
Macron says UK and France ‘share same will' amid crunch talks over migrant deal
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


Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
'Kemi Badenoch may hate the 1970s but Starmer should look to them'
The Tories are re-telling their favourite fairytale about the time a nasty wolf in left-wing clothing ate the heart out of Britain. At PMQs, Kemi Badenoch praised Norman Tebbit for rescuing this country from the Labour-run "chaos of the 1970s" before arguing that Keir Starmer wants to return us to that chaotic decade by flirting with a wealth tax. Well, seeing as you weren't alive in those bell-bottom days Kemi, let me give you some facts. Life was far from perfect in the 70s. Racism, sexism and homophobia were given free passes, the global oil crisis and shrinking post-Empire markets caused a run on the Pound, police corruption was off the scale and thanks to weak management, chronic underinvestment and powerful trade unions, industrial relations resembled a warzone. But it was, in many respects, a glorious time to be alive. There was a strong sense of community, belief in public services, free higher education, council houses aplenty, workers grafted for fewer hours in more secure jobs, The Clash and Sex Pistols ushered a new era of music, watching football was as cheap as chips and Thatcher had yet to turn Britain into a selfish, divided bearpit where only the strong survived. Plus, 1976 was officially the year when incomes in this country were at their most equal. Indeed, the only European country where the gap between rich and poor was narrower was Sweden. But Thatcher came to power at the end of the 70s and decreed this equality nonsense had gone too far. So she let the free markets rip and slashed higher rates of tax, helping the rich gorge on the nation's wealth and leaving the poor, the weak and the old industrial heartlands to rot. The gap between the top and the bottom in the UK has only carried on widening, which is why today we are the second most unequal G7 economy after America and the second most unequal nation in Europe after Bulgaria. The richest 70,000 people now take home 67 times more than the average worker, with CEOs like Tesco's Ken Murphy picking up £10 million last year, 431 times more than his company's mean wage. Recent research from The Equality Trust showed the UK's richest 50 families have more wealth than half the population and the billionaire count has soared from 15 in 1990 to 165 last year. We live in times of peak inequality making us an impoverished, unhealthy country where public services have stagnated, the economy has flatlined and a third of children live below the poverty line. Which is why the likes of Neil Kinnock is calling on Starmer to bring in a wealth tax on assets worth more than £10million and why this generation of Tories hate the idea almost as much as they hate the 1970s. Because equality is anathema to them. Whether it's Kinnock's tax on assets, a mansion tax, increasing capital gains tax, a new tax band for the super-wealthy or slashing relief on pensions for the richest, the government has to act. It's no longer a question of whether Labour's reputation can afford a wealth tax, it's whether, in the face of staggering debt and limited options, it can afford not to address the terminal dysfunction caused by a vampiric economy in which most of the wealth gets sucked up by the few at the top. It's about our country Stayin' Alive, as we used to sing in bell-bottom days.


Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Harry and Meghan 'relieved' over royal move despite King's new 'snub'
When King Charles made his speech at the state banquet during the French visit to the UK, the monarch made a sweet reference to Prince William but not his estranged son Harry. Royal expert Jennie Bond believes there's more to the story King Charles delivered a powerful message to his son Prince William at the state banquet on Tuesday, marking the end of the final day of the French state visit to the UK. The banquet, which was attended by French president Emmanuel Macron, his wife Brigitte, the Prince and Princess of Wales, and hundreds of other guests, was held at Windsor Castle and saw the King give a moving speech about the royal family and their relationship with France. During the address, the King spoke fondly about his eldest son Prince William, applauding his decision to establish his family home at Windsor, saying the move is doubly special given the castle's Norman origins. "The castle in which we meet this evening was begun by my ancestor — and your sometime countryman — William, Duke of Normandy, in the year 1070,' Charles said. 'It remains the oldest and largest occupied castle in the world." "So it is perhaps rather appropriate that my son, the Prince of Wales, who shares that earlier William's name, has made Windsor his home with his family, like so many of our predecessors," the Ling added. Many royal fans were quick to point out that the address made no mention of his estranged son Prince Harry, who quit royal life in 2020 with his wife Meghan Markle, and permanently relocated to California. While many thought the lack of mention of Harry was a deliberate 'snub' by King Charles, royal expert Jennie Bond has another theory. The former BBC royal correspondent said that the King's speech was not out of the ordinary. Jennie Bond told The Mirror: "I don't think it is significant at all that there was no mention of Harry. It would have been very odd indeed for the King to have mentioned him during a State occasion which was all about Anglo French relations." Bond went on to clarify: "His reference to William was simply because of his name, the castle and its association with the Duke of Normandy. In no way was this any kind of snub. When asked if the Sussexes would have been impacted by being left out of the King's speech and the French state visit at large, Jennie said: "I don't imagine Harry or Meghan will have paid much attention to the Macron visit. "If they did, they would probably feel relieved that they don't have to get dressed up and perform what is a very delicate and probably quite stressful diplomatic duty." Given the years-long strained relationship between Prince Harry and King Charles, it's no surprise that the monarch didn't acknowledge the Duke of Sussex in his address. Prince Harry recently told the BBC that he would 'love a reconciliation' with his father, though he claimed the king 'won't speak' to him. 'There's no point continuing to fight anymore, life is precious,' Harry said, adding that he has since 'forgiven' them for their many 'disagreements.'


