Totally unrelated to the scale of payments, though, is the scale of asylum in each country. According to Eurostat figures (cited by the European Commission
), while the UK took six percent of EU asylum seekers in 2014, France took 11 percent, the same as Italy, with Sweden taking 14 percent and Germany 35 percent.
Effectively, nothing anywhere, by way of substantive evidence, suggests that the UK is particularly attractive to asylum seekers. Nor is there any correlation between treatment, payments and numbers. And, in quantum terms, the UK's 31,945 asylum applications in 2014 represented only five percent of gross immigration
(641,000 people) in the same period.
From this we also see that asylum seekers – at least numerically – are not the major problem nor one which is amenable to tweaking asylum conditions. Yet Green – in a mirror image of the Farage doctrine
- wants there to be a "full search of trucks as they arrive at Dover, and that migrants discovered there (or subsequently at motorway service stations) should be taken to detention centres near by".
These centres, writes Green, "should be 'one stop shops' that consider any asylum claims rapidly and on site; those who fail should be held until they can be removed". Helpfully, he then tells us, "If this requires changes in the present law then so be it".
So we come full circle. The law – unspecified – is the 1951 Geneva Convention, the one which he does not mention. Yet, as we see here
"fast track" asylum seekers (those judged unlikely to be given refugee status) are already detained. The system already works in a way the Green is advocating, insofar as it can.
All we are getting from Green, therefore, is another dose of confusion, another pundit who can't even be bothered to consult the extensive literature and research data already available, in order to get his terminology right and talk coherently about complex and diverse problems.
With his input, therefore, once again the legacy media gets it wrong – "the naming of parts" a distant ritual that no longer applies to those who would claim to keep us informed, but who do an increasingly shoddy job.