
Britain is showing feckless France how to stop the boats
What sets this example, and the convictions, apart from the norm is where the gang were smuggling the people to and from: from Britain, to France.
The migrants were north African and were said to prefer France, as it was more familiar to them. I offer my apologies on behalf of the British people if we weren't making them feel sufficiently at home here, after their arrival on tourist visas which they then overstayed.
Last year, 93 migrants were arrested for crossing illegally from the UK to France. So it's certainly unusual. Indeed, the spokesman for the National Crime Agency (NCA), which investigated the gang, has a good line in drollery, describing the case as 'an anomaly' and a departure from the usual model of smuggling migrants from Calais into the UK. You don't say.
But here's the thing about the case. It was indeed an example of excellent work by the NCA. It's far from unusual in that respect. The NCA intercepted the migrants before they were able to cross the border and arrested those responsible. Imagine, however, if it had been the other way round. Imagine if it had been a gang smuggling people from France to Britain.
That is, of course, an idiotic sentence to write because no one has to imagine it. It happens almost every day, and in increasingly record numbers. And what do the French police do? More often than not, they stand and watch, refusing to intervene when they see boats packed with migrants.
Earlier this month some gendarmes waded into the shallow water off a beach near Boulogne and slashed an inflatable small boat with knives. But they have been at pains to point out this was a one-off, rather than an obvious new tactic, adopted solely because the boat – packed with people – was wallowing dangerously in the waves.
The contrast seems stark. Two years ago we agreed to pay the French £480m for additional border patrols and surveillance equipment. Much good it has done. Almost 20,000 people arrived in the UK in the first half of this year in small boats – up 48 per cent on the first six months of 2024. Last week Keir Starmer and Emanuel Macron trumpeted their new 'one in, one out' agreement – but it first has to be approved by the EU, then by the French courts, and even then may have negligible impact. When it comes to people smuggling, it seems only one side of the Channel actually gives a damn.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
4 minutes ago
- The Independent
Is Keir Starmer already U-turning on Palestine?
The statement Keir Starmer made on Tuesday announcing the government's intention to recognise the state of Palestine sounded as if it had been drafted and re-drafted so many times that no one thought to check if it still made grammatical or logical sense. Hence the initial confusion: did this mean Britain will recognise Palestine or not? The statement said the government would do so at the United Nations General Assembly in September 'unless…' the Israeli government did four things. But one of the conditions listed was a commitment to a two-state solution, something to which Benjamin Netanyahu would never agree. So it seemed clear that, whatever the deliberate ambiguities of the rest of the statement, recognition would be going ahead in September. It was a victory for those members of the cabinet who had been pushing for it – David Lammy, Shabana Mahmood, Yvette Cooper, Wes Streeting and others – with the support of the silent majority of Labour MPs. Not that there was any triumphalism – unless you count Emily Thornberry, Labour chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, saying: 'I think it's great news' – because the situation in Gaza is so serious and the chances of recognition making a difference on the ground are so small. But there was no question that this was an important shift in government policy that had been brought about by quiet pressure behind the scenes from the Parliamentary Labour Party. Then questions started to be asked about the rest of the prime minister's statement: about the demand that Hamas release the hostages and the phrase 'no one side will have a veto' on the government's final decision in September. Did that mean that recognition of Palestine would be conditional on the release of the hostages? When Starmer was asked, in a short encounter with journalists today, he wouldn't give a Yes or No answer to that question, which I take to be the equivalent of 'No'. So I think British recognition will go ahead, unless something dramatic happens over the next month, such as Netanyahu ceasing to be prime minister of Israel. I don't think Starmer wanted to make this change. But I think he was going to do it before Emmanuel Macron changed French policy on recognition last week. Macron set the context, and Mark Carney, the leader of the third G7 nation to make the switch, confirmed it with his announcement last night. What mattered above all was the state of opinion among Labour MPs. Starmer can remember what happened to Tony Blair in July 2006 – and if he can't, Jonathan Powell, his national security adviser, who was Blair's chief of staff, can remind him. That was when Israel responded to Hezbollah's killing of two Israeli soldiers by invading Lebanon. Labour MPs wanted Blair to condemn this 'disproportionate' response. Blair refused. Labour MPs wrote letters demanding a change of leadership. Tom Watson, a junior defence minister, resigned. By September, Blair was visiting a north London academy school to announce that the imminent annual Labour conference would be his last as prime minister – although he didn't actually leave office for another nine months. Starmer, after a year in Downing Street, is in a similar position to Blair after nine years. Blair, having already said he wouldn't fight another election, refused to bow to his party. 'If I had condemned Israel, it would have been more than dishonest,' Blair wrote in his memoir. 'It would have undermined the world view I had come to hold passionately. So I didn't.' Starmer cannot afford such a devil-may-care attitude, so he has yielded to pressure from his MPs. There have been some attempts to explain the shift in his position that I think are not quite right. He is trying to head off the Corbyn-Sultana party, it is said, especially in constituencies, such as his own, with a significant Muslim vote. These are factors, of course, although the Corbynites are not going to be assuaged by recognition of Palestinian statehood – Zarah Sultana thinks Starmer belongs in The Hague, presumably for the crime of disagreeing with her. But the main reason Starmer has shifted his position is because Labour MPs demanded it. No prime minister can defy their parliamentary party for long on an issue that they care about. That is why Starmer U-turned on the winter fuel payment and on disability benefits, and it is why he has U-turned on this. Whatever you may think of the right or wrong of the final position – and I can guess what Blair's view would be on each of them – the reason for it is that it is what the majority of Labour MPs want. They want to recognise Palestine because they think it is a way to try to end the conflict in Gaza. Some of them may want to appease their constituents, but most of them are sincere in their horror of this unequal war – in which they reflect British public opinion generally. Whatever anyone thinks of Starmer's decision, they should not be surprised by his instinct for survival.


