Euroscepticism starts at Calais

Another “Europe means chaos” story means the current crisis over migrants at the Channel appears to be manna to British Eurosceptics. In their prejudiced minds, we know who they really think ‘starts at Calais’.

But as I’ve debated with them on local radio in my own East of England constituency over the past few days, not only have I been shocked by their callous disregard for the humanitarian consequences of the current crisis but also by the cynicism with which every fact is distorted to justify the anti-European cause.

For pro-Europeans, if we want to win the EU referendum, we have to meet their brazen falsehoods by being forthright with our own simple truths:

Calais is not a Europe problem. It actually proves we don’t have the “open borders,” which they try to claim.  Britain is no ‘soft touch’ on giving benefits to foreign migrants. Labour’s Human Rights Act is no impediment to Britain being able to return illegal migrants. The call to bring in the British armed forces reveals the utter hypocrisy of Eurosceptics themselves.

Let’s take these one-by-one.

IT ISN’T A EUROPE PROBLEM

First, the idea that the tens of thousands killed and millions displaced in Syria’s five year civil war or the hundreds a day forced from Eritrea, rated by human rights groups as the most repressive country in the world, are all the creation of Brussels, is absurd. Yet these are the majority amongst those at Calais.  Common solutions for resettlement means Europe can be part of the solution but the EU cannot be characterised as part of the problem.

A variant on the Eurosceptic argument is that it is all the fault of the Cameron/Sarkozy-led military intervention which fragmented Libya, opening up the escape route to the Mediterranean.  Of course this was a nation state response not a European one, and I feel little need to defend David Cameron. But am I the only person to find it sickening that a party which openly flirts with Islamophobia like UKIP, is suddenly the champion of the righteousness of Colonel Gaddafi and leading apologist for inaction over the rise of jihadist terrorism in the form of ISIS/Da’esh?

Labour must always argue dealing with root causes, which means putting the case for development and for conflict-resolution in all the countries which are the source of migration.

Across the deserts of North Africa and the Middle East, it seems Eurosceptics only want to bury their heads in the sand.

FAR FROM ‘OPEN BORDERS’

Meanwhile no Eurosceptic politician loses a single opportunity to repeat that Labour’s European policies supposedly left Britain with ‘open borders’, despite the fact that Britain has never joined the Schengen zone for borderless travel in continental Europe and has agreed only to ‘opt-in’ to EU immigration policies, giving us the absolute veto that Eurosceptics crave. What the Calais crisis shows beyond doubt in questioning the effectiveness of border controls is that those borders are far from open, even if there is a proper discussion about how effectively they are policed.

Indeed Labour’s call for France to compensate British business and travellers greatly inconvenienced by the events at Calais, is both legally correct and an intelligent political response.  Those who would leave the EU would leave Britons helpless in the current situation.  It is European law deriving from our EU membership which puts an obligation on France to protect our own citizens’ freedom of movement and British business’s freedom to trade in Europe’s Single Market, both of which we should properly cherish.

NO SOFT TOUCH

Next, we have to confront the tabloid mindset that all migrants are headed for Britain because of a benefits system which they claim to be over-generous, and fuelled by the reprehensible rhetoric of David Cameron that migrants are ‘swarming’ towards our shores.

Eurosceptics lack any perspective.

Germany, Austria and Sweden have proven to be far more attractive to migrants from the Mediterranean.  Official UN refugee agency figures show five times the number of asylum applications to Germany compared to Britain, with 20,000 resettled there and less than 200 here. The 3-5,000 refugees who have congregated at Calais is but a small fraction of 220,000 who have entered Greece and Italy in the last year.

The biggest impact of the refugee crisis is actually on countries outside not inside Europe, with Lebanon’s entire population increased by a quarter by the influx.  In contrast, even if everyone at Calais succeeded in getting in to Britain (which I do not advocate), it would raise our own population by only 0.000078%.

Britain’s response is actually very hard-hearted and we are soft only in the head, if we fall for the argument that Britain is a ‘soft touch’ for migrants.

