THE European Union ignored British Government concerns yesterday and decided to push ahead with a common European asylum system by 2010.

Tony Blair defended the Government’s position, saying that the UK has the “best of both worlds” because it had retained an opt out, allowing it to avoid any policies that it did not like.

However, Britain has started coming under pressure to comply with an eventual EU asylum policy.

David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, attended a meeting in Luxembourg of the interior ministers of all 25 EU countries, which agreed a programme for a common EU policy on asylum and immigration over the next five years, called the “Hague Programme”.

He supported a move to speed decision making by giving up national vetoes on immigration policy and agreeing new policies by majority voting.

But Mr Blunkett said that because Britain retains the right to opt out of any policy that is agreed, it was a case of “No surrender, no capitulation, just good simple common sense”.

Mr Blunkett opposed the plan to adopt a common European asylum policy by 2010, insisting that the EU should assess common standards already adopted before pushing ahead.

“What we want is practical action rather than visionary dreams,” he said.

Although supported by several Eastern European countries, Britain was opposed by France and many other countries which want to push ahead with the ambitious common policy.

Rita Verdonk, the Immigration Minister from the Netherlands, which holds the EU presidency, said that the Hague Programme would include a timetable to adopt a common asylum policy.

She added: “We need a comprehensive schedule. The objective is that in the EU there will be a common asylum system, and the aim is to achieve that by 2010.”

António Vitorino, the European Commissioner with responsibility for immigration, said: “Establishing a common asylum system by 2010 appears to be entirely realistic.” According to the Hague Programme, the common European asylum system would include common standards and procedures for asylum-seekers, possibly including a European centre for processing claims, and a European border guard to deter illegal immigrants.

The first pressure that Britain could be under to drop its opt out in certain areas emerged yesterday.

Senhor Vitorino said: “National exceptions undermine the burden sharing when it comes to a common asylum policy.”

Dominique de Villepin, the French Interior Minister, said in a clear reference to Britain: “The fact that certain countries have expressed reservations does not mean that they should not work in a European manner.” The decision to remove national vetoes and push for a common European asylum system now has to be approved by meeting of heads of state in Brussels.

Speaking in London, Mr Blair said: “There is no question of Britain giving up our veto on our border controls. With the Treaty of Amsterdam seven years ago, we secured the absolute right to opt in to any of the asylum and immigration provisions that we wanted to in Europe. And what this actually gives us is the best of both worlds.

He added: “We are not obliged to have any of the European rules here. But where we decide in a particular area, for example to halt the trafficking in people, for example to make sure that there are proper restrictions on some of the European borders that end up affecting our country, it allows us to opt in and take part in these measures.”

However, the Conservatives insisted that Britain will find it difficult to retain its opt out. David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: “They will create a large body of common European law and that in itself will tend to force us towards compliance.

“It is clear to me that what this will lead to is a large common asylum and immigration policy in Europe and there will be pressure thereafter to limit, or even terminate, our opt out,” he said.

Why an opt-out may not have the power of a veto

TONY BLAIR said that Britain has retained its veto on immigration issues because it has has an opt out. But there is a difference between an opt out and a veto, which is central to Tory accusations against the Government.

Giving up the veto and moving to qualified majority voting means that Britain — or any other EU country — cannot block new EU asylum and immigration policies.

EU member states decided that it would be difficult to develop common asylum policies in a union of 25 countries if they always had to reach unanimous agreement, so they decided to move to majority voting. However, Britain and Ireland, and in a different form Denmark, retain an opt out, which means that they can vote in the creation of a common asylum policy, but if they don’t like the result they can decide not to adopt it.

The Government’s critics charge that a common asylum policy will put huge pressure on Britain to join in later, so it would be better to block its creation by retaining the national veto.

Times Recommends

• Henning Mankell: ‘If Wallander was alive, I wouldn’t be a friend of his’
• Secret society's skull and crossbones for sale
• Nigerian leader vanishes after medical treatment