Why is immigration control considered to be the first Brexit priority?

Question

When the Brexit campaign launched, some of the key points were:

• Control of the borders and net migration
• Getting rid of the EU red tape
• Save money spent on EU membership and fund NHS instead
• Help the local industry (fishing, farming, etc.) by re-adjusting regulations and benefit from better trade deals and tarrifs
• Reduce the cost of living and EU austerity

The ballot for the Brexit referendum did not specify any priorities among the above targets. It was just a Stay or Leave vote.

However, when the goverment started working on triggering Article 50, the PM decided that the highest priority was the immigration control.

A part of the Brexit campaign was aiming at leaving the EU control but not the single market as economists warned about the risks of losing the EU trade deal. There are targets that have been conflicting the sacrifice of trade deals in order to secure border control. Is there any objective process that the government used to decide that the border controls were more important than other priorities?

Why or how was the British vote interpreted in such a way that it made obvious that border control was the highest priority? Why did the government decide to work hard on reducing the net immigration instead of, e.g., funding NHS?

Answer 1

Although Immigration was not the only thing on the agenda during the Brexit referendum, it was certainly the most emotionally charged one.

As this poll showed;

• The number 1 priority for leave voters at 49% was regaining sovereignty,

  Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”.

• While the number 2 priority was controlling immigration at 33%.

  One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.”

Now leaving the EU, means that it is a given guarantee that British parliament would remain sovereign and decisions would be taken in Westminster. However it is not innately guaranteed that Britain would control immigration if they left the EU, therefore for several of the people whose number 1 priority may have been about sovereignty, they are likely to switch down to the number 2 priority of controlling immigration.

Therefore one could consider that the priority for a government trying to negotiate Brexit would be to control immigration.

Answer 2

Nothing firm to back this up, but part of the answer might simply be that controlling (which I suppose means "reducing") immigration is an achievable goal.

Fixing the problems of the NHS and/or bringing down cost of living are massive undertakings that will not be accomplished by simply leaving the European Union. To the best of my knowledge the current British government (inasfar as there is one at the moment) has not made detailed policy proposals on how to bring the desired outcome about, but even if there are any best laid plans they might eventually go awry.

In contrast, controlling immigration basically means telling people to go away. This might just be something that is within Theresa May's grasp, so making immigration the top priority could be seen as an attempt to lower the bar enough that somebody with two left feet can jump it, and proclaim success at at least one policy goal.

Answer 3

You're asking us to read the minds of the government, and that's not easy. They're probably influenced by two factors: (a) what will win votes, and (b) what will be good for the country.

As regards (a), the trigger for the referendum was the high level of support for UKIP, most of which represented anxiety about immigration, and the Tories clearly wanted these voters on board. It's probably fair to say that some of these anxieties are primarily economic (wages being undercut) and some are social (on a spectrum from concerns about traditional British values being eroded through to blatant racism).

As regards (b), there are arguments both ways. Apart from the argument that we have a moral duty to help those who wish to come to this country (which you may or may not accept), there is an economic case in favour of immigration in that the economy benefits from the availability of cheap labour, and there is a case against in that growth in population especially in the crowded South-East creates a lot of pressure on infrastructure such as housing, transport, hospitals, and schools (and the growth in population is largely due to immigration).

Determining how the government weighs up these different factors is something that journalists love to speculate on, but I don't think you'll ever get an accurate answer.