
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.
(PA Graphics)
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.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer (right) with Emmanuel Macron at 10 Downing Street (Alberto Pezzali/PA)
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


The Herald Scotland
4 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Crystal Palace considering appeal to CAS after demotion to Conference League
UEFA's Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) determined that Textor's interest in both Palace and Lyon meant only one of the clubs could enter the Europa League, with Lyon's higher league position edging out Palace. Official club statement following today's decision by UEFA.#CPFC — Crystal Palace F.C. (@CPFC) July 11, 2025 A Palace statement on Friday night read: 'Crystal Palace FC are extremely dismayed by UEFA's decision to exclude the club from the Europa League. 'It's clear for everyone to see that we are not part of a multi-club operation and never have been. Further with the completion of the sale of Eagle football's shareholding to Woody Johnson there will be zero possibility of a conflict of interest once the competition begins. 'We will continue to press our case and work with UEFA to achieve the fair and just outcome so that we may take our rightful place in the Europa League, as well as taking legal advice to consider our options, including an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).' Palace chairman Steve Parish declared it 'a bad day for football' and 'a terrible injustice' after the club were demoted to the Conference League after falling foul of UEFA's rules on multi-club ownership. Parish told Sky Sports: 'We are obviously devastated, most importantly for the supporters. Supporters of all clubs should be devastated for it. 'This means something, you win a cup for the first time in your history and it's like winning the lottery and going to the counter and not getting the prize. 'It is a bad day for football. Most right-minded football fans will see what a terrible injustice this is for the football club and one that I hope someone can remedy because I do believe that nobody in football wants to see this – I don't think UEFA want to see it. 'Clubs that rightly qualify being locked out on the most ridiculous technicality that you could imagine.' UEFA said the decision could be appealed against at the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Parish said: 'We are looking at all options. Appealing is one option. I think we would much prefer if someone intervened, we believe it is possible for someone to do that. 'There are a number of really important points people need to consider.' Palace will drop into the Conference League, with Nottingham Forest expected to replace them in the Europa League, though this has not been confirmed by UEFA. Palace qualified for the Europa League after beating Manchester City in the FA Cup final (Nick Potts/PA) UEFA had to postpone a decision in the case pending the outcome of an appeal by Lyon against a decision by French football's financial regulator to relegate them to the second division. Lyon had reached a settlement with UEFA agreeing to be excluded from European competition if that relegation was upheld on appeal, but on Wednesday the club learned they had overturned the original decision and held on to their top-flight spot. At that point, Palace's prospects of playing in the Europa League appeared to recede considerably. Textor has agreed to sell his shareholding in Palace to New York Jets owner Woody Johnson. Palace co-owner and chairman Steve Parish confirmed John Textor's deal to sell his shares in the club could be completed over the weekend (Yiu Mok/PA) Parish added: 'Yesterday we received Premier League approval for the deal. The deal will be completed some time over the weekend, or Monday or Tuesday. 'It's 100 per cent certain and UEFA know that's a done deal. 'By the time we get to the competition, John won't have anything to do with Crystal Palace and he won't have anything to do with Lyon.'


Telegraph
5 hours ago
- Telegraph
Smart meters are a symbol of energy companies' contempt for customers
SIR – Christopher Howse ('The creeping tyranny of smart meters is a national disgrace', Comment, July 11) is not alone in having been let down by EDF. I too fell for its threats, although in my case the meter was at least fitted at the arranged time. Unfortunately, here in rural Wales, the signal is not reliable. I told EDF that my device was not working, to which it merely replied that this was a known fault – leaving me no better off than I was before I had it. I now have to take readings myself and submit them online each month. Kevin Cottrell Grosmont, Monmouthshire SIR – I can sympathise with Christopher Howse. I live in a first-floor flat with the electricity meters on the ground floor, and I too was browbeaten by EDF into having a smart meter installed. When the job was done, I asked for the meter display so that I could keep an eye on my use. I was told it would be sent to me. Several weeks passed, so I called EDF's customer service line and asked where my display was. I was told that, as my meter is on the ground floor and my flat is on the first floor, it would not work. Ian Carter Lytham St Annes, Lancashire SIR – I succumbed to EDF's badgering and agreed to have smart meters installed in the three blocks of flats that I manage. A date was set – but nobody came. No explanation, no apology. Joseph B Fox Redhill, Surrey SIR – In your article (''Not clear if heat pumps will save people money', government adviser admits', July 10), a spokesman for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero says: 'The British people are showing record demand for heat pumps, which enable families to save around £100 a year by using a smart tariff.' The same article suggests that a heat pump can cost £13,000 to install. My maths may be rusty, but this equates to a pay-back time of 130 years. If the heat pump is anything like my fridge, though, it will only last 10 years before it needs replacing. Dr Andrew Slater Sedlescombe, East Sussex SIR – Heat pumps are at their most efficient in hot weather and their least efficient in cold weather. When are our homes more likely to require heating? Frank Smith Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire


Daily Mirror
6 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
9/11 mastermind's plea deal thrown out - putting death penalty back on table
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001 that dictated US interventionist policy toward the Middle East for decades The mastermind behind the truly devastating 9/11 attacks on the US in 2001, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, has had his plea deal thrown out, which means the death penalty could be back on the table. A federal appeals court in Washington DC today threw out an agreement that would have allowed Mohammed to plead guilty following an effort to end a long-drawn-out legal saga around the prosecution of men held at Guantanamo Bay. The 2-1 appeals court decision upheld former Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin's decision to undo the plea deal that had been approved by military lawyers and senior Pentagon staff. The deal carried life without parole sentences for Mohammed as well as two co-defendants, taking the death penalty off the table. Pakistani national Mohammed is accused of planning the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, as well as targeting other locations in the US in 2001. Austin said the decision to remove the death penalty from the deal could only be approved by the Secretary of Defence. But there were legal concerns over the original plea deal and whether it was actually legally binding and if Austin waited too long to move for its dismissal. The court ultimately found Austin had legal authority to withdraw from the agreements as the promises made in the deal had not been fulfilled and also because the government had not alternatives. As the appeals court put the decision on hold, the defendants were not sentenced today as had previously been scheduled, reports Fox News. Judges Patricia Milliett and Neomi Rao, who voted in favour, said the government "adequately explained that Secretary Austin delayed action to avoid an unlawful influence challenge, waiting to see what type of agreement, if any, would result from the negotiations and only then deciding whether intervention was necessary." They also cited unlawful influence allegations against several government official, including the secretary of defence, Millett and Rao found Austin had been "reasonable" to withdraw from the agreements in order to avoid litigation. "Having properly assumed the convening authority, the Secretary determined that the families and the American public deserve the opportunity to see military commission trials carried out," the judges said. "The Secretary acted within the bounds of his legal authority, and we decline to second-guess his judgment." The dissenting Judge Roberts L. Wilkins argued siding with the government would be an overreach. The Court's holding is stunning," he said. "Not only does the majority believe that Respondents [prosecutors who negotiated the plea deal] did not begin performance, but it holds that the government established a clear and indisputable right to a writ of mandamus or prohibition. It is impossible for me to conclude that the government has shown it is clearly and indisputably entitled to relief."