Mr Blair denied that closer co-operation with Europe would mean Britain losing control of its borders and said that the UK would only participate in EU-wide action where it was in the country's interests.

EU interior ministers meeting in Luxembourg have agreed that the current system of unanimous agreement on immigration policy should be replaced by a qualified majority voting (QMV) system.

But the Conservatives believe the new system will force Britain into a common asylum scheme and is the action of a "gullible government".

Should there be a common system throughout the European Union to handle immigration and asylum issues? Do you agree with the new policy or do you Britain should keep its veto?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received:

SUGGEST A DEBATE This topic was suggested by Peter Sketchley, England: Will the proposed adoption of qualified majority voting on asylum issues in the EU strengthen or weaken border controls? Send us your suggestions for Have Your Say debates

Instead of the continuous whingeing, self-victimisation and allergic reactions to anything related to the EU, it would make a huge difference if a) people realised that as a member of the democratic EU, the UK has an equal say in any policies that are created, and can contribute to its implementation or refusal, b) the urban myth that all asylum seekers only come the Britain is finally dispelled. Exchanging experiences with other countries, for example Italy, can only contribute to finding a constructive solution. Populistic scaremongering will not help solve the issue. It is withdrawal from, not the taking part in these policies that will have more, especially bogus asylum seekers, as a consequence.
Ed Karten, London, England

Retaining control of our borders is absolutely vital to the integrity of our nation Timothy, Dover, UK

People often think that the UK has little control of the immigration and asylum system, but anyone who knows anything about it is aware that the rest of Europe generally has even less of a grip on things. Retaining control of our borders is absolutely vital to the integrity of our nation. This is even more essential given the fact that the European Union itself appears to have no limits, potentially expanding to include Turkey and then who knows where after that.
Timothy, Dover, UK

"Losing control of our borders"? I'm sorry, but we have already lost control, and we are too terrified of breaching anyone's human rights (even those of illegal immigrants) to do anything about it. We need to get a grip on this situation immediately. I'm not suggesting we shut our borders completely, but just consider that this country has the highest population density in the whole of Europe, and we certainly don't have the best infrastructure. Therefore we need to limit the numbers coming in - and persuade the rest of Europe to take their fair share, which so far they have not done.
Lloyd Evans, Brighton, UK

Why don't people actually read about what this entails before kicking up a fuss? Everyone seems to assume that everything coming from Brussels is automatically bad. This is good for Britain. Asylum is an international problem, and the vast majority of asylum seekers gain entry to this country via other EU states. (Have we already forgotten the Sangatte incident?) If participating in this policy means that asylum seekers' applications are dealt with as soon as they enter the EU, and if it means the proportion is spread evenly across the EU, this can't be a bad thing. Think.
William Diviney, London, UK

Britain is being squeezed out of the EU by it's lack of commitment to the rest of Europe. As a result the UK will eventually become isolated within the union, whilst being unable to sail away across the Atlantic.
J Kingsbury, Salisbury, Wilts

I live in the inner city and the vast majority of 'asylum seekers' are economic migrants. They are being housed in the poorest areas and are taking resources out of the community. This causes enormous resentmment and a country which has historically been very tolerant of immigrants is rapidly becoming very intolerant. Mass immigration is changing the character of our country irrevocably and this is a very important issue to the British people. We cannot have asylum policy being decided by outsiders because 1) Britain will be the only country that sticks to the rules and 2), as stated, 'asylum seekers' end up in 'sink' areas and the UK will end up the 'sink' of Europe. This government has to stop patronising the British public's intelligence.
Sally, Sheffield

Nobody is arguing that it makes sense to work with our European friends on these issues but the concern is exactly who has the final say on Britain's immigration, the EU or our parliament in the UK.
Phillip Holley, UK, Cambs

Why can't the anti-EU mob grow up and realise that QMV actually isn't losing sovereignty, it is really gaining sovereignty as we then get a say over other government's policies, rather than just plugging a "little Britain" line. Having taken the plunge on immigration and asylum perhaps we can take a similar view on other British taboos.
Andrew Taylor, Notts, UK

Working with our European partners on the issue of asylum must be a better option than going it alone Shaun, Bristol

Those who wish to close our borders and isolate us from the rest of Europe should think carefully of the wider consequences. Working with our European partners on the issue of asylum must be a better option than going it alone.
Shaun, Bristol

We must differentiate between those in need of the protection that asylum offers and those who are merely economic migrants seeking illegal entry to other countries where they have no right of entry normally. Asylum is freely offered to those in need, no problems with that if applied correctly according to the Geneva Convention. Those seeking to enter illegally, for whatever claimed purpose, should be deported immediately to their country of origin. They are getting a bad name for those rightly seeking protection. If they want to come here to work and contribute to our society by integrating, they must use the established channels for immigration - the same way we would have to if we want to go and live in their country. Too tough? No. Fair? Yes.
Mike Perry, Wiltshire, UK

