The migration agreement between the UK and France comes amid unprecedented domestic conflicts in both countries, despite the fact that elections – particularly in the UK – are looming and all the public’s frustration will be directed at them.
Fewer than one in six people who were refused asylum last year were deported, whilst the number living in taxpayer-funded accommodation continued to rise, according to the Daily Express. In 2025, Britain deported 11,631 asylum seekers whose appeals had been denied, meanwhile 80,264 people were refused protection. However, 4,577 asylum seekers, whose applications and appeals had all been rejected, continue to live in hotels, houses and flats paid for by British taxpayers, highlighting the specific challenges facing Labour just a week before local elections in which they are likely to suffer defeat.
“Thousands of asylum claims are being refused every year, yet Labour do not have the backbone to remove those who have no right to remain, removing only a tiny fraction. At this rate, it will take decades to clear the backlog of failed asylum seekers Labour have welcomed. Labour has no deterrent. They clearly won’t even remove those whose asylum claims have been refused, let alone all illegal immigrants as they should. Only the Conservatives have a clear borders plan to remove illegal immigrants within a week and deport all foreign national offenders,” Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said.
Philp’s statements do not sound particularly reassuring either, given that the Conservatives spent 14 years in government promising to reduce the number of people coming to the UK, yet net migration – the difference between those entering and leaving – reached a record 745,000 in 2022, before falling to 685,000 last year, according to BBC.
The Home Office stressed, “Nearly 60,000 illegal migrants and foreign criminals have been removed or deported from the UK since the 2024 election – up nearly a third on the 19 months prior. We have taken action against countries that fail to cooperate with the return of their citizens, and we are ready to hit other nations that won’t play ball – with visa penalties and full visa bans if necessary. We are also reforming how human rights laws are applied to prevent migrants from frustrating their removal with bogus appeals.”
On top of that, looking back at the Tories’ rhetoric, it is worth referring to a 2024 Guardian article. It states that public dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of immigration is at a record high, according to the British Future, which has been conducting polls on this issue since 2015. As of 2014, among the 69% of residents who say they are dissatisfied, Sunak’s failure to “stop the boats” is the most frequently cited reason for their disapproval. Thus, anyone who has looked at the Conservatives’ record on immigration since 2010 will not be surprised by this striking gulf between rhetoric and reality.
The history of Conservative immigration policy is a story of ambitious goals and tough anti-immigration policies that have failed to reduce immigration – whether illegal or legal. In the meantime, the Labour Party’s position is looking rather shaky.
Recent polls, including those by YouGov and Ipsos, show that support for Labour has fallen to 16–18%. The party is in third or fourth place, trailing Reform UK (24%) and, at times, the Greens. 50% of Britons believe that Keir Starmer should resign. His net approval rating stands at -48%. Only 38% of those who voted for Labour in 2024 are prepared to support them now; the main losses are going to the Greens (15%).
The agreement with France – will it pay off?
The agreement signed with France is proving controversial, and not just among those who see the reality of the situation: costs are rising, boats keep arriving, and for some reason Westminster’s response is to send more money to France. The migration agreement, which is expected to cost over £1.3 billion, may simply fail, even though it is being presented to the public as some sort of progress in the fight against boat refugees.
More so, co-operation with France, a country that cannot cope with migration itself, is also bearing some fruit. Everyone has seen the footage – French officers standing on beaches with their hands in their pockets, watching as migrants run into the sea and climb onto flimsy boats. They do not intervene, they do not stop them, they simply watch. There are repeated reports that French vessels are escorting these boats into British waters – not turning them back, not preventing them from crossing, but effectively signalling that they are welcome on their way to the UK.
Therefore, some doubts are being raised about this agreement. At what point will the UK stop paying for these failures? The figure in question is £1.3 billion, and the deal must have real consequences; polite diplomatic language and vague promises will not stop the boats.
In the British media, some are concerned about this agreement to such an extent that they are proposing to fine France £1 million for every asylum refugee who successfully crosses the border from France and lands on British shores.
JJ Anisiobi, Assistant Editor at the Daily Express, stressed in an article published a few days ago: “Because right now, where is the incentive for them to act? They get paid regardless. The crossings continue and the UK taxpayer foots the bill. He went on to say: “Flip that equation, and watch how quickly priorities change. Suddenly, those beach patrols won’t be so passive and the dinghies won’t be so casually “escorted” towards Britain.”
Indeed, even though the migrant agreement was signed, Paris itself cannot cope with migration. The population of foreign-born citizens in France reached approximately 9.6 million in 2025. Thus, the agreement with France may not be entirely appropriate, particularly given the country’s internal problems.
François-Xavier Bellamy, vice-president of the French party Les Républicains (LR), criticised Emmanuel Macron’s approach to migrants in a post on X, referring to the difficult relations with Algeria:
“The Algerian regime constantly insults France, refuses to take back its illegal citizens, attacks its opponents who have found refuge on our soil, and continues to hold a French journalist hostage. But for the president, the ‘mabouls’ are those in France who refuse to accept this… A professed weakness at the very top of the state, in Arabic in the text. Lacking the courage to stand firm with the Algerian leaders, the President prefers to insult the French people who refuse to deny their own principles. Just over a year to endure before France can once again simply ensure that its word and its citizens are respected.”
Bellamy refers to a remark by Macron, who used the Arabic word “mabouls” (madmen) to describe critics of his policy of rapprochement with Algeria. Meanwhile, it is the African country that refuses to accept deported citizens (OQTF). Noting that there is “just over a year to endure,” he subtly hints that there will soon be elections in France, but that the UK will also see local elections next week, in which the Labour Party’s accumulated problems and unfulfilled promises will come to light.
