The Tribune

The harrowing images of desperate refugees highlight the immigration crisis facing the European Union. Peter Young looks at the problem and its implications for Britain

Distressing scenes of huge numbers of people from Africa and the Middle East attempting to find a safe haven in Europe continue to dominate the international news.

Described as a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions and the worst refugee crisis in Europe since the Second World War, this mass movement of human beings has at the same time developed in to an intractable problem for the European Union (EU), which is unable to control migration across the borders of its individual countries.

The origins of the crisis stem from political and economic chaos in nations on the continent of Africa like Libya, Eritrea and Somalia and from war-torn Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Some are genuine refugees escaping persecution and death in their own countries while others are economic migrants looking for a better life in European countries with relatively strong economies and well-developed systems of social order and justice.

The situation has deteriorated progressively with a recent surge in migration in the face of the unimaginable excesses of ISIS and its sustained orgy of violence resulting in a fresh wave of terror in Syria and Iraq. In July, there was a record high of 107,500 people at the borders of the EU, mainly Italy, Greece and Hungary.

Not only have large numbers been drowned as a result of crossing seas with too many huddled in unsafe vessels but those taking the overland route through Macedonia and Serbia to Hungary are also suffering.

There have been harrowing scenes at Budapest station of overcrowding in sweltering trains and clashes with police as well as the ultimate horror of migrants suffocating in a sealed airless truck parked on a major highway. Most recently, the terrible images of two small boys with their mother drowning in waters near Greece have shocked people around the world.

The migrants’ destinations of choice are Germany, Britain and France. Having landed in an EU country, there is no bar to their reaching any other country within the Union thanks to the Schengen Agreement, incorporated into EU law in 1995, which abolished internal borders and passport checks among its signatories. So, once they are in, the refugees can travel unhindered across all 26 countries (the UK and Ireland did not adhere to the agreement).

Notwithstanding Britain’s opt-out of Schengen, one result is the encampment in the northern French port of Calais of large numbers of migrants who have ended up there in their bid to reach Britain, which is seen as a desirable destination with its system of generous welfare benefits. Over the past year, the French authorities have found it increasingly hard to stop them from climbing onto lorries and trains travelling through the tunnel under the English Channel (or even from trying to walk through the tunnel).

The disorder has had a knock-on effect so that normal cross-channel traffic has been disrupted and there has been chaos in the south-east of England, with thousands of lorries facing serious delays and having to be parked on the main motorway to London from the port of Dover.

The reaction of EU leaders to this mounting catastrophe has been to insist that a solution to the problem should be shared by all EU member states so that Italy, whose island of Lampedusa migrants head for across the Mediterranean from North Africa, Hungary and Greece, whose islands are a magnet for those from the Middle East and Turkey, should not be left to bear the brunt. In Turkey alone there are some two million Syrian refugees, many of whom want to travel to Western Europe. Germany, in particular, which has agreed to accept 800,000 asylum seekers, has called for an equitable distribution of migrants.

The EU Commission - as well as, notably, France - have demanded that while migrants should be treated with dignity and respect in ‘welcome centres’, with deserving cases offered the fundamental right of political asylum, the common EU border created by Schengen should be secured and the EU should tackle the criminal gangs of people smugglers and disrupt their activities.

As the crisis deepens, the sanctity of the Schengen Agreement itself is now under threat, not least because an unintended consequence of Germany’s public commitment to take large numbers of migrants is to attract even more and to dissuade them from registering as refugees in Italy, Greece and Hungary as the first points of entry to the EU.

Furthermore, observers now believe that more and more economic migrants seeking a better life are joining those who are genuinely fleeing from conflict in their home countries. But, to those in the EU who want it to be a single country, the scrapping of internal borders was an essential part of the European dream, with the EU Commission regarding Schengen as Europe’s greatest achievement.

As for Britain, until recently Prime Minister David Cameron agreed to take in only a handful of migrants and was facing criticism for not being more supportive of his EU colleagues. But, in response to further public and political pressure, he has now announced an expanded direct resettlement plan involving thousands; and Britain has also contributed substantial humanitarian aid, in particular for Syrian refugee camps.

Despite this, critics still demand that more should be done, citing not only humanitarian reasons but also the moral obligation of the West which destabilised the Middle East by invading Iraq and helped to depose Gadaffi in Libya which has resulted in conflict and chaos in North Africa. Thus, they claim, Western countries are now reaping the consequences of the damage they sowed.

Over the years, Britain has had a proud record of providing sanctuary to refugees fleeing from religious and political persecution in their homelands - the Huguenots in the early 18th century, the Jews escaping from Nazi Germany in the 1930s and the Ugandan Asians in the 1970s, not to mention countless deserving and vulnerable individuals who have been given asylum (latest figures show that there were some 25,000 asylum applications in the year to March, 2015). But in a relatively small country further mass immigration has become increasingly impracticable. Moreover, the issue has now changed because of the nation’s obligation as an EU member state to adhere to the long standing and core EU principle of free movement within its 28 member states.

Partly as a result of the Blair government’s policy of multiculturalism and open door immigration Britain has become almost chronically overcrowded. The most recent statistics show the population has reached a new high of 65 million, which is projected to rise by some 20 per cent over the next three decades. Despite Mr Cameron’s guarantee to slash net immigration, during the 12 months to March this year 330,000 more people - of which 269,000 were EU citizens - arrived in the UK than left, and he himself has admitted that this level of increase is unsustainable.

So, even if a solution can be found to the current crisis, the immigration issue will remain a hot potato for the new Conservative government because of the EU dimension. Indeed, polls suggest that immigration is now of greater concern to the public than the economy.

While the nation can set its own rules for non-EU immigration, the simple fact is that as an EU member it cannot control which EU citizens can settle there and in what numbers. Efforts to dissuade the latter from coming by tightening up on benefits and requiring evidence of having a job in advance may restrict the flow. But at least such issues will be included in the Prime Minister’s current renegotiation of Britain’s EU membership.

Be that as it may, attitudes seem to be hardening. Home Secretary Theresa May has raised questions about EU free movement, saying that this has allowed jobless citizens to transfer to other countries in search of work, thus placing pressure on those countries’ public services, whereas it should mean freedom to move to a job not to look for work or claim benefits.

Globalisation has brought increased international co-operation and movement of people around the world, but individual countries should surely retain the right to secure their borders; not to prevent immigration but, in the interests of their own citizens, to regulate and control it. Thereafter, they should be able to apply immigration controls which, for humanitarian, social and practical reasons, allow the admission of those in genuine danger or need as well as others who are in a position to contribute economically or in the cultural sphere. At the same time, vigorous criteria should be drawn up in order to distinguish between refugees and economic migrants who are simply seeking a better life in richer countries.

Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump maintains that the first step to control illegal immigration to the US is to build a wall on its southern border. For its part, Britain already has a natural wall in the shape of the English Channel. The trick now is to ensure it provides an effective barrier to the ever growing numbers of illegal migrants.

• Peter Young is a retired British diplomat living in Nassau. From 1996 to 2000 he was British High Commissioner to The Bahamas.