Macron says UK and France ‘share same will' amid crunch talks over migrant deal
The French president said the UK and France 'share the same will' to address the issue at the start of a Franco-British summit at Downing Street.
It came after the pair said a 'new deterrent' was needed to stop small boats crossing the English Channel.
The Prime Minister hopes the French president will sign up to a 'one in, one out' deal on Thursday, the last day of Mr Macron's state visit to the UK.
Under the terms of the deal, Britain would accept migrants with links to the country in exchange for sending others back across the Channel.
Sir Keir said the meeting was about working together on shared priorities.
He said: 'For us, it's about delivering the changes that the British people want to see, and we will agree the situation in the Channel cannot go on as it is.
'So we're bringing new tactics into play and a new level of intent to tackle illegal migration and break the business model of the criminal gangs.'
Speaking in French, Mr Macron said: 'We share the same will to tackle networks of illegal immigration through great co-ordination with other European countries.
'We have often mentioned France is the last destination before Great Britain for these men and women who often journey through paths of misery and are exploited by traffickers.
'We will work with countries of first entry in Europe (as) our intention is also to engage all countries who share a responsibility alongside us.'
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband were also at the summit.
Defence Secretary John Healey, who was also at the summit, told ITV's Good Morning Britain that footage of French authorities puncturing a migrant dinghy to stop it from setting off last week was a 'recognition' that France has agreed to change its rules to intervene in shallow waters.
To reduce small boat crossings, he said those changes need to be 'fully implemented' alongside new legislation, building up the new border security command, and any steps to be announced by Sir Keir and Mr Macron after the summit.
French newspaper Le Monde has reported that some 50 migrants a week would initially be returned to France under the terms of the proposed deal, which it described as largely symbolic.
If such a deal were struck, it would only result in the return of a fraction of the 21,000 people who have made the Channel crossing so far in 2025, a record for this point in a year.
But it would also represent a concession by the French that such returns are possible, after years of MPs on the right of British politics insisting France is a 'safe' country where migrants can be sent back to.
The Times reported the scheme would be scaled up after an initial pilot had shown 'proof of concept', citing Government sources.
In return, Mr Macron is said to be pushing for the UK to do more to address 'pull factors' which are attracting people to make the dangerous crossing to the English coast.
When Mr Macron and Sir Keir met in Downing Street on Wednesday, the small boats crisis appeared to be the mainstay of their conversations.
The pair agreed the crossings are a 'shared priority that requires shared solutions', a Downing Street spokesperson said.
They also agreed on the need for a 'new deterrent to break the business model of these gangs' and are aiming for 'concrete progress' on the matter.
Following the French-UK summit, the two leaders will host a call with coalition of the willing partners, the proposed peacekeeping mission to deter Russia from attacking Ukraine in future.
In a sign of close alignment on defence, Britain and France have announced they will buy new supplies of Storm Shadow missiles, which both have loaned to Ukraine to strike targets deep inside Russia.
The two nations will also work closely to develop a successor to the long-range missile, the Ministry of Defence said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
2 hours ago
- Sky News
HMRC 'doesn't know' how many billionaires pay tax in the UK
HM Revenue and Customs does not know how many billionaires pay tax in the UK, according to a new report by MPs. The Public Accounts Committee says this is despite the fact only a small number of people have this status - and the significant sums of money involved. HMRC has been told it "can and must" do more to understand how much the very wealthiest in society contribute to the public purse, as "there is a lot of money being left on the table". 6:36 Artificial intelligence and The Sunday Times Rich List were identified as two ways of getting a clearer picture. The taxman is facing calls to reveal how it plans to increase contributions from billionaires both domestically and offshore, amid a squeeze in the public finances. MPs added: "There is much public interest in the amount of tax the wealthy pay. People need to know everyone pays their fair share." The report pointed to the US, where the Internal Revenue Service links its data to the Forbes 400 list of rich Americans. PAC member Lloyd Hatton added: "This report is not concerned with political debate around the redistribution of wealth. "Our committee's role is to help HMRC do its job properly, ensuring wealthy people pay the correct tax. "While HMRC does deserve some great credit for securing billions more in the tax take from the wealthiest in recent years, there is still a very long way to go before we can reach a true accounting of what is owed." 1:16 Mr Hatton added that the committee was "disappointed" that HMRC could not offer any insights into the tax arrangements of billionaires from its own data - as "any single one of these individuals' contributions could make a significant difference to the overall picture". At present, about 1,000 people within HMRC are focused on the tax affairs of the UK's wealthiest, but funding has been secured to increase this headcount by 400 - with a view to "increasing prosecutions of those who evade tax". A spokesperson added: "The government is determined to make sure everyone pays the tax they owe. "Extra resources were announced in the recent spending review which allows us to significantly step up our work on closing the tax gap among the wealthiest."
