Connect with us


UK urged to restart resettlement schemes after migrant drownings



The UK on Wednesday faced calls to reopen its refugee resettlement schemes following the deaths of at least four migrants trying to cross the English Channel, amid increased criticism of how Britain’s asylum system encourages dangerous voyages in small boats.

The calls came as authorities in northern France resumed the search for further victims of the capsized small boat loaded with up to 20 Iranian migrants on Tuesday morning in bad weather off Dunkirk that left two adults and two children dead.

Survivors of the incident, the most deadly in over a year, indicated a baby remained missing. There was no word on Wednesday afternoon of any progress in the search.

None of the UK’s resettlement programmes, which are meant to prioritise bringing the most vulnerable refugees and children from war zones such as Syria, has been operating since March because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Campaigners argue this has left would-be asylum seekers outside the UK with few alternatives to a clandestine Channel crossing.

Priti Patel, the home secretary, has alarmed lawyers and people who work with migrants over her tough approach.

She indicated in a speech this month to the Conservative party conference that she intended to introduce a “two-tier” asylum system: it would prioritise applications from people applying via official resettlement schemes and assume that applicants arriving via routes such as Channel crossings should be rejected.

Home secretary Priti Patel, right, appointed Dan O’Mahoney, left, to head a range of policing and military initiatives to prosecute migrant smugglers ©

“Because of our broken system, the way people arrive in our country makes no difference to how their claim is treated,” Ms Patel told the conference.

Lawyers and migrant rights’ groups are concerned about Ms Patel’s plan because they say it would almost certainly breach the UK’s obligations as a signatory of the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention. This obliges signatories not to discriminate against applicants for asylum who have broken immigration rules to reach their country.

Ms Patel has also appointed Dan O’Mahoney, a former Royal Marine officer, to head a range of policing and military initiatives to prosecute smugglers facilitating crossings and to put logistical barriers in the way of crossings. About 6,000 people have already made the Channel crossing so far this year, more than three times the 1,890 who made the crossing in 2019.

Mr O’Mahoney was in France on Wednesday to discuss with French officials what further steps could be taken to deter migrants from crossing the Channel.

Louise Calvey, head of resettlement for Refugee Action, a group working with migrants, said the “increasing militarisation” of the Channel was unlikely to deter people desperate enough to put their families in flimsy boats in rough weather in October.

“The only thing that will prevent you from doing that is the availability of a safe and legal route if you want to claim asylum in the UK,” Ms Calvey said.

Ms Calvey’s calls were echoed by other groups, including the British Red Cross, the humanitarian organisation.


Number of asylum applications received by France in 2019, compared to 44,200 received by the UK

Jon Featonby, British Red Cross’s refugee and asylum policy manager, pointed out that Ms Patel’s plans included a commitment to create more safe routes for those wanting to claim asylum to reach the UK.

There is also uncertainty about the future of family reunion programmes. The end of the UK’s post-Brexit transition period will take Britain out of the EU’s Dublin Convention, which obliges countries to take back some migrants who have passed through their territory and subsequently sought asylum in another EU state.

“The time to move on this is now,” Mr Featonby said of safe routes. “This should begin with the restarting of the resettlement programme and the protection of existing family reunion routes as the UK leaves the EU.”

Chris Philp, the immigration enforcement minister, said in a written parliamentary answer this month that resettlement programmes would resume as soon as it was safe to do so. The UK has been seeking to negotiate a deal with the EU over future transfers of asylum seekers once the UK leaves the Dublin Convention.

UK ministers and officials have swung between criticising the French authorities for doing too little to stop crossings and praising their efforts. Mr O’Mahoney on Monday tweeted that the French authorities had stopped 650 people crossing last week alone.

However, there has also been frustration from some French politicians at the UK’s sense that it faces an intolerable burden from asylum seekers. France last year received 138,000 asylum applications, compared to 44,200 received by the UK in the same period.

Ms Patel has portrayed her plans for an overhaul as part of making the system firmer and fairer. She told the Conservative conference that her two-tier plan would free up the system to handle claims more quickly and eliminate the current long delays.

At the end of June this year, more than 30,000 people — or 68 per cent of people waiting for a decision on an asylum claim — had been waiting more than six months, the maximum time a decision is meant to take.

However, many people working in the field believe that even the reopening of safe routes is unlikely to stamp out demand from people trying to reach the UK via clandestine means.

Colin Yeo, a barrister specialising in asylum, said that, while safe routes could help, there were no “simple, straightforward solutions” to managing the migration of desperate and persecuted people in a time of global unrest.

“You can look at doing lots of different things,” Mr Yeo said. “But in a sense it’s not a problem capable of being completely solved as such.”

