More migrants cross the channel a day after Macron and Starmer sign deal
The crossings came a day after Sir Keir Starmer signed a deal with French president Emmanuel Macron aimed at deterring migrants from making the perilous journey.
According to the Home Office, some 353 people made the trip across the channel by small boat on Friday.
This was down from the 573 people who crossed on Thursday, the first time any such journeys were made in a week.
More crossings were witnessed on Saturday, but the full figures are yet to be published.
Border force vessels and the RNLI were called out on both Thursday and Friday to reports of multiple boats crossing the channel, the Coastguard said.
A statement from the Coastguard said: 'HM Coastguard has been co-ordinating a response to multiple incidents involving small boats in the Channel on 10 and 11 July.
'UK Border Force and RNLI vessels have been sent as part of this response.'
Under the terms of the deal agreed by the Prime Minister and Mr Macron, the UK will for the first time be able to send migrants back to France in exchange for asylum seekers with links to Britain.
The so-called one in, one out deal is due to begin in weeks on a pilot basis, but needs final legal verification from the EU.
Downing Street has indicated ministers expect the EU to support the arrangement, amid concerns among some European governments that migrants who have travelled to Britain could end up back on their territory.
No details have been given about how many people will be covered by the pilot, but French officials had indicated it could initially be limited to about 50 a week, a small fraction of the weekly average this year of 782.
At least 21,000 people have already made the journey since January, putting 2025 on course to be a record year for crossings.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
UK politicians are in the pockets of the rich. Is that democracy?
At Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, Keir Starmer responded to a question from Green Party co-leader Adrian Ramsay about growing calls to introduce a tax on wealth for the super-rich – those with assets above £10 million – by saying he wouldn't 'take advice' from the Greens, and insisting that 'we can't just tax our way to growth'. We can, it seems, cut our way to growth though, as long as it's those already at the greatest risk of poverty who'll bear the brunt. On Wednesday evening, 333 Labour MPs voted to cut disability benefits by £2 billion per year, halving the health element of universal credit for new claimants, and cutting it altogether for new claimants aged under 22. At a certain point, when the faces and the colour of the rosettes change but the glaring injustices remain the same, we have to ask ourselves why. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer (Image: Yui Mok) A common refrain among politicians is that right-wing policies that make life harder for social security claimants – or immigrants, or any other marginalised group – are popular. So popular that they have no choice but to implement them with gusto, because that's the will of the people, I guess. Meanwhile, I suppose we are to imagine that the average British voter is kept up at night worrying about the prospect of millionaires and billionaires being asked to pay more into our public services. As Tory leader Kemi Badenoch put it at PMQs, a wealth tax would be 'a tax on all of our constituents' savings, their houses, their pensions'. Who among us doesn't know and love someone with more than £10m in assets lying around? And surely we can all agree that they're the real victims? Back in the real world, a YouGov poll last week found that 75% of people in the UK would support introducing a wealth tax of 2% on wealth above £10m. Earlier this year, YouGov conducted another poll on behalf of Oxfam which found that 79% of over 16s in Scotland would rather the government tax the richest than make cuts to public spending. (Image: YouGov) And while it's true that some voters do believe that the welfare system is too generous, and the immigrants are draining the country of resources, it's important to remember that large sections of the British media, with their own vested interests, have spent not years but decades pushing precisely this narrative. It's disingenuous at best to persuade someone of something and then behave as though it was their idea all along. Alongside campaign groups Tax Justice UK and Patriotic Millionaires UK, Oxfam identified that the government could raise up to £24bn per year through a wealth tax which would apply to only 0.04% of the population. At the same time, charities and experts from across the UK and beyond – extending to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – have highlighted the damage that cuts to social security could cause to people's ability to make ends meet or simply live with dignity. So, if it's not the electorate telling politicians which policies to pursue, and it's not the data or the impassioned pleas of experts that persuade them, then what is it that drives them to make these decisions? READ MORE: Mark Brown: Why I plan to join Scotland's new radical left party Surely the answer is obvious by now. Time and again, right-wing and supposedly centrist politicians prove that nothing matters to them than the feelings of their rich donors and supporters – and nothing matters more to those wealthy individuals and large corporations than money. Successive governments' inaction on a range of urgent issues – from climate change, to energy prices, to raising taxes to fund crumbling public services – becomes far easier to understand once you realise that standing up to behemoth corporations and their numerous beneficiaries could cost these politicians dearly. If power for power's sake is the goal, if fuelling the party machine with big donations is a worthwhile end in and of itself, and if securing oneself a cushy position after – or perhaps during – your time in office is the ultimate prize, then making an enemy out of the 1% is a senseless