Starmer's migrant plan set to be sunk before it's launched: Campaigners threaten to scupper return deal with France - as Brussels assesses whether scheme complies with EU law
Only a day after unveiling the scheme alongside Emmanuel Macron, the Prime Minister was facing objections from Europe and charities that helped ground the Tories ' Rwanda plan.
The new scheme was condemned by campaigners, who said they would support court cases brought by small-boat arrivals chosen to be sent back to France. A border union boss said the legal challenges could take a year.
Brussels ominously warned that it was assessing whether the scheme complied with the 'spirit and the letter of the law', while governments including Italy were said to be harbouring 'huge doubts' about its legality.
It came as Home Secretary Yvette Cooper refused to say how many of the thousands arriving by dinghy will be removed under the pilot scheme, amid fears it could be even fewer than the 50 a week suggested by French officials this week.
Migrants waiting in Calais camps yesterday laughed off any suggestions the deal was a deterrent, and were already seemingly aware of how to defy attempts to send them back.
Another 573 people made it across the Channel in ten boats on Thursday, the day the Anglo-French deal was announced, taking the record tally for the year so far to 21,690.
Last night, Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp told the Mail: 'This pathetic arrangement may be sunk by legal challenges from activist lawyers and irresponsible charities who want to facilitate illegal immigration into the UK.
The new scheme was condemned by campaigners, who said they would support court cases brought by small-boat arrivals chosen to be sent back to France
'With illegal immigration across the Channel so far this year hitting record levels, Keir Starmer must now be bitterly regretting his foolish decision to cancel the Rwanda deterrent scheme before it even started.
'After two years of legal challenges and legislation, the scheme was ready to go, but Starmer cancelled it just days before the first plane was due to take off last July.
'This would have enabled 100 per cent of the illegal immigrants to be immediately removed without judicial interference.
'The boats would soon have stopped. But Starmer is too weak and too mentally enslaved by his human rights lawyer friends to do what is needed to protect our country's borders.'
Downing Street insisted the controversial 'one in, one out' agreement was legally sound and that Brussels supported it.
But fearing that returned migrants could head to Italy, the country's interior minister told Sky News: 'We know the EU Commission is still evaluating the agreement, and EU countries, including us, have huge doubts about security and legal aspects of the deal.'
A spokesman for the commission said: 'On the specific envisaged co-operation between France and the United Kingdom, the commission will assess the concrete modalities of this co-operation.
'And, of course, we continue to work with France and the UK, as well as other EU member states, to support solutions that are compatible with the spirit and the letter of EU law.'
Ms Cooper said the new arrangement would 'fundamentally undermine' the people-smuggling gangs fuelling the crisis, adding that the Government had done 'a lot of work to make sure that the system is robust to legal challenges'.
A No 10 spokesman said: 'France is a safe country – that's an important point.
'A lot of work has been carried out already to make sure this new scheme is robust to legal challenge and we are confident this scheme complies with both domestic and international law.'
But Steve Peers, professor of law at Royal Holloway University, said the deal could be opposed by the European Commission – which could mean a case being brought against France in the EU's top court.
He said it could also be challenged by individuals in the UK. One possible avenue would be for a returnee to question why they have been singled out given that only a fraction of those arriving will be returned.
'I can imagine someone is going to try it,' Professor Peers told the Mail.
A charity which helped block the Tories' Rwanda scheme warned Labour it would do the same with the new French deal.
A Care4Calais spokesman said: 'Care4Calais initiated legal challenges against the last Government's Rwanda policy and their attempts to introduce 'pushbacks' in the Channel – and we won.
'We will consider all options open to us to oppose any plans that will put more lives at risk and involve governments trading humans.'
Fizza Qureshi, chief executive of the Migrants' Rights Network, said the group 'stands against this deal in its entirety' and 'looks forward to supporting those at risk of deportation in challenging removal in the courts'.
