Keir Starmer to push Macron for last-minute migrant return deal
The prime minister is pressing for the deal as the centrepiece of a new agreement between Britain and France that the two leaders will sign at an Anglo-French summit on Thursday.
The arrangement would allow Britain to return small boat migrants to France in exchange for accepting asylum seekers with a family connection in the UK.
However, British and French officials are yet to finalise the details as the French president's three-day state visit begins on Tuesday.
The UK government is also in last ditch talks with the European Commission to overcome opposition from a group of five Mediterranean countries who fear a bilateral deal between Britain and France would add to pressure at their own borders.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
20 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
We used to have hope and compassion. Where did it all go?
The documentary reminded me that, 20 years after Live Aid, there was Live 8 on July 2, 2005, held in eight cities around the globe, including Moscow. That was the time of the Make Poverty History campaign, of the G8 in Gleneagles when world leaders, including Vladimir Putin, signed up to an accord to cancel debt owed by the poorest nations of the world and to boost aid to Africa. It was a time when President George Bush committed $15 billion to the fight against Aids in Africa and the Caribbean, saying that compassion was an American value. Looking at the hopes and aspirations of those times gone by and looking at the world as it is today, all I can ask is: where did it all go wrong? Doug Maughan, Dunblane. Who are they kidding? Who are Prime Minister Starmer and President Macron kidding if they think that their "one in, one out" pilot scheme is 'groundbreaking", will have a 'deterrent effect beyond the numbers actually returned" and will 'finally turn the tables"? At least there was no further mention of the sound bite pipe dream of "smashing the gangs" ('Starmer and Macron detail 'one in, one out' migrant pilot to curb crossings", The Herald, July 11). It is worth noting their scheme is to curb crossings, not stop them. A potential migrant was interviewed on TV this morning and unsurprisingly said it would not deter him. Hundreds come over each week and the risk of being one of those few selected (how?) to be returned is minuscule, and anyway the legal aid lawyers will be queuing up to challenge that selection and appeal again and again against it if necessary. We have huge numbers of migrants coming here to seek asylum through legal routes and that will no doubt continue, but the illegal migrants are paying the trafficking gangs to avoid any scrutiny. How can it be in our national security interests to have thousands of mainly young men, about whom we know little or nothing, dispersed around the country ? When will the Government act on its previous admission that it was its 'duty" to stop, not just curb, these illegal migrants? That will require it to enforce the sovereignty of the UK and its borders by legislating to create the real deterrent that illegal migrants are disqualified automatically, no ifs or buts, from staying here and will be arrested on arrival and held securely until they can be deported back to French waters from where they came. What else can we do to stop this illegal invasion? Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop. Read more letters What hope now for Labour? The only way to quiet the Farage foghorn is to turn the narrative away from 'irregular migration' to one of the many, many other pressing, sidelined issues. There are two problems with this. • The predominantly right-wing UK media loves the aggro and lazy one-trick-pony-ness of it as much as Nigel Farage. • It would take real leadership from Keir Starmer (sprinkled with some belief in his own policies) to achieve. Banging on about migration in wholly negative terms while doing precious little to fix the broken system that encourages the exploitation – including even acknowledging the disastrous role of Brexit – is too easy fuel for Reform UK and is lapped up by a swathe of the population, now comfortable in dressing their racism up as patriotism. Angela Rayner, who might contend as a real leader, has just been carpeted by her union for her role in the Birmingham bin strike ("Angela Rayner suspended by Unite union over bin strike", heraldscotland, July 11). I didn't know Angela Rayner ran Birmingham City Council. And anyway, it is high time the major unions – including the ones who keep orchestrating rail strikes – cottoned on that in a country where everything is either privatised or de-facto privatised and the job of a lot of councils is simply working out whose mates to give the contracts to, strikes only actually affect the suffering public who are already paying through the nose for failing and dysfunctional services. With Ms Rayner's wings clipped by an out-of-touch union, what hope is there that Labour leadership can change the discordant tune? At least we've got Keir Starmer's Trump visit to look forward to. Amanda Baker, Edinburgh. Why should we pay for Trump? It is said that the purpose of Donald Trump's visit is to open the new 18 hole-golf course at his resort in the north-east coast at Menie, north of Aberdeen. He is not expected to meet with King Charles in London. For all intents and purposes