endeavour. The dramatic decline in political party membership numbers over the past several decades mean that parties have become more and more reliant on a small pool of wealthy donors. Analysis by the Electoral Reform Society found that, during the 2024 election campaign, Labour received £6.7m from 'mega-donors', which made up 68.5% of their total donations up to polling day. This equates to 42 times the amount they took from the same type of donors during the 2019 election campaign. David Lammy secured a personal donor a job at the Foreign Office (Image: PA) When we ask ourselves how it is that the Labour Party have sold out on so many principles in such a short period of time, the answer is in the question. What chance does the average person – or community – stand to have their voice heard and acted upon by those in power while principles and policies are being sold to the highest bidder? Just last week, it was revealed by the Democracy for Sale substack that Foreign Secretary David Lammy gave a taxpayer-funded job in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to the former UK president of multinational PR company WPP after she donated £5000 to his office ahead of the election. This is only the latest in a series of jobs for donors that Labour have been scrutinised over. Under the ideal of democracy which we are encouraged to believe the UK represents, every eligible voter should have an equal say in elections and, by extension, an equal opportunity to have a say in the decisions the elected parliament makes. How far must our political leaders stray from this principle before we recognise that we are no longer ruled by democracy but plutocracy: a society controlled by people with great wealth or income? Consider that the UK's 50 richest families hold more wealth than 50% of the population, according to analysis from the Equality Trust. And while the top 20% hold 63% of the UK's wealth, the bottom fifth have only 0.5% of the wealth. READ MORE: The best way to defeat Reform UK? Expose the gaping holes in their politics Polls might show that the vast majority of the British public want to see the wealthy taxed more, but to imagine that this information would seize the Prime Minister with an urgency to act would be to believe that all views, experiences, voices or lives are equal. You only need to look at how this government – the progressive alternative to the old government – treats the most vulnerable to know that isn't true, not under this system. As long as money talks and those without are silenced, most of us will be out here screaming into the void. In case that seems too bleak a note to end on, a reminder: it doesn't have to be this way. Just look at the growing fervency with which the Tories and now Labour have sought to quash dissent through the criminalisation of peaceful protest, and the proscription of activist groups they don't like as terrorists. Even the frantic efforts of the Government to censor a rap group, Kneecap, over political statements is revealing. These are the actions of power under threat. They are terrified of ordinary people speaking their minds and telling them in no uncertain terms that enough is enough. That, alone, should act as motivation to keep doing just that.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Arms firms are buying exclusive access to MPs for as little as £1499
It comes as the new UK Labour Government has ushered in the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War. Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced in February that the UK would increase spending on defence up to 2.5% of GDP by April 2027, raiding the international development budget. The 144-page-long Strategic Defence Review released last month details how the UK is moving to a position of 'war-fighting' readiness, including committing to procuring up to 7000 domestically built long-range weapons. Look no further than the newly created All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Defence Technology. READ MORE: Scotland's NHS ready to treat injured Gaza children, First Minister says This informal cross-party group at Westminster was only created in January 2025 but has hit the ground running with a swish website where it says it is looking to 'partner' with defence firms who can then buy exclusive access to Westminster MPs and policy makers. Demand has certainly been high. At least 37 arms firms – including industry titans Leonardo and Lockheed Martin – have already sponsored the group according to its website. Leonardo, which has a factory in Edinburgh, is known to have produced targeting systems for Israel's F-35 fighter jets, which have been used to bombard Gaza. Lockheed Martin – the world's largest arms company – also contributes parts to F-35 fighter jets. Membership comes with its perks. So-called 'Tier 1 Partners' – which the APPG recommends to start-ups – can get access to 'all organised meetings' and 'opportunities to network with MPs and policymakers' for just £1499 (below). (Image: Defence Technology APPG) At the higher price point of £5000, meanwhile, 'Tier 2 Partners' can also get 'enhanced access to exclusive APPG meetings and key discussions' as well as 'priority invitations to high-profile parliamentary engagements' (below). (Image: Defence Technology APPG) The APPG register claims the group has already received between £60,001-£61,500 for a group 'secretary' from these firms. Declassified UK reported earlier this month that RUK Advanced Systems Ltd, a weapons firm which is owned by the Israeli government, also donated at least £1499 to the group. Of the 30 MPs involved in the APPG, five are from Scottish Labour, including Gordon McKee (Glasgow South), Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar), Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudon), Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) and Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan). Other MPs on the group include Neil Shastri-Hurst (co-chair), Fred Thomas (co-chair), Sarah Bool (officer), Anna Gelderd (officer), Luke