UK to sanction people smugglers
The measures, set to take effect on Wednesday, come in response to a rise in small-boat crossings from continental Europe to Britain. British officials say the route is increasingly used for unauthorized migration and linked to organized smuggling networks.
'The UK has created the world's first sanctions regime targeting gangs involved in people smuggling and irregular migration, along with their enablers,' Lammy said, referring to a legal framework introduced in January that allows for asset freezes and travel bans against those involved.
The crackdown follows rising public concern over reports linking some migrants to violent incidents, including alleged sexual assaults. Protests have taken place across the UK, calling for stricter controls at asylum housing centers and greater transparency on offender status. According to the Home Office, nearly 20,000 people arrived in Britain via small boats in the first half of 2025, a 50% increase from 2024 and 75% higher than in 2023.
Earlier this month, the UK and Germany agreed to strengthen migration cooperation. Berlin pledged to criminalize the storage of boats and engines intended for Channel crossings. The agreement also includes intelligence sharing and coordinated action against smuggling networks. A parallel deal with France allows the UK to return small-boat migrants in exchange for accepting an equal number of vetted asylum seekers through legal channels.
In May, Prime Minister Keir Starmer proposed immigration reforms that include stricter English-language requirements, higher visa thresholds, and extending settlement periods to ten years. The plan, aimed at cutting legal migration by 100,000 annually, has not yet become law.
The migrant crisis, fueled by conflict and poverty in the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia, has been exacerbated by Western military interventions, prompting widespread displacement.
The UK is also reportedly considering relocating rejected asylum seekers to 'return hubs' in Western Balkan countries, though no deals have been finalized. A similar plan involving Rwanda was dropped due to legal and political opposition.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Jeremy Corbyn launches new UK political party
Former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has announced the launch of a new political party in the UK, vowing to challenge what he described as a 'rigged system.' Corbyn led Labour from 2015 to 2020, but was expelled from the party in 2024 after running as an independent in his Islington North constituency. He had already been suspended over his response to allegations of anti-Semitism within Labour, which he denied, calling the claims politically motivated. His supporters saw it as a smear campaign tied to his anti-austerity and anti-war views. In a statement on X on Thursday, he declared it was 'time to build new kind of political party – one that belongs to you,' emphasizing the party's commitment to tackling inequality. The party is expected to include other left-wing figures suspended or expelled by Labour, particularly Zarah Sultana, the MP for Coventry South, who was reprimanded in 2024 after voting to lift the cap on child benefits – a policy widely criticized by anti-poverty campaigners. A website, ' has been launched, though Sultana clarified that the party is 'not called Your Party.' It's time for a new kind of political party - one that belongs to you. Sign up at Corbyn and Sultana said 4.5 million children are living in poverty in the UK and criticized a 'rigged system' where corporations profit from rising bills while 'billions' are set aside for war.'We cannot accept these injustices – and neither should you,' the statement reads, going on to advocate 'mass redistribution of wealth and power' by taxing the wealthiest. Corbyn has clashed frequently with Labour's current leadership over military support for Israel and Ukraine. The UK has been one of the most vocal supporters of Kiev's war effort. Corbyn has repeatedly called for a diplomatic solution and questioned whether the UK is 'at war' with Russia. Moscow perceives the Ukraine conflict as a Western proxy war against Russia. The Kremlin has consistently denounced Western arms deliveries to Kiev, saying that they only prolong the conflict without changing its outcome. It has also accused the EU and UK of impeding ongoing peace efforts and criticized their expanded defense budgets, warning it could precipitate a broader conflict in Europe.