Lucy Moreton, of the Immigration Services Union that represents Border Force officers, said delays were likely when selecting those to be returned.
'The issue is going to be around how you identify that individual and any legal challenge that flows from that. The legal challenge that arises from it could take a year,' she told the BBC.
One Home Office insider told the Mail: 'One of the things that is most likely to scupper this is the modern slavery laws here. These are really likely to screw them up.
'The threshold for making a modern slavery claim is absurdly low – thanks to Theresa May, who brought in these laws – and someone only has to have a story that sounds plausible to get their entire case put on hold. That means they can't be deported while it's being considered.'
The Home Office received a record 19,122 modern slavery claims last year – up 13 per cent on 2023 – and cases are taking an average of more than two years to reach a conclusion.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
7 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Brigitte and Emmanuel Macron launch defamation case against Candace Owens
French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte today filed a defamation lawsuit against Candace Owens over the US commentator's 'preposterous' claim that the French First Lady was born a man. The Macrons filed a 218-page lawsuit in Delaware on Wednesday, accusing the right-wing podcaster of publishing 'outlandish, defamatory, and far-fetched fictions' that fuelled a lie-filled 'campaign of global humiliation' and 'relentless bullying'. Owens attacked Ms Macron, 72, in a now-deleted YouTube video posted in March last year, propagating the false claim that she is a biological man. The American commentator said she based her allegations on a 'thorough investigation' by French blogger Natacha Rey, who is also being sued by the Macrons in a separate claim in France . Mr and Ms Macron said in a statement: 'Because Ms Owens systematically reaffirmed these falsehoods in response to each of our attorneys' repeated requests for a retraction, we ultimately concluded that referring the matter to a court of law was the only remaining avenue for remedy. 'Ms Owens' campaign of defamation was plainly designed to harass and cause pain to us and our families and to garner attention and notoriety. We gave her every opportunity to back away from these claims, but she refused. 'It is our earnest hope that this lawsuit will set the record straight and end this campaign of defamation once and for all.' The 22-count complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. Tom Clare of Clare Locke LLP, lead counsel for the Macrons, announced the filing of the 22-count defamation lawsuits against Owens, citing 'a relentless year-long campaign of defamation'. 'Ms Owens has promoted a preposterous narrative about the Macrons, including incendiary and verifiably false accusations of identity theft, incest, violent crimes, and mind control,' a statement shared with MailOnline read. It comes days after sources close to the Macrons revealed Brigitte has been driven to despair by online abuse stemming from claims she was born a man and had 'sexually abused' her future husband when he was a boy. Owens took to social media in March 2024 to announce she was 'waging her entire professional reputation' on the theory that the French first lady was born Jean-Michel Trogneux - the actual name of her older brother - before transitioning aged 30. The conspiracy theory alleges that Brigitte did not give birth to any of her three children, and that her first husband, a 69-year-old retired banker said to have died a recluse in 2020, never existed. The wild claims stem from an article published in September 2021 by French far-right magazine Faits et Documents (Facts & Documents), which initially went unnoticed. But the allegations were seized upon after far-right blogger and Faits et Documents contributor Natacha Rey, and clairvoyant Amandine Roy, covered them in a YouTube interview that went viral. The Macrons initiated legal proceedings against Rey, 49, and Roy, 53, and the pair were initially found guilty of libel and fined. But the Paris Court of Appeal earlier this month overturned the convictions, finding that the claims made by Rey and Roy were 'made in good faith' and repeated information that was already in the public domain. The shock ruling prompted a fresh wave of abuse directed at the French First Lady on social media, who was said to have been left 'absolutely devastated'. The Macrons have taken that case to the Court of Cassation - the only legal forum that can overturn Appeal Court rulings - in addition to filing a lawsuit against Owens in the US. The relationship between French President Macron, 47, and his 72-year-old wife has long been a subject of fascination at home and abroad since they met in 1992. She was 39, a married mother-of-three, and a teacher at the French Catholic school in Amiens. He was 14 and a pupil in the same class as one of her daughters when they first crossed paths. Brigitte later divorced her husband and began a relationship with Macron while he was in his late teens . Wednesday's lawsuit is a rare case of a world leader suing for defamation, though US President Donald Trump has filed multiple defamation lawsuits, including against the publisher of The Wall Street Journal last week. To prevail in defamation cases filed in the US, public figures like the Macrons and Trump must show defendants engaged in 'actual malice,' meaning they knew what they published was false or had reckless disregard for its truth.
