The Ministry of Defence has clarified the Royal Navy’s role in intercepting small boats in the English Channel following a parliamentary question from Rupert Lowe, Independent MP for Great Yarmouth.
Lowe had asked Defence Minister Luke Pollard what assessment had been made of the Royal Navy’s capacity to intercept small boats carrying individuals seeking unlawful entry to the UK.
In response, Pollard stated that the “Home Office is the lead government department responsible for border security and migration.” He further explained that the Home Office has established the Border Security Command, which aims to “strengthen global partnerships and enhance the UK’s efforts to investigate, arrest, and prosecute people smugglers profiting from the dangerous movement of people across the channel.”
While the Royal Navy has previously been involved in Channel operations as part of joint efforts with the Home Office, Pollard clarified that “Defence assets are procured for Defence tasks” and are not primarily intended for border security operations.
The Royal Navy’s involvement in channel interceptions is supplementary to the primary role played by the Home Office. The establishment of the Border Security Command reflects a shift, aiming to integrate international cooperation and intelligence-sharing to tackle human smuggling and unlawful entry.
Last year, the Ministry of Defence had already clarified its stance on deploying naval assets to tackle small boat crossings in the English Channel. Responding to a previous parliamentary question from Lowe, Pollard, reiterated that the issue falls under the Home Office’s jurisdiction.
Pollard outlined the Home Office’s efforts to address the issue through its newly established Border Security Command:
“The Home Office is the lead Government Department responsible for border security and migration. It has recently established the Border Security Command to strengthen global partnerships and enhance the UK’s efforts to investigate, arrest, and prosecute people smugglers profiting from the dangerous movement of people across the channel.”
While acknowledging the critical role of defence assets in maritime security, Pollard noted their limited suitability for addressing small boat crossings:
“Defence assets are procured for Defence tasks and are therefore not optimised for the issue the hon. Member raises.”
He highlighted the Royal Navy’s primary role in safeguarding the UK’s maritime security, including monitoring and shadowing foreign warships in UK waters.
Using the navy in UK costal waters is no different to using the Army on the streets.
That being said perhaps the Home Office should foot the bill for OPV’s in the same way that DEFRA pays for the fisheries protection squadron.
I don’t think the we ever got the message that we no longer have a 200+ ship fleet. Plus the times, threats and laws have changed.
This has resulted in the underfunded, equipped and staffed border force, fisheries, customs and coast guard and whoever else trying to cover constabulary & fisheries duties plus the reliance on the RNLI and private sector for rescues.
It seems Italy among others have this down and we should look to a massive restructure as we can’t (and haven’t been able to for decades) send a few dozen RN “patrol ships” to fill gaps anymore.
You are a little bit out of date. The fisheries protection squadron hasn’t existed since at least 2020. The boarder force vessels are designed for the job and have the training for the role of intercepting small boats in the channel. Leave the Navy to do the job they are trained to do.
It is different as many will agree. The Army on the streets would likely involve citizens and residents of the UK and is a completely different game from the Navy in the Channel.
The Navy in the Channel would be used against illegal intruders in the same way the RAF investigates and warns off illegal aircraft in our airspace. They prevent such aircraft from landing. That’s how I see it.
Until the later 20th century we employed thousands of Coastguards on our coast and beaches to arrest and apprehend intruders to our country. When the UN started to interfere, things changed and the nation state became a watered down entity.
Under very few circumstances should intruders be rewarded with more than temporary refugee status. Now is the time for many from the middle east et al to be sent home where they can bring change to their countries with their new found skills, health and wealth.
Lowe has made his career by dividing the country and focusing on the most vulnerable people, like voting against every workers right bill. His also made his career focusing on immigration and making it sound like they are all evil.
Using the royal navy is just a stunt, as that doesn’t solve anything. The RN can’t shoot at the small boats and sink them as that would be against international law. They can’t take them over to another country as that would breach that countries sovereignty. All they can do is pick them up and deliver them to the UK, which is the reverse of what Lowe wants. Just proformative policite, saying something that looks good for newspaper stories and the under educated but which would zero actual chance of doing anything in releality. See ryanda scheme and the billions wasted with it.
