Will Leaving the Council of Europe Solve the Refugee Crisis?

The United Kingdom's refugee and asylum policy has long been a contentious issue which requires careful consideration of balancing national sovereignty with adhering to international obligations. With increasing pressures from rising asylum applications and the accompanying political debates, some people have proposed that leaving the Council of Europe (CoE) might offer a solution to these challenges. To understand the potential impact of such a move, it is essential to consider the role of the CoE, the implications of leaving, and whether it addresses the core issues caused by the refugee crisis.

The CoE, established in 1949, is a significant international organisation committed to promoting human rights, democracy, and the rule of law across Europe. One of its cornerstone achievements is the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which has significantly limited what the UK can do to deter influx of asylum seekers and refugees in small boats. The ECHR, enforced by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), obliges member states to uphold a range of fundamental human rights, including the right to seek asylum. This legal framework has profoundly influenced the UK's approach to human rights and asylum policies.

The ECtHR plays a critical role in ensuring that member states, including the UK, adhere to the ECHR. Its decisions often have significant implications for national asylum policies, sometimes clashing with the UK government's stance, particularly regarding the treatment and deportation of asylum seekers. Critics argue that the ECtHR's rulings can impede the UK’s ability to implement its asylum policies independently, claiming that this diminishes national sovereignty. Conversely, supporters of the ECHR emphasise its importance in safeguarding essential human rights, as it provides a check against potential government overreach.

Leaving the CoE would mean that the UK is no longer bound by the ECHR or subject to the jurisdiction of the ECtHR. This newfound autonomy could potentially allow the UK to implement more stringent asylum policies and expedite deportation procedures without the legal constraints imposed by the ECHR. Proponents argue that this would give the UK greater control over its borders and immigration policies in a way that reflects public opinion and prioritises domestic interests.

However, such a move could significantly damage the UK's international reputation. The CoE is widely regarded as a key institution in upholding human rights in Europe. Exiting the CoE could be interpreted as the UK retreating from its longstanding commitment to human rights, which would likely draw criticism from other nations and international organisations. This could weaken the UK's position in international diplomacy and its moral authority on human rights issues.

Moreover, leaving the CoE would not address the underlying causes of refugee movements, such as armed conflicts, political persecution, and economic deprivation in various parts of the world. These root causes will continue to drive people to seek refuge in the UK and other safer, more prosperous nations, regardless of the UK's membership in the CoE. Furthermore, while the UK might gain more leeway to enforce stricter policies, implementing such policies would require significant resources and infrastructure. Additionally, the UK would still be bound by other international agreements, such as the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which obligates the protection of refugees and human rights.

Domestic political dynamics also play a crucial role in the formation and implementation of refugee and asylum policies. There is unlikely to be unanimous support within the UK for leaving the CoE. Many political figures, human rights organisations, and advocacy groups would likely oppose such a move due to concerns about potential human rights violations. Public opinion would also be divided, as some people would advocate for greater control over immigration while many others would value the UK's commitment to upholding human rights standards.

In addition, stricter policies might deter some asylum seekers but could exacerbate the suffering of those genuinely fleeing persecution. As a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UK has a duty to maintain its humanitarian obligations and ensure that any new measures do not violate fundamental human rights. The 1951 Refugee Convention also significantly limits the measures the UK can adopt to deter the influx of refugees and asylum seekers. Therefore, leaving the CoE would not enable the UK to do whatever it wants to combat the refugee problem.

Rather than exiting the CoE, the UK could explore alternative strategies to address its refugee challenges. Strengthening regional cooperation with European and international partners can help address the root causes of migration and improve the efficiency of processing and resettlement mechanisms. Investing in faster and more efficient asylum processing systems could reduce backlogs and ensure timely decisions, alleviating some of the pressures on the system.

Moreover, enhancing support for regions affected by conflict and disaster could mitigate the factors driving people to seek asylum. Improved integration programmes could help refugees contribute positively to society, reduce public concerns and foster social cohesion. Addressing the issues holistically, rather than simply leaving the CoE, would allow the UK to manage the refugee situation more effectively without compromising its commitment to human rights.

In conclusion, leaving the CoE is unlikely to be a comprehensive solution to the UK's refugee problem. While it might offer more control over domestic asylum policy, it fails to address the fundamental causes of migration and could have severe repercussions for the UK's international standing and human rights commitments. A holistic approach, involving addressing the root causes of displacement, improving asylum processing systems, and enhancing international cooperation, is likely to yield better results in managing the refugee situation.