Telegraph
8 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Police not ready for summer of unrest
Police have said that they are not ready for a summer of unrest as they warn they will have to divert officers away from neighbourhood duties to tackle protests over migrants. After days of protests against mass migration outside asylum hotels, and with more planned in the coming weeks, there are fears the UK could be heading for another summer of violent disorder. Writing for The Telegraph, below, Tiff Lynch, the head of the Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers, said officers were being 'pulled in every direction' and commanders were 'forced to choose between keeping the peace at home or plugging national gaps'. Unrest in Epping was a 'signal flare' for more to come, she said. The federation said that already-underfunded police forces would be forced to take officers away from neighbourhood policing duties to manage anti-migrant protests that turned violent. Official figures released by the Home Office show that the number of bobbies on the beat has already fallen to a record low. The number of officers in local policing has dropped from a peak of 67,785 in 2023 to 58,002 in 2025, according to the data. It comes after Essex Police came under fire for escorting anti-racism protesters to the Bell Hotel in Epping, where violence subsequently broke out. The force later took some of the anti-racism protesters away in police vans as they were 'clearly at risk of being hurt'. Demonstrations had taken place outside the hotel after a migrant, who has since been arrested, allegedly sexually assaulted a teenage girl just days after arriving in the UK. Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, claimed the Essex force had 'directly facilitated the unrest we saw' and added: 'Heads must roll.' Ms Lynch said that if violent protests spread throughout the summer, it would be 'dangerous to assume' officers would be able to 'hold the line indefinitely'. She said: 'It would be comical if it weren't so serious – and so familiar. Local commanders are once again being forced to choose between keeping the peace at home or plugging national gaps.' The rioting that broke out in the wake of the Southport killings last year had 'exposed the deep fragility within our public order policing system', she said, adding: 'The gaps were plain to see: mutual aid stripped to the bone, co-ordination between forces lacking, and a total failure to anticipate how disorder is now sparked and fuelled online. 'Officers were left to face missiles with little more than a shield and a short briefing. The risks were there in black and white – yet little has improved since.' Ben-Julian Harrington, the Chief Constable of Essex Police, refused to resign over his handling of the protests and denied his officers had given a higher level of protection to anti-racism activists. Residents, who were protesting peacefully, said violence had been made inevitable by the decision to escort counter-protesters towards the hotel. Mr Harrington insisted that the only protection that officers were providing was to 'lawful and law-abiding people'. He argued that the 'irresponsible and criminal behaviour' of a minority of people at the protests was drawing officers in Essex away from investigating other crimes. Demonstrations outside hotels housing migrants have taken place in Norfolk and London in recent days, with more planned in other cities, including Bournemouth and Southampton, over the coming weeks. Tommy Robinson, the far-Right activist, called for his supporters to attend another demonstration outside a hotel in Norwich this week, stating that 'local communities have had enough'. Officers 'pulled in every direction' Ms Lynch said: 'Public order requires planning, investment and leadership. But officers are being pulled in every direction, asked to do more with less, and left in the dark about their future – all while being quietly sacrificed for short-term convenience. 'They will turn up. They always do. But it is dangerous to assume that they can continue to hold the line indefinitely, without the support they need or the recognition they deserve. 