therefore, the visit is a business trip and the only political elements pertaining to the situation are due to the person making the trip. The trip of 2018 cost the UK taxpayer in the region of £18 million, £5m of which covered time spent in Scotland. Since the purpose of the 2025 trip is to further expand Trump business, why should the UK taxpayer be called to compensate the President for security/transport costs if they are in fact business expenses ("Police seek aid over cost of Trump Scots visit", The Herald, July 11)? The US taxpayer no doubt gazes dumbfounded as their Head of State boards Air Force One for yet another round of golf in warmer climes, but they voted for him. Scotland didn't. Maureen McGarry-O'Hanlon, Jamestown. • Do we really want to see US President Donald Trump in Scotland, pay at least £5 million for his security, and let him promote his golf courses? No, no, no! He's the most obnoxious, arrogant and ignorant numpty ever to inhabit the White House. Our police could instead deal with what really matters in our communities and I would urge our golfers to play different courses. Andy Stenton, Glasgow. • You report the news of a Presidential visit by The Donald this month. The last time around the security bill was many millions of pounds. The numbers of police being taken from their usual duties numbered thousands. In view of his seemingly singular undiplomatic views on all things American and many other countries, it gives way as to how to view the visit. Does one join with a large demonstration, of which there will be many to choose from, or stay at home like the multitude who care nought for him and the ideology he professes? It is a no-win situation for the police and the taxpayer. R Johnston, Newton Mearns. Wind industry is on holiday During this current heatwave when we need electricity for air conditioning the most, I couldn't help but notice the wind industry has gone off on holiday. The entire fleet of thousands of entirely parasitic, demonstrably useless giant wind turbines littering our once-beautiful countryside is barely able to provide the National Grid with 2% – reaching the dizzying heights of 1.46% to be precise. Will we get a refund of the vast annual record-breaking subsidy for poor or non-existent service? George Herraghty, Lhanbryde. Keir Starmer pictured with Emmanuel Macron earlier this week (Image: PA) Drink up, Canada I note Ross Greer's advice to John Swinney to "switch" Scots whisky exports from America to Canada ("'Switch our whisky exports from US to Canada over Trump tariffs'", The Herald, July 11). Looking at this from the perspective of per head of population (335 million versus 40 million) this will require Canadians to increase their whisky consumption by a factor of 8.3. Good luck with that. Another example of sound political logic? Jon Cossar, Edinburgh. McDermid on the warpath Val McDermid has gone on the warpath ("Val McDermid: Politics is an 'absolute cesspit of misogyny'", heraldscotland, July 10). This is intriguing as Ms McDermid is very good friends with Nicola Sturgeon, who almost single-handedly removed the basic rights of all Scottish females to their own private space with her ill-thought-out gender reforms. Are we detecting yet more push-back against the very relevant Supreme Court decision on this matter which pointedly did not support Nicola Sturgeon's position ? You could write a book about all of this. Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow. Rough treatment Scotland looked wonderful yesterday (July 10) in the sun at the Scottish Open Golf at the Renaissance Club overlooking the Firth of Forth. The golf was also pretty good, with some Scots in contention and of course the fans behaved impeccably. The only slightly sour note was provided by the two heavies escorting Rory McIlroy, who seemed intent on preventing the young fans touching hands with their hero, shame. I am sure that Rory would not sanction such action. W MacIntyre, East Kilbride. Taps off, please The backdrop to Carol Kirkwood's BBC weather forecast today (July 11) was Battersea Park. The 20-plus fountains were majestically performing in full flow. The previous news item had stressed the need to conserve water due to the current weather. The watery spectacle seemed to contradict the public warning. Lack of communication or a complete disregard for common sense? Either way a prompt turn-off is required. Allan C Steele, Giffnock. Our 45 record Kristy Dorsey's article on the Eastwood Twelve ("The revival of golf at Eastwood: '12 is plenty'", The Herald, July 11) mentions people not wanting to take out the whole day to play 18 holes. Back in the day, three of us regularly played both of Hilton Park's courses, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, followed by nine holes on the shorter Allander course in the evening, only the twilight hours restricting our day's golf to 45 holes. We were known as the lopers, admittedly with no wives and families to be brought into the equation. David Miller, Milngavie. • Samantha Whitelaw, the manager of the 12 -hole Eastwood Golf Course, lists the advantages of the club's limited number of holes compared to the more conventional 18-hole course. As a former "holiday golfer", one of the attractions would be to claim that I could manage a round at my course in fewer than sixty strokes – but only on a good day. Malcolm Allan, Bishopbriggs.
