WHEN it comes to asylum there is almost no lunacy too, well, lunatic to become a reality.
But try this for size: there are nearly 10,000 migrants in France who have made their way across Europe to Calais, in what has become known as the Jungle. They are, to put it mildly, a big problem, not just for the town but for France itself.
And yet the former – and if he gets his way, the next – French president Nicolas Sarkozy is suggesting that the problem is not France’s but Britain’s. You read that right. The migrants are in France, not Britain. None of them has the least connection with Britain. They have no British relatives. They have never set foot in Britain.
They are asylum seekers – in France. It is France that admitted them, not Britain. And yet Mr Sarkozy says they are Britain’s problem, not France’s. He says that we should process their asylum applications in France and then move the Jungle camp to Britain. His reasoning? They want to live in Britain. And that’s it.
It puts a new gloss on lunacy. For one thing the most fundamental rule of asylum is that they should apply for it in the first place they reach. That is the crux of all this because France is not even the first place they have reached, let alone Britain, which of course they haven’t reached. I told you it was lunatic.
At this point I should make clear that there’s a deliberate mistake in the above. When I say that France has “admitted” them that’s not entirely right. No one in France – not border officials, not the police, not anyone – has taken the decision directly to let them come to France. Because France is a member of the Schengen Agreement it has no borders with other members.
GETTY
So migrants are free to travel throughout Europe to France and get as near as they can to the border with Britain. This is at every stage a French problem. It is the French who have decided to scrap their borders with other Schengen members. It is the French whose policy has led to the influx of migrants.
And it is the French who have allowed the Jungle to grow and the problem to fester. The mayor of Calais Natacha Bouchart is clear about this. Last week she said that the French police cannot deal with the “uncontrollable” gangs that effectively run the Jungle camp and demanded that President François Hollande send in the army. As she put it: “It has been over a year since I have been asking for the army to come.”
According to Ms Bouchart, President Hollande is uninterested. But instead of dealing with their problem, of their making, in their country, a growing number of French politicians are joining Nicolas Sarkozy in trying to shift the problem to the UK. Alain Juppé, Mr Sarkozy’s main rival for the right to challenge President Hollande in next year’s presidential election, has also attacked the current arrangement, known as the Le Touquet Accord.
As has Marine Le Pen, the National Front leader. And as has Xavier Bertrand, the leader of the northern France region. As things stand under the 2003 agreement – negotiated by Mr Nicolas Sarkozy when he was interior minister – British border officials are allowed on French soil to carry out checks.
Anyone without the right paperwork is refused entry. Those turned away then have to apply for residence in France – in theory, although many remain there illegally. Last year UK Border Force officials in France caught 84,088 migrants trying to cross the Channel hiding in lorries, cars and trains: one every six minutes.
That number has trebled already year on year. There are reciprocal arrangements in the UK: anyone who has travelled to France on the Eurostar will have had their passport checked by French officials at King’s Cross station in London.
This works in France’s best interests. Without the British officials’ presence in Calais it would be even more of a magnet for migrants to France who were seeking to get to the UK, especially as France has decided to do without border controls.
And if Mr Sarkozy’s idea of a British “hotspot” in Calais was implemented, where British officials processed asylum applications, it would not only be against the rules of asylum it would lead to even more migrants making their way to Calais. Useless as President Hollande may be, even he sees this.
But now that the opening salvoes of the 2017 election campaign are under way his opponents see Brit bashing as electoral gold. President Hollande is doomed to defeat. The issue is which Right-wing candidate will emerge to fight him and Ms Le Pen for the presidency. This means that the next president is likely to have campaigned to end the Le Touquet Accord.
GETTY
So despite the harm it would do France to end it, this is unlikely to be an issue that will go away. We must stand firm. Apparently a senior British official has already made a thinly veiled threat: “They depend on us for a lot of security advice and co-operation after the Nice attack.
There are other elements in our security relationship that I don’t think they would be interested in having changed.” Yesterday Home Secretary Amber Rudd met her French counterpart, interior minister Bernard Cazeneuve. She made it clear that we will not budge on this. But you can bet this is going to run and run.
What is the Le Touquet agreement? Could the British border checks be moved from Calais?
THE HOME SECRETARY is visiting France today to bat down suggestions that the Le Touquet agreement could be scrapped and border controls moved to Kent. But what is the agreement?
Amber Rudd is set to meet her French counterpart after several French politicians called for the treaty to be ripped up and the British border be moved from Calais to Kent.
This would result in thousands more asylum seekers landing on British soil and setting up camp around Dover. A Home Office source rubbished the proposed move and called it a “complete non-starter”.
What is the Le Touquet agreement?
The Le Touquet agreement is a bilateral treaty between Britain and France which established juxtaposed border controls in each country.
Under the deal, British immigration officials check passports and inspect vehicles in Calais, with their French counterparts doing the same in Dover.
Juxtaposed controls had been in force since 1994 on the Channel Tunnel, but the treaty extended the deal to also cover ferry ports.
This allows UK officials to intercept illegal immigrants before they step foot on British soil.
The treaty was signed by the then President Jacques Chirac and ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair on February 4, 2004, and came into power one year later.
Who is calling for the British border checks to be moved?
Several French politicians have called for the agreement to be scrapped and the British border checks be moved back to Dover.
He has said that those refused entry to the UK would be deported to their home country by French officials.
Ahead of the EU referendum, Mr Bertrand threatened that the border checks would be moved to Dover if the UK voted for Brexit.
He said: “We will not continue to guard the border for Britain if it’s no longer in the European Union.”
He told a rally: "I'm demanding the opening of a centre in Britain to deal with asylum seekers so that Britain can do the work that concerns them.”
Mr Sarkozy’s Republican rival, Alain Juppe, has also called for the agreement to be scrapped. He said: “We must move the border back to where it belongs.”
If the border checks were moved, the Calais Jungle would be moved to Britain. French politicians are keen on such a move as they spends considerable resources policing the camp.
It would however be in violation of EU rules, which clearly state that asylum seekers should be processed in the country where they first arrive.
The current French Government has confirmed that President Hollande will not push the border checks back to Britain.
Bernard Cazeneuve, the Interior Minister, said: “It would send a signal to people smugglers and would lead migrants to flow to Calais in far greater numbers. A humanitarian disaster would ensue.”
GETTYWhat has Amber Rudd and the British Home Office said?
Ms Rudd is travelling to France to discuss migration and security with her French counterpart, Mr Cazeneuve.
Ahead of the meeting, a Home Office source called any amendments to the Le Touquet agreement “a complete non-starter”.
They added: “The Home Secretary is crystal clear that people in need of protection should seek asylum in the first safe country they enter. That's the long-held international norm, and we're going to stick to it.”
The EU’s Dublin Regulation states that “those in need of protection should seek asylum in the first safe country they enter.”
A Government spokesman said: ”We remain committed to working together to protect our shared border in Calais and to maintain the juxtaposed controls.
"The French Government have repeatedly made it clear that removing the juxtaposed controls would not be in the interests of France.
