Blunkett defends EU asylum agreement
The Home Secretary David Blunkett has strongly defended the UK’s decision to move towards qualified majority voting on European asylum matters.
Meeting yesterday, the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council supported increased collaboration on immigration and asylum but not control of the matter from Brussels. Similarly, member-states would retain control of entry and continue to set terms of rights to remain, the Home Secretary told MPs.
The Government has been keen to portray this as a sensible move, in which Britain will retain full control of its own borders, but the Conservatives claim that Britain’s sovereignty will be diminished.
Speaking in the Commons this lunchtime, in response to an urgent question from Shadow Home Secretary David Davis, Mr Blunkett stressed that the UK’s right to “opt in” to immigration and asylum provision remained.
Under the new process, unanimous agreement from all countries will not be needed on EU asylum and immigration matters, instead debates will be concluded under the qualified majority voting system. For Britain this means that they will no longer be able to block policies being passed by the EU, the so-called “end” of the national veto, which is at the centre of the Tories’ accusations. But the Government stresses it retains an “opt-in” position so that it will not be forced to sign up to policies if it disagrees with them
The final decision on whether to adopt new voting arrangements will be taken during the European Council meeting in Brussels on November 5th.
Defending the principles of co-operation, Mr Blunkett stated that Britain’s involvement in EU asylum policy gave it the opportunity to push a “balanced and sensible policy” and ensure that “our interests are put at the forefront of European debate”.
The Home Secretary said that British sovereignty would be maintained and that ministers could decline to participate in measures that did not benefit the UK.
Responding, Mr Davis accused the Government of using the “politics of confusion” to disguise the loss of the UK’s veto.
He said that he greeted Mr Blunkett’s reassurance with a “great deal of scepticism”, saying that loosing the veto is a “matter of constitutional importance”. He claimed that once Britain has decided to “opt-in” to a European policy, they would be unable to opt-out at a later date even if the policy is interpreted by the European courts as being against Britain’s interests.
The Conservative spokesman accused the Government of being “helpless and pathetic” and failing to protect the UK’s borders. Linking the debate with the European Constitution, Mr Davis alleged that the Government was seeking to implement by stealth many of its provisions so as to present it as a fait accompli and “undermine” the promised referendum.
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Mark Oaten, however said the Government had done “the right thing” in agreeing to move away from the veto, but called into question plans to include facial biometrics on passports, citing reports over its unreliability.
The Liberal Democrats believed, he said, that Britain should be safe haven for asylum seekers, but added that other European countries should play their role too. He expressed confusion over Conservative opposition to the move, pointing out that they had long argued that Britain was overburdened and called for other countries to do their share.
