intercept migrants, signed return agreements with many countries across Europe, including a landmark agreement with Albania that led to small boat crossings falling by a third in 2023, and developed the Rwanda deterrent – a deterrent that Labour scrapped, leading to 2025 so far being the worst year ever for illegal Channel crossings.
'However, Kemi Badenoch [the Conservative leader] and Chris Philp have been clear that the Conservatives must do a lot more to tackle illegal migration.
'It is why, under new leadership, we are developing new policies that will put an end to this problem – including disapplying the Human Rights Act from immigration matters, establishing a removals deterrent and deporting all foreign criminals.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
25 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
So Nicola Sturgeon achieved nothing? What a load of nonsense
I have not read the memoir - time has not permitted. And the noisy reaction from some quarters has been of no real interest – it has not triggered any impulse to delve deeper to find out what the fuss is about. All of this sound and fury is to be expected, and much of it has come from people with political views very different to those of the former first minister or from those at odds with Ms Sturgeon on particular issues. The publication of the memoir has, however, also led to assessments of what Ms Sturgeon achieved during her long time as first minister, from November 2014 to March 2023. And this, from a personal perspective, is a more interesting aspect. It has seemed that many people have been almost falling over themselves to flag their withering opinions on this front, with a black-and-white view that 'nothing' or close to nothing was achieved. From a business and economic perspective, and from a societal point of view, that seems like a most unfair conclusion. Thankfully, some assessments have been more positive, but these seem to have been drowned out somewhat. Ms Sturgeon's relationship with the business community, certainly from the perspective of the latter, seemed to deteriorate significantly amid the coronavirus pandemic. What is often forgotten is the period before that, when you could have taken the view that business was surprisingly positive about Ms Sturgeon. After all, many company leaders were and are vehemently opposed to independence, not infrequently because of personal political or ideological views but also for some because of fears about the effects of constitutional change. Touching briefly on the pandemic, you might have thought Ms Sturgeon's approach would have been appreciated by more business leaders. There was a steadiness about it, in contrast to the toing and froing and all the drama from former prime minister Boris Johnson. Read more We should also remember Ms Sturgeon argued eloquently and convincingly during this period against the hard Brexit delivered by Mr Johnson, which continues to cost businesses the length and breadth of the UK so dearly and to hammer the country's beleaguered economy. And there were surely few if any moments, for all the hue and cry from some in the business community, when it could have been argued that Ms Sturgeon and the Scottish Government were being far too cautious with the pandemic restrictions and lockdowns. That said, a narrative nevertheless developed during that period that the Scottish Government was not on the side of business. Leaving the politicking and emotion fuelled by Ms Sturgeon's memoir to one side and taking a detached look at her time as first minister, without having read the book, it is not at all difficult to immediately identify other major positives. Ms Sturgeon was first minister when the Scottish child payment was introduced in 2021. This continues to be an extremely important source of support for low-income families in Scotland, now amounting to a weekly payment of £27.15 for every child under 16 years of age. And it is all the more crucial given the savage welfare cuts at a UK level that began when the Tories came to power in 2010. Given the Scottish Government's very limited powers in this area, the Scottish child payment is a huge deal. And it is simple arithmetic that giving money to people who have to spend all or the vast bulk of their income to live feeds through directly to aggregate demand, thereby boosting the economy. Former Conservative prime minister David Cameron and erstwhile chancellor George Osborne highlighted the importance of welfare spending to growth when they cut it savagely and hammered the UK economy. Read more Claiming we were 'all in this together', they implemented a corporation tax cuts bonanza, which failed miserably to boost investment and the economy as they claimed it would, as company bosses hung on to the windfall or distributed it to shareholders while the population at large was made to pay the price for the global financial crisis. Ms Sturgeon also, during her time as first minister, stuck steadfastly in straitened financial times and amid grim budget squeezes coming from Westminster with the SNP's commitment to free university tuition for students ordinarily resident in Scotland and doing their first degree. This is so important in ensuring the talent pool is not diminished by restricting access to higher education to