The European Union’s forthcoming Entry/Exit System (EES), set to launch in November 2024, is being framed as a move to enhance border security within the Schengen area. However, many see it as a veiled political gesture aimed squarely at the United Kingdom in the aftermath of Brexit. While the EU touts the system as a tool to combat illegal immigration, it raises the question: is this really about controlling migration, or is it an attempt to tighten the screws on a post-Brexit UK?
No Evidence of Illegal Immigration from the UK to Europe
One of the key rationales behind the EES is to clamp down on illegal migration within the Schengen zone. But the reality is, illegal immigration from the UK to Europe is practically nonexistent. Historically, Britain has been a destination for migrants, not a source. There is little to no data suggesting that British citizens are overstaying their welcome in EU countries or sneaking in without proper authorization.
So, why is the UK being subjected to this new biometric tracking system? UK citizens, who once enjoyed seamless travel to Europe, will now have to go through a more cumbersome process of fingerprinting and facial recognition upon entering any of the 29 participating Schengen countries. The question arises: is this more about optics and political symbolism than practical necessity?
The Reality of Illegal Immigration: The UK as the Target
Ironically, the illegal immigration problem facing the UK primarily comes from mainland Europe, not the other way around. The majority of unauthorized migrants arriving on British shores are coming from the European continent, particularly through France and Holland. In 2023 alone, thousands of migrants made perilous journeys across the English Channel, with France serving as the primary departure point. The UK has repeatedly criticized France for its inability (or unwillingness) to stop the flow of boats crossing the Channel.
Despite this, the EES is being marketed as a system that will curb illegal migration into the EU—yet the real challenge lies in the opposite direction. The UK is dealing with waves of migrants coming through European borders, facilitated by lax enforcement from some EU countries. So why is the EU introducing measures that treat the UK as a potential source of illegal immigration when the flow is actually the other way around?
Punishing the UK for Brexit?
It’s hard not to see the EES as part of a broader effort by the EU to make life harder for British citizens post-Brexit. Ever since the UK voted to leave the European Union, there have been subtle—and not-so-subtle—moves to impose additional bureaucratic burdens on British nationals. The introduction of the EES feels like another layer of punishment for the UK’s decision to break away from the bloc.
Prior to Brexit, UK citizens enjoyed freedom of movement across the EU, with minimal checks or restrictions. Now, with the EES, they’ll be treated the same as nationals from non-EU countries, forced to go through invasive biometric screening, long queues, and increased scrutiny at border crossings. This shift feels less like a genuine security measure and more like a political statement: the EU wants to remind the UK of the consequences of its decision to leave.
A Misguided Approach to Border Security
If the EU is serious about tackling illegal migration, focusing on UK nationals is a bizarre and misguided choice. The real border security challenge facing Europe—and the UK—is the movement of people from other continents through EU countries, often with France and Holland acting as gateways.
The current system, in which unauthorized migrants move freely across the EU to reach the UK, remains largely unaddressed. Meanwhile, British nationals—who present no security threat—are being asked to undergo cumbersome new procedures just to visit their neighboring countries for holidays or business.
A Political Stance Disguised as Security
The introduction of the EES is yet another example of the EU’s tendency to prioritize political messaging over practical policy. It’s a system that targets British citizens, despite no evidence of illegal migration from the UK into the EU. Meanwhile, the actual problem of illegal immigration into the UK from Europe continues unabated.
Rather than focusing on cooperative solutions to migration and security, the EU seems intent on reinforcing barriers between itself and the UK. For British travelers, the EES serves as a reminder that, in the post-Brexit world, Europe is no longer the welcoming and accessible region it once was. Instead, it has become a place where political grudges are dressed up as security measures.
The UK’s EU Membership and the Immigration Loophole: A Convenient Escape Route to Britain
During the UK’s time as a member of the European Union, a well-known but rarely addressed issue played out quietly in the background: the use of EU passports to facilitate migration to the UK. For years, many EU countries issued passports to immigrants, fully aware that the majority had little intention of staying within their borders. Instead, these migrants often used their newfound European citizenship as a gateway to the UK, taking advantage of the UK’s strong economy and more accessible welfare system.
