Public opinion as an indicator of the political crisis in the UK: migration track

Serbina Anna Stepanovna PhD in History Associate Professor; Department of World Economy, International Relations and Law; Novosibirsk State University of Economics and Management 630099, Russia, Novosibirsk region, Novosibirsk, Kamenskaya str., 52/1, office 205 serbina.anna@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

By its nature, the democratic process encourages citizens to form their opinions on a number of public policy issues. Public opinion influences political debate by setting the boundaries within which politicians should act. The Institute of Public Opinion played a huge role in the transformation of UK migration policy in the post-Brexit period, defining the strategy of each cabinet of the government to implement a rational and effective immigration and integration policy.

The article examines the most important political issue of how the efforts of political leaders to adapt public policy in the field of migration to public opinion led the UK to a political crisis, since such political responsiveness did not take into account the excessive exaggeration of the immigrant factor in comparison with its real both negative and positive significance. The relevance of the study lies in the fact that relying only on the results of public opinion polls, which are good tools for answering the question "what" or "how much", it is impossible to conduct an effective migration policy, since it requires answers to the questions "how" and "why".

The object of the study is the migration policy of the United Kingdom after its withdrawal from the European Union. The subject of the study is the change in migration regulation and public discourse on immigration issues, starting in 2015 and up to the present. The purpose of the study is to trace the influence of public opinion on the regulation of migration processes in the UK, as well as to identify the factors that determined the transformation of public perception of migration problems.

The works of many authors are devoted to the migration policy of the United Kingdom. The process of Britain's withdrawal from the EU and its socio-economic consequences are revealed in the works of E. V. Ananyeva, A. A. Volkova, E. V. Lazareva and others. The problems of regulating immigration in the UK before and after Brexit are consecrated in the works of Y. S. Bobkova, K. A. Godovanyuk, A. I. Idrisova, O. V. Okhoshin, J. Portes, M. Sumption, M. Fernandez-Reynaud and many other authors. It is particularly worth highlighting a group of researchers who examined the political crisis in the UK through the prism of public opinion, in particular E. M. Kharitonov, S. Y. Antropova, R. Stansfield and B. Stone, whose conclusions once again confirm the fact that public opinion is often politically determined and subject to stereotypes.

The theoretical basis of the study was a non-functional approach explaining the disintegration processes taking place in the EU. F. Schmitter, within the framework of this theory, revealed a pattern between the uneven distribution of resources and benefits received by states from integration and the growth of anti-integration public sentiment (Schmitter C. P., Lefkofridi Z. Neo-Functionalism as a Theory of Disintegration). From the point of view of neofunctionalism, Brexit was the result of such a pattern.

The study is based on a systematic approach that has been applied to the analysis of the political process in the UK after leaving the EU. The problem-historical method made it possible to identify the influence of certain events on the transformation of public opinion, and the comparative historical method compared the migration policies of the conservative and Labor governments. It is particularly worth emphasizing the use of an institutional approach to determine the nature of migration processes, which have clearly developed rules of operation, and the development of public opinion in the UK as an institution. The research is based on extensive empirical material, including programs of political parties, speeches and statements of politicians, media publications, government statistics, public opinion polls, etc., for the interpretation of the content of which discourse and content analysis were used.

Post-Brexit

The UK's withdrawal from the EU in 2020, despite the fears of many experts ^[1], who predicted the end of the era of the so-called "permissive consensus", led not to the disintegration of the Union, but to an internal political crisis in the UK itself. Public opinion as a feedback channel between society and the government has become an important factor in the growing public skepticism towards integration with the EU.

From the standpoint of neofunctionalism, any regional integration is a continuous process of democratic choice of the citizens of the States of the region. It was the lack of democracy within the EU that determined the implicit prerequisites for Brexit. On the eve of the referendum, citizens' dissatisfaction with the effects and benefits of the integration process is noticeable.

According to the results of an opinion poll conducted by the international marketing research company Ipsos Group two months before the referendum among four thousand Britons over the age of 18, the UK's ability to develop and adopt its own bills was among the three key answers of respondents to the question: "Which of the listed problems of British society will affect your decision to vote for or "against" leaving the EU?" ^{[2, p.4]}

One of the areas where British society demanded the restoration of sovereignty was the immigration policy of the United Kingdom. Supporters of leaving the EU appealed to the fact that the government should strengthen control over the external borders of the state in order to reduce the high level of immigration from other EU member states, allegedly due to which unemployment among the indigenous population is growing and their wages are decreasing. There is a huge amount of research proving the minimal or zero degree of influence of migration on unemployment and wages in the country.

