Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

1000 replies

WhereIsMyJumper · 10/07/2025 22:30

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

Starmer says 'one in, one out' migrant deal with France to begin within weeks

He says small boats migrants will be returned to France, in exchange for asylum seekers who have not tried to enter the UK illegally.

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
18
Namitynamename · 11/07/2025 10:56

Alexandra2001 · 11/07/2025 10:24

You know some posters think her kid should be in a care home and she in the poor house....

We shouldn't be helping young healthy men, we should be helping women and children they are more vulnerable
We shouldn't be helping asylum seekers when there are people struggling in this country. We need to put our own first.
We shouldn't be helping the people scrounging in this country, we should be helping working people.
What do you mean Labour increased wages for minimum wage people? that's outrageous. Labour hate business owners

Etc

1457bloom · 11/07/2025 10:59

Look what is happening with Palantir in the US, people’s views on social media are being monitored and if they are not aligned with Trump and Co, this is noted on the federal system and may disadvantage them in the future. It is heading the Chinese way with social credits and a loss of freedom of speech and individuality.

TheDevilFindsWorkForIdleMums · 11/07/2025 11:00

Personally don't think France should have all the responsibility......maybe if we helped to fund semi decent accommodation for them so they weren't living in mud slums and were treated like human beings they wouldn't be so keen to leave France in the first place......or maybe we should just stop bombing people (( or funding other countries to bomb them )) we view as less human than us. I dunno. 🫠

1457bloom · 11/07/2025 11:01

YourNeatPoet · 11/07/2025 10:53

Only because of a highly unjust change to the law by the last government. People have an absolute right to claim asylum in a country where they feel safe.

Yes, if they are genuine, but they are gaming the system. They are told by the people smugglers exactly what to say and do including throwing away any ID.

1457bloom · 11/07/2025 11:03

I do think we should stop giving money to France, they are doing nothing to help us, what a waste of money.

Aaron95 · 11/07/2025 11:05

Quirkswork · 11/07/2025 10:52

They are by definition criminals though.if they enter the country illegally.

It is not illegal to enter a country to claim assylum.

Viviennemary · 11/07/2025 11:06

Bonkers as usual. If we give more generous benefits than France no wonder they want to come here. Somebody said stop the incentives. That's what needs to be done. Nobody arriving on a boat illegally should ever get citizenship for a start.

Namitynamename · 11/07/2025 11:09

Quirkswork · 11/07/2025 10:55

That is an unusual point of view. You think the Tories and Reform would like to encourage a rallying point for racists?.

It's not that unusual a viewpoint.
The conservatives spent a long time demonizing different groups and doing stunts like painting over a mural for children at a migration processing centre. I imagine the strategy was that the more people were concerned by migration the more they would favour them overLabour by nature. Meanwhile overall migration (of which only 5% was asylum seekers) was higher than anyone ever realised. Plus no-one was or is talking about eg the huge rise in foreign and private equity ownership of UK land and businesses. But the "nasty" rhetoric was a distraction from the other issues they caused. They were also more interested in scapegoating France than working with them. Blaming the French is always good fun but it doesn't solve the problem.

Reform benefit hugely not only from outrage over immigration but chaos and dissatisfaction more generally. Farage is the only UK politician who gets rewarded electorally for lying and he knows it. The more chaos, the more division the better he does. Even if he's the one causing the chaos and division.

The technical term is "conflict entrepreneur".

HoppingPavlova · 11/07/2025 11:10

It is not illegal to enter a country to claim assylum

No, it’s not. But then the question comes, why would you pass through several countries where you are safe from your need for asylum, to claim asylum elsewhere? Is this then truly a claim for asylum?

Usernamenotavailable19 · 11/07/2025 11:10

BoredZelda · 11/07/2025 10:41

I don’t want to give them any more, I want them to be processed so they can work and pay taxes.