The Loophole: European Passports as a Gateway to the UK
As part of the EU, the UK was bound by the rules of free movement. This allowed EU citizens to live and work in any member state, including the UK. However, many migrants—particularly from Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia—entered Europe through countries like Italy, Greece, or Spain, where EU passports were more readily available. These countries, often overwhelmed by waves of migrants, had little interest in keeping these new arrivals within their own borders. Instead, passports were issued, giving these individuals the freedom to move anywhere in the EU, including the UK.
This created a situation where the UK became the destination of choice for many migrants. European countries on the frontline of immigration, such as Italy and Greece, were able to offload responsibility by issuing passports that allowed these migrants to travel freely within the EU. The UK, with its attractive job market and robust social services, bore the brunt of this migration flow, while other EU countries effectively washed their hands of the problem.
A System Designed to Exploit UK Generosity
The issuing of passports by certain EU countries was not a purely humanitarian act. It was often a calculated political and economic decision, one that transferred the pressures of migration away from those countries and onto the UK. These frontline countries faced immense strain from mass immigration, but instead of tackling the issue head-on, many opted for the easier solution: grant citizenship, pass the responsibility, and let migrants move on to Britain.
The UK, with its relatively generous welfare system and labor opportunities, became an appealing destination for many migrants who had entered the EU through other member states. The lack of proper negotiations or checks to address this flow meant that the UK had little control over who entered the country. Migrants from non-EU countries found an easy route to the UK, without the British government having the power to stop it due to its obligations under the EU’s free movement rules.
Brexit: A Missed Opportunity or Deliberate Failure?
The UK’s decision to leave the European Union was meant to reclaim control over immigration and borders, a key issue in the Brexit referendum. Yet, the negotiations that followed left much to be desired. Rather than decisively tackling the core issues—such as immigration and border control—the UK government failed to secure a robust deal that would meaningfully address these concerns.
One reason for this failure could lie in the makeup of the UK’s political elite. It is no secret that many UK government officials, particularly those involved in the Brexit negotiations, hold second passports, often from EU countries or other nations. This dual citizenship effectively insulated them from the real consequences of Brexit. While they negotiated half-heartedly on behalf of the UK, they personally remained unaffected by the very policies they were shaping.
For some in the political establishment, holding a second passport provided a convenient escape route from the very issues they were tasked with addressing. Their personal circumstances insulated them from the impacts of Brexit, such as potential restrictions on travel and access to EU countries. As a result, the urgency to secure a fair deal or reform immigration policies was not a priority.
The Consequences: UK Left to Handle the Fallout
The lack of decisive action by the UK government during the Brexit negotiations has left the country in a weakened position. Even post-Brexit, the UK continues to grapple with immigration challenges that were never fully addressed during its time in the EU. The country’s borders remain porous, and the flow of migrants, particularly through France and other European nations, continues largely unabated.
The political class’s failure to anticipate or properly negotiate these complexities has left the UK in a vulnerable position, where the promise of “taking back control” has fallen short. The ability of certain EU countries to grant citizenship to migrants, fully aware they would leave for Britain, was never properly countered. Brexit negotiations should have included concrete measures to close these loopholes, but the government either failed or chose not to act.
A Missed Opportunity to Reclaim Control
The UK’s EU membership facilitated a system in which European countries could shift the burden of immigration to Britain by issuing passports to migrants. This exploitation of the free movement system left the UK struggling to manage migration flows, while other EU countries sidestepped responsibility. Brexit should have provided an opportunity to regain control of borders, but weak negotiations and political conflicts of interest undermined this chance.
With many in the UK government holding second passports and unaffected by the consequences of their decisions, the interests of the British public were sidelined. The result is a post-Brexit landscape where the UK still bears the brunt of migration pressures, and the government’s failure to properly address these issues during negotiations continues to affect the nation’s future.
The EU’s Latest Request: Should the UK Share the Burden of Europe’s Illegal Immigrants?
In a new development that many in the UK are finding hard to swallow, the European Union is now asking Britain to take part in the redistribution of illegal immigrants currently within the borders of EU member states. This request, coming after the UK’s exit from the EU, is raising questions about the motivations behind it and whether Britain should comply, given the very immigration issues that fueled the Brexit vote in the first place.
