To ask what you think about Starmer’s plan to stop the boats?

[WhereIsMyJumper]

I cannot see how his ‘one in one out’ plan is going to help. I also can’t understand why France is cooperating with us. What’s the incentive?

If you don’t agree with this plan, what would your answer be?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ckg6x4g6gg6t

There is no answer, that’s why. Mind you, France and the UK working together is a positive. Legally, anyone coming here as an asylum seeker has the right to remain until their case is heard. Labour can’t stop them, the Tories couldn’t and Reform won’t either, despite their rhetoric.

I think we have been here before with assurances that deals have been done

Id like to see a proper breakdown of exactly where our money has gone.

Macrons country is an absolute mess he doesn't care about our boat problem.

I think we need a total no nonsense break on it all immediately only allowing in women and children if they actually pass the criteria.

We just don't know who these men are or what they want.

@Cluborange666 it depends on why we can't

Perhaps the legal framework behind it all needs addressing.

Australia took a hard line and has dramatically stoped it.

Totally pointless and designed to try to convince the population they're doing something about the boats, when in fact they're actually not.

It's a bit pathetic really.

The only thing to do is make it so unattractive to come. No hotels, mobiles and whatever else they get. Detention camps until they're processed but they don't seem to reject anyone.

I'm not thrilled about 5 million spent on a state visit either.

How can you not see the reason France are happy with the plan. 1000 people try to exit France a day to illegally enter UK in peak times. We probably catch 100 of them. 50 get sent back to France but its OK because we then legally let them send 50 more. Surely this means the gangs win. Why do I say that, because to the gangs they can now say we will take even more of you and if you get caught and sent back at least one other person safely gets to enter. It's bloody stupid. Send them back yes but dont then say for each sent back one enters. We may as well just say you can all attempt it as the more that try the more we send back meaning more we let enter legally. How is the UK any better off when we still get the same number of them? I am not a fan of Farage but starting to think he has a point as Labour are clearly useless if this is their plan to stop it.

It assumes all illegal migrants are picked up of course. They aren’t. So the U.K. will still have undocumented migrants here. Those who are picked up will be returned and swapped for those who have declared their intentions to France. The numbers won’t drop though. Will this affect the ‘gangs’….possibly and this is the only plus. It won’t reduce the numbers though the only way to do that is to employ more people to fast track the applications and stop all appeals.

We need to do something its out of control.

It's useless a bit like Keir himself.

They should have given the Rwanda plan a go. Very quick to shit it down but replaced with nothing

They have no intention of stopping them. This is what they want for the country. If they didn't want it, it wouldn't be happening.

Well it's a start....

He's bothering to address it which is something.

It really can't carry on. It's a mess this situation and all the lefty do gooders do is cause harm by using the great big old shut down of "racists" when anyone dares voice objection.

I just feel that if I never hear the words “small” and “boats” in the same sentence again (unless perhaps someone is talking about Jaws) it’ll be too soon.

It might well be a very important issue but I just can’t understand the level of upset about it. Seems like something that should be approached with a clear head not outrage and rhetoric.

I do agree these gangs are very evil, and need to be stopped, and that it’s clearly not a fair system if some people can circumvent it. A shame we didn’t stay in the EU which made it much easier for us to send people back!

I agree. I didn’t understand the fury over that: it seemed worth trying at the very least.

There is literally no incentive for the French to stop anyone coming here, apart from maybe the threat of having to deal with Reform in the future off the back of all this.

The boats are, anyway, just a very visible tip of the iceberg.

I agree. I thought it was a fair suggestion. These people are not our problem. It's blunt but true. Rwanda is a neighboring country for a big proportion of these people, and will share common religions and values , heritage and culture. The UK often offers few of those things. And cultural clashes are a problem. It's just you're not allowed to voice it or the shouty people start using the "R" word. It's about time we shut all those silly silencing moves down and admitted reality.