So that hotel was “considered”, but has not been offered to them. Your “evidence” is that a not grotty hotel that wasn’t offered to them?

The Trump loving, key Farage supporter, central to Turning Point UK, who flew a QAnon flag from his hotel, went on GB news to tell a story of a phone call where the Home office offered him £1million to house asylum seekers, with absolutely no evidence to back his claim.

There isn’t a single part of that sentence which makes you think “hang on, this might not actually have happened?

Oh it sounds like you’re moaning that they only get their meals provided and a roof over their head.
There are videos of people that go inside and film these hotels that are housing asylum seekers and they are not as terrible as you are making them out to be. If they’re not happy with the free food and the free accommodation then they should stop coming here.

Aaron95 · 11/07/2025 11:11

We could stop people crossing the chanel in small boats tomorrow if we wanted to. Open an office in Calais and allow people to register assylum claims there. Then there would be no need for anyone to cross the channel.

But the government will not do it because there would then be more assylum claims.

Catsandcheese · 11/07/2025 11:14

Quirkswork · 11/07/2025 09:50

Well most of them clearly don't need "asylum". Although perhaps we need asylum from some of the incomers. Not all, of course.

How do you know they don’t need asylum?
in what scenario would you be prepared to get in one of those dinghies to end up working in a Turkish barbershop in Luton? Having spent your life savings to do so?

Quirkswork · 11/07/2025 11:15

Namitynamename · 11/07/2025 11:09

It's not that unusual a viewpoint.
The conservatives spent a long time demonizing different groups and doing stunts like painting over a mural for children at a migration processing centre. I imagine the strategy was that the more people were concerned by migration the more they would favour them overLabour by nature. Meanwhile overall migration (of which only 5% was asylum seekers) was higher than anyone ever realised. Plus no-one was or is talking about eg the huge rise in foreign and private equity ownership of UK land and businesses. But the "nasty" rhetoric was a distraction from the other issues they caused. They were also more interested in scapegoating France than working with them. Blaming the French is always good fun but it doesn't solve the problem.

Reform benefit hugely not only from outrage over immigration but chaos and dissatisfaction more generally. Farage is the only UK politician who gets rewarded electorally for lying and he knows it. The more chaos, the more division the better he does. Even if he's the one causing the chaos and division.

The technical term is "conflict entrepreneur".

But Boris (Conservative) let in more migrants than anyone else? Was that to encourage a racist rallying point?

TopPocketFind · 11/07/2025 11:16

Quirkswork · 11/07/2025 11:15

But Boris (Conservative) let in more migrants than anyone else? Was that to encourage a racist rallying point?

Edited

Brexit benefit

Julen7 · 11/07/2025 11:17

Quirkswork · 11/07/2025 08:01

Exactly. And unfortunately we are run by a human rights lawyer to whom following international rules and regulations (that are often no longer fit for purpose) and looking worthy on the international stage is more important than the wellbeing of the UK. It makes him feel virtuous and good you see, while in fact he is a traitor to the country.

This.

Quirkswork · 11/07/2025 11:17

@Catsandcheese

They shouldn't jump the queue. Why should they get in when genuine asylum seekers have to queue.

And they came from France. A safe country. Are you suggesting they are seeking asylum from the French? Reasonable I suppose...

Alexandra2001 · 11/07/2025 11:18

Quirkswork · 11/07/2025 10:56

Interesting take on Conservative voters.

Voters? eh?

Clearly i was talking about parties..... Reform with their on-going corruption and violence scandals and the Tories sinking into political oblivion, how many defections this week?

Catsandcheese · 11/07/2025 11:19

No genuine asylum seekers can queue as there is no process unless you were from Afghanistan or Ukraine, and I’m not sure if these routes are still open..

TopPocketFind · 11/07/2025 11:20

Quirkswork · 11/07/2025 11:17

@Catsandcheese

They shouldn't jump the queue. Why should they get in when genuine asylum seekers have to queue.