One way to monitor public opinion on immigration is to survey respondents on the "most important problem" facing the country. This approach evaluates the importance of immigration as a problem, rather than directly measuring people's attitudes towards immigration. According to the Eurobarometer survey conducted in the spring of 2015, 35% of respondents named migration as the main problem at the national level and 36% at the pan-European level ^{[3, p.2-3]}. For comparison, in 1994, less than 5% of respondents considered immigration to be a problem before 2000. She was rarely mentioned. The growing level of immigration from the EU since the accession of Eastern European countries was accompanied by a clear change in public sentiment between 2001 and 2016. According to the National Center for Social Research, in 2015, 65% of Brexit supporters believed that the United Kingdom would not be able to control the migration situation in the country while remaining a member of the EU ^{[4, p.10]}. It is no coincidence that public opposition to immigration is widespread and politically important.

While still British Interior Minister, Theresa May said at the annual Conservative Party conference in October 2015 that the UK should focus not on finding a pan-European way out of the migration crisis, but on helping those immigrants and refugees who have already arrived in the country ^[5]. At the next conference of the "conservatives" in 2016, which took place after the decision on Britain's withdrawal from the EU was made, T. May, as Prime Minister, announced a course to restore Britain's sovereignty over its immigration policy ^[6].

In general, the program of the Conservative Party under the leadership of Theresa May envisaged tightening immigration policy by restricting immigrants' access to work, preferential housing, medical care, opening bank accounts and obtaining a driver's license^[7]. According to conservatives, immigration control can be ensured by limiting immigration in the tens of thousands, reforming the social security system for immigrants, suppressing illegal immigration, strengthening border controls and creating a fund for social support for immigrants ^{[8, p.29]}.

According to the UK Bureau of National Statistics, in 2015, one in eight (13.3%) of permanent residents in the United Kingdom was born abroad, for comparison, in 2004 this figure was 8.9% (one in eleven). In the four years from June 2012 to June 2016, the migration balance showed an increase of 85% ^[9], net migration increased from 182 thousand people to 335 thousand people, respectively, which could not but affect the domestic political situation in the country.

Until 2015, the British were more concerned about the growing influx of immigrants from Eastern European countries, in particular from Poland. From the moment of its accession to the EU in 2004 to 2015, 737 thousand Poles immigrated to the UK^[10]. According to the results of 2015 They have become the most common nationality in the UK, accounting for 16.5% of the total non-British population. Interestingly, in just two years, British far-right public organizations will try to gain the support of Polish immigrants. So the organization "Britain First", which proposed to introduce a complete ban on labor migration, promised them that this would not affect law-abiding immigrants from the EU who came to the country before Brexit.

In the context of military conflicts in the Middle East and the subsequent migration crisis in the EU, the influx of refugees into the UK has increased significantly since 2015. According to the Eurostat quarterly report on asylum in 2016 The United Kingdom ranked fifth among European countries, granting asylum to 9944 refugees. The largest number of asylum applications came from Iranian citizens (4,184), followed by Pakistan (2,870), Iraq (2,672), Afghanistan (2,329), Bangladesh (1944), Syria (1,376), Eritrea (1,230). Moreover, the quotas for granting asylum varied depending on nationality, for example, in 2016, a significant quota of 37% (1,456 grants) was allocated for Iranian citizens, compared with 12% (285 grants) for Iraqi citizens^[11].

Speculation on the migration issue in the British media has significantly distorted public opinion, forming a contradictory and unrelated image of migrants with a predominance of negative characteristics. According to official government data, the largest group granted asylum in the country were Iranians, while the highest level of concern among the British was caused by Syrian and Iraqi refugees. Thus, 72% of respondents leaning towards Brexit, surveyed by the National Center for Social Research, replied that Britain needs to reduce or completely stop the influx of refugees from Syria, and 79% supported reducing or stopping the influx of refugees from such states as Libya, Iraq and Eritrea ^{[4, p.9]}.

Back in 2011, Robert Ford, a political scientist at the Institute for Social Change at the University of Manchester, in his works proved the existence in British society of a consistent hierarchy of preferences between immigrant groups (white and culturally closer groups of immigrants versus non-white and culturally more distinct immigrants) ^{[12, p.1018]}. The British make clear distinctions between migrants depending on their country of origin. For example, in 2017, only 10% of respondents to the Oxford University Center for Migration, Politics and Society (COMPAS) said that no Australian should be allowed to come and live in the UK, compared with 37% who said that no Nigerian should be allowed to do so ^{[13, p.7]}.