The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
We used to have hope and compassion. Where did it all go?
The documentary reminded me that, 20 years after Live Aid, there was Live 8 on July 2, 2005, held in eight cities around the globe, including Moscow. That was the time of the Make Poverty History campaign, of the G8 in Gleneagles when world leaders, including Vladimir Putin, signed up to an accord to cancel debt owed by the poorest nations of the world and to boost aid to Africa. It was a time when President George Bush committed $15 billion to the fight against Aids in Africa and the Caribbean, saying that compassion was an American value. Looking at the hopes and aspirations of those times gone by and looking at the world as it is today, all I can ask is: where did it all go wrong? Doug Maughan, Dunblane. Who are they kidding? Who are Prime Minister Starmer and President Macron kidding if they think that their "one in, one out" pilot scheme is 'groundbreaking", will have a 'deterrent effect beyond the numbers actually returned" and will 'finally turn the tables"? At least there was no further mention of the sound bite pipe dream of "smashing the gangs" ('Starmer and Macron detail 'one in, one out' migrant pilot to curb crossings", The Herald, July 11). It is worth noting their scheme is to curb crossings, not stop them. A potential migrant was interviewed on TV this morning and unsurprisingly said it would not deter him. Hundreds come over each week and the risk of being one of those few selected (how?) to be returned is minuscule, and anyway the legal aid lawyers will be queuing up to challenge that selection and appeal again and again against it if necessary. We have huge numbers of migrants coming here to seek asylum through legal routes and that will no doubt continue, but the illegal migrants are paying the trafficking gangs to avoid any scrutiny. How can it be in our national security interests to have thousands of mainly young men, about whom we know little or nothing, dispersed around the country ? When will the Government act on its previous admission that it was its 'duty" to stop, not just curb, these illegal migrants? That will require it to enforce the sovereignty of the UK and its borders by legislating to create the real deterrent that illegal migrants are disqualified automatically, no ifs or buts, from staying here and will be arrested on arrival and held securely until they can be deported back to French waters from where they came. What else can we do to stop this illegal invasion? Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop. Read more letters What hope now for Labour? The only way to quiet the Farage foghorn is to turn the narrative away from 'irregular migration' to one of the many, many other pressing, sidelined issues. There are two problems with this. • The predominantly right-wing UK media loves the aggro and lazy one-trick-pony-ness of it as much as Nigel Farage. • It would take real leadership from Keir Starmer (sprinkled with some belief in his own policies) to achieve. Banging on about migration in wholly negative terms while doing precious little to fix the broken system that encourages the exploitation – including even acknowledging the disastrous role of Brexit – is too easy fuel for Reform UK and is lapped up by a swathe of the population, now comfortable in dressing their racism up as patriotism. Angela Rayner, who might contend as a real leader, has just been carpeted by her union for her role in the Birmingham bin strike ("Angela Rayner suspended by Unite union over bin strike", heraldscotland, July 11). I didn't know Angela Rayner ran Birmingham City Council. And anyway, it is high time the major unions – including the ones who keep orchestrating rail strikes – cottoned on that in a country where everything is either privatised or de-facto privatised and the job of a lot of councils is simply working out whose mates to give the contracts to, strikes only actually affect the suffering public who are already paying through the nose for failing and dysfunctional services. With Ms Rayner's wings clipped by an out-of-touch union, what hope is there that Labour leadership can change the discordant tune? At least we've got Keir Starmer's Trump visit to look forward to. Amanda Baker, Edinburgh. Why should we pay for Trump? It is said that the purpose of Donald Trump's visit is to open the new 18 hole-golf course at his resort in the north-east coast at Menie, north of Aberdeen. He is not expected to meet with King Charles in London. For all intents and purposes therefore, the visit is a business trip and the only political elements pertaining to the situation are due to the person making the trip. The trip of 2018 cost the UK taxpayer in the region of £18 million, £5m of which covered time spent in Scotland. Since the purpose of the 2025 trip is to further expand Trump business, why should the UK taxpayer be called to compensate the President for security/transport