Cameron’s response to announce more controls which he can’t deliver will only make the problem worse.  The Road Haulage Association calls his announcements “inadequate”, while the UK Chamber of Shipping describes them as “not possible”.  But it is the delightfully named “Wagtail UK” – provider of sniffer dogs to Her Majesty’s Government – which almost laughably revealed that they were “unaware” about his announcement for more of their services.

This really is the Eurosceptic tail wagging the Cameron dog – no migrants will be sniffed at, only the rats of his false promises.

HUMAN RIGHTS

However, Calais has given a further opportunity to Cameron himself and to his Eurosceptic backers, once again to conflate the European Union with the European Convention on Human Rights, and to blame the failure to return failed asylum seekers on Labour’s Human Rights Act.

The palpable truth again is that it is the Geneva Convention which establishes the right to seek protection from persecution. The UK Act of course simply means this right is adjudicated by British courts, which you would think Eurosceptics would appreciate.

But it is their refrain that the vast majority of refugees are ‘economic migrants’ which is most disproved in the current crisis. The thousands it is necessary to pay the people-traffickers to get as far as Calais, mean the camps are full of qualified doctors, teachers and lawyers themselves, according to humanitarian agencies like Mèdecins Sans Frontieres who are working there. The fact ten people have died in seven weeks attempting illegal immigration at the Channel, is simply a very sad reflection that the odds of death are very much worse in the countries where they have come from.

This is not about a ‘better life’ but about life at all.

If the migrants in Calais were given proper reception, interviewed and screened, it would be possible to identify those eligible to claim asylum, to organise resettlement accordingly and to facilitate return where they do not.

David Cameron’s own claim that there will be more ‘returns’ of failed asylum seekers jointly with France, would be more credible both if there were any detail to back up his claim and if there were robust systems to identify and support genome asylum seekers in the first place.

Labour must have the courage to combine support for effective controls with equal support for Britain making our own contribution to resettlement. We have to argue that the fight against unfair illegal immigration can never be won without a route for fair legal migration.

Today the nickname for the camps in Calais as ‘the jungle’ is a reflection that the migrants feel they are being treated like animals. Eurosceptics talk about ‘these people’ with a scathing intonation to their voices; we should always talk about human beings – with rights.

Like the laws protecting freedom of movement, in pressing France and other European partners to fulfil their obligations to help resolve the problems of today, human rights should be seen as a friend not enemy.

SEND IN THE ARMY

Finally, is the biggest irony the call from the UKIP leader backed by some Tory backbenchers, to send a new British Expeditionary Force to Northern France?

Put aside their obvious reaction if any French politician were to suggest sending French troops to fill a perceived British shortfall in maintaining public order in Kent.

I can’t exactly see Nigel Farage waving his tri-couleur as the armées françaises descend from the landing craft at Dover.

What grates even more is the hypocrisy of Eurosceptics who have steadfastly argued against defence cooperation in Europe, now suddenly adopting it when it suits them.

I’m all for our armed forces engaging in sensible cooperation on the intelligence, technical and logistical dimension to the current crisis, as I was for Labour’s agreement in 2003 to post British border officials on French and Belgian soil.

But the siren voices of Eurosceptics who have downplayed the success of the European anti-piracy mission in the Horn of Africa, successfully prevented a joint European evacuation when the Libya conflict first flared and who now caution against moves for the EU to help police that country’s borders, should wake up to the logic of the new position which they have taken.

Even then, when the French state has made its own assessment and decided that Calais is a civil matter which requires riot police but not military personnel, it is difficult to see how the new armchair generals amongst British Eurosceptics can come to a different judgment?

It is Eurosceptics not the British army which should be given their marching orders.

The Mediterranean crisis and its offshoot at Calais is best viewed as a humanitarian crisis not a political one.

But for those who are readily seeking to exploit it for political motives, our answers can and must be robust to our critics, whilst remaining steadfastly humane towards the victims.

Richard Howitt MEP is Labour Foreign Affairs Spokesperson in the European Parliament and Labour Euro MP for the East of England