The good news was that European politicians did come up with an agreement about how to manage migration.
The bad news was that it felt like a very familiar sort of pact – they agreed that there was a problem, that it was serious and that something needed to be done.
But the thorny topic of exactly what new could be done – well, that has been left for another day.
What we did get was a demonstration of collective endeavour. The home secretary, Suella Braverman, was in Brussels, emphasising the political weight that she has placed on confronting migration. So, too, was the French interior minister, Gerald Darmanin, who talked of the “new co-operation” between the two countries.
But when the official announcement came, there was little sign of a big step forward – no new initiatives, or deployments. The most eye-catching statement was a hope that the UK would re-open negotiations with the European frontier agency, Frontex, on how best to work together.
But, perhaps, you could argue that what we got was a sign of a more thoughtful approach.
A realisation that the phenomenon of migration is not addressed by short-term fixes, but by a long-term view of how to address some fundamental questions – why do people move across Europe in the first place, how far do the tentacles of people-smuggling stretch, what is Europe’s responsibility for accepting migrants, and how should the continent’s frontiers be guarded?
More on Migrant Crisis
Related Topics:
“This is a collective problem and it needs a collective solution,” said Ms Braverman. “It has been a very constructive meeting between partners who are ultimately grappling with identical problems of illegal migration.”
The question of whether or not cross-Channel migration is actually illegal remains a thorny one. The United Nations maintains that the phrase should not be used, insisting that it cannot be illegal to claim asylum and that the term stigmatises refugees.
Ms Braverman maintains that cross-Channel crossings are facilitated by illegal gangs and allow people to enter the UK without permission. She has previously referred to the increase in cross-Channel migration as an “invasion”.
Ms Braverman told me: “There is a very strong character of criminality to these illegal migration routes. They are largely organised by criminal gangs and there is evidence that demonstrates people are arriving in the UK thanks to exploitation and people smugglers – criminal gangs that are very well co-ordinated and exploiting vulnerable people.
“We are all challenged right now by an increased number of people arriving in our respective countries illegally. We have challenges with bringing that down, challenges with resources, but we have a common recognition of that challenge.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:53
Migrants diagnosed with diphtheria
When I asked her French counterpart, Mr Darmanin, about the meeting, he seemed upbeat and positive, albeit while using a rather awkward turn of phrase. “I want to say to our British friends that we’re in the same boat,” he said. “We have work to do together to fight against illegal immigration.
“That involves fighting against the smugglers and traffickers, and I think we can celebrate the new co-operation with the British minister Suella Braverman.
“It’s obviously difficult, I don’t forget it’s difficult for the British people, it’s difficult for the French people. A large number of these migrants are in northern France and the French population have been putting up with this for more than 20 years.”
In northern France, around Calais and Dunkirk, there are still camps full of people trying to get to the UK. Two weeks ago, while filming at a sprawling, unpleasant site near the town of Grande-Synthe, we met Rebaz, who had spent months travelling from Kurdistan, despite the fact that his right leg has been amputated below the knee.
Now, Rebaz is in Britain, having crossed the Channel on a small boat. Speaking from a detention centre near Heathrow, he said he would not advise anyone to follow his path.
“I think no-one should take this journey,” he said. “No-one should take this sea route, it is very dangerous. That night our dinghy had no air and the engine was not working and we almost drowned.”
He has expected to be welcomed in the UK, not least because he says his injuries were the result of a NATO airstrike. Instead, he told us that the welcome had been cold.
“When I got to the UK, honestly, I thought they would treat me very well. But no one cared about me here. I have been here for eight days and no one cares.
“They know NATO hit me and I lost one leg and that my other leg, my back and my head are all injured. But now I don’t have any good feelings. They have not helped me at all. They just took me from the camp to this hotel and that is it. I ask them to help me, to take me to a better place and to give some extra attention to me as I am disabled. But they don’t care.”
It is a miserable testament but migration is often a miserable, traumatic experience. Europe’s leaders do seem to recognise that, and to understand the size of the problem. But what’s still not clear is the shape of their plan to change things.
The UK is on a “slippery slope towards death on demand”, according to the justice secretary ahead of a historic Commons vote on assisted dying.
In a letter to her constituents, Shabana Mahmood said she was “profoundly concerned” about the legislation.
“Sadly, recent scandals – such as Hillsborough, infected blood and the Post Office Horizon – have reminded us that the state and those acting on its behalf are not always benign,” she wrote.
“I have always held the view that, for this reason, the state should serve a clear role. It should protect and preserve life, not take it away.
“The state should never offer death as a service.”
On 29 November, MPs will be asked to consider whether to legalise assisted dying, through Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
Details of the legislation were published last week, including confirmation the medicine that will end a patient’s life will need to be self-administered and people must be terminally ill and expected to die within six months.
Advertisement
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
14:46
Minister ‘leans’ to assisted dying bill
Ms Mahmood, however, said “predictions about life expectancy are often inaccurate”.
“Doctors can only predict a date of death, with any real certainty, in the final days of life,” she said. “The judgment as to who can and cannot be considered for assisted suicide will therefore be subjective and imprecise.”
Under the Labour MP’s proposals, two independent doctors must confirm a patient is eligible for assisted dying and a High Court judge must give their approval.
The bill will also include punishments of up to 14 years in prison for those who break the law, including coercing someone into ending their own life.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
However, Ms Mahmood said she was concerned the legislation could “pressure” some into ending their lives.
“It cannot be overstated what a profound shift in our culture assisted suicide will herald,” she wrote.