Nothing wrong with returning illegals to the country they have departed from… others do…. failing that just make it that non citizens/permanent residents are not eligible for welfare…
If they are illegal yes, but first you have to process them and understand if illegal.
P.s. many illegal immigrants are retuned every year by the uk. The last government just didn’t process them to make the problem look way worse.
But most aren’t?
Yes because they are legal asylum seekers running away from terrible places. Returning them would breach all sorts of international and local laws, not to mention moral ones.
The joy of Brexit means we lost the ability to send them back to france. As confirmed by the ex immigration minister in a recent oospie I said the quiet bit out loud as reported by the daily express of all papers.
Legal asylum seekers? Who enter illegally.
Legal ones would walk into a British embassy.
How many throw their documents away.
Who are overwhelmingly male of a certain age.
Who know full well they will be caught up in the system, subject to endless legal challenges, and not deported.
I suggest the majority are actually economic migrants, not refugees.
Yes, was that the Dublin agreement or something?
Starmer was left with egg on his face yesterday when Albania told him to do one, and rightly.
On the RN being involved. Agree with the government, it is not a job for the RN at this time.
A sizeable majority of these so called Asylum seekers are from Albania, a Country so ravaged by War I’m not surprised they are keen to cross the Channel 🤔😳.
@PaulT
Total number of combined Albanian immigates in the UK is 16000, which is a rounding error in the otherall population. Of them 50% are valid asylum seekers. I don’t know the details of why they are valid but the last government was toxic in regards to immigrants and if they could have they would have changed to law to stop them, so clearly their is an issue that means they couldn’t which would only be that if they returned they would be negatively treated.
I’m tired of how toxic our country has come. We made our wealth through immigration both ways and now it’s suddenly a bad thing. What a load of nonsense.
Who else returns people from international waters or their own costal water please, I was under the impression this was illegal under international law.
How are you proposing we return people to France from international waters without their permission or would you propose the navy just enters French territorial waters without permission to intercept boats.
No one that would be a breach of the other countries sovereignty, effectively an act of war and breach un asylum laws, plus of course UK ones.
But you are playing by the rules Steve, it’s those very rules that created this situation. Do you think France looks out for our interests? No they take our policing money, substantial amounts, and turn a blind eye. The crossing is seen as a good gamble, likely picked up and likely to accept your refugee story, which will be as well prepared as per the payment for the crossing. If you are desperate you going to take that gamble. The problem is 3 fold:
1. What qualifies as a refugee now is too wide and creeped considerably in the last decades, opening up it to victims of abuse and now covers victims of criminal activities or identity persecution, a definition that literally applies to 100s millions people in this unfair world, so it’s simply a standard that will attract many in this world here.
2. Bizarrely we say it’s illegal to cross but it’s legal if you get refugee status from it.
3. The French.
The only solution is to take away the gamble completely, no exceptions.
It means not playing by the rules being used against us. Because this issue needs fixing.
1.No one who crosses the channel uninvited can apply for refugee status or can stay here, no applications can be made here if the route in was illegal.
2. People intercepted in the channel should be picked up by us, that’s everyone, no one gets through, brought to our shore and taken to a nearby secure area, fed with a food package to take back, watered and medical attention aid given if needed, then within hours, taken back to France respectfully. You cannot allow people to stay more than a few hours as that opens up massive problems of how to manage it. We would need a few custom ships for this.
3. We tell France we have identified a safe area to disembark people and we do it, they can help and designate a port or make a huge scene about it. We offer to pay France to help with the process but the real benefit to France is that if there is 100% failure for a migrant or desperate person to try it, the criminal business model collapses in weeks; and these people will stop travelling to France to get to Britain.
If France resists this proposal then let’s see how tasty it gets with ship blocking and fiery rhetoric, but this would hit international news and again influence those making the gamble, the spat would in itself would reduce the people risking lives to get here.
It’s about confidence as a nation, we’ve lost it and now we don’t set the rules anymore, fair enough in some respects but not on this issue regarding our own land and its social cohesion.
2.
Australia returns many many back to indosnesia….. intercepts them at sea, and turns them around, seize the boat they are on… they then get placed onto a seaworthy boat which is then gps locked and returns them to indosnesia safely…. If they make it to the mainland then get sent offshore, Naru I believe, and they can settle there…. But many don’t want to settle there as Australia’s welfare is far more generous…
France is investing a lot of money stopping migrants crossing the channel, which would stop immediately if we illegally started sending them back. Get realistic.
But they are not international waters where the boats are crossing Jim, because the Channel at that point is less than 2 x 12 nm wide. That’s why we can’t do what the Australians do and turn them back, because we can’t turn them back into French territorial waters without French agreement.
Agree. Pick them up. Confiscate their boats and take them back to the country they departed from (France)
How do you return them to France?
Put them in the next cross-channel ferry?
French border control will simply refuse entry, so you end up with ferries full of migrants who are refused entry in both UK and France. (Before you say ‘better than in hotels’, the UK needs those ferries to be operational.
I’ve sure there’s an unpatrolled stretch of French Guyana, all we need do it convey them by the hundeds in an amphibious attack ship like the Albions and… oh, bugger.
You are being deliberately obtuse. How do these people get into France in the first place. France is both very big and hot on identity documents. All French people have to produce these. I ask again, how do they enter that country? Have you tried with papers?
@Barry, usually the same way they enter the UK, by crossing the sea in boats (usually to spain) and then making their way to France.
An MP is asking the Royal Navy why it’s not stopping illegal immigration. Seriously?
^ Sorry, meant that to be its own post, not a reply.
Perhaps RN should and international law be damned. Is the UN’s PC Plod going to try and arrest us?
So you think the Royal Navy, with its limited number of ships that mnlany of us bemoan should be assigned to border patrol?
Seems like a massive and pointless waste of money to me, and not what the sailors signed up for.
The present bunch are mere spectators at best, with no wish to protect the UK from this surge of economic migrants. They are part of the escort business facilitating the migrants. When did they last turn round a boat and escort it to the safe French waters from whence they came. We have Embassys in countries which should be the first and only stop if they intend to seek entry to the UK.
The armed forces are too aristocratic to deal with invaders if they do not come with big weapons…
Points.
Illegal must mean something.
Refugees who pay to cross are not using their money foolishly – if indeed they have any. The suggestion for sometime has been they have ‘signed away’ themselves to gangs in exchange for a passage.
These illegals are not fleeing a war torn country. France is not havinga civil war at present.
A broader question is the demographic one. Why are the greater number of those coiming aged 16-35? (‘fighting aged males’)
How did they reach the English Channel from their homelands without crossing numerous countries that aren’t engaged in either war or civil strife?
A young man I know took time during a University break to work with ‘refugees’ at a camp on a Greek island a few years ago. He taught himself a little Arabic to help in his work there. When he arrived there were no Arabs (this was at the height of the Syrian civil war that killed half a million but since memory holed). He was useful though. The camp housed mostly young men from both Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa and further afield; the camp was run by women and none would take orders from a woman for cultural reasons, so his time was not wasted. These are fully formed adults who have ingrained cultural attitudes that wish to settle in the most advanced nations on earth frequently governed and policed by females. En Masse and unceasing, can we not see the issues arising from this go beyond humanitarianism? People from ‘failing states’ making more of the same elsewhere does not strike me as sensible way to deal with this problem.
I’m confident your excellent points will be totally ignored, Barry.
Uncomfortable truths some run from.
Because Sub-Saharan Africa is not at all War torn or having crises around food and the like? Having spend a fair bit of time in that part of the country and witnessed first hand some of the depredations people there are suffering form (unlike some posters here who have just spoken to a mate of a mate who knew a guy), gotta say that seeking refugee status is well called for for many of them.