Concerns about immigration have decreased since the referendum on leaving the EU in 2016. By mid-2018 and throughout 2019, immigration was mentioned as a problem by less than 20% of respondents. By April 2020, concerns about the coronavirus pandemic had replaced other concerns, with only 5% of survey participants mentioning immigration as a problem. However, the situation has changed since the second half of 2022. During this period, immigration issues began to take a prominent place in the media headlines again: record levels of net migration, as well as illegal immigration and the issue of housing for asylum seekers firmly entered the political agenda and reflected on public opinion. In June 2023, 21% of respondents mentioned immigration as a problem ^{[13, p.5]}.

Net migration is a measure of migration that is most often used in UK political debates, quarterly publications of net migration data were used by Labour as a tool of political struggle. From 2010 to 2019, the UK's migration policy was aimed at reducing net migration to less than 100,000 people, but in 2019, under the government of Boris Johnson, it was abandoned. Moreover, long before that, the Labour party had repeatedly noted that this was a false and impossible goal of the conservative government in the face of an acute shortage of personnel in certain areas. In the five years from 2015 to 2019, Labor's warnings were justified, net migration increased from 219 to 332 thousand people per year. In 2023, it reached record levels in the entire history of observations of 685 thousand people. This unprecedented level of net migration is due, among other things, to the high demand for workers, especially in the health and health care sector. Those who migrated on work visas accounted for the largest share of net migration. Labor migration from non-EU countries increased from 277 to 423,000 people in the year from December 2022 to December 2023, surpassing student migration in the structure of long-term migration. Almost half of these migrants came from India or Nigeria ^{[14, p.2]}.

In general, the period after the referendum represented four years of uncertainty in immigration policy for potential and current EU migrants in the UK. At that time, the influx of migrant workers from the EU decreased, which was offset by an increase in migration from non-EU countries. In fact, since 2020, net migration from EU countries has been negative, in 2022 about 50 thousand EU citizens left the UK, while a record 660 thousand citizens of non-EU countries arrived ^[15].

Changes in UK migration policy in 2021-2024 and public perception of migration issues

The concern of citizens that persisted for a short time after Brexit led to a number of government initiatives to reduce the number of immigrants, the most important of which was the introduction of a new immigration system from January 1, 2021. According to the rules of the new immigration system, migrants from European Union countries faced tougher rules than migrants from other regions. The new rules came into force at the same time as the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the UK and the EU. The new system applied to everyone who moves to the UK to work, study or for family reasons, with the exception of Irish citizens.

In particular, an earnings threshold was set for obtaining a qualified work visa in the amount of at least 25,600 pounds and professions requiring skills equivalent to level A. The exception was representatives of scarce professions and those with a doctorate, a lower initial threshold was set for them (about 20,000 pounds). An expanded program for seasonal agricultural workers has been introduced. The medical visa provided simplified and cheaper access to the labor market for those who come to work in the National Health Service and in the social security system. The new graduate visa allowed international students who received British visas to stay in the UK for two years after graduation and work in any position. The new system represented a tightening of migration controls. Migrants from EU countries coming to work in low-skilled and low-paid professions could no longer obtain entry permits. It is necessary to submit an application on behalf of potential employers, as well as to pay a significant fee.

In 2022, the British Home Office published the document "New Immigration Plan: Legal Migration and Border Control", which revealed many aspects of the new immigration system. The document stressed that the created system is more equitable, because now the priority is the professional skills of migrants, not their origin. Labour, on the contrary, stressed that the introduced system could create an "unfriendly atmosphere" that would make it difficult to attract labor, and some innovations were even considered xenophobic. Diane Abbott, a member of the Labor Party, speaking on February 21, 2018, the day before the quarterly publication of net migration data, noted that Labor offers a fair and reasonable approach to immigration, while the Conservative government, although trying to maintain a balance with regard to migration reform, this may lead to a lot being done the number of exceptions, and eventually the reform will lose its original meaning.

