Most Britons actually support free movement – but the government’s misleading messages won’t tell you that

Even those who voted Conservative at the election are more likely to support reciprocal travelling rights than the average voter. Clearly the immigration debate has been heavily distorted

The long-awaited Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) report was finally published this morning, with recommendations for a new post-Brexit immigration system.

It lands on the desk of a home secretary who has proudly boasted of her determination to end the free movement of people “once and for all”, and to cut immigration.

This was a freedom that not only allowed thousands of EU citizens to come to our country, to work in our NHS, our care homes, our schools, our farms and our offices, making a huge contribution to our economy and our society; it was also a freedom that we could enjoy by living, working, studying and loving in 27 other EU countries. On 1 February, it will be gone.

Now it appears the prime minister is ready to introduce a new points-style system, which has been a totem of the Tory right for years.

The only problem is that this won’t solve anything: businesses, whether small, medium or large, fear it won’t adequately fill skills shortages in our economy – even with the new “global talent” visa proposals. Meanwhile, those worried about high immigration numbers think the system might actually increase net migration to the UK.

It feels like the debate has scarcely moved on from where it five years ago. Or 10 years ago.

Conventional wisdom at Westminster, particularly on the Conservative benches, has long been that the country wants a stricter, tighter and ultimately harsher process for dealing with migrants to and from the UK.

This approach conveniently ignores the public backlash to Theresa May’s “hostile environment” policy of recent years and the outcry over Windrush families being torn apart by a cruel system that was unfit for purpose.

The outcry over the Windrush scandal, and support I have seen for many individual refugees cases, convinces me that the public is much more compassionate than the Conservative Party thinks.

Of course, some would argue that the Brexit vote in 2016 – and possibly the last election too – was about taking control of our borders. But the latest research from cross-party campaign group Best for Britain strengthens the growing sense that many politicians have misinterpreted the will of the people.

During the election, Best for Britain used sophisticated “MRP” polling to take the political temperature of individual constituencies. The technique generates voter profiles and maps them onto each constituency by using a larger sample size than traditional polling and building in local factors – achieving a more granular understanding of each constituency’s political voice at the end of the process. Indeed, their November data predicted the correct result in 95 per cent of seats at the election.

Now they are applying the same technique to tricky policy questions like immigration – and the results are worth reading.

Best for Britain’s findings suggest that over half the British population are in favour of free movement – when they understand how it works for Britain.

While around half the country supports free movement in exchange for access to the single market – a similar figure to the percentage of people who voted Remain – that figure rises when free movement is discussed in its own terms, and crucially, when offered reciprocally. Interestingly, those who voted Conservative at the last election are slightly more likely to support freedom of movement on these terms than the average voter.

There is no sign of regional bias in the findings either. The results are as applicable in Redcar as they are in Redbridge.

This suggests the debate around immigration has been heavily distorted in recent years. When it is correctly framed as a reciprocal arrangement, with EU citizens free to come and work in Britain as British people are to live and work in Europe, there is widespread support for freedom of movement. It’s only when it’s portrayed as something to swallow that people become opposed to it.

And that has been the framing of anti-EU factions for too long. Whether it was Ukip’s notorious referendum poster, or David Cameron’s comments about a “swarm” of migrants, immigration is continuously portrayed as something to fear.

If governments wanted to curb immigration from the EU, there were mechanisms available under EU law. These could have been deployed, rather than resorting to soundbites about arbitrary caps and targets to “solve the problem”.

I accept, regretfully, that we will lose free movement when we leave the EU, and with Priti Patel in the Home Office, there is little reason to hope for a humane replacement. But I do believe the government should recognise that there isn’t widespread support for a more restrictive immigration policy.

So when the MAC report's recommendations are transferred into a White Paper in March, Boris Johnson should think about what kind of prime minister he wants to be.

Do we have a campaigning PM, keen to nab a strong headline from friendly publications but with little regard for genuine policy? Or a more open-minded politician looking to rebuild trust in our immigration system?

I suspect it will be the former, but I hope it is the latter. Only then will the debate around immigration be able to move on.

Caroline Lucas is the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, and a supporter of the cross-party campaign group Best for Britain