'A summer of further unrest is not inevitable. But it becomes far more likely if we once again fail to prepare.' The federation said that police pay had fallen by more than 20 per cent in real terms since 2010, but Ms Lynch added that 'this goes far beyond pay'. 'This is about whether the country still values the men and women who step forward when everything else breaks down. Right now, many of them feel utterly abandoned', she said. Labour is aiming to put 3,000 more bobbies on the beat by next spring and has pledged that every community will have dedicated teams that will spend their time in the community. From this month, all forces will be expected to guarantee police patrols in town centres and other 'hotspot' areas at peak times, such as Friday and Saturday nights in town centres or market days in rural communities. Writing for The Telegraph, Mr Farage said that counter-protest groups such as Stand Up To Racism had been given the 'red carpet treatment'. 'There's no doubt in my mind that, through their actions, Essex Police directly facilitated the unrest we saw', he added. Exhausted officers cannot continue to hold the line indefinitely By Tiff Lynch The disorder in Epping – where police officers were pelted with bricks and bottles outside an asylum hotel – was not just a troubling one-off. It was a signal flare. A reminder of how little it takes for tensions to erupt and how ill-prepared we remain to deal with it. Last summer's civil unrest exposed the deep fragility within our public order policing system. The gaps were plain to see: mutual aid stripped to the bone, co-ordination between forces lacking, and a total failure to anticipate how disorder is now sparked and fuelled online. Officers were left to face missiles with little more than a shield and a short briefing. The risks were there in black and white, yet little has improved since. Instead of strengthening our front line, we are continuing to sap its energy. More than 1,500 officers have been pulled from local forces to police a private visit by the US president. This was not a state occasion; it was a leisure trip. While he plays golf, communities hundreds of miles away are left without coverage, and already exhausted public order units are stretched even further. It would be comical if it weren't so serious – and so familiar. Local commanders are once again being forced to choose between keeping the peace at home or plugging national gaps. Meanwhile, anger is building. Every other public sector profession – from NHS staff to teachers and the Armed Forces – has had its annual pay award confirmed. Police officers, alone, are still waiting. With just weeks before the new pay period begins, there has been nothing but silence. It's hard not to see that delay as calculated; an attempt to avoid fuelling discontent in a workforce already under strain. If that's the plan, it is both cynical and dangerous. Officers don't need a message of reassurance. They need action and respect. Through our Copped Enough campaign, we hear from officers who are at breaking point. Working relentless overtime, not as a choice but as an expectation. Taking second jobs to keep up with rising costs. Watching friends and colleagues walk away because the personal toll has become too great. Behind each uniform is a person, someone with a family, responsibilities, and limits. When officers are stretched to breaking point, the effects ripple far beyond the front line. It impacts home lives, mental health and long-term wellbeing. These are not just statistics or headlines. These are real people carrying the weight of a system in crisis. This goes far beyond pay. This is about whether the country still values the men and women who step forward when everything else breaks down. Right now, many of them feel utterly abandoned. Policing cannot function on goodwill alone. Public order requires planning, investment and leadership. But officers are being pulled in every direction, asked to do more with less, and left in the dark about their future – all while being quietly sacrificed for short-term convenience. They will turn up. They always do. But it is dangerous to assume that they can continue to hold the line indefinitely, without the support they need or the recognition they deserve. A summer of further unrest is not inevitable. But it becomes far more likely if we once again fail to prepare.