The new migration rules are more liberal for those who are not EU citizens. According to the National Statistical Service, there are two main explanations for the increase in immigration from non-EU countries:

1) Work visas. Almost half of the increase in immigration from 2019 to 2023 is accounted for by those who arrived for the purpose of work (21%) and their family members (27%). Healthcare and social security were the main industries contributing to growth. There was also an increased demand for some workers who were already eligible for visas under the old system, such as doctors and nurses. The cessation of free movement between the UK and the EU has led to significant sectoral changes in migration flows. The number of migrants from EU countries working in the hospitality industry has decreased significantly, which has led to a sharp increase in the number of vacancies in this sector. A similar situation can be seen in other areas, such as healthcare and social security. Moreover, the health and information and communication technology sectors accounted for the largest share of qualified work visas issued under the new immigration system.

2) Student visas. International students and their dependents accounted for another 39% increase in immigration. The new system has obviously had a significant impact on the structure of student migration. The UK has a policy of attracting promising international students who, after graduation, have the opportunity to work in the country. At the same time, the requirement for students from EU countries to pay international fees rather than domestic ones has made the UK less accessible for them compared to foreign students from non-European countries, for example from India, Nigeria and Pakistan.

Thus, the implementation of the provisions of the new immigration system leads to difficulties for certain groups of migrants. Thus, newly arriving migrants from the EU have fewer rights and more restrictions on access to certain types of support than they had with free movement, their dependence on employers increases; and the lack of legal migration routes can create incentives for illegal migration.

The cornerstone of the "New Immigration Plan" was the Law on Citizenship and Borders, adopted on July 6, 2021, which was supposed to reform the inefficient asylum system. The Refugee Council, a leading charity working with refugees and people seeking asylum in the UK, described this legislative act as inhumane, since a number of measures of the Law contradicted the norms of international law, in particular the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees. First of all, the Law on Citizenship and Borders divides all refugees into 2 groups. Refugees who arrive in the UK via third countries by illegal routes (for example, crossing the English Channel on a small boat) are provided with a new form of temporary protection with limited rights to social benefits and family reunification, and their status will be reassessed after 30 months. Thus, depending on how a refugee got to the UK, the scope of his rights will depend. Restricting the right to family reunification will seriously affect one of the main routes for refugees to arrive in the UK and negatively affect the integration of those who have already been recognized as refugees. At the same time, the Government has not proposed any alternative safe routes.

Another controversial point of the bill was the proposals for the so-called "offshore processing" of asylum applications. In practice, this means the forced displacement of asylum seekers to third countries, usually less developed ones. Most likely, the conservative government borrowed this experience from Australia. According to the UN General Assembly, "as part of Operation Sovereign Borders, Australia prohibits any illegal arrival by sea and automatically sends asylum seekers arriving by sea to offshore detention centers. Since 2013, about 3 thousand refugees and asylum seekers have been forcibly transferred by Australia to the so-called "offshore temporary detention centers" in Papua New Guinea and Nauru" ^{[16, p.14]}. However, the Australian experience of "offshore processing" of documents has proved not only incredibly expensive and inefficient, but also devastating for the mental health of people seeking asylum.

This practice, where some Western countries outsource asylum to countries in the Global South or help finance asylum and border control systems in transit countries, has become a global trend. The European Union has provided funding to countries such as Albania, Libya, Niger, Tunisia and Turkey. The United States has funded the ability of some Latin American countries to develop asylum systems.

The 2022 UK-Rwanda Asylum Agreement is the most striking and extreme example of this trend. According to it, Rwanda undertakes to accept asylum seekers from the United Kingdom, consider their applications, exercise their rights under international law through the internal asylum system of Rwanda and organize the settlement of persons recognized as refugees or otherwise in need of protection. The purpose of this agreement was to ensure that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would never return to the UK. In practice, the implementation of this plan was complicated because deportation to Rwanda was delayed due to ongoing legal proceedings. Moreover, The Guardian stated that the operation to detain refugees, launched at the end of April 2024, was timed to coincide with the upcoming municipal elections in the UK.

Amid another panic over the high level of net migration in the UK, on December 4, 2023, the government and the new Home Secretary, James Cleverley, proposed several changes to visa rules. According to the so-called "five-point plan" to reduce immigration, social workers will no longer be allowed to bring family members with them to the UK. In the year ending in September 2023, 101 thousand visas were issued for healthcare workers and caregivers of the sick and elderly, as well as approximately 120 thousand visas for their family members. The minimum income that is normally required to sponsor someone on a spouse/partner visa has also been increased from £18,600 to £29,000. In order to combat low-paid labor from abroad, the government has abolished a 20% discount from the current wage rate for scarce professions and reduced their list.