Akehurst and Iain Duncan Smith. READ MORE: Scotland's NHS ready to treat injured Gaza children, First Minister says Meanwhile, another new Westminster group this year – the Defence and Security Sectors Supporting Local Communities APPG – is also funded by the arms industry, with the ADS group – the industry body for the arms industry – funding its secretary to the tune of £16,501- 18,000, according to the register. The ADS group also contributes funding to the APPG for Aviation, Travel and Aerospace. (Image: Danny Lawson) Meanwhile, arms firms BAE Systems and Babcock International – alongside other organisations – pay for the secretary for the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Apprenticeships to the tune of £54,001-£55,500. This type of lobbying and private firms sponsoring Westminster APPGs isn't new. For years, concerns have been raised that they can operate as a 'back door' for lobbyists. In 2021, the parliament's standards watchdog warned that a new Westminster lobbying scandal could be sparked by the actions of MPs sitting on these informal committees. Labour's Chris Bryant – who chaired the committee at the time and is now a minister in Starmer's government – said he feared some APPGs were being used as a "backdoor" for commercial interests. Anti-corruption campaign group Transparency International has also expressed concerns. Rose Whiffen, a senior research officer at Transparency International UK, told the Sunday National: "All-Party Parliamentary Groups serve an important function in bringing expertise to Parliament, and encouraging cross-party work. When defence companies can buy access to MPs and policymakers, it raises serious questions about whether APPGS are being exploited by private interests seeking to influence decision-makers. "To avoid the next major lobbying scandal, we need much greater openness and accountability in how APPGs operate, with clear rules preventing them from being used as backdoors for commercial influence." Meanwhile, Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman said: 'That Westminster has allowed an official group to form where multinational arms dealers and foreign governments like Israel are paying to access a large group of MPs and peers through the backdoor is frankly astonishing. 'If this represents the level of lobbying and ethics regulation in London, then it's no surprise the UK consistently ends up supplying weapons to tyrants and war criminals around the world. It shames Scotland to be associated with it.' The APPG for Defence Technology didn't respond to a request for comment.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
New Caledonia to be declared a state in ‘historic' agreement – but will remain French
France has announced a 'historic' accord with New Caledonia in which the overseas territory, rocked by deadly separatist violence last year, would remain French but be declared a new state. 'A State of New Caledonia within the Republic: it's a bet on trust,' the French president, Emmanuel Macron, posted on X on Saturday, hailing a 'historic' agreement. Receiving the signatories later, the president said that 'after two agreements and three referendums, New Caledonia, through what you have signed, is opening a new chapter in its future in a peaceful relationship with France'. Macron had called for talks to break a deadlock between forces loyal to France and those wanting independence. New Caledonian elected officials, as well as political, economic and civil society leaders, gathered near Paris to hammer out a constitutional framework for the territory. After 10 days of talks, the parties agreed that a 'State of New Caledonia' should be created. Manuel Valls, the minister for overseas territories, called it an 'intelligent compromise' that maintains links between France and New Caledonia, but with more sovereignty for the Pacific island. The priority now is New Caledonia's economic recovery. Last year's violence, which claimed the lives of 14 people, is estimated to have cost the territory 2bn euros ($2.3 bn), shaving 10% off its gross domestic product, he said. The French prime minister, Francois Bayrou, said Saturday's deal – which still requires parliamentary and referendum approval – was of 'historic dimensions'. Home to about 270,000 people and located nearly 17,000km (10,600 miles) from Paris, New Caledonia is one of several overseas territories that remain an integral part of France. It has been ruled from Paris since the 1800s, but many indigenous Kanaks still resent France's power over their islands and want fuller autonomy or independence. Unrest broke out in May 2024 after Paris planned to give voting rights to thousands of non-indigenous long-term residents. Kanaks feared this would leave them in a permanent minority, crushing their chances of winning independence. As part of the agreement, New Caledonia residents will in future only be allowed to vote after having lived 10 years on the archipelago. The last independence referendum in New Caledonia was held in 2021, and was boycotted by pro-independence groups over the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the Kanak population. It was the latest of three since 2018, all of which rejected New Caledonian independence. Since the 2021 referendum however, the political situation in the archipelago has been deadlocked. Macron declared in early June he wanted a 'new project' for New Caledonia. The 13-page agreement announced on Saturday calls for a New Caledonian nationality, and the possibility for residents there to combine that status with French nationality. Under the deal, a 'State of New Caledonia' would be enshrined in France's constitution, and other countries could recognise such a state. The deal also calls for an economic and financial recovery pact that would include a renewal of the territory's nickel processing capabilities. Both chambers of France's parliament are to meet in the fourth quarter of this year to vote on approving the deal, which is then to be submitted to New Caledonians in a referendum in 2026.