“In my view, the greatest risk of all is the pressure the elderly, vulnerable, sick or disabled may place upon themselves.”
Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who put forward the bill, said some of the points Ms Mahmood raised have been answered “in the the thorough drafting and presentation of the bill”.
“The strict eligibility criteria make it very clear that we are only talking about people who are already dying,” she said.
“That is why the bill is called the ‘Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill’; its scope cannot be changed and clearly does not include any other group of people.
“The bill would give dying people the autonomy, dignity and choice to shorten their death if they wish.”
In response to concerns Ms Mahmood raised about patients being coerced into choosing assisted death, Ms Leadbeater said she has consulted widely with doctors and judges.
“Those I have spoken to tell me that they are well equipped to ask the right questions to detect coercion and to ascertain a person’s genuine wishes. It is an integral part of their work,” she said.
In an increasingly fractious debate around the topic, multiple Labour MPs have voiced their concerns.
In a letter to ministers on 3 October, the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case confirmed “the prime minister has decided to set aside collective responsibility on the merits of this bill” and that the government would “therefore remain neutral on the passage of the bill and on the matter of assisted dying”.
She talks about a “slippery slope towards death on demand”. Savage. The state should “never offer death as a service”, she says. Chilling.
So much for Sir Keir Starmer attempting to cool the temperature in the row by urging cabinet ministers, whatever their view, to stop inflaming or attempting to influence the debate.
Ms Mahmood talks, as other opponents have, about pressure on the elderly, sick or disabled who feel they have “become too much of a burden to their family”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:41
Details of end of life bill released
She hits out at a “lack of legal safeguards” in the bill and pressure on someone into ending their life “by those acting with malign intent”.
Advertisement
Malign intent? Hey! That’s quite an assertion from a secretary of state for justice and lord chancellor who’s been urged by the PM to tone down her language.
It’s claimed that Sir Keir ticked off Wes Streeting, the health secretary, after he publicly opposed the bill and launched an analysis of the costs of implementing it.
Will the justice secretary now receive a reprimand from the boss? It’s a bit late for that. Critics will also claim Sir Keir’s dithering over the bill is to blame for cabinet ministers freelancing.
Shabana Mahmood is the first elected Muslim woman to hold a cabinet post. Elected to the Commons in 2010, she was also one of the first Muslim women MPs.
She told her constituents in her letter that it’s not only for religious reasons that she’s “profoundly concerned” about the legislation, but also because of what it would mean for the role of the state.
But of course, she’s not the only senior politician with religious convictions to speak out strongly against Kim Leadbeater’s bill this weekend.
Gordon Brown, son of the manse, who was strongly influenced by his father, a Church of Scotland minister, wrote about his opposition in a highly emotional article in The Guardian.
He spoke about the pain of losing his 10-day-old baby daughter Jennifer, born seven weeks prematurely and weighing just 2lb 4oz, in January 2002, after she suffered a brain haemorrhage on day four of her short life.
Mr Brown said that tragedy convinced him of the value and imperative of good end-of-life care, not the case for assisted dying. His powerful voice will strongly influence many Labour MPs.
And what of Kim Leadbeater? It’s looking increasingly as though she’s now being hung out to dry by the government, after initially being urged by the government to choose assisted dying after topping the private members bill ballot.
All of which will encourage Sir Keir’s critics to claim he looks weak. It is, or course, a private members bill and a free vote, which makes the outcome on Friday unpredictable.
But the dramatic interventions of the current lord chancellor and the former Labour prime minister are hugely significant, potentially decisive – and potentially embarrassing for a prime minister who appears to be losing control of the assisted dying debate.
Red Bull driver Max Verstappen has won the Formula One world title for a fourth straight year.
His victory was confirmed after finishing fifth at the Las Vegas Grand Prix. Mercedes’ George Russell won the race.
The 27-year-old Dutchman becomes just the sixth driver in Formula One history to win four titles or more, after outscoring Lando Norris who took the chequered flag in only sixth.
Verstappen is now guaranteed the world crown with two races still remaining, with his domination cementing his name among Formula One’s greats.
“Oh my God man,” said an emotional Verstappen after securing the world title. “What a season. Four times. It was a little bit more difficult than last year.”
Lewis Hamilton raced back from 10th to second place to complete an impressive one-two finish for Mercedes. Carlos Sainz finished third for Ferrari, one place ahead of his team-mate Charles Leclerc.
Russell’s third victory was the most dominant of his career so far, crossing the line 7.3 seconds clear of Hamilton.
More on Formula 1
Related Topics:
Michael Schumacher and Lewis Hamilton have each won a record seven, with 1950s Argentine legend Juan-Manuel Fangio on five ahead of Alain Prost, Sebastian Vettel and now Verstappen on four.
Having won every Drivers’ Championship since claiming his first in the controversial end to the 2021 season when he beat Hamilton in deeply contentious circumstances, Verstappen now joins Hamilton, Fangio and Vettel in winning four titles consecutively.
Advertisement
Only Schumacher has achieved a run of five.
The team were hit by controversy earlier this season, with Red Bull’s principal sponsor, Christian Horner, facing allegations of controlling behaviour by a female staff member. Horner, who denied the accusations, was cleared, and a subsequent appeal was thrown out.
Horner congratulated Verstappen on the radio, telling him: “Max Verstappen you are a four-time world champion. That is a phenomenal, phenomenal achievement. You can be incredibly proud of yourself.”
Red Bull is on course to finish third in the constructors’ championship this year. This century only Hamilton in 2008 with McLaren, and Verstappen in 2021, have won the drivers’ title when their team did not win the constructors’ championship.