
Macron is right – Brexit is to blame for Britain's immigration crisis
But maybe Brexit critics should consider another image.
In the words of Emmanuel Macron at a joint press conference with Sir Keir Starmer yesterday to unveil a one in, one out migration exchange deal, the real whopper was told by Brexiteers when Nigel Farage unveiled his controversial poster of thousands of migrants at the EU border with the words 'breaking point'.
It came with a claim that if the UK did not leave the EU, it would be forced to accept all those preparing to stampede across Europe.
In an epic rant at yesterday's press conference on the subject of Brexit, the French president, who refused to meet Farage during his three-day state visit, was clear that he considered this to be the biggest lie of all.
To the obvious embarrassment of Sir Keir Starmer standing next to him, Macron did not hold back on how the promise of controlling immigration, both legal and illegal and putting an end to out-of-control numbers had been falsely used by those who wanted to leave the EU.
He said: 'The British people were sold a lie that the problem was Europe. For the first time in nine years, Britain is being pragmatic.'
But it is worth looking at the detail of what he said in terms of how leaving the EU not only failed to solve a problem but has made it worse.
'We need to understand that since Brexit, and I'll say this honestly, because it's not your case, prime minister, but many people in your country said that Brexit would help better fight illegal immigration.
'However, it is since Brexit that the UK no longer has any migration agreement with EU. So, for people wanting to cross, there is no legal admission way in, nor a way of sending people back after a crossing. This is a pull factor to attempt the crossing, exactly the inverse effect of what Brexit promised.'
The French president was not wrong.
The fact is that leaving the EU and simultaneously the Dublin Agreement neutered Britain's chances to simply return people to safe countries in the EU that illegal migrants travel through to get to the UK.
The Dublin Agreement specifically allowed countries to send back migrants to the first safe country they arrived in, which was a bit more of a problem for countries such as Italy, Spain and some in Eastern Europe.
It was also interesting to note Macron's claim that a third of all the illegal migrants in the Schengen free travel area of the EU were aiming for Britain because of its pull factors, including language, welfare benefits and the ease of working undetected in the black economy.
Even on legal migration, we saw a huge increase after Brexit from what were already high levels, despite the 'take back control' message of the referendum campaign.
Sir Keir pointedly noted that while he and the French president were discussing their 'groundbreaking' returns agreement, Mr Farage was out on the Channel taking pictures of boats packed with migrants coming over.
He has been doing that since 2020, when, not coincidentally, the UK had left the EU and the small boats crisis quickly began.
The Reform UK leader and others on the right will argue that the real problem is other aspects of international law, including membership of the European Convention of Human Rights or the Refugee Convention, which gives migrants the right to apply to stay in the UK because of family ties or for other compelling reasons.
They want Brexit to continue as a process to withdraw Britain from this framework of international agreements drawn up in large part by the UK itself to help establish international order.
It was the 'easy answers of populism' complained about by Starmer and Macron yesterday, and would lead to the UK being isolated just as Donald Trump, Farage's ally in the White House, is doing to the US.
The legal framework had a safety valve in it while Britain was still part of the EU, but the lesson of 2016 is that once one part of an intricate network of deals unravels, then much else follows.
Not surprisingly, Farage complained that Starmer's pilot 'one in, one out' deal was a betrayal of Brexit, taking Britain back to the EU.
But as an exasperated French president noted, it was actually Britain 'being pragmatic for the first time in nine years'.
It would be a great irony, given the nature of the 2016 debate, if migration, more than anything else, ends up being the reason the UK eventually unpicks the effects of Brexit and maybe even rejoins in the long term.
The UK government is too embarrassed to address Macron's points at the moment, but the French president has shone a spotlight once again on the strong possibility that the biggest decision by this country in the 21st century was made based on a fabric of lies.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Spectator
3 minutes ago
- Spectator
The Epping tipping point
Yesterday's injunction granted to Epping Forest council giving the government three weeks to stop using the Bell Hotel for asylum seekers on planning grounds is not quite the slam-dunk that it looks. It is theoretically open to appeal: furthermore, it is only an interim measure pending a full trial later this year. But the affair has seriously spooked the government, and rightly so. What worries the Home Office is that it's not only Epping. It seems a safe bet that the contagion will spread fast. As soon as the result was announced, Broxbourne, a nearby Tory council with a similar make-up to Epping, announced that it is contemplating following suit. Nigel Farage has now pledged that the dozen or so authorities under Reform control will all be taking legal advice. And given that we have had similar serious asylum protests in numerous other places up and down the kingdom, from Norfolk to Greater Manchester to Scotland, these authorities may well be joined by more. True, not all such claims will bear fruit. As a matter of boring technical law, the grant of an injunction is a remedy in the discretion of the court. Epping was a strong case. The hotel's owners had continued to block-book it for asylum seekers even after they knew perfectly well about the planning objections; there was at least some evidence that it was a centre of alleged crime; there was big damage to local amenity and a history of continuous protest. Where such arguments are lacking, injunctions may be harder to come by. Indeed, three years earlier authorities in Ipswich and in Hull's commuter belt notably failed to get orders in the face of more discreet, and largely unprotested, use of hotels as asylum hostels. Nevertheless, assuming (as seems likely) that using a hotel as a displaced persons' camp probably does break planning laws, it seems that a fair number of claims will succeed. Today the cases are likely to be strong. The trickle of irregular migrants has become a gushing flood; protest by the just-about-managing is getting more widespread and more understandable; and there are increasingly alarming accounts of crime surrounding places where these migrants are housed. And it only requires a few Epping-style injunctions to tip into crisis a government with thousands of migrants to deal with and nowhere to put them. What will now happen is unclear. A nuclear option would be emergency legislation to bulldoze through continued use of hotels for asylum seekers: but this would be a gift to Reform and destroy most of what popularity this administration has left. For the moment, one suspects that, as security minister Dan Jarvis said earlier this morning, the administration will wait and see while weighing its options. The difficulty is that these options are uncomfortably limited. Whatever happens on the injunction front, whether the government likes it or not, the events at Epping will have long-term and expansive political effects. For one thing, Labour can no longer plausibly ignore the fact that voters, including those who rather unwillingly voted it in last year, have a right to demand answers about immigration. These electors have strong and probably justified doubts about the bona fides of a good many so-called refugees. They see no reason why their resources should support them and they will in no case back any government seen to be weak on the issue. Secondly, Labour's present immigration policy, such as it is, is now untenable. To cut a long story short, Starmer's approach can best be best summed up as saying a great deal while doing very little. Words about 'smashing the gangs' and largely meaningless agreements with the French could be served up to Red Wall voters and White Van Man; private assurances that none of this really meant anything could be invoked to keep Labour left-wingers quiet. But this policy, when looked at closely, actually involved doing little apart from paying more and more public money to put up more and more dubious foreign entrants with neither any limit nor any serious attention to the nation's interests. Post-Epping, one thing is clear. The government must do something to bring migration under control. What? The possibilities are endless. Proper facilities for screening would-be asylum seekers – and measures making it less ridiculously easy for doubtful migrants to disappear into the grey economy and never be seen again – would be a start. Serious thought about doing something about the human rights regime and its effects on migration control, and possible offshoring of applications for asylum, would be even better. At least the Tories tried such things, however incompetently. Labour must now follow suit. If not, it risks a precipitate disappearance into unlamented irrelevance.


The Independent
3 minutes ago
- The Independent
Nicola Sturgeon's ‘political instinct' to back a united Ireland
Nicola Sturgeon has said her 'political instinct' is to back a united Ireland. However, the former Scottish first minister insisted the issue of Northern Ireland's future is for people there to decide. She stressed that was the case because she said she could 'get bit prickly if people from outside Scotland start to say what's best for Scotland'. However, speaking to the Nolan Show on BBC Radio Ulster, she stated: 'My political instinct would be in favour of a united Ireland. 'But that's not a matter for me.' Ms Sturgeon continued that as a supporter of Scottish independence, she believes that ' Westminster governance has not served Scotland well', adding that she is 'not sure it will have served Northern Ireland well'. The former SNP leader said: 'I think what Brexit did to Northern Ireland and has done to Scotland is probably an example of the downsides of Westminster governments.' However, she that 'detailed assessments' over whether the province's future should be in the UK or as part of a united Ireland were 'for people in Northern Ireland to make'.


The Independent
3 minutes ago
- The Independent
JK Rowling ‘entitled to speak her view' on trans issues, says Sturgeon
Harry Potter author JK Rowling is 'entitled to speak her view' on trans issues, Nicola Sturgeon has said – but the former Scottish first minister suggested the writer should also be subjected to 'more scrutiny'. Rowling was a vocal critic of the gender recognition reforms championed by Ms Sturgeon, famously donning a T-shirt which branded the then first minister a 'destroyer of women's rights'. Ms Sturgeon said the T-shirt – which Rowling posted a picture of herself wearing on social media – 'brought more abuse on my head than almost anything else'. But she said she had 'never stopped JK Rowling having a view on anything'. Ms Sturgeon told BBC Radio Ulster she 'wasn't destroying women's rights', and added: 'Is it really the best way to elevate a debate, put a picture of yourself in a T-shirt with something like that? That is the point I am making.' In a review of Ms Sturgeon's newly published memoir, Rowling accused the former SNP leader of being 'flat-out Trumpian in her shameless denial of reality and hard facts'. Ms Sturgeon however has made clear her views on the issue have not changed, despite the fury that erupted when Holyrood debated proposals for her government to make it easier for trans people to legally change their gender. The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed by Holyrood but it was blocked by Westminster, with the changes never coming into force. Speaking on Wednesday, Ms Sturgeon said: 'I don't believe – never have and I never will – that you have to choose between being a feminist and being a supporter of the rights of one of the most stigmatised groups in society. 'That's still my position.' While she added the debate on the issue had become 'deeply entrenched', with opposition to the reforms from people such as Rowling, some within the SNP and women's rights groups, Ms Sturgeon was adamant the 'fundamental principle and the issue is one I haven't changed my mind on'. Speaking about Rowling, she told the Nolan Show she is a 'huge admirer of her work'. Ms Sturgeon said: 'I have bought Harry Potter books for all of the kids in my life and I will continue to do so as long as they want to read them. 'I think she is an amazing talent and has done great things.' She added that Rowling is 'absolutely entitled to speak her mind', but added: 'I don't admire the way some people have gone from speaking their minds on this issue to, almost it seems, to be punching down on trans people who have never harmed anybody at any point in their life. 'I am not singling out one person in this, but a cruelty has entered this debate which I find really difficult, because we are talking here about a discriminated against, stigmatised minority. 'In every group in society there will be bad people, but they are not representative of the wider group and with trans we seem to take the bad apples and say 'that makes all trans people bad'. 'I don't agree with that and I don't like that. 'JK Rowling is absolutely entitled to her view, maybe putting herself up for a bit more scrutiny about her view would be helpful, but I don't criticise her for expressing her view. 'But I think I would like to see a bit less punching down on trans people to be perfectly frank.'