Daily Mail
5 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Moment MPs brawl in Ukrainian parliament during vote on Zelensky's new anti-corruption bill after his reform plans sparked mass protests
Ukrainian parliament spiralled out of control on Thursday as two MPs engaged in a punch-up before lawmakers voted to reinstate the independence of the country's key anti-corruption bodies. Volodymyr Zelensky had sparked outrage after quietly signing a controversial bill that slashed the independence of two of the country's major anti-corruption watchdogs and was forced into an embarassing U-turn after widespread outcry against the move. He backtracked on the bill and approved a new draft bill guaranteeing the freedom of anti-corruption agencies after facing nationwide protests for the first time since war with Russia erupted. The new bill, to restore the independence of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (Nabu) and Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (Sap), was passed by 331 to 0 on Thursday in Kyiv 's parliament. But amid a tense atmosphere, two MPs could be seen exchanging punches. The pair gestured at one another before launching a punch each. They both unsuccessfully attempt to land another blow before being separated by fellow lawmakers. The scrap's cause remains unknown but it was streamed live in what was the first parliamentary vote broadcast since Russia's full-scale invasion. Zelensky said it was the 'right decision' after the anti-corruption bill was passed into law. 'This guarantees the normal, independent work of anti-corruption bodies and all law enforcement agencies in our country. It is the right decision,' he said. He also added that 'it is very important that the state listens to public opinion,' in response to the street protests. 'Ukraine is a democracy – there is no doubt about that. Government officials will also immediately inform Ukraine's partners about this law,' he added. Ukrainian prime minister Yulia Svyrydenko said it was 'a direct and responsible response to the expectations of Ukrainian society and our European partners.' 'It confirms Ukraine's commitment to democratic governance, the rule of law, and institutional maturity,' she added. Zelensky last week placed the watchdogs under the oversight of the prosecutor-general, essentially removing their autonomy, in a move which was criticised by Ukrainians, the European Union and international rights groups. Emmanuel Macron and US officials had also tried to dissuade him from doing so. The bill - known as No. 12414 - was pushed through parliament at breakneck speed, tucked away in amendments to unrelated legislation in what opponents are calling a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny. It raised fears that the government could meddle in investigations and potentially shield its supporters from scrutiny. Mass protests broke out against the Government for the first time since the outbreak of war in response. Hundreds of furious demonstrators, many of them young, poured into the streets in Kyiv, staging a defiant protest despite a nationwide martial law ban on public gatherings. An estimated 2,000 to 3,000 people gathered near the Ivan Franko Theatre in the heart of the capital last week, just steps from the presidential compound. 'They are crying that they do not want to return to the times of [former President Viktor] Yanukovych,' Kyiv Post reporter Sergii Kostezh said. Fighting corruption is crucial for Ukraine's aspirations to join the EU and maintain access to billions of dollars of vital Western aid in the war against Russia. Last week the EU said it was freezing $1.7b in aid which meant to reward Ukraine for good governance standards as a result of the bill Anti-corruption measures also enjoy broad public support in the country. EU Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos, who called last week's legislative changes 'a serious step back,' welcomed approval of Thursday's bill, saying lawmakers had 'corrected last week's damaging vote.' Ukrainian prime minister Yulia Svyrydenko said the new bill was 'a direct and responsible response to the expectations of Ukrainian society and our European partners' 'Today's law restores key safeguards, but challenges remain,' Kos, who monitors the record of countries that are candidates to join the bloc, wrote on X. 'The EU supports (Ukrainian) citizens' demands for reform. Upholding fundamental values & fighting corruption must remain the priority.' European Commission president Ursula von der added that 'President Zelensky's signature on the law restoring Nabu & Sapo independence is a welcome step.' 'Ukraine's rule of law and anti-corruption reforms should continue. They remain essential for Ukraine's progress on the European path. The EU will continue to support these efforts,' she said. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said his country 'is committed to reforms and the fight against corruption' and that Zelensky 'demonstrated a principled approach.' 