costs if they are in fact business expenses ("Police seek aid over cost of Trump Scots visit", The Herald, July 11)? The US taxpayer no doubt gazes dumbfounded as their Head of State boards Air Force One for yet another round of golf in warmer climes, but they voted for him. Scotland didn't. Maureen McGarry-O'Hanlon, Jamestown. • Do we really want to see US President Donald Trump in Scotland, pay at least £5 million for his security, and let him promote his golf courses? No, no, no! He's the most obnoxious, arrogant and ignorant numpty ever to inhabit the White House. Our police could instead deal with what really matters in our communities and I would urge our golfers to play different courses. Andy Stenton, Glasgow. • You report the news of a Presidential visit by The Donald this month. The last time around the security bill was many millions of pounds. The numbers of police being taken from their usual duties numbered thousands. In view of his seemingly singular undiplomatic views on all things American and many other countries, it gives way as to how to view the visit. Does one join with a large demonstration, of which there will be many to choose from, or stay at home like the multitude who care nought for him and the ideology he professes? It is a no-win situation for the police and the taxpayer. R Johnston, Newton Mearns. Wind industry is on holiday During this current heatwave when we need electricity for air conditioning the most, I couldn't help but notice the wind industry has gone off on holiday. The entire fleet of thousands of entirely parasitic, demonstrably useless giant wind turbines littering our once-beautiful countryside is barely able to provide the National Grid with 2% – reaching the dizzying heights of 1.46% to be precise. Will we get a refund of the vast annual record-breaking subsidy for poor or non-existent service? George Herraghty, Lhanbryde. Keir Starmer pictured with Emmanuel Macron earlier this week (Image: PA) Drink up, Canada I note Ross Greer's advice to John Swinney to "switch" Scots whisky exports from America to Canada ("'Switch our whisky exports from US to Canada over Trump tariffs'", The Herald, July 11). Looking at this from the perspective of per head of population (335 million versus 40 million) this will require Canadians to increase their whisky consumption by a factor of 8.3. Good luck with that. Another example of sound political logic? Jon Cossar, Edinburgh. McDermid on the warpath Val McDermid has gone on the warpath ("Val McDermid: Politics is an 'absolute cesspit of misogyny'", heraldscotland, July 10). This is intriguing as Ms McDermid is very good friends with Nicola Sturgeon, who almost single-handedly removed the basic rights of all Scottish females to their own private space with her ill-thought-out gender reforms. Are we detecting yet more push-back against the very relevant Supreme Court decision on this matter which pointedly did not support Nicola Sturgeon's position ? You could write a book about all of this. Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow. Rough treatment Scotland looked wonderful yesterday (July 10) in the sun at the Scottish Open Golf at the Renaissance Club overlooking the Firth of Forth. The golf was also pretty good, with some Scots in contention and of course the fans behaved impeccably. The only slightly sour note was provided by the two heavies escorting Rory McIlroy, who seemed intent on preventing the young fans touching hands with their hero, shame. I am sure that Rory would not sanction such action. W MacIntyre, East Kilbride. Taps off, please The backdrop to Carol Kirkwood's BBC weather forecast today (July 11) was Battersea Park. The 20-plus fountains were majestically performing in full flow. The previous news item had stressed the need to conserve water due to the current weather. The watery spectacle seemed to contradict the public warning. Lack of communication or a complete disregard for common sense? Either way a prompt turn-off is required. Allan C Steele, Giffnock. Our 45 record Kristy Dorsey's article on the Eastwood Twelve ("The revival of golf at Eastwood: '12 is plenty'", The Herald, July 11) mentions people not wanting to take out the whole day to play 18 holes. Back in the day, three of us regularly played both of Hilton Park's courses, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, followed by nine holes on the shorter Allander course in the evening, only the twilight hours restricting our day's golf to 45 holes. We were known as the lopers, admittedly with no wives and families to be brought into the equation. David Miller, Milngavie. • Samantha Whitelaw, the manager of the 12 -hole Eastwood Golf Course, lists the advantages of the club's limited number of holes compared to the more conventional 18-hole course. As a former "holiday golfer", one of the attractions would be to claim that I could manage a round at my course in fewer than sixty strokes – but only on a good day. Malcolm Allan, Bishopbriggs.