Summary
The Brexiteers promised after the referendum of June 23, 2016, to reduce immigration by ending freedom of movement. The opposite occurred: After Brexit, migration to Great Britain did not decrease, but increased. Switzerland can learn from this failure how difficult it is to politically control migration flows in practice. The example demonstrates that restrictive regulations do not automatically lead to the expected results.
People
- Niklaus Nuspliger (Author, NZZ)
Topics
- Brexit and migration
- Migration policy
- Freedom of movement
- Swiss migration policy
Clarus Lead
The British migration balance after Brexit refutes a central campaign promise of the Leave campaign and confronts Swiss politicians with an uncomfortable reality: restrictive migration regulations do not guarantee that fewer people will immigrate. With growing pressure to increase immigration numbers – such as from skills shortages and economic constraints – it becomes clear that migration control is significantly more complex than populist campaigns suggest. For Switzerland, which also grapples with immigration issues, the British case illustrates the limits of simple political solutions.
Detailed Summary
The 2016 Brexit referendum was driven by several emotional and economic narratives. In addition to hopes for lower EU payments and stronger national sovereignty, migration control was a central motif: Brexiteers promised that the end of freedom of movement would lead to a significant reduction in immigration. This expectation proved to be flawed.
The subsequent reality presents a paradoxical picture. Despite formally more restrictive regulations, immigration to Great Britain actually increased rather than decreased. This refutes the assumption that legal restrictions alone can control migration flows. Economic factors, skills shortages, and institutional constraints prove to be stronger drivers than regulatory frameworks. The British case illustrates a fundamental policy dilemma: countries with aging populations and economic growth targets often need more migration, not less – regardless of political will.
For Switzerland, with its own contested migration debate, an important lesson emerges: populist promises of simple reduction through administrative measures systematically overestimate state capacity for control. Actual migration dynamics depend on structural factors that are difficult to manage.
Key Findings
- The British promise of reducing immigration through Brexit has not materialized; migration has increased.
- Restrictive migration regulations alone do not guarantee desired results when economic constraints work against them.
- Switzerland should learn from the British example that migration policy is structurally more complex than simplified campaign messages suggest.
Critical Questions
Evidence/Data Quality: What exactly are the immigration figures showing the increase after Brexit, and over what time period is this measured? Are regional or sectoral differences documented?
Conflicts of Interest: Which economic sectors (healthcare, technology, agriculture) benefit from increased migration, and do their interests influence political rhetoric?
Causality: Is the increased migration a direct consequence of economic needs after Brexit, or do other factors (global mobility trends, refugee migration) play a role?
Feasibility: Under what conditions could a reduction in immigration actually be achieved without harming the economy or exacerbating skills shortages?
Swiss Specifics: Which different mechanisms (bilateral treaties, wage controls, quota systems) are relevant in the Swiss context to avoid making the same mistakes as Great Britain?
Source Index
Primary Source: Ten-Million Switzerland: Brexit shows how complex migration control is – Niklaus Nuspliger, NZZ, 26.05.2026
Verification Status: ✓ 26.05.2026
This text was created with the support of an AI model. Editorial Responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-Check: 26.05.2026