those able to pay for it or willing to take on huge amounts of debt. If we are serious about having a highly skilled workforce, free university tuition is essential. It was lamentable to see Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer go back on a previous pledge on free university tuition in England. Under 'social justice', one of Sir Keir's 10 pledges in 2020 when he was standing for Labour leader, the politician promised to 'support the abolition of tuition fees and invest in lifelong learning'. However, asked about this pledge in spring 2023 on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Sir Keir replied: 'We are likely to move on from that commitment, because we do find ourselves in a different financial situation." The trebling of tuition fees in England under the Cameron administration looked at the time like a politically driven move to narrow access to higher education, and it continues to do so. Of course, Ms Sturgeon could probably have done some things better on the business and economic front. It was unnecessary for her to pass an opinion that the proposed giant Cambo oil field off Shetland should not get the green light. The decision rested in any case with the UK Government. And the North Sea is still such an important provider of employment, directly and through the supply chain, and still makes a huge contribution to the Scottish economy. Having said that, there were far more positives than negatives from a business and economic perspective when Ms Sturgeon was first minister, even if the pluses seem very under-appreciated now. Perhaps the best overall assessment of Ms Sturgeon's time in charge is to be gleaned from examining the foreign direct investment (FDI) numbers over the period in which she was first minister. This, after all, gives a cold, objective view of the merits of Scotland as a place to do business in a global context. Companies look at many factors, including workforce skills and the stability of government and policymaking. In 2022, the last full year in which Ms Sturgeon was first minister, a then record 126 FDI projects were secured by Scotland, figures from accountancy firm EY revealed. This was up from 122 in 2021, and the 3.3% increase in the number of projects secured by Scotland in 2022 contrasted with a 6.4% decline in the UK as a whole that year. EY's Ally Scott said at the time: 'Scotland put in another powerful performance on FDI in 2022, securing record inward investment projects and UK market share.' The accountancy firm, publishing figures for 2024 this summer, highlighted the fact Scotland has been second only to London in terms of the number of FDI projects won in every year since 2015. That is mightily impressive. And those who would claim Ms Sturgeon achieved nothing, or was somehow detrimental to business and the economy, should reflect on this, once the emotion subsides a bit.
Sky News
42 minutes ago
- Sky News
Russia's master negotiator knows Trump's weaknesses and will try to exploit them
Vladimir Putin will know exactly how he wants this to play out. He is the master negotiator who's been doing this for decades. He'll be across all the details, the history and the legal arguments. And he'll know that his opponent is not. His strategy will be to exploit that. I think the ultimate aim for the Kremlin leader is to convince Donald Trump that the quickest path to peace is a deal on Russia's terms. But he can't present it like that. He'll have to give the appearance of making concessions because he knows the American president can't lose face here. He must have something to show from this summit. 3:44 That something could be the promise of a meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, which Trump has once again talked up the chances of. But if that's the case, I suspect it'll be a loose promise, with strings attached. Something the White House can claim is progress, but may prove unachievable. I expect the Russian president will seek to play on Trump's desire for a rapid resolution to the conflict and his desire to take credit for it. That's why Putin has been buttering him up ahead of the meeting, praising Trump's "energetic and sincere" efforts to find peace. I think he'll also try to appeal to Trump's transactional nature and seek to tempt him with various sweeteners that could come from siding with Russia. 4:41 That means things like rare earth deals and joint projects in the Arctic, which is why the Russian delegation includes finance minister Anton Siluanov and Kremlin investment envoy Kirill Dmitriev. It also includes defence minister Andrei Belousov, which might suggest that Putin is serious about proposing a deal on nuclear arms control, after raising the prospect of it on Thursday. Only one pact remains between the US and Russia, and it expires in February. A new one would almost certainly be a prize the American president would go for. 2:54
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Five key points on how a long-respected US human rights report became a ‘cudgel' under Trump
