UK eyes visa curbs for countries without migrant return deals
Live Events
The UK is looking to restrict the number of visas it gives to countries which refuse to sign returns agreements with Britain, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said, as his government pursues more assertive measures to reduce levels of net migration.Starmer discussed the issue with his French, Italian and German counterparts at the Group of Seven summit in Kananaskis, Canada on Monday. They covered topics including what can jointly be done through counter-terrorism powers and sanctions to tackle the increasing number of people traveling on small boats across the English Channel. Starmer told reporters on Tuesday that he wants to pursue more returns agreements with countries throughout Europe and beyond, though the European Union would prefer to do a bloc-wide deal.'We are looking at whether we should tie our visas to the work that the countries we're dealing with are doing on preventative measures and on return agreements,' Starmer told reporters in the mountain resort. 'It will be much more transactional,' he said, adding that the 'smarter' use of visas will apply to countries which don't have return deals with Britain.After almost a year in power, Starmer is coming under increasing pressure to devise a strategy that successfully reins in net immigration numbers that have touched records in recent years. One of his first acts in power was to scrap the previous Tory administration's controversial plan to deport small boat arrivals to Rwanda, which he described as a 'gimmick' because it had yet to bear fruit.(Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates)The premier has said his focus is on cracking down on the criminal gangs responsible for people smuggling, as well as ramping up the processing of arrivals, including deporting those who fail in their asylum bids. Nevertheless, cross-channel arrivals this year have hit a record, laying bare the challenge facing the government.Starmer has also pursued a series of agreements, which return people lacking legal residence to either their country of origin or where they hold citizenship. The UK has such agreements with Albania, Pakistan, India and Iraq. Some of the deals, including Albania, cover third party nationals.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
26 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Modi arrives in Croatia in last leg of his 3-nation tour, first Indian PM to visit country
Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Wednesday arrived in Croatia in the final leg of his three-nation visit. PM Modi arrived in Zagreb after concluding his visit to Canada, where he participated in the G7 Summit. The Prime Minister was accorded a ceremonial welcome on his arrival in Croatia. This is the first visit by an Indian Prime Minister to Croatia, marking an important milestone in the bilateral relationship with the visit opening new avenues for bilateral cooperation in areas of mutual interest. Also Read | 'You are the best': PM Narendra Modi meets Italy's Giorgia Meloni at G7 Summit, video goes viral The Prime Minister will hold bilateral discussions with Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic and meet the President of Croatia, Zoran Milanovic. The visit to Croatia will also underscore India's commitment to further strengthening its engagement with partners in the European Union. PM Modi described his visit to Canada as "productive" and said the G7 Summit witnessed fruitful discussions on diverse global issues. Also Read | PM Modi's presence at G7 summit reflection of India's global leadership: Canadian PM Mark Carney "Concluding a productive Canada visit. Thankful to the Canadian people and Government for hosting a successful G7 Summit, which witnessed fruitful discussions on diverse global issues. We remain committed to furthering global peace, prosperity and sustainability," PM Modi said in a post on X. PM Modi participated in the Outreach Session of the G7 Summit in Kananaskis anddressed a Session on 'Energy Security: diversification, technology and infrastructure to ensure access and affordability in a changing world'. In his address, the Prime Minister highlighted that energy security was among the leading challenges facing future generations. While elaborating on India's commitment to inclusive growth, he noted that availability, accessibility, affordability and acceptability were the principles that underpinned India's approach to energy security. He emphasised that even though India is the fastest-growing major economy in the world, it has successfully met its Paris commitments ahead of time. Highlighting India's commitment to a sustainable and green future, he underscored that India has undertaken several global initiatives such as the International Solar Alliance, Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure, Global Biofuels Alliance, Mission LiFE and One Sun- One World- One Grid, and called upon the international community to further strengthen them.
Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
Why blocking Hormuz is a losing strategy for Iran
In the early hours of June 13, Israel unleashed a series of pre-emptive strikes on Iran's nuclear development, its missile production sites and attacks on strategic personalities, including nuclear scientists and Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) commanders. The attacks on Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow inflicted severe structural damage and claimed the lives of at least fourteen nuclear scientists in coordinated assassinations. Tel Aviv justified these raids by pointing to Iran's uranium enrichment levels, which had already reached 60 per cent purity – alarming close to the 90 per cent threshold for weapons-grade material. Iran responded with a wave of missile and drone barrages against Israeli cities – Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, Bnei Brak, Petah Tikva, and Rehovot – prompting air-raid sirens and Iron Dome interceptions. Yet Tehran's retaliation extended beyond Israel's borders, striking the US military installations in the region and daring to challenge America's naval supremacy in the Gulf. As tensions soared, three commercial vessels in the Gulf of Oman caught fire in incidents widely attributed to Iranian sabotage. Additionally, Tehran publicly threatened to seal off the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow maritime chokepoint through which nearly one-fifth of the world's oil supply flows. The spectre of a Hormuz blockade is not new in Tehran's strategic lexicon. The first recorded Iranian threat to close the strait dates back to 1951, when the then Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh hinted that nationalisation of the Anglo-Iranian oil company could lead to Western embargoes and blockade of the waterway. During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, particularly between 1987 and 1988 in the so-called Tanker War, Iran deployed fast attack boats and mines, warning that any assault on its oil exports would close Hormuz to all shipping. In 2008, after British forces seized Iranian naval vessels in the Gulf, Tehran again menaced the strait. More recently, it has issued similar warnings in 2011-12 when it threatened to block the strait in retaliation for US and European sanctions and after the US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, as well as following the 2020 assassinations of General Qassem Soleimani and nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. Yet a full closure of the strait would do far greater harm to Iran than to its adversaries. A SWOT analysis makes this clear, particularly in the realm of diplomatic isolation. Strengths of a coalition condemning Iran would include unified political will among the United States, European Union, Japan, and other major consumers, backed by legal frameworks for sanctions and vast diplomatic networks. Weaknesses in their stance lie in competing energy needs. While Europe seeks to diversify away from Russian gas, Asian giants like China and India depend heavily on Gulf oil, which could complicate unanimous action. Opportunities for these countries include reinforcing international norms of freedom of navigation and deterring future coercive measures. Yet threats remain. If the coalition applies too harsh a diplomatic squeeze, it risks driving Iran closer to alternative partners like Russia and China, and could trigger regional destabilisation that boomerangs in higher energy prices and security costs. Within this context, India faces a delicate strategic dilemma. Historically, New Delhi has maintained cordial ties with Tehran, importing nearly 600,000 barrels per day from Iran before 2019. However, after Washington's 'maximum pressure' campaign, India reduced these imports, pivoting toward the United States and Gulf producers. If Iran moves to choke Hormuz, India would find itself confronted with converging imperatives: supporting broader international action to keep maritime lanes open, while safeguarding its own energy security and investments in Iranian infrastructure such as the Chabahar Port. New Delhi's likelihood of diplomatically isolating Iran hinges on balancing these interests. It could, for instance, vote in favour of UN resolutions condemning the blockade, while quietly affirming its need to maintain minimal oil flows. Ultimately, India's principle of strategic autonomy suggests it would join consensus measures that protect global commerce without entirely severing ties with Tehran. Roughly one-fifth of global oil consumption, around 20 million barrels per day, passes through the Strait of Hormuz, making it the most crucial chokepoint in global energy logistics. The strait, barely 21 nautical miles wide at its narrowest point, is the gateway through which the oil-rich Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Iraq, and Iran itself send crude oil to global markets. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, about 76 per cent of the oil that transits Hormuz heads to Asia, powering the economies of China, India, Japan, and South Korea. In addition, liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments from Qatar, which alone accounts for 20 percent of global LNG exports, also pass through this strategic corridor. Even a temporary closure or disruption in the Strait could send oil prices soaring above US$150 per barrel, aggravating global inflation, destabilising developing economies, and threatening already fragile post-pandemic economic recoveries. The Brent crude benchmark has already crossed US$102 per barrel in the aftermath of the Israeli strikes. Any military move to seal off Hormuz would send shockwaves through every major energy-importing economy. Notably, blocking Hormuz will prove to be a losing strategy for Iran itself. First, Iran's economic fragility would be laid bare. Under the US sanctions, oil exports have plummeted from over 2.5 million barrels per day in 2017 to roughly 1.2 million barrels per day today, cutting national revenues by two-thirds. With oil accounting for nearly 80 per cent of Iran's foreign exchange receipts, a blockade that chokes off exports could erase upwards of US$40 billion in annual