Vocal Voices

In a manic attempt to deal with the fact that they are going to have to take up to another 1M Syrians for those deported back to Turkey, the EU is intending to revoke the Dublin agreement, where it is incumbent on countries to return the illegal asylum seekers to the first country of entry into the EU if they don't want them and replace it with a system of quotas which will be managed by the EU and the EU border forces at the point of entry.

So, in short, because we didn't deport all those illegals who managed to make it to the EU, we won't be able to. Although it will probably impact France more as they won't be able to get rid of the lot around Calais either...

Your EU. Working for itself to cover up it's own mistakes.

I thought that Dublin was supposed to introduce a database to stop multiple applications for asylum in different EU countries, and to return the applicant to the first port of entry regardless of what the applicant wants. In some ways it was further enacting International law.

If the EU did away with it, Dublin, and applied International Law it would be a good thing. All migrants from Turkey could be rounded up and returned back there without any 'deals' or payments.

It would be more difficult with those crossing the Med from N. Africa, but they could also be put in camps to be processed. There is no requirement for the Italians, the main landing place, to give them citizenship or passports, and without them Schengen works.

No if they do away with Dublin, then everyone who has arrived is assessed by the EU and then a decision is made by the EU to either send them back or distribute them around the EU on a quota basis.

The current agreement with Turkey only covers those illegals who came from Turkey and not those coming from North Africa to Italy or Spain.

By removing Dublin without a specific agreement for the UK, it means that UK immigrant return is up to the EU and not the UK. Which might work better for the minor countries, but doesn't work well at all for the UK...

Hang on.

International law trumps national and EU law, for those who have signed up to it. Most EU countries are signatories to International asylum law via the UN and therefore it has precedent.

That law says that asylum seekers must request sanctuary in the first safe state, as defined by the UN. With regards to Syria those states are Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and, due to the Golan Heights, possibly Israel.

The countries of the EU have no legal or moral right, in International law, to take these people in. They have already passed through safe havens according to current law and are therefore 'illegal' immigrants.

True but not what the UN is saying. They are saying "if they can get to you, You are the first state"...

Oh and by UN standards, most of those states are not "safe" because people might be sent back....