Since the spring of 2024, the government has proposed to increase the earnings threshold for foreign workers by almost 50% from the current position of 26,200 pounds to 38,700 pounds, encouraging enterprises to primarily seek British talent and invest in their workforce (including through the implementation of the government's "Back to Work" plan). thereby freeing employers from excessive dependence on migrants, while at the same time bringing salaries in various employment sectors in line with the average level for such types of work. The government also announced a reduction in the number of student visas issued and the abolition of the right of foreign students to take dependents with them (in 2023, about 153 thousand such visas were issued), with the exception of postgraduate studies. In addition to measures to reduce migration, the government has increased the annual immigration fee for medical care from 624 to 1,035 pounds to ensure the financial viability of migrants who will not abuse public services.

All changes came into force during the first half of 2024. In general, all those who wanted to work and live in the UK should have been able to support themselves, contribute to the economy and not burden the state. The new system was aimed at attracting highly qualified migrants who can positively influence the development of the British economy. Due to the imposed rules, many families were separated indefinitely. Such a policy was actually discriminatory, considering British families with one nationality more "legitimate" than British families of migrants and mixed nationalities.

According to the Immigration Attitudes Tracker from Ipsos and British Future, about 69% of the population are not satisfied with the way the current government handles immigration issues, and only 9% are satisfied. This is the highest level of discontent since the referendum on leaving the EU. The survey was conducted online with 3,000 adults across the UK between 17 and 28 February 2024. The first reason for discontent is "insufficient measures to prevent crossing the English Channel" (54% of respondents). 51% of the respondents noted that "the number of immigrants is too large." 28% of respondents believed that the problems stem from "creating a negative or frightening environment for migrants living in Britain," and for 25%, the reason for discontent was "mistreatment of asylum seekers" ^[17].

There is a growing party split on the issue of immigration. About 53% of Conservative supporters, assessing their electoral behavior in the upcoming elections, noted that the issue of immigration for them is in third place after the health care system (57%) and the cost of living (55%). Among Labour voters, he was only in 12th place, that is, half as many as those who believed that he was important for their vote (27%). Most Labour supporters view immigration in a positive or neutral way. When issuing work visas for immigrants, the public would prefer that the government make it a priority to solve the problem of shortage of personnel at all skill levels (52%), rather than attracting migrants only to highly qualified positions (26%) ^[17]. In general, public support has grown for the need to attract migrants as labor in various industries, especially in low-paid or dangerous areas of work, where a shortage of personnel has arisen and is only increasing after Brexit. Between 2015 and 2024, there was a big positive shift in the views of both Conservative and Labour voters on the economic and cultural consequences of immigration. The polarization in voters' views has increased due to a much more significant positive shift among Labour supporters, who are now much more pro-immigration than they were a decade ago.

Labour versus the Conservatives

On the eve of the parliamentary elections in 2024, the Conservative Party finally lost the confidence of the population. On July 4, 2024, the Labour Party, led by Keir Starmer, won the parliamentary elections, interrupting the 14-year rule of the Conservative Party. The new government has proposed a different approach to solving migration problems:

1. The crisis of small boats. From January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2023, about 114 thousand people illegally crossed the English Channel on small boats and requested asylum. While the Conservatives had high hopes for the implementation of the Citizenship and Borders Act and the agreement with Rwanda, the Labour Party said it wanted to spend the money currently allocated to Rwanda on law enforcement. On July 7, 2024, as an alternative to the asylum plan in Rwanda, a new "Border Security Command" was launched to combat gangs operating on small boat routes, which will strengthen security cooperation with the EU. In addition, Labour has proposed allowing police to screen people suspected of being involved in people smuggling and introducing new powers to control their financial accounts in order to address the ongoing crisis of illegal migrants crossing the English Channel.

2. The provision of asylum. The abandonment of the Rwanda plan has become part of the Labour Party's immigration policy. The Labour leader has repeatedly stated that he supports a rules-based asylum system that processes applications quickly and humanely, but which also detains and expels people who have no right to be in the UK. However, it should be noted that in December 2023, the Labour Party also explored the possibility of processing asylum applications abroad, while successful applicants could live in the UK. Earlier, they also stated that they want to sign a return agreement with the EU.