In May, Donald Trump took to the stage at a business conference in Saudi Arabia's capital, promising that the US would no longer chastise other governments over human rights issues or lecture them on 'how to live and how to govern your own affairs'. With the release this week of the US government's annual report on human rights worldwide, the president has – in part – followed though on that pledge. The report – compiled by the state department – softens its criticism of nations that have sought closer ties with the US president, while alleging 'significant' human rights breaches among traditional allies across Europe, all while vastly scaling back criticism of discrimination against minority groups. The report's claims of 'no credible' human rights abuses in Hungary and El Salvador sit at odds with the state department's own report from a year earlier, which described the situation in Hungary as 'deteriorating', while highlighting 'arbitrary killings', 'enforced disappearance' and 'torture' in El Salvador. In April, a delegation of EU lawmakers warned that the rule of law in Hungary is 'rapidly going in the wrong direction' under Viktor Orbán's government. They highlighted threats to press freedom and targeting of minorities. In June a law banning content about LGBTQ+ people from schools and TV was found to violate basic human rights and freedom of expression by a scholar at the European court of justice. Meanwhile, activists and opposition leaders in El Salvador have warned the country is on the path towards dictatorship after its congress scrapped presidential term limits, paving the way for President Nayib Bukele to seek indefinite re-election. Bukele's hardline approach to crime has been accompanied by an assault on civil society and democratic institutions. Orbán and Bukele have both positioned themselves as Trump adherents – with El Salvador opening up a notorious mega-prison to detain US deportees. Orbán, who came to power in 2010, was once described as 'Trump before Trump' by the US president's former adviser Steve Bannon. France, Germany and the United Kingdom are among the European countries singled out as having seen a worsening human rights situation. The picture is a far cry from the previous report, which saw no significant changes. Criticism over the handling of free speech – in particular relating to regulations on online hate speech – was directed at the governments of the UK, Germany and France. The criticism comes despite the US itself moving aggressively to deny or strip visas of foreign nationals over their statements and social media postings, especially student activists who have criticised Israel. Since being returning to power, Trump and his administration have stepped up criticism of traditional allies – in February the vice-president, JD Vance, accused European leaders of suppressing free speech, failing to halt illegal migration and running in fear from voters' true beliefs. The report also singles out Brazil, where Trump has decried the prosecution of former president Jair Bolsonaro. Brazil, the report says, has 'undermined democratic debate by restricting access to online content deemed to 'undermine democracy.'' The report's section on Israel and the Palestinian territories is much shorter than last year's edition and contains no mention of the severe humanitarian crisis or death toll in Gaza. It acknowledges cases of arbitrary arrests and killings by Israel but says authorities took 'credible steps' to identify those responsible. More than 61,000 people have been killed in Gaza, the Gaza health ministry says, as a result of Israel's military assault after an attack by Palestinian militant group Hamas in October 2023 in which 1,200 people were killed. Sections within the report highlighting discrimination have been vastly pared back. Any criticism focused on LGBTQI rights, gender-based violence or racial and ethnic violence which appeared in Biden administration editions of the report, appear to have been largely removed. A group of former state department officials called some omissions 'shocking,' particularly highlighting the lack of detail on Uganda, which in 2023 saw the passing of some of the harshest anti-LGBTQ+ laws in the world, including the death penalty for some homosexual acts. For decades, the report has been used as a blueprint of reference for global rights advocacy – but critics have labelled this year's edition politically driven. 'The report demonstrates what happens when political agendas take priority over the facts,' says Josh Paul, a former state department official, adding 'the outcome is a much-abbreviated product that is more reflective of a Soviet propaganda.' In April, secretary of state Marco Rubio wrote an opinion piece saying the bureau that prepares the report had become a platform for 'left-wing activists,' and vowed that the Trump administration would reorient it to focus on 'western values'. State department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said the report was restructured to improve readability and was no longer an expansive list of 'politically biased demands and assertions'. Democratic party lawmakers, however, have accused Trump and Rubio of treating human rights only as a 'cudgel' against adversaries, in a statement released this week. Rubio's state department has 'shamelessly turned a once-credible tool of US foreign policy mandated by Congress into yet another instrument to advance Maga political grievances and culture war obsessions,' said Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. With Reuters