The Sun
8 minutes ago
- The Sun
UK is drowning in debt but striking junior doctors want huge pay rises – patients died last time before 22% increase
TUESDAY brought yet more grim news for the public finances. The Office For National Statistics revealed that in June, the Government was forced to borrow £20.7billion. 4 4 That was £6.6billion higher than last June — and all this in spite of the £40billion of tax rises announced in last October's Budget. The Government is drowning in debt. Paying interest on its accumulated debts is costing the taxpayer £100billion a year — almost double what we spend on defence. There is little hope of improvement. Economic growth is virtually non-existent, productivity is flat-lining and tax rises are failing to raise as much revenue as the Chancellor hoped, as taxpayers choose to work less hard, rearrange their tax affairs or, in some cases, emigrate. But there is one place where you can be sure the news will not have sunk in: the offices of Britain's public sector unions. Lining pockets In fact, the BMA — which is rapidly inheriting the mantle of the country's most militant trade union from the Rail, Maritime And Transport union — chose the moment to request that its consultant members charge the NHS at least £188 an hour to provide cover during the junior doctors' five-day strike, which begins tomorrow, rising to £313 an hour for weekend work. It could mean some consultants lining their pockets with up to £6,000 this weekend. It isn't hard to see the BMA's logic: it wants to try to break the NHS's finances to force the Government to give in. In spite of the extravagant bills demanded by consultants, the NHS will still not be providing a normal service during the latest walkout. During the last set of strikes by junior doctors — who now demand to be called 'resident doctors' to disguise the fact they are still in training — more than a million treatments ended up being cancelled. Wes Streeting brutally slams Kemi AND Farage and demands Tories say sorry for how they ran the NHS in blistering attack It's been reported that coroners' findings mentioned the strikes in five deaths, but that is almost certainly a gross under-estimate. During the week of one 72-hour strike in March 2023, the ONS recorded 2,247 'excess deaths' — the number of deaths above what might have been expected from the average of the previous five years over that period. Deep down, the BMA's hard men seem to realise the harm that they are causing. Dr Ross Nieuwoudt, the co-chair of the BMA's Resident Doctors' Committee, told Times Radio yesterday that consultants who refused to cancel their normal clinics in order to man A&E departments would be guilty of a 'dereliction of duty'. Yet strangely, he did not seem to want to apply the same term to junior doctors who walk out on strike. We all appreciate what doctors do, of course — yet even miners' leader Arthur Scargill at the height of his pomp was not as unreasonable as the BMA is being. 4 Junior doctors received a 22 per cent pay increase last year and have already been offered an inflation-busting 5.4 per cent this year. Their claim that they need a 29 per cent increase this year to return their pay in real terms to 2008 levels is fallacious. They made that calculation using the Retail Prices Index, a long-discredited measure which has been criticised for exaggerating inflation. Some junior doctors can now earn £100,000 a year, including overtime. What's more, they have a generous pension scheme which involves the taxpayer contributing an extra 20.68 per cent of their pay to their pension pot. When they retire, their pensions will be linked to their lifetime earnings and will be inflation-proofed. Such deals are virtually unknown now in the private sector, where employers make average pension contributions equivalent to just 4.5 per cent of an employee's pay — and where in most cases pension payouts are dependent on the performance of underlying investments. And it is not just the BMA which has lost its grasp of fiscal reality. Public sector unions are living in a parallel, dream universe where there is an infinite pot of money to meet their demands. On their side of the looking glass, workers have a fundamental right to above-inflation pay rises year on year without ever having to improve their productivity. Bankrolled by unions On the contrary, many seem to think they could still enjoy inflation-busting rises if their working week was reduced from five days a week to four. Sorry, but it doesn't work. Societies grow richer by being more productive. And that is something which seems to have eluded Britain's public sector for the past three decades. 4 Astonishingly, according to ONS figures, the average worker in the public sector now produces less than they did when Tony Blair took office 28 years ago. That is an unparalleled era of non-achievement. The unions seem to be counting on the current Government being equally blind to the dire state of the public finances. Starmer's administration has shown itself so far to be a pushover — which is hardly surprising when you consider that the Labour Party is bankrolled by the unions. But no government will be able to ignore for much longer Britain's reckoning with its debts. What happened under Liz Truss was just a foretaste of what is to come if global bond investors lose confidence in the UK Government's ability to repay its dues. When that happens, Britain will be in the situation Greece was 14 years ago when public salaries and pensions had to be slashed to avoid national bankruptcy. Public sector unions will wail all they like, but they would have helped bring the disaster on themselves.
