Prime minister Theresa May gives little away on what Brexit means other than ‘Brexit’. This is no better than saying nothing at all – like ‘gobbledygook is gobbledygook’ – although immigration looked like one area we did know what Brexit means. Sort of.

All leading Leave campaigners from Boris Johnson to Nigel Farage rallied around one common idea: that Britain should have a points-based immigration system, an idea that is popular with the public. They claimed that importing a points-based system like in Australia would help Britain better control who can come work and stay.

Remain campaigners criticised this policy because the points-based immigration system was launched in Australia to help increase, not reduce, immigration – and that is what it did.

Both sides reveal how very little they know about how immigration works in Britain. First of all, there is nothing new about points-based immigration in Britain – it has been used in the United Kingdom since Tony Blair’s government introduced it for non-European Union citizen’s migration to Britain in 2008. I should know. I had to pass it when I migrated to the UK before getting my British citizenship. Anyone saying they want to see a points-based system here should know it is already here.

Secondly, Australia’s immigration system did lead to higher net migration, but Remainers got wrong that there is more than one way to run a points-based system – like how we do it now in Britain with a cap on visas so that non-EU migration can be controlled better. So far, not so good.

But then May revealed the one thing we thought we knew about Brexit – that there would be this points system – was definitely not going to happen. All of a sudden Brexit meant something other than ‘Brexit’.

Reports suggest the prime minister is looking to support caps on different visa categories, but this raises two questions. Why not continue the current points-based system instead? And if a points-based system has worked well for non-EU citizens with no criticism from May during her time as home secretary, why the change now? May’s comments seem more like an attempt to hamstring Brexit negotiations than plotting a path to reducing net migration.

Maybe May’s plans for Brexit are no clearer than her plans on immigration control. Worryingly, this seems the case with each passing day.

This past weekend the prime minister made clear her intention to trigger Article 50 and begin Britain’s exit from the EU by the end of March 2017. This assumes that she can unilaterally make Britain Brexit without the consent of parliament – the subject of a court case she may lose.

May also proposes a new Great Repeal Bill, but there is nothing ‘great’ about it – and instead of repealing EU law, it would actually enshrine it in British law. Her plan is that government ministers will pick over the bones and determine which EU laws can be discarded.

It is all a great deception – using a popular vote in a referendum for greater sovereignty of parliament to increase the powers of the executive at the expense of parliament. If anyone is guilty of trying to subvert democracy and the will of the people, it is May – and not those who want to ensure Britain is only better after Brexit.

This opens an important space for Labour to show leadership where the Tory government has failed. It is time we came together to launch a new national conversation re-engaging with voters to show that a Labour government can deliver solutions to the problems that concern people most.

———————————

Thom Brooks is head of Durham Law School and author of Becoming British: UK Citizenship Examined (Biteback). He tweets at @thom_brooks

———————————

Photo: Sky News