income, triggering a double-digit GDP contraction and reversing a decade of modest growth. Skyrocketing inflation already exceeding 45 per cent and youth unemployment above 27 per cent would turn economic hardship into social unrest, jeopardising the regime's domestic stability. Second, global military escalation would become almost inevitable. The US Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, maintains a constant presence precisely to guarantee freedom of navigation. Any attempt to blockade Hormuz would invite direct naval confrontation, potentially involving mine-clearing vessels, destroyers, and airstrikes on Iranian naval assets. Such clashes risk expanding the conflict well beyond Iranian proxies and could draw in allied forces from Europe, Australia, and even China, whose energy supply lines would be under threat. Third, diplomatic isolation would deepen. Major consumers such as China, India, Japan, and European states would expedite the diversification of their energy imports, renegotiate existing contracts, and support secondary sanctions. Even long-standing partners like Russia would hesitate to side with Iran at the expense of their own oil revenues. Unlike the targeted suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, which impacted only Pakistan and maintained dispute-resolution channels, a Hormuz blockade would unite a broad coalition against Iran's action. Fourth, there is a significant risk of financial contagion and insurance upheaval. Closing Hormuz would send tanker insurance premiums to unprecedented levels, potentially tripling current rates and causing shipping firms to reroute through longer, costlier passages around the Cape of Good Hope. This would not only cripple Iran's capacity to export oil but also undermine its plans for alternative overland pipelines through Oman and Iraq by making them economically unviable. Fifth, the environmental and strategic fallout could be disastrous. Mine warfare or missile strikes on civilian shipping lanes would risk oil spills in the ecologically fragile Gulf, devastating fisheries and coastal economies in Iran and neighbouring states alike. Furthermore, Iran's own critical infrastructure, such as ports, pipelines, and refinerie,s would become legitimate military targets, compounding the costs of reconstruction already estimated to exceed US$10 billion. In essence, a Hormuz blockade would play into Iran's perceived strength, its geostrategic leverage over an essential trade artery, but would magnify its vulnerabilities. Economic self-harm, military escalation, diplomatic isolation, financial chaos, and environmental destruction combine to make such a move profoundly counterproductive. Instead, Iran's optimal course lies in diplomacy and economic diversification. A ceasefire agreement paired with renewed nuclear negotiations – whether under a revamped JCPOA or a fresh multilateral framework – could secure limited sanctions relief. Mediators like Switzerland, Oman, and Qatar have the credibility to facilitate backchannel talks and rebuild trust. Tehran's strategic calculus at this critical juncture will not be assessed by the potency of its rhetoric, but by the prudence of its actions. A closure of the Strait of Hormuz may offer short-term leverage, but it neither redresses the damage inflicted by Israel's pre-emptive strikes nor constrains the formidable maritime presence of the United States and its allies. On the contrary, such a move would deepen Iran's diplomatic isolation, exacerbate its economic vulnerabilities, and risk transforming a regional crisis into a multi-actor conflagration with global repercussions. In an interconnected world order, where geoeconomic stability often supersedes geopolitical defiance, the imperative for dialogue and calibrated diplomacy has never been more urgent. The pathway to regional security and global credibility lies not in coercive disruptions but in constructive engagement, de-escalation, and a forward-looking economic vision grounded in resilience and cooperation. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Fibre2Fashion
33 minutes ago
- Fibre2Fashion
Japan 'tough' trade negotiator, EU yet to offer 'fair deal': Trump
President Donald Trump recently said Japan was being 'tough' in trade talks and the European Union (EU) had not yet offered a 'fair deal'. "We're talking [with the EU], but I don't feel that they're offering a fair deal yet," Trump told reporters on board Air Force One on his way back to the United States from a G7 summit in Canada. Japan was being 'tough' in trade talks and the EU had not yet offered a 'fair deal', President Donald Trump has said after attending the G7 Summit in Canada. "Of course, it's complex, but we are advancing," EU Commission Chief Ursula von der Leyen said. "We have yet to reach a deal as a package because we remain apart over certain aspects," Japanese PM Shigeru Ishiba said after talks with Trump. "We're either going to make a good deal or they'll just pay whatever we say they will pay," he was quoted as saying by global newswires on EU. Before his departure, Trump and EU Commission Chief Ursula von der Leyen met for a few minutes on the sidelines of the G7. "Of course, it's complex, but we are advancing and that is good," von der Leyen said after Trump's criticism of the EU's position. World leaders at the summit urged Trump to back away from his trade war, saying it posed a risk to global economic stability. Trump also met Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba at the G7 Summit, but both made little headway in bridging gaps over tariffs, according to Japanese media reports. The United States has offered Japan and other countries a 90-day reprieve from 'reciprocal' tariffs. Ishiba, however, did not say whether he and Trump discussed the possibility of an extension, after Washington hinted that the pause can be extended for trading partners engaged in negotiations in 'good faith'. "We have yet to reach a deal as a package because we remain apart over certain aspects," Ishiba told reporters after his 'candid' discussions with Trump. US treasury secretary Scott Bessent stayed behind after Trump left, to discuss trade issues with the other G7 members. Fibre2Fashion News Desk (DS)