'We got it fixed,' he wrote on X. The controversy threatened to undermine public trust in their leaders at a critical time, though the protests didn't call for the president's removal. Russia's bigger army is accelerating its efforts to pierce Ukraine's front-line defences and is escalating its bombardment of Ukrainian cities. There is also uncertainty over how much additional weaponry Ukraine's Western partners can provide and how quickly. The Ukrainian branch of Transparency International also criticized last week's legislation, saying it weakened one of the most significant reforms since what Ukraine calls its Revolution of Dignity in 2014. NABU and SAPO were established after the 2014 Maidan revolution that toppled a pro-Russian president and set Kyiv on a Western course. The two agencies have stepped up their work during the war, leveling charges against lawmakers, ministers, and a former deputy head of Zelensky's administration. Zelensky said his goal had been to speed up prolonged investigations, ensure more convictions and remove Russian meddling in investigations, which he didn't detail. He said he had taken note of the protests and decided to present a new bill to Parliament underscoring that the prosecutor general and his deputies cannot give orders to anti-graft agencies or interfere in their work.


The Guardian
5 minutes ago
- The Guardian
France under pressure to stop $9.7m of USAID contraceptives being destroyed
The French government has said it is closely monitoring a US plan to potentially destroy millions of dollars of contraceptives stocked in Europe after outrage from French feminists, rights groups and family planning organisations at what they called a wasteful attack on women's rights. The Guardian reported this month that Donald Trump's administration planned to destroy $9.7m of contraceptives held in a Belgium warehouse which could be moved to France for incineration. They are mostly long-acting contraceptives such as IUDs and birth control implants which had been bought under public health programmes run by the US Agency for International Development and were probably intended for women in Africa. A US state department spokesperson told Agence France-Presse this week that 'a preliminary decision was made to destroy' certain birth control products from 'terminated Biden-era USAID contracts'. Trump's administration dismantled USAID, the country's foreign aid armbody, in January. The spokesperson said the destruction would cost $167,000 and 'no HIV medications or condoms are being destroyed'. The contraceptives, stored in a warehouse in Geel in Belgium, were reportedly planned to be incinerated in France, although there has been no confirmation of this by France. France and Belgium are under pressure to prevent any destruction. The French health ministry said in a statement: 'We are following this situation closely and we support the will of the Belgian authorities to find a solution to avoid the destruction of contraceptives. 'The defence of sexual health and reproductive rights is a foreign policy priority for France.' This week a collective of rights groups, feminists organisations and trade unions in France launched a petition to stop the destruction of the contraceptives. 'We won't allow this unfair and sexist decision to go ahead, it's both an economic and human waste,' they said. The French Green leader, Marine Tondelier, signed an open letter calling on the French president, Emmanuel Macron, to intervene to stop the contraceptives from being destroyed. 'Our country cannot be complicit, even indirectly, in retrograde policies,' the letter said. Céline Thiébault-Martinez, a Socialist lawmaker, told France Inter radio on Thursday that if France failed to speak out on the destruction of these contraceptives it would 'lose credibility with women'. Sarah Durocher, the head of a French family planning group, said: 'France has a moral responsibility to act.' Charles Dallara, whose politician grandfather Lucien Neuwirth backed the French law authorising oral contraceptives in 1967, wrote an open letter to Macron in which he urged the president not to 'let France become complicit in this scandal'. The Belgian government said it was in urgent contact with the US but it could not say yet whether the contraceptives had already been moved to France. A spokesperson for the foreign affairs department said it contacted the US embassy in Brussels as soon as it became aware of the possible destruction of contraception stocks held in the Geel warehouse. 'Foreign Affairs is exploring all possible avenues to prevent the destruction of these stocks, including their temporary relocation,' they added. 'We do not currently have additional details that would confirm whether a transfer of these products to France has taken place.' The international organisation MSI Reproductive Choices said it had offered to 'purchase, repackage, and manage logistics at our expense, ensuring the products reach those in need', but the offer was rejected. The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) made a similar offer at 'no cost to the US government' that was also turned down, AFP reported.