The recently announced small-boats migrant return deal between the UK and France, unveiled by Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron, aims to curb the escalating numbers of illegal Channel crossings but raises numerous practical, legal, and political questions. Under the new ‘one in, one out’ pilot scheme, migrants arriving illegally in the UK via small boats could be detained and returned to France, with the UK accepting an equal number of asylum seekers from France who have legitimate claims, such as family reunification. However, despite the deal’s intentions as a deterrent, it remains uncertain whether it will significantly reduce migrant attempts or dismantle smuggling networks, echoing some of the challenges seen in previous initiatives like the controversial Rwanda asylum plan.

Central to the scheme is the apparent gradual rollout, initially targeting about 50 migrants a week for return to France, though official statements have been deliberately vague on precise numbers. Given that over 44,000 small-boat arrivals have occurred since Labour took office earlier this year — a figure excluding recent crossings — the limited scale suggests a slim chance of any individual being sent back. This, critics argue, might fail to discourage migrants willing to risk repeated attempts. Selection of individuals for removal is also unclear, with officials citing operational discretion and refusing to divulge procedural details, citing risks to the scheme’s effectiveness. Those selected would have their asylum claims declared ‘inadmissible’ under existing powers, specifically the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which Labour opposed in opposition but now uses. Detainees will be held in immigration removal centres before being flown back, with officials indicating returns will avoid northern French regions close to Channel departure points to prevent immediate re-crossing.

The deal’s legal and political hurdles are significant. It requires approval from the European Commission because it concerns an EU external border, and several EU member states—including Italy, Spain, Greece, Malta, and Cyprus—have expressed concerns. These countries worry that bilateral arrangements between the UK and France could disrupt established EU asylum procedures and burden first-entry states. The UK government expects legal challenges both domestically and from migrant advocacy groups, especially given the Supreme Court’s previous quashing of the Rwanda plan. However, the Home Office remains confident that France’s status as a safe country and signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights will bolster the legal standing of the deal.

Critics question whether the plan addresses the root causes of the Channel crossings or merely manages their symptoms. Amy Pope, Director-General of the International Organization for Migration (IOM), warned that the deal, while aiming to deter irregular crossings by enforcing returns, fails to tackle the underlying drivers of migration. Pope highlights that heavy-handed enforcement, such as tougher policing of French coasts, is less effective than investing in legal migration routes and aid to migrants’ countries of origin. She points to Italy’s approach—combining crackdown on smugglers with expanding legitimate work pathways—as a more sustainable model. The reduction in UK foreign aid, notably to countries like Egypt, further complicates efforts to manage migration flows upstream. Pope stresses that without comprehensive strategies expanding safe, legal channels, the UK risks facing intensified migration and economic challenges in the future.

The “one in, one out” approach also raises practical questions about who will be accepted into the UK. The scheme prioritises migrants from countries with high asylum acceptance rates, such as Sudan, Syria, and Eritrea, or those with family connections in the UK, while excluding those who attempt illegal entry by small boat from eligibility. This attempt to balance humanitarian claims with deterrence reflects political pressures amid record asylum applications, which recently topped 109,000 in a year, marking a 17 per cent increase. Yet, the small scale of the pilot and the continued flow of migrants arriving suggest it will have only a marginal effect on overall migration numbers, potentially improving the public optics of control rather than the reality.

Some experts and commentators remain sceptical about the deal’s impact on human traffickers, who profit immensely from Channel crossings. The UK Prime Minister expressed hope that the agreement would “break the business model” of smugglers, but historically, traffickers have adapted quickly to enforcement changes, offering migrants multiple crossing attempts or alternative methods such as clandestine lorry entries. There are concerns that returned migrants might attempt more dangerous or covert routes, increasing risks along the way.

Beyond migration, the UK-France summit marked a wider renewal of bilateral relations after years of Brexit-related tension. The visit by French President Macron to London was the first French state visit to the UK since 2008 and included significant agreements on defence cooperation. The leaders pledged closer coordination on nuclear deterrents, joint development of weapons systems, and enhanced conventional military collaboration. This rapprochement underscores Britain’s strategy to strengthen ties with key European partners amid complicated EU relations, particularly by leveraging defence and security partnerships as avenues for influence.

Nevertheless, the new migration deal remains at an initial stage. French authorities have yet to announce enhanced maritime enforcement tactics, such as intercepting migrant boats after departure, and the agreement awaits final legal scrutiny and EU approval. Critics from several EU countries continue to raise procedural and political objections to the bilateral arrangement, underscoring the complexity of migration governance post-Brexit.

In sum, while the UK-France small boat deal represents a politically significant attempt to tackle Channel migration and reinforce bilateral ties, it faces considerable legal, operational, and ethical challenges. Its limited scale and unclear deterrent effect suggest it may not substantially reduce migration pressures, especially given the persistence of the complex factors driving migration and the adaptability of smuggling networks. More comprehensive strategies addressing legal migration pathways and root causes appear necessary to resolve the longstanding challenges of cross-Channel migration sustainably.

📌 Reference Map:

Source: Noah Wire Services