Starmer’s France returns plan stumbles at the first hurdle
CP
Keir Starmer’s flagship “one in, one out” Channel returns deal has hit turbulence before take-off, exposing a government that looks unprepared for the legal and operational realities it confidently waved aside.
The first removal under the UK–France arrangement was scrapped at the last minute, then a second day passed with more empty seats and no deportations, hardly the decisive border enforcement Labour promised.
An Eritrean claimant, anonymised as CTK, won a 14-day pause from the High Court so he could submit trafficking evidence, material the Home Office conceded could not be filed from overseas. That concession alone undercuts ministers’ claims that the scheme is watertight.
The government warned that delay would sap deterrence; in court, its own KC spelled out the obvious risk of copycat applications. Kate Grange KC said: “The deterrent effect of this policy will be undermined because he will not have been removed.” She added: “The difficulty is everyone will come and say ‘I need 14 days’ and it will get extended, extended and extended. “If this individual gets an extension, lots of the other people will … and that has an impact on public policy.”
Mr Justice Sheldon called the arguments “finely balanced” and, because this is an untested policy, preserved the status quo: “I make an order that the claimant should not be removed tomorrow at 9am but should return to this court as soon as is practicable,” directing the claimant to “use best endeavours to make representations within 14 days”. That is a judicial yellow card for a rollout long on rhetoric, short on process.
Politically, opponents didn’t miss. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said:
“Starmer’s first 1-in-1-out return flight didn’t remove anyone, he scrapped the Rwanda plan & has presided over record small boat arrivals.
Labour aren’t serious about illegal immigration.
Conservatives will deport everyone who comes illegally & leave any treaties that stop us.”
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp was equally blunt: “The government’s latest Channel migrant gimmick is now in complete disarray.
“Two flights, a legal defeat in court and zero deportations. “Not a single migrant has been removed, yet thousands more continue to arrive.”
The Home Office insists the policy stands and removals are imminent: “Under the new UK-France Treaty, people crossing in small boats can now be detained and removed to France. We expect the first returns to take place imminently. “Protecting the UK border is our top priority. We will do whatever it takes to secure our borders.”
But the facts so far are unforgiving. CTK, who arrived by small boat on 12 August, initially denied exploitation in a 13 August screening, and later raised trafficking and a gunshot wound, was due to be flown from Heathrow to Paris, first on Monday and then again on Tuesday. Both times, nothing happened. A reporter on the Tuesday flight saw empty seats believed to be reserved for removals; the Home Office confirmed there were none.
Even on human-rights grounds, the court appeared unconvinced that returning someone to France would in itself breach obligations, citing a 2020 ECHR ruling. Yet the government still tripped over its own process: its legal team acknowledged the National Referral Mechanism wouldn’t accept representations from abroad, an avoidable flaw that invited the very injunction ministers warned against.
CTK’s account of avoiding asylum in France hardly helps Labour’s cause. Asked why he hadn’t claimed there, he told officials: “I seen lots of people sleeping on the streets.” On returning to France: “There is no support in them countries.” Whatever one makes of those claims, it is Labour’s job to have designed a system that anticipates them and still delivers removals. Instead, ministers booked seats, faced protests and legal threats, and ended with two days of theatre and zero outcomes.
Yes, Grange KC called it a “weak claim, a historic claim for trafficking”. But weak claims can still win time if Whitehall leaves procedural back doors open. That is what happened here—and it is on the government.
Bottom line: the first real test of Starmer’s returns plan has produced court-ordered delay, empty planes and warnings from his own counsel that deterrence is already eroding. If Labour can’t execute the basics, paperwork, referrals, evidential timelines, expect more last-minute injunctions and more political damage. For a government that scrapped Rwanda while promising something “serious” in its place, this is not a start; it’s a stall.
This article (Starmer’s France returns plan stumbles at the first hurdle) was created and published by Conservative Post and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author CP
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply