Moment Keir Starmer was humiliated live on TV over his plans to send asylum seekers to the Balkans, as he is accused of being 'in full panic mode'
Keir Starmer faced humiliation over his latest attempt at a migrant crackdown yesterday.
In a surprise move, the Prime Minister used a trip to Albania to unveil plans to create Rwanda-style centres abroad to house failed asylum seekers from the UK.
But the initiative imploded on live TV just an hour later when his host, Albanian PM Edi Rama, ruled out ever taking part in the scheme.
The plan is a major U-turn for Sir Keir, who branded the previous government's Rwanda deportation scheme a gimmick and scrapped it within days of taking office.
Towering over Sir Keir at a press conference in the capital Tirana, 6ft 7in Mr Rama said his country had no interest in expanding a similar deal it had struck with Italy.
Leaving Sir Keir squirming, Mr Rama said: 'I have been very clear since day one when we started this process with Italy that this was a one-off with Italy because of our very close relationship but also because of the geographical situation which makes a lot of sense.'
He added: 'We have been asked by several countries if we were open to it and we said no, because we are loyal to the marriage with Italy and the rest is just love.'
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp was highly critical of the diplomatic setback.
'This trip is an embarrassment,' he said.
'Starmer jetted off and now the Albanian prime minister has made clear that there will be no UK return hubs in Albania. So, what was the point of this entire visit?'
He added: 'One of the first acts of this Labour Government was to scrap the Rwanda scheme. Now, with 2025 so far the worst year in history for illegal immigrants crossing the Channel, the Prime Minister is scrambling to stitch together a weak imitation.
'Starmer has never cared about stopping illegal migration... now he's in full panic mode, cobbling together half-baked policies to cover up his chaos.'
The blow for Sir Keir comes as he looks to talk tough on immigration to combat the rising threat from Reform UK – despite years of saying the opposite.
Officials last night insisted that return hubs could still be negotiated with other Balkan nations, such as Serbia, Bosnia and North Macedonia. Ministers are also investigating possible deals with several African states, although not Rwanda.
Sir Keir attempted to brush off the snub from Albania and insisted he was not ready to name the countries Britain is working with on the plans. Officials tried to suggest there had never been any plan for Tirana to be involved, despite travelling there to announce it.
'At the appropriate time, I'll be able to give you further details in relation to it,' the PM said following Mr Rama's rejection.
Speaking before he met with Mr Rama, Sir Keir said he was now in favour of paying to send failed asylum seekers abroad.
He said: 'What we now want to do and are having discussions of, talks of, is return hubs which is where someone has been through the system in the UK, they need to be returned and we have to make sure they're returned effectively and we'll do that, if we can, through return hubs.
'So that's what the talks are about. I would say in this area no single measure is going to be the measure that is, if you like, a silver bullet. Putting it all together – arrests, seizures, agreements with other countries, returning people who shouldn't be here, and return hubs – will allow us to bear down on this vile trade and to make sure that we stop those people crossing the Channel.'
Downing Street said the plans were 'entirely different' from the last government's flagship Rwanda deportation scheme.
But the decision to open talks on paying to send asylum seekers to third countries will leave the Prime Minister open to allegations of hypocrisy.
Sir Keir being shown the procedures carried out by search teams as they check vehicles arriving in the ferry port from Italy in Tirana
Ministers are now scrambling to find a replacement that could act as a deterrent to Channel migrants following a surge in crossings since Labour came to power. Arrivals this year have topped 12,000 – an increase of 40 per cent on 2024. More than 600 crossed on Monday while the PM was giving a major speech promising a crackdown on immigration.
The surge in numbers threatens to make a mockery of Labour's plan to 'smash the gangs', with ministers now resorting to blaming the fine weather for the increase in illegal crossings.
The new plan will involve paying to send potentially thousands of failed asylum seekers to the Balkans, rather than holding them in the UK until they can be removed.
One Whitehall insider described the plan as 'Rwanda-lite' but insisted it still had the potential to act as a deterrent and persuade some failed asylum seekers to return home voluntarily rather than gamble on finding a way to stay in the UK. It will target only those who have exhausted the asylum appeals process.
Q&A
What is a return hub?
A centre in a third country where failed asylum seekers will be sent for processing after their claims are rejected in the UK. By removing them to another country, the Government hopes to reduce their ability to find other reasons to prevent deportation, such as starting a family. Their legal status would remain the same, and attempts to return them to their countries of origin would continue while they reside elsewhere. Any deal would require Britain to pay for each asylum seeker who has been relocated.
Who will be sent there?
Asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected and who have no further routes of appeal in the UK. Downing Street said they will target those whose applications have been rejected and who are seeking to frustrate their deportation or have lost their paperwork. Afghans, Syrians and Iranians will not be part of the scheme because they will not be able to be resettled in their countries of origin.
When will people be sent there?
It could be years before failed asylum seekers are sent abroad as they would have to have exhausted all other routes of appeal – and human rights lawyers have become adept at stringing out applications.
Where could they be located?
Countries who could host such hubs include western Balkan nations such as Serbia, Bosnia and North Macedonia. The Government is said to be in talks with several of these countries, though Albania yesterday ruled itself out.
How many people will it affect?
Unclear. Officials are unable to state how many failed asylum seekers who have exhausted their options are in the system.
Is it similar to the Rwanda plan?
While it involves asylum seekers being 'offshored', that is where the similarities end. The Rwanda plan would have involved sending migrants to east Africa to have their asylum claims processed. It faced a number of legal challenges, whereas return hubs have received approval from the UN's refugee agency and the EU. Italy, however, has a similar return hub scheme which involves sending failed asylum seekers to Albania while they await deportation, but that plan has been held up by legal action.
When will it happen?
Sir Keir Starmer has said he is in formal talks with several countries. Whitehall sources say the plans are at a relatively advanced stage but there has been a hold-up in talks with European countries about how quickly the hubs can be set up.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
EUROPE No 'best offers' yet as tariff deadline looms
A look at the day ahead in European and global markets from Ankur Banerjee Today is the deadline for U.S. trading partners to submit their "best offer" to avoid punishing import tax rates, the same day that U.S. duties on imported steel and aluminium kick in, and investors are more jittery than usual. So far, only Britain has struck a preliminary trade agreement with the U.S. during Trump's 90-day pause on a wider array of tariffs. That pause is set to expire in about five weeks and investors have been worried about the lack of progress in hashing out deals. Adding to the angst, Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi said Tokyo has not received a letter from Washington asking for its best proposals on trade talks. The on-again-off-again tariff pronouncements from Trump this year have investors fleeing U.S. assets and looking for safe havens and alternatives, including gold. They expect trade uncertainties will take a heavy toll on the global economy. The main question in financial markets has been where the money that usually flowed into U.S. assets will end up going. For years, money managers embraced the fatalistic presumption that "there-is-no-alternative" (TINA ... yes, markets love acronyms) but perhaps there are options now. As Manishi Raychaudhuri, the founder and CEO of Emmer Capital Partners Ltd, puts it: While Europe may be the obvious destination, relative value metrics may favour emerging Asia. The data so far does not give a complete picture. But what it does show is investors are lowering their exposure to U.S. assets, and only time will tell where they end up. Asian markets rose on Wednesday, boosted by tech stocks as traders hope a deal could still be possible if and when U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping talk this week. The spotlight in Asia was also on South Korean assets. Seoul's benchmark share index (.KS11), opens new tab surged to 10-month top and the currency firmed as liberal presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung's election victory raised expectations for swift economic stimulus and market reforms. European futures point to a slightly higher open ahead of a series of manufacturing data from the region and as the European Central Bank starts its policy meeting. The ECB is all but certain to cut rates on Thursday and stay on its easing cycle as muted wage growth, a strong euro and lukewarm economic growth all point to easing inflation. Data on Tuesday showed euro zone inflation in May eased below the ECB target of 2%. Key developments that could influence markets on Wednesday: Economic events: May PMI data for UK, euro zone, Germany and France Trying to keep up with the latest tariff news? Our new daily news digest offers a rundown of the top market-moving headlines impacting global trade. Sign up for Tariff Watch here.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
NATO'S Baltic drills are part of preparations for a potential clash with Russia, TASS reports