Who cares any more? The UK surrendered to Europe a long time ago, we are now a nation who does what Brussels says.
Kyle , Slough, England

I despair of the ridiculous comments made by people here about the government giving up UK powers. If there is any one issue where Europe should work together then it should be asylum. Most asylum seekers travel through Europe to get to the UK. If we isolate ourselves from the EU then EU countries would probably be very happy to smoothen the route of asylum seekers to the UK rather than take them on themselves. I would like to see a system which works towards making sure there is fair distribution of asylum seekers across the EU. I would also like to see a system where asylum claims could be made before people try entering the EU. Europe can work together on this.
Martin McLean, Llandysul, Wales

The problem here is not asylum/immigration, it's further integration with Europe. We never voted for this level of federalism, so let's have a vote in which the British people can decide on our future in Europe - out or in. Put me down as a definite out.
Mike, Scotland

The problem is not the people coming to the country, its how they are handled once here SK, London, UK

The problem is not the people coming to the country, its how they are handled once here. Immigrants are hungry to better themselves. We need infrastructure to harness this ethic and also make our society more inclusive (British benefit scroungers could learn a thing or two here). Learning our language should be compulsory, instant deportations if caught committing any crime, and entitlement to a fully enforced national minimum wage system. These people are exploited massively themselves, no wonder a large portion seem to turn to abusing the system.
SK, London, UK

It always amazes me the level of vitriol we keep inside us that is so often aimed at asylum seekers. Many of the asylum seekers that enter the country will end up doing the jobs that the people on this site shun. Who of you is up to cleaning the filthy toilets in motorway services? Not many takers I guess! One solution might be to stop all immigration for 6 months and force some of our lazy, benefit scrounging free-loaders to work in awful jobs for very little - it might help put things in perspective.
Rob, London, UK

I think that we have allowed this to develop into a more complicated situation than is necessary. Perhaps streamlining the immigration and asylum policy with the EU will provide a fairer approach than the soft-touch approach that has been adopted si far.
Andy Bird, Cheshire, UK

One more reason to vote against the new constitution and get out of the EU before it becomes the super state its rulers want to. What's the point of having a 'European' asylum rule? Most of the asylum seekers don't want to come to Europe, they want to come to Britain. It's bad enough as it is, without the bureaucrats in Brussels wedging our door even further open to all and sundry. And apologies to any legitimate asylum seekers, their cause is sadly lost due to the vast number of illegitimate people attempting to gain access to this country.
Ed Mee, Oxford, UK

I think the purpose behind this is to implement the European constitution bit by bit prior to a referendum so that by the time we actually get a chance to vote on it, the constitution will be a fait accompli. This is a way of neutralising opposition to the constitution and ensuring that it comes in being, regardless of the views of the population of this country.
Ian, UK

Without common health and social benefits, a majority type system will be detrimental to the likes of Britain Brian, Glasgow

Without common health and social benefits, a majority type system will be detrimental to the likes of Britain which is seen as a soft touch for the so-called asylum-seekers. Keeping the veto is the only way the people of Britain can keep their democratic rights.
Brian, Glasgow

For goodness sake - Europe is a big place - we need a Europe wide solution to immigration. This is good thing that we have negotiated: what a deal - those things we don't agree with we still don't have to do but we have got an EU agreement with others that we need to deal with it together.
Katrina Bull, Nottingham, UK

In my view, the whole asylum system seeker issue is claptrap. The vast majority of these people are not running from some tyrannous regime, they are simply cheap migrant labour. A sizable proportion of the lower skilled jobs throughout the EU will be done by these first generation immigrants for a fraction of the wages, and that's why the EU needs to manage the issue centrally. The alternative is that these low skilled jobs will be outsourced to India and China, which is proving one of the major economic challenges facing 21st century Europe. At least if these guys do the work they contribute through taxation to the general welfare of the EU.
Mike, Ipwich, UK

The EEC immigration policy is a shambles. The only conceivable reason for signing up to it is that Britain's immigration policy is in an even bigger shambles.
Eccles, Bristol, UK

Currently Asylum seekers come through safe countries just to reach the UK, a common EU asylum policy will share these people around the EU resulting in less people coming to the UK. Who can honestly have a problem with that!
David Lomax, Peterborough, UK

Talk about shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Another political smoke screen to show us peasants that our "caring" politicians have our best interests at heart!
Mike Dakin, Matlock UK