BBC News
23 minutes ago
- BBC News
What would a regional mayor mean for Norfolk and Suffolk?
Big changes in how Norfolk and Suffolk are run are on the government wants to carry out a major shake-up of local authorities – existing councils will be scrapped and replaced by new ones - and the counties will share a will be given extra powers over areas including transport and housing, with elections for the mayoral role due to take place in May next successful politician will then oversee councils running two counties that have traditionally been known to have a friendly rivalry. Why is this happening? Last December ministers revealed devolution plans which would see a huge reorganisation of local government, with the pledge of moving more power away from London and also cutting prime minister Angela Rayner told the BBC that giving regional mayors more control over housing, transport, education and employment would help drive economic plan will also see numerous existing councils Norfolk that means eight existing councils will be scrapped, although there is debate as to how they should be reformedThe existing county council favours one authority covering the entire county while six of the district councils favour three. South Norfolk Council has said two would be Suffolk, six current councils will county council has said it should be replaced by one authority, but the five districts are backing the idea of three. What would the mayor do? The mayor would be in charge of what is called a combined county authority – which would be made up of Norfolk and Suffolk's government has said they would have "greater local control" over transport, adult education and skills, and housing – and it would expect them to deliver improvements including economic may also take on the responsibilities of the police and crime powers will ultimately be determined by the Devolution Bill - launched on Thursday - if that passes through parliament and becomes mayor would also represent Norfolk and Suffolk on the Council of Nations and Regions – which includes the Prime Minister, leaders of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – as well other regional mayors. What other parts of the country have mayors like this? There are already 14 regional mayors in England covering the likes of Greater Manchester, Greater Lincolnshire and Cambridge and powers and responsibilities vary, with the Mayor of London role being quite different as it was setup under a different model of devolution. Who could the next mayor be? With the election not due to take place until next year, the major parties have yet to select their as a high-profile, new role, competition to be nominated would likely be could also see independent candidates put themselves forward. Don't we already have mayors? Yes, we do – but they are different from the one we have been talking about selects a new Lord Mayor every year from its existing councillors, while West Suffolk, Great Yarmouth and King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough councillors do the same for their each case, it is a ceremonial role that sees them chairing full council meetings, attending civic events and councils like Bury St Edmunds, Cromer, Thetford and Felixstowe also have mayors who are, again, existing councillors serving as figureheads and chairing meetings. How would they be chosen? An election is scheduled for 7 May 2026, with everyone registered to vote in Norfolk and Suffolk able to take mayor would then serve for a fixed term of four years, before another election takes place. Will these changes definitely happen? Devolution deals have been on the table for both Norfolk and Suffolk in the past, but ultimately came to time around, the majority of players involved want to move forward with a deal, even though they may not currently agree on what the final deal should sorting out such a major reorganisation is not simple, and there is still a lot of work to be done in a relatively short period of time. Follow East of England news on X, Instagram and Facebook: BBC Norfolk or BBC Suffolk.