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


France threatens to cut power to Jersey as fishing tensions rise




France has threatened to cut off its power supply to Jersey in the Channel Islands, as tensions rise with the UK over the post-Brexit fishing regime.

Following the UK’s full departure from the bloc in January, French fishermen have expressed concerns at difficulties in receiving the necessary licences to fish in British waters.

The dispute also comes at a time when UK and EU negotiators are in discussions over the 2021 catch quota for shared fishing stocks.

Jersey, the largest channel island and a British crown dependency, receives 95 per cent of its electricity from France through underwater cables. Its foreign policy is governed by the UK, which means it is treated as a third country by the EU.

Annick Girardin, the French maritime minister, told France’s National Assembly she was “revolted” that Jersey had granted 41 fishing licences that included conditions and specific criteria that were “decided unilaterally and without explanation”.

“It’s unacceptable,” she told lawmakers. “We’re ready to resort to retaliatory measures . . . concerning Jersey, I’ll remind you of the transport of electricity via submarine cables.” Girardin added she would “regret” any action but “we’ll do it if we have to”.

French fishermen and ministers have been complaining for two weeks about the difficulty of gaining access to British waters despite the agreement on fisheries reached at the end of last year.

The anger among French fishermen at the delays in receiving licences for fishing in UK has prompted barricades for lorries arriving in Europe with UK-landed fish.

Clement Beaune, France’s junior minister for European Affairs, last week threatened to block regulations that would allow UK financial firms to do business in the EU if Britain does not respect its Brexit commitments on fishing.

Bertrand Sorre, an MP for President Emmanuel Macron’s governing La République en Marche party, gave the example of a fisherman from Granville in Normandy who had previously fished for scallops and whelks for an average of 40 days a year off Jersey; he had been told he could fish for only 11 days this year, and only for scallops.

Ian Gorst, Jersey’s external relations minister, said it had issued the licences in accordance with the UK’s trade and co-operation agreement with the EU and the new regime would “take time for all to adjust”.

“If French fishermen or the authorities have further evidence they would like to submit, we will update the licences to reflect that evidence,” he said in a statement.

The UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “We are clear that Jersey is responsible for its own territorial waters.”

UK business minister Nadhim Zahawi urged both sides to “iron out” issues with fishing. “We’ve got to look at this urgently and the best way to fix this is to work together,” he told Sky News.

A senior UK official said the government had been taken aback by the strength of the French reaction, which was seen as an “aggressive escalation” given that the UK had been working together on the question of licensing. “It’s a strange way to behave, from what is meant to be a friendly country,” they added.

Source link

Continue Reading


Hello, Berlin? Germany’s future raises foreign policy concerns for allies




The writer is Fritz Stern chair at the Brookings Institution

President Joe Biden has made it clear that he really, really wants to work with Europe. After the four traumatic years of the Trump presidency, that seems an opportunity not to be missed. Also, Moscow and Beijing are undeterred by US and EU sanctions over the jailing of Russian dissident Alexei Navalny and the mistreatment of Uyghurs in China.

They are dialling up the pressure on Europe with countersanctions, expulsions of diplomats and thuggish-sounding threats. But in Brussels, EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen is fighting with European Council president Charles Michel over charges of sexism and a Turkish sofa, instead of getting a grip on a double-dip recession and the pandemic.

British premier Boris Johnson is in trouble over costly wallpaper. French president Emmanuel Macron, up for re-election in 2022, is neck-and-neck in the polls with his far-right rival Marine Le Pen, while retired and current military officers are warning of civil war.

This would seem to be the moment for Germany, as a responsible neighbour, to step up and help out. But Europe’s most powerful economy is going to the polls even sooner than France: on September 26. As the 16-year tenure of Chancellor Angela Merkel comes to a close, the six parties scrambling to rule in the post-Merkel era are somewhat less than focused on goings-on beyond Germany’s borders.

The reason is the fragmentation of Germany’s colour-coded party landscape. In current polling, the Greens are fighting for first place with the CDU (black) at about 25 per cent, with the Social Democrats (red) far behind at 15 per cent, followed by the liberal Free Democrats (yellow) and the Left party (dark red) at around 11 per cent each.

The far-right Alternative for Germany is so radical that Germany’s domestic intelligence service wants to place it under observation. No other party will work with it, but it still captures about a tenth of the vote. This increases the likelihood that Germany’s next government will be a three-way coalition, with a kaleidoscope of possible combinations: black-green (or the reverse, with the CDU as junior partner); “Jamaica” (CDU-Greens-liberals); “traffic light” (Greens-SPD-liberals); and finally, “R2G” (SPD-Left-Greens).

This is why the small parties’ ideas suddenly matter. But in terms of foreign and security policy, none of the five presents a fully reassuring image to a neighbour or ally of Germany.