“Whatever else they get”? What they get is 9.50 per week, if they are in “hotels” where meals are provided. That’s it. Those meals are not good quality, often aren’t enough and are mass produced. They are not living it up in 4 star hotels with room service and a spa. I’ve been in these places. One which used to be a 4 star hotel, but had been closed for a few years before they took in asylum seekers. Very little work was done to reopen it. There is damp and mould everywhere. Rooms which previously were lovely double rooms how have 4 single beds in them. They have no access to any of the amenities in the hotel. Frankly, I wouldn’t let my dog sleep in one of these places. Mobile phones are not provided to them by the Government, but there are some refugee charities who provide old refurbished phones to some refugees so they can remain in contact with the agencies who are supporting them and dealing with their applications for asylum.

Where should these “detention camps” be? Is it reasonable for this to be for years because they are way behind in processing applications? The government has statutory duty to provide accommodation. Nobody gets to choose where they live, if they don’t accept what they are offered, they won’t get any financial support.

The reason this is costing billions is A) the companies who have these contracts for food and shelter are largely Tory cronies who are taking the piss and B) the departments processing claims have been woefully under staffed.

Well I would cut down application processing times for a start by rejecting anyone who had passed through a safe country.

Hopefully Keir Starmer resigns in the morning. He is useless and corrupt.

1000 people a week approximately coming into the country and he wants to exchange 50. So zero progress.
He could stop immigration in 24 hours if he wanted to

Finally, somebody who knows what they’re talking about. Sitting here open-mouthed about how people are so uninformed and have just believed everything they’ve read in The Daily Mail.

I’m generally of a mind that if you’re willing to risk getting on one of those “boats” whatever is behind you must be fucking shit scary.

Ther is no incentive at all for France to stop the boats. This OIOO plan is just a sop to make British voters, by which I mean Reformers, think Something Is Being Done. It isn’t. It’s offensive to think the British public are fractionally that stupid.

The fury was;

Rwanda was not considered a safe place. The Tory government basically declared it safe (because they said so) and that was that.

Their human rights record is very poor, and there is little to stop Rwanda simply returning asylum seekers to their home country which means the U.K. would have breached their international obligations for asylum seekers.

The bill orders the courts to ignore other British laws or international rules - such as the international Refugee Convention - that stand in the way of deportations to Rwanda.

There was absolutely no evidence it would deter people from coming here.

Border Force have had the power to seize the boats since 2023 amd have so far seized 600ish boats.

On the first 6 months of 2025, nearly 15,000 crossings have taken place.

So I'd start by recruiting and funding Border Force to use the most effective powers they have. Given the public opinion of the situation, I'm pretty sure they could recruit volunteers.

There aren't an unlimited number of boats.

The problem is the boat journey is physically difficult, dangerous and means paying criminal gangs. Having created a system where the only people capable of making this journey are mostly young men without disabilities - there is then outrage that it is mostly young men making the journey. Young men have as much right to safety as anyone else, but it's not the best waynof deciding who comes to the country. Sending some back hopefully works as a deterrent. It also means that the government has more control over who it accepts in return and that is people who already have family ties and likely to include a higher proportion of women and children. Which you would think is what the people complaining "odd they are all young men" would want but they don't seem happy about it for some reason.
Basically opening safe alternative routes even if only to a small number of people is fairer and gives people an alternative which doesn't include criminal gangs. It also involves sending back some of the people who did come via boat and hopefully be a deterrence. So there is a carrot and stick.

It's also way more expensive to send people back to Rwanda and then pay the government to keep them forever and ever. So even a few thousand a year would be ruinous. Whereas sending people back to France is a lot cheaper and even at the rate of 50 a week would soon outstrip what was achievable with Rwanda. So if Rwanda was a "deterrence" the one in one out plan is a much cheaper, more effective deterrence.

But if the boats did stop/reduce in number what would the newspapers use to distract people from the fact that the UK is quietly being bought up by private equity funds etc?