So yesterday I got canned for an interview because the presenter felt the Dublin Regulation was too complicated to get their head around (no names, no pack drill)

Let's see if we can cover the main points in the simplest form known to man: a short Twitter thread

1/

Key point 1: Dublin is about which state decides on asylum claims, not the standards for those claims. UK (like almost every state in world) accepts standards in the UN Refugee Convention. That has been constant (and will be so, even after transition ends)

2/

Key point 2: Dublin exists because asylum-seekers were bouncing around the EU: not good for anyone. Hence the notion that a decision by one EU member on your application would be a decision for all members

3/

Key point 3: The various criteria for deciding who decides are formulated in line with widely-applied principles about family unity and documentation, NOT country of first entry (although the latter is usually the one that is applied most often)

4/

Key point 4: those criteria matter, because they also form the basis of transferring individuals between EU states. That transfer mechanism is what allows for legal return to France, and will stop at the end of this year (there's no equivalent mechanism in international law)

5/

Key point 5: post-transition, UK will not be bound by Dublin, but will still have all its UNRC (and other international) obligations.

EU/France will not be obliged to accept returns across Channel and UK can't force them to

6/

tl;dr Dublin is about internal EU management of asylum applications, not standards, and leaving it means UK has less/no say over how it works/doesn't work

Should also add a note of thanks to @StevePeers for his more complete unpacking of EU law in such matters: http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2020/08/updated-qs-and-as-on-legal-issues-of.html

Well worth your time to read