The Left party’s only path to government is R2G, a goal the powerful leftwings in the Greens and the SPD have been actively pursuing. But the Left too has radicalised, shedding its once influential east German pragmatists. Its new top duo opposes military engagement abroad of any kind. But it is also apparently clueless about pensions, and that may alienate its base.

The FDP has cabinet-ready experts on finance, digital issues and foreign and security policy — and a liability in Christian Lindner, their leader. The CDU and Greens are still smarting because of his petulant walkout from coalition negotiations in 2017. Last year, he faced a revolt in his own party after supporting the decision of a regional liberal politician to let himself be elected state governor with the AfD’s help.

The SPD’s Olaf Scholz is caught in a double bind. As Merkel’s finance minister, the opposition accuses him of oversight failures in a spate of financial scandals. As candidate for chancellor, he has seen the SPD leadership wrench the party to the left with anti-nuclear slogans reminiscent of the 1980s. Fritz Felgentreu, one of several seasoned legislators to resign in protest, calls his party’s security policy a “smouldering fire”.

Armin Laschet, the CDU candidate, has come under fire for sounding soft on Syria, Russia and China. Yet his real problems are corruption scandals and circling party frenemies. His party may be dealt another blow in next month’s state elections in Saxony-Anhalt, where some polls have the AfD in close pursuit.

All this does much to explain the rise of the Greens and Annalena Baerbock, their laser-focused candidate. Her criticism of China, the Kremlin and the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project is music to Washington’s ears. Yet the party’s feisty base has had ferocious fights over defence spending and nuclear deterrence. Its reliability as a partner is by no means guaranteed.

Of course, elections are generally not fought, or won, on foreign policy. But German voters would do well to remember that their country’s wealth and power depends on the stability and security of its neighbourhood. Maybe it is time to pay attention, and get a little worried. Its neighbours and allies already are.

Source link

Continue Reading


Denmark drops J&J Covid vaccine over blood clot concerns




Denmark became the first country to drop the Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 shot from its vaccination programme owing to blood clot concerns, weeks after also excluding the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab.

The Danish health authority said on Monday it had concluded that the benefits of the J&J vaccine did not outweigh its risks given that the country had the pandemic “under control” and had decent supplies of other jabs.

Deputy director-general Helene Probst said that Denmark would in the coming weeks be mostly vaccinating “younger and healthy people” and that the risk of causing severe blood clots weighed heavier than what it would lose from not using the jab to fight the spread of Covid.

“In the midst of an epidemic, this has been a difficult decision to make, especially since we have also had to discontinue using the Covid-19 vaccine from AstraZeneca,” she added.

Denmark is one of the European countries that has come furthest with reopening its society after Covid thanks to its “coronapas”, a certificate that states whether somebody has been vaccinated, had a recent negative test, or recovered from coronavirus in the past six months.

Bottled of the J&J vaccine
The Danish health authority said it had concluded that the benefits of the J&J vaccine did not outweigh its risks © Jorge Guerrero/AFP/Getty

The government removed the AstraZeneca jab from its vaccine programme owing to a rare, unusual set of symptoms — including blood clots, bleeding, and low levels of platelets — identified in some people who had received the shot. The first death of somebody with such symptoms — a 60-year-old woman — was reported in Denmark in early March. US authorities have since said that some people using the J&J vaccine, which has never been used in Denmark, had similar symptoms.

Denmark has almost offered everybody aged 65-74 a first dose of a vaccine and will soon start vaccinating those younger than that. The Danish health authority said the decision to drop J&J would particularly affect those aged 20-39, who now face a delay of up to four weeks, meaning everyone would be fully vaccinated by late August.

Denmark’s prime minister Mette Frederiksen had previously hailed the J&J jab as a “potential game-changer” as the vaccine requires only one dose, whereas the jabs developed by BioNTech/Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca all require two shots.

The decision underscores how EU countries are increasingly turning towards the Pfizer and Moderna shot, which are both mRNA-based vaccines. Most EU nations have restarted use of the AstraZeneca shot but many have age restrictions, such as Sweden and Finland, which are only using it for over 65s.

An expert commission in Norway will report by next Monday on how the country should use the AstraZeneca and J&J vaccines. Health authorities there recommended dropping AstraZeneca as Denmark had done, but the government was worried about its implications for J&J, which it had originally foreseen as using to vaccinate most people aged 18-45.

J&J said that two weeks ago, the EU’s medicine advisory committee had “confirmed the overall benefit-risk profile of the vaccine remains positive”. 

“We believe a single-shot, easily transportable Covid-19 vaccine with demonstrated protection against multiple variants can help protect the health and safety of people everywhere,” the company added.

Additional reporting from Nikou Asgari in New York

Source link

Continue Reading