Right so ‘The Royal Navy Suppression of the Slave Trade’ was just a stunt? There is more of a parallel than you imagine. Can one think what they are?
Rupert Lowe… Former Reform MP now independent MP for Great Yarmouth.. as even Reform didn’t want him…
Beefing up Border Force would be a start… more useful would intelligence gathering as a way to tackling the people that organise thus trade…
It is of course illegally and morally wrong to turn boats back leaving people at risk in a dangerous and busy waterway… pretty sure civil servants and those serving in Border Force wouldn’t do it anyway as a matter of conscience and risk of prosecution…
Well if you face too many directions at once, you risk tripping over. The new woke agenda pushing for female Royal Marines, regardless of whether it makes operational sense, crashes into the populist anti small boats rebellion shown over the Runcorn byelection & 600+ council seat gains for Reform. RN needs to walk the tightrope between these two views.
Where’s this woke agenda pushing for women in the Royal Marines. Can you share where I can find it please.
I did see an interview on forces news with the one woman who has tried and thus far failed to pass the test to enter the RM because it’s a physical test to enter rather than checking if someone has a ball sack.
Is that the woke Agenda?
and there you have it. Attack rather than reason & compromise.
I’m surprised you think someone asking for evidence to substantiate your own claims is an attack. Especially when it seems others have tried already themselves to substantiate them for you… Your defensive reaction suggests to neutral observers you might be posting “alternative facts” – and then getting triggered – rather than actual facts.
Ooh a good bit of mirroring. Accuse the other guy of things that you are doing.
How is Jim meant to reason with your confused conflation of unrelated issues?
What does the sex of a RM have to do with illegal migration?
What is wrong with seeking the best candidates for the RMs regardless of sex, race, religion, class, etc? If they pass, they pass. If they fail, they fail. But it ensures we find the best the country has to offer, and not limit ourselves to just recruiting for a single section of society.
Rejecting people for any other reason other than lack of ability is simply self-defeating.
I have no issue with women in the military. My mother was an army officer during WW2. I do have issue with people being thrust into roles they are not suitable for, just to please a political agenda. Many men are not up to RM fitness standards. I would not try with my dodgy hip.
@Spock
It’s also worth noting that women are allowed (even expected) to attempt the All Arms Commando Course anyway as members of 24 RE and 29 RA (as well as being allowed to attend it as RN MA’s and be attached to Commando’s or just as members of the British Army who want a fancy “Army Commando” shoulder flash).
Given that John is not up to the RM fitness standards, I think it’s time we ban men from attempting to become RM’s. After all, many men can’t reach RM fitness standards, so we shouldn’t give them a chance to prove themselves.
If a woman, to please an agenda, meets the RM standards briefly, but has to give it up within a few years, because she ruined an elbow or shoulder, or knee in the process. Then suffers from arthritis in later life from pushing herself beyond what her body can stand, how is that a great leap forward? To slightly misquote Clint Eastwood ” A man (or a woman) needs to know their limitations”.
Another John argument to ban men from serving in the armed forces… the amount of health problems, especially mski that men pick up from service means that we should ban them since they don’t know their limitations.
Also John, this might shock you but: Yes letting women decide what to do with their bodies, even if you think it’s not something you personally would want them to do, is a step forwards.
So virtue signalling is more important to you than reality?
What a confused load of cobblers.
I want an answer to Jim’s reasonable questions. If you say something you need to be able to back it up.
The queue for female Marine entry is usually singe figures
There’s no woke, or less sleepy than usual, MOD agenda
It’s good to see we can start talking about the RNs job seriously, after all it’s got nothing to do more important than stopping car washes in Britain from recruiting, or the NHS from getting workers.
I’m sure the anti migrant manifesto readers genuinely believe that you can truly walk into an Embassy abroad and pick up a visa once you’ve explained your issues.
