Getting the best of both worlds? Britain, the EU and migration policy International Affairs 81,  () ‒ ANDREW GEDDES 1 Zig Layton-Henry, The politics of immigration (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992); Christian Joppke, Immigration and the nation state (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); Randall Hansen, Immigration and citizenship in post-war Britain (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); C. Boswell, European migration policies in flux: changing patterns of inclusion and exclusion (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2003). There is no question of Britain giving up our veto on our border controls. In the Treaty of Amsterdam seven years ago we secured the absolute right to opt in to any of the asylum and immigration provisions that we wanted to in Europe. Unless we opt in, we are not affected by it. And what this actually gives us is the best of both worlds. We are not obliged to have any of the European rules here, but where we decide in a particular area, for example to halt the trafficking in people, for example to make sure that there are proper restrictions on some of the European borders that end up affecting our country, it allows us to opt in and take part in these measures. Tony Blair, 25 October 2004 From the 1960s until the 1980s British immigration and asylum policy was marked by a retreat from the unexpected immigration implications of empire. This involved the assertion of a national model of migration management and associated notions of citizenship and belonging. 1 Since the 1990s British migra- tion management has become linked to cooperation and integration at the European Union level. Does Europe challenge and perhaps even fundamen- tally overturn this national approach to migration management? How do we understand British immigration politics then and now? This article argues that the selective use of the EU as an alternative, cooper- ative venue for migration policy management actually reinforces rather than overturns established patterns. How, then, do we account for these contem- porary developments in the context of established patterns of politics? What does it mean to get the best of both worlds in migration and asylum policy? How can the two tracks in a twin-track pursuit of national and EU approaches to migration management be reconciled? What effects does EU cooperation have on the balance of power among the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government? Can the ‘two worlds’ of Britain and Europe be so neatly distinguished? And, more generally, what does engagement with the EU migration and asylum framework tell us about British relations with the EU?