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Unite's doing an astounding PR job for Reform
Unite's shock decision to suspend Angela Rayner's membership and re-examine its relationship with Labour on Friday left the trade union community aghast. As senior union officials messaged each other in shock, political rivals were left salivating. This is just the kind of shake-it-up drama they were hankering for. 'This is an odd hill to die on,' one bemused union insider says of Unite chief Sharon Graham's decision. 'It's bonkers – what's their endgame here? Your average union member doesn't give a f--- about political affiliations, but this is damaging for Labour and now is not a good time to damage them.' Unite, Labour's biggest union backer, should be very careful what it wishes for. When it ran a private poll of its members before last year's general election, insiders were alarmed to discover growing support for Nigel Farage's Reform. Clearly concerned about the shift in political tone among its membership, a Unite insider told me earlier this year that Reform was simply an example of 'very wealthy people plugging into the zeitgeist of workers. Is Reform a friend to workers? No'. So it seems odd that the very same union is now doing some pretty astounding PR for Reform, knowing from their own membership base exactly how effective ex-City trader Farage's efforts have been (the union never revealed the results of the poll). If the gameplan here is to shift funds to Jeremy Corbyn's new Left-wing party, it's unlikely to work – those union members who have been caught up by Farage's razzle dazzle won't suddenly become Corbynites just because Sharon Graham says so. While it's younger voters who are more likely to vote for the Corbyn-led party, it's older workers who are more likely to join a union. According to official data, 40pc of union members are over 50 years old while just 3.7pc are under the age of 24. Gen Z might have a reputation for demanding change, but very few are actually unionised. Meanwhile older, unionised workers who have lost faith in mainstream politics have been listening to Farage for months. From Reform's local election launch rally at JCB where Farage declared that he was 'on the side of working people' to his message in a working men's club in Durham, when he said Reform was parking its 'tanks' on Labour's lawn in Red Wall areas, Farage's charm offensive has paid off. Union chiefs have been working hard to convince any won-over members to rethink. Tackling Reform's rise was a major focus at a lunch hosted by the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union, which represents almost 200,000 civil servants, earlier this year while the Trades Union Congress (TUC) has been promoting clips on social media of workers asking why Farage wants them to lose their jobs. When I asked a union boss about all of this recently, he acknowledged that members were frustrated and angry, living in a country that feels 'broken and beaten'. Reform has tapped into this feeling. But unions have a job to do, he continued – 'remind our members that the reason we have a historic relationship with Labour is that working people need a voice. We still feel that is best served by Labour'. Maybe so, but Unite just bulldozed that message. Despite vowing to spend less of members' time and money on Westminster politics, Sharon Graham has been attacking government policies for months. Going 10 steps further with a formal split from the party and a withdrawal of funding would mark a landmark political moment – one which as well as damaging Labour could serve as a boost for corporate Britain and the wealthy, instead of the workers unions are fighting for. If Labour falls out with its union paymasters, ministers might be more likely to listen to the needs of the executive class. The government may reconsider its tax raids on the rich amid accusations that it is driving the wealthy away, or it might soften the looming Employment Rights Bill - which is set to give unions far more power – in order to appease UK plc. Both issues are at a crunch point. As the Bill makes its way to the final stages of the parliamentary process, bosses will be raising the volume on their long-running concerns. Meanwhile billionaires who swung behind Labour in the lead-up to the election are losing patience. Sir Keir refused to rule out introducing a new wealth tax, a move which unions back, earlier this week after former Labour leader Lord Kinnock suggested the party was 'willing to explore' a tax on assets worth more than £10m. One of Labour's richest supporters, Phones4U founder and former Tory John Caudwell, has said he is growing 'increasingly nervous' about the Government's direction and argued that a wealth tax would be 'very destructive' to growth. Labour knows it can't ignore these concerns. Sir Keir's pro-business party looked beyond the unions who traditionally bankroll it in the run-up to the election, accepting nearly £13m in private donations in 2023 versus £5.8m from unions. It is clear that divisions on the Left will not only benefit Reform but also drive Labour into the arms of billionaires and big business. Unite, which has donated £19m to Labour since 2019, is not as in control as it might think.