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Ivan Timofeev: We're close to the war nobody wants but everyone's preparing for
US President Donald Trump's recent push for peace in Ukraine highlights a troubling reality: the options for resolving the conflict are narrowing. Kiev continues to rely on NATO military support, while member states are ramping up defense spending and bolstering their arms industries. The Ukraine war may yet spark a broader confrontation between Russia and NATO. For now, the chances remain low – thanks, in large part, to nuclear deterrence. But how strong is that deterrent today? It's difficult to gauge the role of nuclear weapons in modern warfare. Their only combat use – the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 – occurred under vastly different political and technological conditions. Nonetheless, most international relations experts agree that nuclear weapons serve as powerful deterrents. Even a small nuclear arsenal is seen as a shield against invasion: the cost of aggression becomes unthinkable. By this logic, Russia, as a nuclear superpower, should be nearly immune to external military threats. The use of nuclear weapons has become a political and moral taboo – though military planners still quietly game out scenarios. The dominant belief holds that nuclear weapons are unusable – and that no rational actor would challenge a nuclear-armed state. But is that belief grounded in reality? For Russia, this is becoming an increasingly urgent question as the risk of direct confrontation with NATO – or individual NATO members – grows, especially in the context of Ukraine. There are political flashpoints aplenty. Both Russia and NATO have made their grievances known. Whether these tensions erupt into conflict will depend not just on intent, but on military-industrial capacity and force readiness. And these are changing fast. Russia has expanded defense production since 2022. NATO countries, too, are rearming – and their collective industrial base may soon surpass Russia's conventional strength. With that shift could come a more assertive posture – military pressure backed by material power. Several pathways could lead to a NATO–Russia war. One scenario involves direct NATO intervention in Ukraine. Another could stem from a crisis in the Baltics or elsewhere along NATO's eastern flank. Such crises can escalate rapidly. Drone strikes, missile attacks, and cross-border incursions are now routine. In time, NATO regulars – not just volunteers – could be drawn in. Could nuclear deterrence stop that? At first glance, yes. In a direct clash, Russia would likely begin with conventional strikes. But the war in Ukraine has shown that conventional weapons, even when effective, rarely force capitulation. NATO possesses Ukraine's defensive tools – but at greater scale. Its societies are less prepared to endure casualties, but that could change with sufficient political mobilization and media messaging. Russia has amassed significant military experience – especially in defensive operations – but NATO remains a formidable opponent. If Russia ever considered using nuclear weapons, two broad scenarios exist. The first is a preemptive tactical strike on enemy troop concentrations or infrastructure. The second is a retaliatory strike following NATO escalation. The first is politically perilous: it would frame Russia as the aggressor and trigger diplomatic isolation. The second also violates the nuclear taboo but might be seen differently in global opinion. Either way, NATO can retaliate – with conventional or nuclear force. A Russian strike could provoke a devastating counterattack. Moscow would then face a grim choice: fight on conventionally and risk defeat, escalate with more nukes, or unleash strategic weapons – inviting mutual destruction. The belief that Russia would never go nuclear – fearing retaliation – has created a false sense of security among some NATO leaders. That illusion could tempt escalation by conventional means, starting in Ukraine and spreading beyond. It would require NATO to abandon its Cold War caution. Who would suffer most in such a scenario? Ukraine – which would bear the brunt of intensified fighting. Russia – which could face missile barrages and a possible ground invasion. The Eastern NATO states – potential targets of Russian retaliation, or even invasion. The United States might escape the initial consequences, unless strategic nukes are deployed. But escalation is rarely predictable. If tactical exchanges spiral, even the US could be drawn into a nuclear conflict. There are no winners in nuclear war. Only survivors – if that. Betting that the other side will blink is a dangerous gamble with civilization at stake. Both Russia and NATO understand the catastrophic costs of war. Any large-scale conflict would require massive social and economic shifts and would devastate Europe on a scale not seen since World War II. But history shows that fear alone doesn't always prevent disaster. We cannot rule out a return to extremes. Nuclear weapons still function as a deterrent. But the taboo against their use – and their ability to guarantee peace – is being tested once again. The more leaders gamble with assumptions, the closer we come to finding out whether the old rules still hold.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Russian return to chess triggers European complaints
The European Chess Union (ECU) has objected to a decision by the International Chess Federation (FIDE) to reinstate the Russian women's team under a neutral flag at the 2025 World Team Championship in Spain this November. The ECU is arguing the move contravenes sanctions guidelines approved at the sport's 2024 General Assembly in Budapest. While exemptions were granted for 'vulnerable groups,' such as underage players and individuals with disabilities, the ECU said these did not apply to full national teams. FIDE banned Russia and Belarus from team tournaments in March 2022 after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, but allowed players from both countries to compete individually under neutral status. The recent move marks a policy shift, with FIDE confirming that a Russian women's team will be allowed to play in the upcoming championship in Linares under the FIDE flag and without national symbols. 'This decision directly contradicts the most recent decisions of the FIDE General Assembly taken in Budapest,' the European chess body claimed. The ECU, which represents 54 national federations, urged FIDE to maintain sanctions, claiming that the circumstances that prompted the measures in 2022 had not changed and that team participation should remain suspended until the issues are 'fully resolved.' FIDE said its decision aligns with International Olympic Committee (IOC) guidance, mirrors steps by other sports federations, builds on a January 2025 precedent permitting neutral teams of vulnerable groups, and remains contingent on a non-objection letter from the IOC. Responding to the criticism, Russian Chess Federation Executive Director Aleksandr Tkachev called the reaction predictable and said it reaffirmed Russia's transfer to the Asian Chess Federation, where 'such issues do not arise' and the principle of keeping politics out of sport is upheld. He argued the backlash reflects views of 'a minority of European officials,' not players, who continue to compete with Russians individually. Russian officials have accused Western nations of politicizing sport and pressuring federations to exclude Russia's sportsmen and sportswomen. Moscow has also claimed that Ukraine and its backers have influenced FIDE decisions.
