Legal migration won’t stop people from drowning in the Channel

Letters to the editor: our readers share their views. Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

The bodies of people who died attempting to cross the Channel are brought ashore in Boulogne-sur-Mer, northern France, on Tuesday (AFP via Getty)

After the latest tragedies in the Channel and Mediterranean, there are calls to make legal migration easier. I do not believe this will resolve the problem. Legal migration would be selective and limited, but would inevitably still attract thousands of applicants given the number of people seeking a better life.

It is unlikely that those whose applications are refused would simply give up and remain in their own countries. They would continue to risk their lives to reach Western Europe illegally, leading to an endless scenario of tragedies – just like those we witnessed recently.

The only solution is for the UN and Western democracies to reach an agreement with the countries of origin: first, to make it clear that no migration from outside Europe will be tolerated. Secondly, for the UN to oblige countries to repatriate their citizens and entice them to stay.

Peter Fieldman

Paris

All talk and waffle

Alastair Redman need not worry in his recent letter to The Independent.

I can reassure him that there is no real drive for net zero. This is all talk and waffle with no effective legislation or other policy commitments. Scotland has taken a few more baby steps, but all that will do is make homes less draughty, more comfortable and healthier – and cheaper to run. Nonsense, really.

He may wish to refer to the Stern report and other expert opinions regarding the impacts and costs of taking no action, though...

Heatwaves, tempests and pestilence are all predicted consequences of taking no action on climate change. If he thinks that is cheap and represents “business as usual”, he may wish to reconsider.

Still, both he and I are likely to be long gone before our children and grandchildren start to feel the real effects.

As the saying goes, ignorance is bliss.

Michael Mann

Shrewsbury

Are our memories so short?

Clare Woodward’s recent article calling on this new government to prioritise her needs over those of “struggling families” is, in my opinion, distasteful.

It is easy to make a case for different areas of public spending and there are many worthy causes, but to criticise a government that is clearly trying to manage a very difficult financial and social situation is misplaced.

Where are the suggestions as to how this money can be afforded? Another magic money tree? Let’s have some constructive ideas instead of this incessant one-sided commentary.

The government under Keir Starmer is clearly trying hard to behave with integrity and transparency. They are taking a serious approach to our situation, in utter contrast to the previous incumbents.

Are memories really so short?

David Lowndes

Southampton

Get what you pay for...

Yet another article about people not liking paying taxes. Taxes pay for, among other things, the country’s infrastructure – and, as with most things, the less you pay, the worse you get.

I’m happy to pay taxes to live in a country with good infrastructure, a decent health service, an expeditious legal system, roads without potholes and schools without collapsing ceilings.

Of course, people don’t like paying taxes – there’s nothing new there. If some want to flee abroad, good luck to them! But it is the balance between our taxation and the quality of our country that needs emphasis and serious discussion.

There have been too many politicians happy to promise “low taxes” to win votes while being silent on the consequences. We need an honest debate that encompasses the whole issue.

Dennis Leachman

Kingston upon Thames