Between 2018 and 2022, a large number of pending asylum applications accumulated. This has led to additional costs due to the need to provide asylum seekers with support and housing while they wait for a decision on their application. In 2023, by order of the Conservative Government, the number of staff to handle old asylum cases was increased. New processes have also been introduced to streamline document processing, including making decisions on some asylum cases based on a written survey rather than an interview, and grouping applications by nationality. To eliminate the delay in granting asylum, the Labour Party announced the creation of a new department for accelerated return and enforcement (one thousand additional employees to process applications). Separately, Keir Starmer said that asylum applications from people who arrived in the UK after the adoption of the Law on Illegal Migration will be processed. Earlier, the Labour Party proposed the creation of temporary courts, which, according to it, would allow for the rapid consideration of legal claims against expulsion.

3. Labor migration. The Skilled Worker visa is the largest labour migration route in the UK. After the decision to leave the EU, the Conservative government liberalized labor migration from non-EU countries, but partially abolished liberalization in early 2024. The Labour Party has not set a specific target for net migration, but would like its level to decrease. Labour is considering reintroducing the "resident labour market test," which requires employers to prove they have tried to hire staff in the UK before hiring staff from abroad.

Net migration is expected to decrease by the end of 2024, regardless of the implementation of the new immigration policy of the Labor government. This is due to two reasons: firstly, foreign students who arrived in the UK during the boom in student migration (2021-2023) will return to their homeland; secondly, visa restrictions imposed by the previous government will reduce immigration. In its latest demographic forecasts, the National Statistical Service assumed that net migration would fall to 315 thousand people by 2028 as a result of restrictions imposed on migrants to arrive in the country and to obtain refugee status ^[18].

4. Student migration. Migration of international students and their family members was the largest group explaining the increase in net migration since 2019. After graduation, international students can live and work in the UK for two years (or three if they are doctoral graduates) by applying for a post-graduation work visa, known as a graduate visa. In January 2024, the Conservative Party banned most students from bringing their family members with them to the UK. The Conservatives have proposed additional measures to combat "fraudulent recruitment agents," limit distance learning and allow universities that accept international students who have not passed the Interior Ministry's visa verification to lose their sponsorship licenses. The Labour Party has maintained a ban on student family members.

5. The minimum amount of income. The minimum income that migrants with permanent residence permits must receive in order to bring partners and children from abroad to live in the UK was first introduced in 2012. On the eve of the elections, the Conservatives announced that they plan to raise the income threshold until it reaches 38,700 pounds. The Labor government is concerned about the increase in the minimum income and insists on revising this indicator.

6. Visas for the youth mobility program. The Youth Visa Program issues non-renewable work visas to young people (usually between the ages of 18 and 30) from countries with which the UK has signed an agreement. The program is open to 12 unaffiliated countries: Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, Andorra, Iceland, Monaco, San Marino, Uruguay, Taiwan and Hong Kong, as well as to citizens of British Overseas Territories. Holders of such visas do not need an employer to sponsor them, and they are not tied to certain jobs. There are restrictions on the number of visas for each nationality.

Initially, the Labour party said that the party was not going to introduce a pan-European youth mobility program. They proposed to conclude bilateral agreements with individual EU countries, including Spain, Germany and Poland. After Brexit, there was not a single exchange program with the EU.

In April 2024 The EU has published a proposal to start negotiations with the UK on a mobility program. The proposal included a four-year exchange program for people between the ages of 18 and 30, including the opportunity to study at each other's universities and pay tuition at the same rate as local students. After Brexit, EU students coming to the UK can no longer pay tuition at the same rate as local students, and pay from 16 to 59 thousand pounds per year, like international students. Universities claim that it is financially impractical for EU citizens to return to tuition fees, since they will actually have to subsidize such students. The proposal was rejected by both the Labour Party, which was in opposition at the time, and the Conservative government.

The victory of the Labour Party in the 2024 parliamentary elections actually means that Brexit will be played back to some extent, since the Labour Party intends to deepen trade and economic ties with the EU. It should be noted that R. Sunak also chose a pragmatic approach to relations with the EU, which led to the signing in 2023 of the Windsor Framework Agreement, which settled the issue of the trade status of Northern Ireland, and a Memorandum of Understanding on cooperation in the field of financial services. In the same year, the UK joined the two main EU science and research programmes Horizon Europe and Copernicus.

In October 2024, K. Starmer promised to turn the page in Britain's relations with the EU, despite disagreements with Brussels over proposals for a European youth mobility scheme. Brussels is putting pressure on K. Starmer, demanding to start discussing a scheme that will allow young people from the EU to live and work in the UK for a certain period of time, and vice versa. It is expected that the number of years of the program will be reduced to three, and the age range of mutual visa schemes will be increased to 18-35 years.