June 4 (Reuters) - NATO'S Baltic drills are part of the alliance's preparations for a potential military clash with Russia, TASS news agency cited Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko as saying in remarks published on Wednesday. "We assess NATO's military activity as part of preparations for military clashes with Russia," TASS cited Grushko as saying. "If we look at the focus of these exercises, the concept, the structure of the deployment of forces, the forces themselves, their quality, the tasks that are formulated for these exercises, then this is a fight against a comparable adversary," Grushko said according to TASS. BALTOPS - NATO's annual exercise in the Baltic Sea and the regions surrounding it - is being held this month.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Labour's defence document exposes some major cracks
However, the document itself makes no reference to it. There are important reasons for that, not least of which is the cost. But the danger and threat still lurks. It is technically credible that the UK's 30 (soon to rise to 47) F-35 multi-role fighters be fitted to carry nuclear bombs. The F-35 has that capability as does some other aircraft and there are more than 100 US-controlled gravity bombs stored in Europe stationed in several Nato countries. But the US nuclear control of the bombs would be a sticking point that deal-maker Donald Trump would not miss. Even faux British operational independence would up the cost of the F-35 option. READ MORE: Leading pro-indy figures write to Keir Starmer over referendum 'snub' An explicit endorsement of the re-introduction of tactical nuclear bombs carried aboard the F-35 multi-role fighter would signal a significant change to British nuclear policy. It would be seen by the 94 member states of the UN who support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) as a destabilising move by the UK. That includes the 73 whose sovereign legislatures have ratified it into international law and chose to abide by its terms. Indeed, the non-nuclear nations could throw sections of the SDR back in Britain's face as the document makes much of – possibly even overhypes – global insecurity – a selling point for those arms companies that received advanced copies before even the shadow defence secretary. This was revealed when Defence Secretary John Healey finally deigned to brief parliament, late in the afternoon. To openly re-introduce British tactical nukes in a document which claims that one of its key aims is to de-escalate international tension would be the equivalent of the fire brigade claiming, with a straight face, that pouring rocket fuel on a fire would help put it out. However, the prepublicity over the weekend has ensured that notion of the reintroduction of British tactical nuclear weapons is still out there, mostly likely to test the political temperature. Indeed, within the document itself, Russia is rightly criticised for retaining the possible use of tactical nukes. Looking both ways at once is not a novel idea. But even by the standards of the Starmer administration, to do so in writing in the same document would be a bit of a stretch. The military dangers of devolving a degree of command and control of nukes from the political leadership to generals of at least four-star level is fraught with risk, though most top brass are usually near their political leadership. To devolve control three steps away further to one-star level is asking for trouble. Going even further, handing control of a nuclear weapon to a lowly pilot in a cockpit is more than a bit of a gamble. Maybe the naive LibDems had not thought that through when they briefly floated the idea of replacing the clapped-out Vanguards with nuclear-capable F-35s a few years ago. For the same reason, I find it hard to believe that a group with the ear of Keir Starmer are punting an F-35 option. But maybe it is to divert attention from the increasingly clapped-out Vanguards – something, inadvertently, that the Prime Minister made mention of in his Govan shipyard speech. However, the SDR did touch upon the increasing costs of the maintenance and potential expansion of the UK's nuclear arsenal with reference to £15 billion earmarked for the 'sovereign warhead programme'. READ MORE: 'A bit rich': Kate Forbes responds to Keir Starmer ruling out referendum That it is given a title with the word 'sovereign' in it, rather than just 'warhead programme' or 'new' or 'replacement' warhead programme, suggests that recent work by the anti-nuclear movement on the fact that President Trump actually owns the Trident missiles is impacting on public perception, or risks doing so. Starmer was surely on thin ice (and some military brass must have been nervous) when the Prime Minister mentioned that during his last visit to Scotland, he was aboard a Vanguard coming off patrol. Yesterday he said that the length of the patrol was a record breaker, implying that this was something to be proud of, when in fact it was the exact opposite. The Prime Minister did not reveal the real cause of the over-lengthy deployment, though he inadvertently revealed that the Continuous At Sea Deterrent (CASD) concept is under severe strain. The deployment of Vanguards is getting longer and longer. That's because it appears there are not four boats in various states of readiness, but three, or even less. In his widely viewed Rented Missiles And Worn Out Submarines YouTube presentation, military historian Mark Felton succinctly explains why. He even speculates that at times no Vanguard has been at sea at all. Behind the SDR lurk many questions, problems and dangers. We should not let the UK Government hide them. Bill Ramsay is secretary of SNP CND and convener of the SNP Trade Union Group
