David Cameron did it again. His promise of a referendum on whether to remain or leave the European Union was built on a pledge to reform it. In Cameron’s eyes, the referendum is as much about his ability to reform the EU as the importance of Britain remaining a part of it.

His proposed reforms were an overcomplicated shambles few understood – and persuaded fewer still. Cameron’s ‘emergency brake’ was subject to several restrictions limiting its potential use and his ‘red card’ on stopping EU laws proved more of a red herring. Only this prime minister could design a brake that may not stop its car or a red card that need not remove players from the pitch.

Part of Cameron’s problem is that selling European commission proposals to the public is a complex affair, as any compromise between 28 different countries can be. Instead of plain English, such documents are about as enthralling to read as a tax code – and no less important for it.

But now we have it once more. The commission is back with another ‘communication’ about the common asylum system. This is similarly dry and complicated stuff, but its message is crystal clear: the current system must be changed and fast.

The current system – known as the Dublin Regulation – has many parts to it, but the main issue is an agreement between all EU member states about how claims for asylum should be made. Anyone wanting to claim asylum must do so in the first safe EU country entered. If a claim is made somewhere else, they are to be returned to that first safe country and processed there.

This policy is more popular with some states than others. Britain supports it because it permits the United Kingdom to return asylum seekers known to have entered the EU elsewhere previously. Member states along the EU’s border are less keen on it because they inevitably pick up most of the costs.

The EU’s current asylum system has been under unprecedented strain since the start of the migration crisis last year. Countries like Greece have been overwhelmed and taken by surprise. This has led to several problems with the current system and, most especially, its uneven application across the EU. Since 2011, EU member states have been unable to return migrants known to have entered Greece first because of concerns about conditions for processing asylum seekers in that country.

Earlier this year the commission found only eight per cent of all migrants arriving into Greece were being fingerprinted and documented – most were not although this has improved substantially since. Some countries, like Germany, accepted migrants for asylum despite their travelling through others like Austria en route. Over the last few months, there have been efforts to ensure the common policy is applied and applied more evenly as the EU struggles to get a grip on this humanitarian challenge.

In its communication last week, the commission said that the current system ‘was not designed to ensure a sustainable sharing of responsibility for asylum applications across the EU’. While it recognised inconsistencies within the system and the need to engage more with third countries, there are ‘serious shortcomings’ known ‘before the present crisis’.

The result is a commitment to ‘a new regulation establishing a new common asylum procedure’ – that would replace the current policy ‘as a matter of priority’. The commission identifies options including sharing the responsibility of assessing asylum claims more fairly. They also propose enforcing ‘proportionate sanctions’ to migrants who flout the rules and amending residency requirements that might prolong the time needed before applying for long term residency after receiving asylum. Finally, there is also the usual language about ‘achieving greater convergence’ by further harmonising the system’s rules to guarantee more equal treatment.

In short, the new plan is to create more restrictions to regulate better how asylum claims are decided that do not make life any easier for asylum seekers, but do share the burdens more evenly for maintaining such a system – in order to make it more ‘fair’ and ‘sustainable’, two words that chime again and again.

Taking into account these and other statements echoing across Europe, there is little doubt that the Dublin Regulation must either become substantially revised or replaced – something I have been calling for since last summer – and there is a clear majority for a swift change. The commission now puts on the table a plan to forge an agreement for rolling out as soon as this summer.

But then there’s Britain. The commission’s plan is only to consider set options for a new common asylum system. No specific option will be up for consideration until after the UK decides whether to remain or leave the EU. So an urgent problem facing Britain and the EU must be on hold while the Tories try to get their backbench rebels under control to then crack on with a needless leadership contest. Partisan internal politics gets priority over national and regional interest. Britain deserves much better leadership than this.

Some might say that such talk of scrapping the Dublin Regulation does not matter. Britain has an opt-out from EU migration policy and so can opt out of any changes it does not like.

But here is the rub. The current arrangement has been to the UK’s advantage as it puts higher burdens on other countries and supports reducing net migration. Yes, Britain receives fewer asylum claims than other EU countries and about 60 per cent of claims will be rejected – most asylum seekers do not get asylum. However, Britain could return migrants known to have entered another country first.

If Britain leaves the EU, then it leaves the current asylum policy and anyone making a claim for asylum here must be considered – and not deported to where in the EU they entered first. If Britain remains in the EU and the policy changes, we must decide whether to opt out – and so the same consequences as leaving the EU for us – or to accept it. Either way, the deal will be likely less favourable than what we have now.

This is not the problem. The real problem is that urgent conversations about how the current system – and these are clearly overwhelmed and unfit for purpose given the size and scale of the EU migration crisis – must now be put on ice and wait another day while Britain figures out its place in Europe. This damages our national interest and it is damaging to the interests of our European partners – whether or not we Remain or Leave.

Let me be unequivocal so this last argument is understood. I fully support the public’s right to vote in a referendum about whether to remain or leave the EU. This is a very welcome thing and I look forward to it. My criticism is of the timing. It could hardly be worse – and I have said virtually nothing of those desperate migrants fleeing civil war and persecution. This decision on the EU could and should have been delayed if by only a few months so that more pressing matters like the migration crisis could be addressed.

Cameron made a choice. While I agree Britain is stronger and more secure in the EU, I do not agree with how he has tried to make this argument – often doing it more damage than good. If the public supports Remain, it will be despite Cameron’s efforts rather than because of them. Many will be adversely affected either way – not least migrants and our European allies – and it only goes to show that we in the Labour party have much work to do together, Never before has Britain needed a Labour government more.

———————————

Thom Brooks is professor of law and government at Durham University and tweets at @thom_brooks. His new book, Becoming British: UK Citizenship Examined, is published by BiteBack next month

———————————

Photo: Takver