In 2023, only 23 thousand people came to the UK to work under the British youth mobility program, which is only a small part of the total net migration figure. This may allay the fears of the Labour government, which is now under pressure to accept young workers from the EU on vacation. In turn, the UK seeks closer cooperation with the EU in the field of defense and security, as well as mutual recognition of professional qualifications.

The British government has achieved greater control over the influx of migrants from EU countries, but it has lost access to useful European Union tools to control the growing flows from third countries. Accordingly, it can be assumed that the EU and the UK will face the problem of managing their migration systems. The unwillingness to cooperate coming from both sides only makes the situation worse. It would be important to develop a comprehensive migration management system between the EU and the UK in order to prevent serious international clashes. This structure may resemble previous cooperation in which the UK participated as a member of the EU. It may include the partial return of the UK to the Dublin system and new British contributions to EU missions, programs, as well as the Europol budget. The UK's cooperation with Frontex is of particular importance, since the latter, as the EU Border and Coast Guard Agency, has unprecedented experience in illegal migration and cross-border crime on the European continent. Cooperation in the short term could include joint work in areas such as the analysis of migration flows in Europe or the fight against document forgery, with the aim of expanding collaboration in the long term.

The combined ratings of both Conservatives and Labour have been declining over the past two years. Both parties are at the center of the political spectrum: the Conservatives are better off, the Labor Party is more on the field. In the context of the aggravation of the migration agenda, the conservatives have noticeably moved "to the right", thereby satisfying the noticeable dissatisfaction of the British with the increase in the number of illegal migrants. Labour's victory in the 2024 parliamentary elections was a kind of vote of no confidence in the Conservatives. Kovalev I. G. and Nazarchuk T. V. rightly point out that K. Starmer, as the new leader of the Labor Party, abandoned the "too left-wing" strategy that was inherent in J. To Corbin. The Labour Party has formulated an election program that has become attractive to a wide range of voters, including those who voted for the Conservatives in 2017 and 2019 ^{[19, p.82]}. Paradoxically, the also unpopular Labour Party actually became the first government to have majority support on immigration issues.

The coverage of migration in the British media is fickle and politicized. Overly politicized media coverage of migration, often based on false or distorted information, often overshadows consideration of deeper human security issues and forms toxic public opinion. Foreigners are often accused of stealing jobs from locals, importing foreign cultures, or overcrowding housing and schools.

Negative attitudes towards immigrants will change only if specific problems related to housing, health care and public infrastructure in general are addressed. In particular, the Labour government, shortly after the 2024 general election, ambitiously promised to build 1.5 million new homes over the next five years. However, this political desire must be combined with a clear understanding of the economic reality underlying the housing crisis in the UK. Too many people simply cannot afford to buy or even rent decent housing.

The Southport case demonstrated the persistence of systemic errors in the migration policy of the government, both Conservative and Labor. The migration issue is being resolved not from a legal, but from a political point of view. Thus, the political debate on migration in the United Kingdom is mainly focused on net migration, while the debate in other countries tends to focus on immigration and the granting of temporary or permanent status. Despite the fact that the Labour Party accused the Conservatives of pursuing a "wrong" migration policy, in fact they operate in the same migration paradigm, maneuvering between public discontent and business interests. Migration plays a key role in the functioning of the UK labour market by providing businesses with cheap labour.

Undoubtedly, Brexit has become a catalyst for the UK's reorientation in finding sources of labor resources to replace those that it successfully used as a member of the EU. As a result, on the one hand, there remains an economic imperative to accept foreign workers from third countries in order to alleviate labor shortages and reduce fiscal pressure from an aging population. On the other hand, society is constantly confronted with political hypocrisy. Governments declare strict policies on immigration and organize demonstrative repressions against asylum seekers or illegal migrants, while quietly admitting large numbers of workers and turning a blind eye to illegal work. The Conservative government operated within the framework of this standard scheme. After Brexit, a huge number of immigrants from non-EU countries entered the UK, while the government tried to distract the electorate with a controversial plan for Rwanda. As a result, unfulfilled promises to stop small boat migration across the English Channel forced the Conservatives to really impose devastating restrictions on economic migrants.