The EU’s Push for Immigration Solidarity
The European Union has long struggled to manage the flow of illegal migrants arriving through its southern borders, particularly in countries like Greece, Italy, and Spain. These countries bear the brunt of migration surges from Africa, the Middle East, and beyond. The EU has implemented various strategies to alleviate this burden, including proposals to redistribute migrants among member states. However, these proposals have met resistance from certain EU countries that are reluctant to take in more migrants.
In the latest twist, the EU has extended its call for solidarity to the UK, despite Britain having left the union. The reasoning appears to be that since the UK still maintains close ties with Europe through trade and security partnerships, it should also share in the responsibility of managing Europe’s migrant crisis.
A Hypocritical Request After Brexit
This request from the EU comes off as highly hypocritical, especially given that one of the major reasons for Brexit was the UK’s desire to regain control over its borders. For years, the UK absorbed more than its fair share of migrants who entered Europe through other member states, particularly France and Holland. Even after Brexit, the UK continues to struggle with illegal immigration, with many migrants crossing the English Channel from France—despite repeated promises from the French government to curb these dangerous crossings.
It is difficult to ignore the irony: during the UK’s time as an EU member, European countries issued passports and allowed migrants to flow freely across the continent, often heading for the UK. Now, after the UK has finally regained control over its own immigration policies, the EU is once again asking it to play the role of safety net.
The UK’s Position: An Unjust Burden
For the UK government and its citizens, this latest EU request is nothing short of an affront. The UK has already borne the brunt of illegal immigration in recent years, particularly through the Channel crossings facilitated by European states. France, for instance, has consistently failed to prevent the flow of migrants from its shores, despite receiving millions in UK funding to help manage the situation.
If anything, the UK is in a position to argue that it should be asking the EU for support, rather than the other way around. Britain continues to face significant migration challenges stemming from its close proximity to the European continent, and French authorities have done little to stem the tide of illegal crossings. The suggestion that the UK should now accept more migrants, many of whom entered Europe through other member states, seems not only unreasonable but grossly unfair.
Post-Brexit Sovereignty: The UK Must Stand Firm
One of the key outcomes of Brexit was the UK’s ability to take back control of its borders. The UK is no longer bound by EU regulations that require member states to share the burden of immigration crises. By participating in such a scheme, Britain would essentially undermine the very sovereignty it fought to regain in the Brexit referendum.
Moreover, this request from the EU appears politically motivated. It seems less about true cooperation and more about offloading a problem that the EU has failed to manage effectively. Europe’s migration crisis is a direct result of its own policies, including the Schengen Agreement, which allows free movement between member states. The UK, having chosen to leave the EU and its policies behind, should not be expected to step in and clean up the mess.
A Failure of EU Policy
The root of Europe’s migration crisis lies in the failure of the EU to properly manage its borders and immigration policies. Southern EU states have been overwhelmed by waves of migrants, and the lack of a cohesive and effective response has led to immense pressure across the continent. The EU’s solution has often been to shift the responsibility onto others, whether by issuing passports to migrants who then move on to the UK or by asking non-EU states, like the UK, to absorb a portion of the migrant population.
If the EU were serious about addressing the migration crisis, it would focus on strengthening its external borders and working on sustainable, long-term solutions in the countries of origin, rather than expecting external partners like the UK to take on part of the burden. The UK has made it clear that it wishes to manage its own borders and immigration policies, and the EU must respect this decision.
The UK Should Decline the EU’s Request
The UK’s departure from the EU was largely driven by a desire for greater control over immigration and national sovereignty. To now expect the UK to re-enter the fold and take part in the redistribution of illegal immigrants is not only misguided but ignores the realities of the current situation.
The UK should stand firm in rejecting the EU’s request. Europe’s migration crisis is a problem of the EU’s own making, and it must be resolved within the union. Britain has already paid a high price for the failures of European immigration policy, and now, post-Brexit, it must ensure that it does not get dragged back into a situation that undermines its sovereignty and security.
In this post-Brexit world, the UK must focus on securing its own borders, addressing its own immigration challenges, and negotiating strong, independent relationships with the rest of the world—without being pulled back into the EU’s political games.
About the Author