And they came from France. A safe country. Are you suggesting they are seeking asylum from the French? Reasonable I suppose...

Edited

How do you decide who is genuine or not without processing their claim?

70% are granted asylum.

Quirkswork · 11/07/2025 11:20

Alexandra2001 · 11/07/2025 11:18

Voters? eh?

Clearly i was talking about parties..... Reform with their on-going corruption and violence scandals and the Tories sinking into political oblivion, how many defections this week?

Yes agreed but I'm not sure the aim of the Conservatives is to whip up a racist frenzy to distract from Jake Berry's defection? Would be a stretch.

Catsandcheese · 11/07/2025 11:21

@Quirkswork Of course they’re not seeking asylum from France.
i suggest you read the article from the BBC that @TopPocketFind posted above

Namitynamename · 11/07/2025 11:21

Quirkswork · 11/07/2025 11:15

But Boris (Conservative) let in more migrants than anyone else? Was that to encourage a racist rallying point?

Edited

I wouldn't describe it as a racist rallying point. Because that's name calling a large group of people some of whom have difficult lives and genuine grievances.

If you want to rename it a lightening rod for those assorted grievances and issues. And a distraction. Then maybe yes.

Demonising something happening whilst doing nothing to stop the thing happening is either incompetence or deliberate malice. It's Boris so tale your pick.

TopPocketFind · 11/07/2025 11:21

Julen7 · 11/07/2025 11:17

This.

Traitor?

Did you vote for Brexit?

BoredZelda · 11/07/2025 11:22

Quirkswork · 11/07/2025 09:10

Ok but I was responding to the PP not a higher rate taxpayer in Scotland who may not experience the issues I was asking about. You could presumably buy your way out of many situations. I'm sorry to hear about your daughter.

I think women's genuine concerns should be taken into consideration. I don't know how you get stats other than a nationwide survey asking the question "do illegal male immigrants make you feel unsafe"..which I suspect wouldn't be allowed.

Rochdale etc shows the danger of ignoring what is happening to ordinary people and what they are experiencing.

I'm pleased if you are a woman and haven't experienced any increased feeling of vulnerability in the last few years. Scotland sounds a lot safer.

Edited

Which is why I didn’t answer those questions in my first response, but you asked me specifically. I can see that my answers didn’t fit your narrative, feel free to ignore them.

People have been asked those questions. The more pertinent question is do you feel more at risk. When there are hundreds of stories, many with no evidence, of large groups of asylum seekers roaming the street predating on women, of course women will feel there is a bigger risk there. My local area is a great example. One hotel in the entire town which houses about 20 asylum seekers. Local Facebook groups are awash with stories of “large groups” of them hanging around outside at night. Never mind that if you pass any pub in that area day or night you’ll see groups of (mainly) men outside having a smoke. There was a police incident in a park nearby they had to close it down and put the high school nearby on lockdown. Facebook lit up with stories of it being one of the guys from the hotel roaming the area with a gun. People were outraged, going to the hotel, shouting and jeering at them. Turns out, it was a 14 year old local lad with an imitation weapon. Despite this being reported widely, people still believe a man from the hotel was threatening people in the park with a gun.

You missed the bit where I said I did feel unsafe. I always have done. Living in a predominantly white area doesn’t make me feel any more safe at night. Men are the problem, no matter what. Women’s genuine concerns should be taken seriously, I’d love to see something done to better protect women from men. Even if we had no immigration, women would still be attacked, would still be unsafe. If you aren’t making as much noise about that, then your issues with immigration have nothing to do with protecting women.

Rotherham was appalling. The perpetrators were British-Pakistani men. They were not illegal immigrants or asylum seekers. There is an over representation in grooming gangs of Pakistani men. Not Muslim men, Pakistani men. It needs dealt with. That has nothing to do with people coming in on boats. But there are also numerous white grooming gangs. Where is the front page tabloid outrage about that?

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.