If the outcome truly is a streamline policy, then this must be a good idea, rather than the current endless appeals etc. As the UK has no land boundaries (bar in Ireland), most potential immigrants will pass through other EU states - it makes sense to start their processing as soon as they arrive within the Union.
Mark Blackman, London

I cringe whenever I here of our government working with EU ministers on policies which have such a critical impact on our lives in the UK. When will we learn that whenever we do this we end up worse off than when we started and that we have policy inflicted upon us? I wouldn't say our government are gullible in such matters just that they are trying to be part of a club where they don't understand the rules yet!
Tim, Bradford West Yorkshire

"Those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad". That just about sums up British politicians in the their headlong, lemming-like rush to sign up to more and more EU treaties without the public, to whom the country belongs, ever being given a say. The whole thing will end in tears, and the sooner the better.
Malcolm, England

What is the point of the British public having a general election if more powers are given to Brussels? More importantly, what right do certain politicians have in giving Brussels these powers?
Scott, Birmingham, UK

Shouldn't this also to be to our advantage? I believe that the EU position is that asylum seekers have to be processed in the first EU country that they land in, and I am sure that that is rarely the UK.
Carl, London

Any proposal that reduces the UK's right to determine who and where people are let is another sign of this government selling the UK out to appease those in the EU. We should go back to the days of proper passport control and checks with only those with genuine passports being admitted. The only reason asylum seekers come here is because we are at the end of the line - asylum seekers have already gone through one or more 'safe' country yet still want to come to the UK.
Paul, Winchester, Hants

We are part of the EU so we should participate fully. My only concern is that the French know how to play the EU system much better than Britain does, and as Britain is the next port of call after France I suspect we'll lose out. However, we should remember that many asylum seekers are genuine, and that we would hope for better treatment if we landed in another country to escape torture and violence.
Buzz, Glasgow

We have failed as a country for years trying to get asylum policy right Richard, Horsham

I don't see the problem. We have failed as a country for years trying to get asylum policy right. It's about time we opened up the subject to the EU as they may have some great added benefit. We will always have the option to opt-out. Come on people and love they neighbour. The majority of these asylum seekers are in genuine desperate need.
Richard, Horsham

Decisions at EU level will be less representative of public opinion than at national level and so therefore will be less democratic. I know lots of asylum seekers and most of them are bogus as they will admit in Spanish (which I speak) but not English.
David, London, UK

As someone who formerly worked with asylum seekers, I'm all for an agreement on the level of support which all countries in the EU must apply to asylum seekers. If this was the case then no one country would become overly burdened. But the realist in me says it won't happen in the self-satisfying EU, so we should certainly keep our veto.
Chris Knell, London, England

Anything that works towards a better understanding of asylum and immigration is a great thing. If streamlining can produce coherence and reduce bureaucracy, that's a good thing too. The trouble is that a lot of people in Britain are suspicious of both the EU and of asylum seekers, meaning that the Conservative approach will continue to find strong support.
Ally, London

I really despair for democracy. Once again politicians plough ahead without a care for what people think. Immigration and asylum are critical national issues and have nothing to do with trans-national institutions. The bigger the state the less democracy works.
Steven, Washington, Tyne and Wear

Discussing this issue at a European rather than a British level is not sinister but basic common sense Antony, Norwich, England

Asylum is an international issue and needs to be dealt with at an international level. Discussing this issue at a European rather than a British level is not sinister but basic common sense. Regarding asylum, all European countries have similar demographic and social pressures together with a linked cultural heritage viewpoint. A continental wide solution is preferable to countries having different systems and potentially undermining each other's efforts.
Antony, Norwich, England

Let's call it what it is, mass economic migration, not asylum. Each country should decide its own policy based upon its own needs. Another one size fits all and suits no-one. When will Blunkett learn that we want to see an end to this fiasco? How can poorer countries ever prosper if the EU strips away the best people from them?
Derek H, South Shields, UK

To Derek H who thinks each country should decide its own policy based upon its own needs - isn't this pretty much what we already have? i.e selfish countries slamming the door in immigrants faces and generous countries (us!) picking up the pieces. No, we need to work together on this. How else are we going to stop immigrants going through 'safe' countries in order to get to the UK?
Wendy, UK

What I believe is that it doesn't matter one iota what the public wants, the government will wait until after the next election then go ahead and do what they like anyway, regardless of public opinion.
Vik, UK

Each country needs to keep its veto. Who can believe any reassurances from this government? Laws passed against the will of the majority of the people in each country will simply not be observed. Majority voting is a recipe to destroy the EU.
John M, Lyne Meads, UK