Currently, Labour is in a better position than the Conservatives, as net immigration is already falling and the severity of the migration problem will decrease. The most reasonable scenario for UK migration policy is freedom of movement with the EU, but everything related to the EU and the free movement of workers remains toxic for politicians. However, without an honest conversation about the trade—offs between economics and politics, it is expected that in five to ten years Labour will be in the place of the Conservatives on the eve of the parliamentary elections in 2024, when the British economy will suffer from a shortage of labor, while Tories and reformists will shout that immigration is out of control. The game, consisting of iterations of organized hypocrisy, tires both players and viewers over time.

Conclusion

Public perception and media coverage of immigration policy have a huge impact on the political debate on this issue. The media indulge a person's psychological tendency to attach more importance and attention to negative news and events, emphasizing conflicts and misconduct. Accordingly, the migration crisis of 2015 in Europe, which seriously affected British public opinion, overlapped with the problem of a lack of democracy within the EU, which led to Brexit. The UK's exit from the EU, in turn, changed the structure of migration in the country in favor of non-citizens of the European Union.

Public opinion shapes the elite's response to crises. In particular, the Government's poor response to the migration crisis could damage its electoral prospects, while an effective migration policy could turn into political capital. Thus, following public opinion, conservative governments gradually tightened migration rules to solve two main tasks — reducing net migration and the problem of illegal migration. It was these aspects of migration policy that most often appeared in the headlines of the British media.

The results of public opinion polls are unstable and may fluctuate over time. Thus, opinion polls on the eve and immediately after Brexit did not reflect the long-term sentiments of voters. By the middle of 2018, the concern of British citizens about migration is decreasing and is completely leveled during the coronavirus pandemic. Since the second half of 2022, the migration agenda has become relevant to British society again. It was at this time that the conservative government decided to introduce additional measures to tighten migration rules. However, the British are now concerned not only about the reduction in net migration, which has been hitting record levels every year, but also how the government solves specific problems related to migration, in particular, the shortage of personnel in certain areas, the housing crisis, refugee policy, etc. Overall, there have been positive changes in public opinion regarding the socio-economic and cultural consequences of migration. Changes in voter preferences have become the basis for the transformation of the political rhetoric of the Labour Party. During the 14 years of electoral struggle with the Conservatives, Labour began to take a more pro-immigration position. The polarization in the views of Conservative and Labour voters on the economic imperative of migration is becoming increasingly noticeable.

While in opposition, Labour stressed the guilt of the Conservative government in implementing ineffective and often inhumane migration policies. Moreover, citizens themselves can support human rights violations in exchange for an immediate reduction in social tension. In 2024, public dissatisfaction with the way the conservative government handles immigration issues reached its highest level since the referendum on leaving the EU. Fatigue with the Conservatives allowed Labour to form a government that, for the first time, received majority support on immigration issues.

Under Starmer, Labour has focused on improving its approach to migration in the context of post-Brexit. The party has supported a policy that prioritizes skills-based migration to meet the needs of the UK economy, echoing aspects of Blair's points system, but with tighter governance. The proposed reforms include improving the efficiency of the immigration process, protecting workers' rights and ensuring that migration policy is designed in the interests of the UK as a whole.

The public approval that Labor received in 2024 may transform into an electoral gain in the next parliamentary elections. However, the riots in Southport became the first crisis for the Labour government, demonstrating the persistence of systemic problems of the UK's migration policy, which in the future can provoke serious political or social conflicts. Given that the combined support ratings of the Conservatives and Labour have declined markedly over the past two years, neither party is ready for a complete overhaul of the immigration paradigm. In our opinion, a return to freedom of movement with the EU and the involvement of culturally closer migrant workers for British society can become the basis for overcoming the political crisis. Of course, neither London nor Brussels are ready to negotiate a new alliance yet, although the discourse on this issue has already appeared in the media and at the level of the political elite. This is reflected in public opinion polls, so since mid-2022, the share of people regretting Brexit has consistently exceeded 50%, and the decline in the Conservative rating was also due to the fact that the ruling Conservative Party, along with former Prime Minister B. Johnson, was associated with Brexit and the vote to leave the EU. EU. Moreover, we are not talking about reunification on the same terms. In the context of the expansion of European integration, the differentiated integration project seems to be the most likely scenario for the future of the EU. Germany and France propose to identify four concentric circles of integration within the EU, the UK could become part of the most distant of them.

The Labour government in its migration policy should make a strategic decision, not a tactical one, which in the short term may have a negative impact on public opinion, but in the long term will have political dividends and determine the UK's way out of the political crisis.