Catherine Barnard (University of Cambridge) and Fiona Costello (University of Cambridge) opened the panel by examining the position of EU citizens following Brexit. Focusing on the Withdrawal Agreement and the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS), they argued that the transition from free movement to a status-based immigration system has produced uneven outcomes for many long-term residents. Particular attention was given to the difficulties experienced by those holding pre-settled status, who continue to encounter obstacles when applying for benefits or seeking to convert their status to full settlement. Barnard and Costello suggested that the EUSS has become a de facto test of long-term residence, with digital application procedures, evidential requirements and administrative complexity contributing to refusals, delayed applications and legal uncertainty. One consequence has been a growing incentive for many EU nationals to seek British citizenship in order to secure rights that had previously been exercised automatically under free movement.Building on these themes, Briddick turned to asylum law and the UK's post-Brexit legislative trajectory. She traced Britain's historically ambivalent relationship with the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) before examining recent legislation, most notably the Illegal Migration Act, together with the government's changing position on proposals such as the Rwanda scheme. These developments, she argued, reflect an increasingly deterrence-based approach to irregular migration, particularly maritime arrivals across the Channel. Briddick also highlighted the political language accompanying these reforms, suggesting that narratives of repudiation and legal exceptionalism have increasingly shaped public debate while raising difficult questions about the UK's continuing obligations under both European and international law. The cumulative effect, she suggested, has been to prioritise deterrence over protection.
The final presentation, by Steve Peers (Royal Holloway, University of London), placed recent developments within a longer historical perspective. Peers argued that UK migration policy has been characterised less by a single post-Brexit direction than by rapid policy shifts. Even before Brexit, Britain had exercised opt-outs from significant parts of EU migration and asylum law. Yet the immediate post-Brexit period also witnessed a degree of liberalisation, particularly between 2020 and 2022, as new visa routes for skilled workers and international students were introduced to address labour shortages. From 2023 onwards, however, policy shifted decisively towards restriction. Tougher family reunion rules, higher visa fees and increasingly stringent eligibility criteria reflected a renewed emphasis on migration control. Peers argued that these changes cannot be understood through legal texts alone: migration policy has become both a domestic political instrument and a central issue in Britain's evolving bilateral relationships with individual EU member states.
Throughout the discussion, the panel returned to a central paradox of Brexit. While leaving the European Union was presented as restoring sovereign control over migration, the UK's ability to shape migration outcomes remains constrained by labour market demands, international legal obligations and the practical realities of cross-Channel cooperation. Several speakers observed that efforts to externalise migration control through agreements with third countries or through increasingly restrictive domestic legislation raise difficult legal and ethical questions while doing little to address the underlying causes of migration. At the same time, the panel agreed that post-Brexit migration policy has been unusually fluid. The comparatively liberal reforms of 2020–22 responded largely to economic pressures and labour shortages, whereas the restrictive turn after 2023 reflected changing political incentives and electoral pressures. The result has been a more volatile and legally contested migration regime for both migrants and resident EU citizens.
The audience discussion focused on the practical implications of these legal developments. Participants asked whether domestic legislation could gradually erode the protections afforded by European and international law, how the Withdrawal Agreement's guarantees for EU citizens might be strengthened, and what the longer-term consequences might be for family life, welfare access and legal security. The speakers argued that, while a wholesale collapse of international legal protections remains unlikely, rights may nevertheless be weakened in practice where administrative burdens, legal complexity and financial costs discourage individuals from exercising them. They also warned that an increasing reliance on piecemeal bilateral agreements risks fragmenting the broader regional framework governing asylum and returns. Throughout the discussion, the panel emphasised the importance of looking beyond legal texts to the everyday realities experienced by migrants. Delays in decision-making, uncertainty surrounding pre-settled status and restrictions on family reunion have direct consequences for employment, housing, welfare and social integration.
The seminar concluded that Brexit has not produced a single, settled model of migration governance. Instead, UK policy has oscillated between pragmatic liberalisation and political retrenchment, with legislative reform and administrative practice together determining whether formal legal protections translate into meaningful security for migrants and residents. For scholars and policymakers alike, the discussion highlighted two broader lessons. First, migration law cannot be understood through legislation alone but must be assessed alongside its implementation. Second, maintaining coherent systems of asylum and citizens' rights requires sustained legal, administrative and political oversight if the UK is to reconcile claims of national sovereignty with its economic needs and human rights commitments.
By Yangyang Zhao (Events Assistant)
No comments:
Post a Comment