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
How the BBC got into a mess over Gaza
On Monday, the BBC released its long-awaited report into its decision to remove the documentary Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone from its platforms. The report determined that not making viewers aware of the fact that the narrator's father was a member of the Hamas-run government of Gaza constituted a breach of its editorial policies, specifically on accuracy. However, the documentary was not found to have breached guidelines on impartiality. As the Guardian's media editor Michael Savage tells Helen Pidd, the release of this report has come after a particularly intense period for the BBC, in which its handling of the war in Gaza has been heavily criticised. In response to the resignation of Gary Lineker, its coverage of Glastonbury performers, and its decision not to broadcast certain documentaries, the BBC has faced heightened criticism from many sides in the conflict. The pair discuss how the Labour government is approaching the BBC, the shrinking number of licence fee subscribers, and whether this string of controversies will change the way the corporation approaches more sensitive issues. Support the Guardian today:
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Gagging order to cover up Afghan leak must never be used again
The Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan in 2021 resulted in a scramble to flee from Kabul airport WAKIL KOHSAR/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES T hat legal abomination, the superinjunction, is traditionally regarded as the last resort of the desperate celebrity attempting to conceal compromising information. It is a draconian device that not only prohibits the media from reporting a court case — an injunction — but prevents the world from knowing that such an injunction even exists (the 'super' bit). It is intended not so much to stifle legitimate journalistic scrutiny of a court hearing as to smother it. The blanket of secrecy a superinjunction confers means that cases involving serious misconduct by individuals and institutions can go unnoticed by the outside world for months or years, or possibly for ever. Disclosing its very existence can land one in jail. When the party seeking to conceal their actions for this length of time is the government, and when the parties being kept in the dark are the public and parliament, it risks becoming a tool of authoritarianism. Yet that is exactly what has occurred in a case revealed by this newspaper. One in which a military data breach that placed tens of thousands of Afghans in jeopardy, and resulted in a covert rescue and resettlement programme potentially costing £7 billion, being hidden for two years in what the judge finally lifting the order called a vacuum of scrutiny. It is the first time a British government has used a superinjunction in this way and it must be the last. In observing its terms, in place for so much longer than intended, ministers misled parliament, if largely by omission, concealing from relevant committees and the Commons as a whole a scandal that should have resulted in heads rolling down Whitehall. It concerned the unauthorised release in February 2022 of a Ministry of Defence database containing the names of tens of thousands of Afghans at risk of retribution from the restored Taliban regime. The list was transmitted by a soldier at a special forces barracks in London to Afghan contacts in Britain as he attempted to verify applications for sanctuary in Britain. The list subsequently found its way to Afghanistan. • Did the risk ever justify the secrecy in this Kafkaesque calamity? When one of the individuals it was passed to threatened to publish it on Facebook it became a potential death warrant for many of those named, and possibly their relatives. As a result, the then Conservative government decided to relocate thousands of Afghans, adults and children, to Britain in a covert programme that was later endorsed by the current Labour government. Incredibly, the existence of this operation, involving some 23,000 people, was kept secret even from the discreet Commons intelligence and security committee. The superinjunction was granted in September 2023, supposedly as a four-month measure to help cloak a rescue. But it would last for almost two years, the MoD continuing to insist that it was necessary to save lives, though there was a possibility that the database had already fallen into the possession of the Taliban. Whatever the reality of this, the superinjunction continued to act as a shield for official incompetence. Due to the continuing secrecy surrounding this fiasco it is not known who, if anyone, was disciplined for the breach. What is clear is the disquiet of a High Court judge involved in hearings in which The Times and Daily Mail sought to have details of the scandal released. At one point Mr Justice Chamberlain warned that it could be perceived as censorship. Concerns were also raised that the government was using the gagging order to control the narrative surrounding the scandal. Unfortunately, he was overruled by a court of appeal again swayed by MoD warnings of potential disaster. Now, those objections have evaporated, the risks apparently being overstated according to a review. So much for parliamentary and press oversight. In terms of free speech the superinjunction is a weapon of mass destruction. No government should be allowed to employ one again.
