The UK’s “one in, one out” migrant deal with France is on the brink of collapse, with a senior French immigration official claiming: “It’s over.”

Graphite

This was launched as a bilateral pilot agreement in August 2025 and extended to run until October 2026.

That was all. A pilot.

Since then, in June 2026, the EU has introduced a new scheme called the The Asylum and Migration Management Regulation (AMMR). It determines which member state is responsible for processing an asylum application. It replaces the older Dublin III Regulation a more efficient system across the EU to ensure a fairer sharing of responsibility among EU countries.

I have posted about it before and how the UK could negotiate to become a part of it. It would solve the problem of dangerous small boat crossings.

Burham's conference speech:

... control over immigration was weakened when we lost collaboration with our European partners. And we are still having to work hard to bring it back. Later this year, there will be a UK-EU summit where one of the issues on the agenda will be how we best work together on immigration.

Of course if we hadn't made the catastrophically stupid decision to leave the EU ten years ago, we’d be part of the AMMR now.

Thank you so much, again, for providing verified and credible information.

Scaremongering is not what anyone needs, many people are scared and anxious about irregular migrant crossings and these do need addressing and our population given reassurances that positive steps are being taken by all involved.

We cannot go backwards, the “ifs and buts” no longer matter.

What matters is the here and now, and the immediate future.

It would help enormously if Farage and Lowe stopped exploiting people’s fears and anxieties and worked together to heal the very regrettable and huge divisions in our country and among our citizens.

Graphite

This was launched as a bilateral pilot agreement in August 2025 and extended to run until October 2026.

That was all. A pilot.

Since then, in June 2026, the EU has introduced a new scheme called the The Asylum and Migration Management Regulation (AMMR). It determines which member state is responsible for processing an asylum application. It replaces the older Dublin III Regulation a more efficient system across the EU to ensure a fairer sharing of responsibility among EU countries.

I have posted about it before and how the UK could negotiate to become a part of it. It would solve the problem of dangerous small boat crossings.

Burham's conference speech:

... control over immigration was weakened when we lost collaboration with our European partners. And we are still having to work hard to bring it back. Later this year, there will be a UK-EU summit where one of the issues on the agenda will be how we best work together on immigration.

Of course if we hadn't made the catastrophically stupid decision to leave the EU ten years ago, we’d be part of the AMMR now.

I think it is a bit tricky for those who supported Farage and the whole Brexit business to find out that Brexit caused the small boats debacle rather than solving anything. And yet these self same people are prepared to vote for him believing he can deliver on the small boats debacle.
Is like badly written satire.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Loads of migrants ended up in Dublin. When asked why they were in Dublin, the answer was that they didn't want to be sent to Rwanda.
If every illegal migrant was sent the next day to Rwanda, the boats wold stop within the week, and if that had happened, we wouldn't even be talking about it now, yet alone paying through the nose for what this terrible Government are still letting us in for.

Well said!!! The scheme was never given a chance and we are paying the price

What nonsense people post on here. I’m never sure if they are just trolling or really believe this guff.

Rwanda was a dead duck. The only accommodation agreed between the UK and Rwandan governments was a small hostel in Kigali (it is now being used to house deportees from the USA which the Rwanda government carefully select).

In an interview with Laura Kuenssberg on her Sunday BBC show just days before Sunak called the general election, Rwanda government official Yolanda Makolo admitted that. She said nothing else had been agreed.

Sunak knew the scheme was dead in the water. It was why he called an early election. He knew the Tories were going to lose so the scheme would never be proven a failure.

Nick Robinson challenged Sunak in a pre-election interview when the latter claimed that thousands to be deported had been detained, the runways booked, the planes ready. Why haven’t you done it then? asked Robinson. It’s a major issue. It could win you the election. Sunak claimed he would give it the go ahead only once the Tories won the election.

Utter tosh and why Labour cancelled the whole expensive charade.

Thanks to those providing facts instead of those being a mouthpiece for Farage.

The links to the facts from the other side of the Channel are all available in French, so it's worth hearing their take on things.

Roughly translating here:
France has decided to end the agreement. French authorities are refusing to renew it.
Following on from Le Ministre de l'Intérieur, Laurent Nuñez, they recognise that it has not had any real effect in dissuading the crossings. The figures still remain massively high.
Moreover there have been serious logistical failings where numerous migrants have managed to get themselves back to the UK by lorry or by boat.
Also, France no longer wants to bear the full burden on this, but now wants to negotiate a new global agreement on an EU level with the other members.

It's not quite a case of saying, "on your bicylette to the UK", but it's very much saying the agreement didn't deliver - as many predicted at the outset.

It was a pilot scheme and didn’t work as well as hoped.

Next step, a negotiation over becoming part of the AMMR.

This .. including lessons from the pilot:

www.futuregovernanceforum.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/AE03-Rethinking-Migration-01-gvEWGfuzfocnglfOq3zXvExD9qo4NVbz.pdf

Extract:

One-for-one should be dropped in favour of ‘fair share’ The principle of reciprocity and the UK taking its ‘fair share’ is the right one, but this does not need to amount to arithmetic balance in real time. The government’s ambition should be for controlled refugee arrivals, as opposed to uncontrolled arrivals (the situation today) or no refugee arrivals (which is neither practical nor ethical). Over time, this means the UK should take substantially more refugees through legal routes from Europe than we return back to Europe. Far from a bad deal for the UK, this would be proof of successful cooperation to tackle irregular migration. The aim should be that in future most asylum seekers should be stopped in their first country of arrival in Europe to make an asylum claim, dangerous irregular crossings by boat or lorry to the UK would be very low, and the UK instead plays its part by giving protection to a fair share of asylum seekers through safe and legal routes from Europe.

MartavTaurus

The links to the facts from the other side of the Channel are all available in French, so it's worth hearing their take on things.

Roughly translating here:
France has decided to end the agreement. French authorities are refusing to renew it.
Following on from Le Ministre de l'Intérieur, Laurent Nuñez, they recognise that it has not had any real effect in dissuading the crossings. The figures still remain massively high.
Moreover there have been serious logistical failings where numerous migrants have managed to get themselves back to the UK by lorry or by boat.
Also, France no longer wants to bear the full burden on this, but now wants to negotiate a new global agreement on an EU level with the other members.

It's not quite a case of saying, "on your bicylette to the UK", but it's very much saying the agreement didn't deliver - as many predicted at the outset.

That’s a very fair summing up. Thank you.

Obviously I’m sorry it wasn’t a success, but unlike us, France have options.

believe this guff

I reckon so.

Billions and billions wasted on Hotels as temporary housing, SERCO making huge, eyewatering profits. the Rwanda nonsense.

Who is pulling the strings here, we will never know.

Luckygirl3

*Rwanda was working* !!!!

✅ Zero people were forcibly sent to Rwanda under the main deportation scheme.
• Forcibly deported: 0 asylum seekers were sent on deportation flights.
• Voluntary removals: 4 individuals went to Rwanda under a separate, voluntary migration programme.
• Total cost: Approximately £715 million was spent on the policy before it was cancelled.

Rwanda was working!!!! £715,000,000 poured down the drain! - on an immoral scheme.

We will never know if the Rwanda scheme would have worked.
It was the deterrent factor , which was already working as lots of immigrants got themselves into Ireland in order to avoid being sent there.So many ended up there that the Irish were out protesting about it.

nanna8

I thought it was 100 in, one out.

😂

Oreo

nanna8

I thought it was 100 in, one out.

😂

What leads you to this conclusion please?