Inside France's 'Brexit-style' migration referendum – and why same vote won't happen in Britain

Thank you for subscribing!

'I don't think the UK could do the same,' a National Rally insider told GB News

"Together, we must take back control of our borders," National Rally president Jordan Bardella told a packed-out main hall at Reform UK's annual conference in Birmingham last week.

It was a message tailor-made for the turquoise-lit room of migration-sceptic Reform UK supporters, echoing the language that won the 2016 Brexit referendum.

But the fresh-faced 30-year-old Frenchman had not crossed the Channel just to recycle decade-old slogans and sign an agreement-in-waiting to "stop the boats" with Nigel Farage.

"The first initiative we'd put in place if tomorrow we were in power," Mr Bardella told GB News, "is to declare a referendum on immigration – a constitutional referendum which will allow us to put in place in the French Constitution necessary measures to protect our country from immigration."

Despite the National Rally's gradual rise from fringe outsiders to genuine contenders for power — with parliamentary leader Marine Le Pen now outpolling every rival for the presidency — Mr Bardella's admission suggests the populist party believes winning power alone will not be enough.

"This means how asylum is processed in the embassies and consulates and the departure of countries," he said.

"The abolition of birthright citizenship. The systematic removal of condemned foreign nationals. Priority given to nationals when it comes to welfare. France must become less attractive for immigration.

"So we'll make sure benefits are no longer handed out to foreign nationals arriving in France without conditions.

"By doing this extremely rigorously and with a mandate from the people to reduce the generosity of the French model, we will then avoid migration influx towards France and the concentration in Calais. And of course, we'll protect our borders at the point of entry upon passage."

Opinion polls now suggest around 70 per cent of French voters want a referendum on the issue of immigration.

Surveys also show eight in 10 voters also back the principle of "negative migration" and 67 per cent support a three-year freeze on almost all legal immigration to France.

"The majority of French people agree with us," a senior National Rally source told the People's Channel.

However, just as Brexiteers faced hurdles in the Supreme Court and Houses of Parliament, National Rally risks a constitutional showdown.

The Constitutional Council has already struck down 32 amendments to toughen France's migration law, including on social benefits, restricted family reunification and quotas set by Parliament.

Critical constitutional experts in France have branded the referendum plan "a sort of coup d'État", a step outside the rule of law and a "Fifth Republic bis".

Professor Richard Johnson, a senior politics lecturer at Queen Mary University, also said France's Constitutional Council is the first obstacle standing in National Rally's way.

"There are two ways that you can bring about a referendum in France," Professor Johnson told Britain's News Channel.

"One is through the conventional process of constitutional amendment, whereby you first need to get approval in the Assembly and the Senate, and then it goes to a referendum.

"Or you can bypass the Assembly and the Senate and have the president just do a presidential referendum. I guess that's what they are thinking about doing if they don't get majorities in both chambers, and that is more limited in what you're allowed to do, and that's reviewable by their Constitutional Council."

He added: "Theoretically, the French judges, as a first hurdle, could say this is not constitutional. Now, if that's the first veto point they encounter, they can either accept that ruling, or they can go ahead and have a referendum that's been deemed unconstitutional by the French Constitutional Court."

Defying an adverse ruling would not be unprecedented. Charles de Gaulle did exactly that in 1962, pushing through direct presidential elections despite the Constitutional Council's opposition at the time.

And National Rally is now looking to emulate La Grande Asperge's move.

"We will do it through Article 11, as de Gaulle did when he set up the presidential election," a source close to Mr Bardella said.

However, should Ms Le Pen and Mr Bardella press ahead regardless, they risk plunging France into a full-blown constitutional crisis, with an emphatic victory required to ensure the resulting law is not built on foundations of sand.

Even clearing the Constitutional Council would not mean National Rally was in the clear, with a furious reckoning with the European Union on the horizon.

"The next hurdle then would be that the ECJ (European Courts of Justice) might say there are provisions in these plans that are inconsistent with EU membership," Professor Johnson said.

"Under EU law, and under the terms of EU membership, EU law takes precedence over domestic law when it's an area of EU competence — an EU policy responsibility — and this has been the case for decades.

"What it means is that domestic laws that go against the EU are disapplied, effectively struck down."

Several strands of National Rally's plan would collide directly with that principle, including reserving welfare and jobs for French nationals ahead of fellow EU citizens, tearing up the Schengen agreement and processing asylum claims solely through embassies overseas.

Brussels has form when it comes to punishing member states brazen enough to defy it. Britain knows this better than most, having crossed swords with the bloc over sovereignty long before Brexit ever became a rallying cry.

