The recent announcement of the “one in, one out” deal between the UK and France initially seems like a pragmatic approach to tackling the chaotic influx of migrants crossing the Channel. However, beneath this rhetorical commitment lies a dangerous optimism that oversimplifies the complex and deeply entrenched issues surrounding migration. The UK government’s refusal—so far—to fix definitive numbers of migrants to be returned reveals a troubling lack of clarity and real planning. This ambiguity hints at an underlying tendency to mask operational weaknesses under the guise of flexibility, which could ultimately undermine the effectiveness of the policy.
Piloting an uncertain scheme without firm targets invites chaos rather than control. If the goal is to create a sustainable, humane response to migration, setting clear, measurable benchmarks is essential. Without such benchmarks, the policy risks becoming a superficial gesture that hinges on hope rather than strategic action. This lack of concrete targets fuels the danger of arbitrary decisions driven by political convenience rather than actual needs. Migration management should be about creating sustainable, fair, and transparent procedures—something that this poorly defined “one in, one out” approach fundamentally fails to deliver.
The Risks of Relying on Bluff and Political Posturing
The coalition of political figures, from the UK’s Home Secretary to President Macron, appears to be engaging in a delicate dance of diplomatic image-building rather than genuine problem-solving. The promise to begin the scheme in a few weeks is, at best, an optimistic estimate given the lack of firm numbers. This kind of flimsy reassurance may serve political narratives—appeasing domestic audiences worried about the flow of migrants—yet it also raises questions about the seriousness of the government’s commitment.
This situation exemplifies a broader tendency among politicians to make promises based on strategic ambiguity, avoiding uncomfortable truths about the long-term complexities at play. The insistence that increasing the number of returns can be “trialed” and “developed” over time underscores how unprepared the system is for rapid, large-scale action. It becomes clear that the government’s real motivation is less about effective migration control and more about image management—appearing proactive without necessarily being capable of delivering meaningful results. This is a dangerous game, as it breeds disillusionment and despair among those who seek safe legal pathways and trust in the country’s ability to uphold its commitments.
Brexit’s Role and the Myth of Sovereign Control
A recurring theme in the rhetoric behind this deal is the blame placed on Brexit, with Emmanuel Macron claiming that Britain’s departure from the EU ignited the surge in small boat crossings. While Brexit undoubtedly reshaped the UK’s relationship with European partners, framing this as the primary cause risks oversimplifying a multifaceted crisis. The migration challenge transcends negotiated treaties; it is rooted in global issues such as conflict, economic inequality, and climate change, which no bilateral or multilateral deal can single-handedly resolve.
Moreover, portraying Brexit as the root cause feeds into a narrative of victimhood and loss of sovereignty, which can be appealing to certain political segments but ultimately distracts from the necessary responsibility to develop comprehensive, humane, and adaptable migration policies. The idea that Brexit created an “incentive” for crossings ignores the real human stories and systemic failures—failure to provide legal pathways, failure to process asylum claims efficiently, and failure to address root causes. A policy rooted in shifting blame and relying on unproven promises will not solve the deeper issues but will instead delay meaningful reform and perpetuate a cycle of crisis management.
The Underlying Flaws of a Reactive Approach
The ongoing negotiations and the absence of concrete figures on returns highlight a reactive approach rather than a strategic one. Relying on criminal gangs, who prey on vulnerable individuals, and on the hope that legal pathways can be dynamically adjusted, ignores the root causes of irregular migration. It’s a gambit that assumes chaos can be tamed through diplomacy and contractual promises—yet there is little evidence to suggest that such agreements alone can stem the tide of human desperation.
Furthermore, prioritizing quick fixes over long-term solutions risks dehumanizing those seeking safety and undermining the UK’s moral obligation to protect vulnerable populations. The focus on deportations and returns feeds into a narrative that criminalizes migrants without addressing the systemic failures that leave many with no choice but to risk perilous crossings. Instead of doubling down on policies that seek to punish and repel, there should be a recognition that migration is a complex global phenomenon requiring comprehensive international cooperation, investment in processing infrastructure, and expanded legal pathways.
The “one in, one out” policy might momentarily appease political pressures, but it fundamentally misreads the nature of migration and the capacity of unilateral policies to produce humane, sustainable outcomes. Political leaders should acknowledge these shortcomings openly, engaging in honest conversations about the limits of their control and the necessity of holistic, rights-based solutions. Anything less risks turning a humanitarian challenge into a political show, further entrenching the very chaos they claim to want to fix.