Professor Johnson pointed to the Factortame case of 1988, when the Merchant Shipping Act, a quasi-protectionist policy designed to shield UK shipbuilding from foreign competition, was found to breach single market rules and struck down by EU courts, despite British courts having no power whatsoever to strike down an Act of Parliament themselves.

France also felt the wrath of the continental club after the ECJ ruled against Paris over its migrant pushbacks at its border and the European Court of Human Rights ordered compensation for asylum seekers left sleeping rough.

However, Hungary and Poland have felt Brussels' fury more sharply still, with Budapest's asylum "transit zones" resulting in a £1billion fine and Warsaw facing a similar daily penalty following its push for judicial independence.

Despite the UK being freed from the clutches of the EU, a National Rally insider poured cold water on the prospect of Britain ever using the same constitutional route to tackle the migrant crisis.

"I don't think the UK could do the same, as the power of the Constitution is very French," they told GB News.

However, concerns about migration have made real headway politically on this side of the Channel, including after Britons voted to leave the EU in 2016.

Julian Gallie, head of research at Merlin Strategy, told the People's Channel: "There is major support for reducing migration and 71 per cent of Britons believe immigration has been too high over the last 10 years, according to YouGov.

"A referendum on the most radical position of closing the border entirely, allowing no new migrants and removing a large number already here would see the public split nearly equally."

The YouGov survey, conducted in June 2025, found 45 per cent of Britons would support a scenario in which no new migrants were admitted to the UK and large numbers of those already here were required to leave, while 44 per cent opposed the idea.

Frustrations have even resulted in calls for Andy Burnham to call a referendum on illegal migration, with campaigner Dean Morgan telling Britain's News Channel: "This should be a warning to the authorities that they have to start listening to the British people."

While the anger fuelling these calls may look similar to France's, Professor Johnson insisted any resulting UK vote would not necessarily involve the same measures as those touted by National Rally, and would look more political than legislative in practice.

"The key difference is that there is no special status for a referendum within the British constitution," Professor Johnson explained.

"I mean, if you wanted to have a written British constitution, it could be very short — five words long: 'Whatever Parliament enacts is law.' What that means, of course, is that anything Parliament legislates for has no higher law above or beyond it — that's the theory of parliamentary sovereignty."

He added: "I can understand the tactical reason for supporting a referendum in Britain, which would be to get MPs who don't want to support you on the issue to at least concede that there should be a debate and a public vote, and then use that referendum to force their hand.

"But really, in a way, you're dragging out the process because the pressure should come at a general election. There are issues where the political class are just impervious to doing that.

"The EU was one of them, and so sometimes maybe you do need to look at that mechanism — but it's mainly a political device in Britain rather than a legal device."

The UK's parliamentary sovereignty sets it apart from most European countries, many of which wrote new constitutions after the Second World War or the fall of communism and built referendum provisions into their systems.

Ireland has held 44 constitutional referendums since 1937, while Switzerland has held around 700 since 1793, which is more than any other nation on Earth.

France has held nine national referendums since the founding of the Fifth Republic in 1958, including de Gaulle's 1962 vote and three on the future of the European project.

Britain, by contrast, has held just three UK-wide referendums in its entire history: one on membership of the European Economic Community in 1975, a second on the Alternative Vote system in 2011 and the third on leaving the EU in 2016.

However, UK constitutional experts believe it is not Britain's aversion to referenda that takes a vote on migration off the table.

Ex-Attorney General Sir Michael Ellis told GB News: "I don’t think there would be any legal or constitutional impediment to holding a referendum here, but the current British Government would be reluctant to have a referendum anyway because they know what the result would be, a resounding instruction to curtail immigration, and are clearly not willing to take the strong measures that would be necessary to resolve the issue."

Lord John Redwood, a veteran Brexit campaigner and former Welsh Secretary, added: "Parliament is sovereign. It can enact a referendum or reduce migration any time it likes.

"It's quite obvious there is overwhelming support to stop the boats and smash the gangs, but this Government is unlikely to do that."

Mr Burnham has hardly been a champion of the ballot box since taking office, telling Sinn Féin that Irish reunification is "off the table" and warning referendums leave "rifts" that "take a long time to heal".

Despite this, the Prime Minister has also been accused of flip-flopping on rejoining the EU and appeared to slip up by suggesting a second Scottish independence referendum could take place if public opinion shows demand for one.

Constitutional historian Rafe Heydel-Mankoo suggested support for a crackdown on legal and illegal migration might force Mr Burnham's hand.

He told the People's Channel: "As with the death penalty, immigration, though politically explosive, is not traditionally deemed suitable for a referendum.

"However, as immigration is arguably now an existential threat to the future of the country — and could be deemed of far greater consequence to Britain than leaving the EU — a very good argument could be made that it should now be the subject of a referendum."