Of course thats so not the case even Boris wouldn’t suggest it.
The British were instrumental in writing the laws on human rights. That was before the Mosely faction resurfaced, and the uber rich activated its Dumb and Dumber campaign to make migrants the bad guys as they continued to dodge taxes and rule the country.
We’ve got thousands who do no work, and are living off the backs of others…mostly in London or on yachts
Grow wise guys, we are in the G12, that means we can afford to be humane,
A country is in financial trouble if its national debt is more than 90% GDP. The UK is now at 100%
Off topic but I hope of interest, there are rumours this morning that the Chagos Islands deal has been longrassed. Fingers crossed.
UKDJ?
Great if true, but I fear that is lost in the howling gale of left right immigration divide here.
I’m always amused how many come out the woodwork with this subject on a defence website, yet are mostly silent when actual defence matters are being discussed!
Maybe it should be remembered defence assets are used for defence task next time an asset is sent on disaster relief or to the carribean in hurricane season.
Im sick of years I’d excuses from the uni party MPs.
If terrorists are using the channel crossings to get into the UK, as appears to have happened with the Iranian bomber, then it’s a defense task!
What would you have the navy do, in order to stop the boats? Please be specific.
And if there was a disaster in the UK would you expect the armed forces to sit around and say “not our job”. Would you be annoyed if our allies refused to send their military assets to assist us in casualty rescue and recovery?…
Your use of “uniparty” originates in the conspiracy theory subculture (anti-vaccine, climate-change denial, 5G death rays, chemtrails, Putin is saviour, flat-earth, migrants are secret UN army, etc).
Do you want to associate yourself with these?
You accuse others of stereotyping, then you use stereotypes yourself.
If Iran is relying on a dinghy to get terrorists in, they’ve gone broke. Drug dealers can get a ton of ketamine in…surely Achmed can get a private aircraft trip in.
Also CT within the UK is generally a plod job.
The US of course operates a Coast Guard as a branch of the armed forces to carry out these kinds of tasks under the authority of the Dept. of Homeland Security (effectively Home Office equivalent). HM Coast Guard only does SAR, and the police aren’t exactly equipped to deal with law enforcement across our EEZ.
The border force operate 14 ships
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Border_Force_cutters_(UK)
Do not need them, border Force can give enough lifts at the half way point. RN ships would simply be used to ferry people as they would never use force or turn any back. Stupid idea by some who clearly does not under stand the realities of things. Sound bite going no where.
An excellent answer to a nasty question. What exactly did the MP want… to blow the small boats out of the water? As many comment here, the Navy is also far too stretched anyway. Nobody gets in an inflatable to cross Le Manche unless they are utterly desperate. Unless you understand that you can’t begin to have anything useful to say. Of course we can’t house everybody to who turns up at on our shores, but the problem with being rich as a country is that we are our brother’s and sister’s keepers. Like it or not. Turning them back is no solution It never was, it never will be. They will just keep coming until we deal with the causes and well as the effects. That is amoral, duty, and just plain good self interest too.
This old chestnut again, eh?
Reminds me of any Royal Navy posts on Facebook; whenever they post a photo of any vessel, be it a frigatr, destroyer, aircraft carrier or even a submarine, there are always some idiots saying “put it in the Channel to stop the boats!”
I mean, seriously, what do they expect HMS Vanguard to do about the boats; nuke the Channel?!
The Royal Navy is not there to stop immigrants; they’re to defend our country and our allies. As much as some think otherwise, a bunch of peasants on dinghies are not a threat to our national security.
It’s the job of Border Force, the Coastguard and Immigration to stop illegal Immigration, and to sort genuine asylum seekers from the chancers and economic migrants. By all means, give them extra resources e.g. more boats, more staff etc, but leave the Navy out of it. It’s not their job!
Unfortunately quite a few who would have the RN slaughter illegal migrants in the Channel also push the narrative that they are all “fighting-age men” and part of a secret UN army to take-over the UK.
Complete nonsense, but when people adopt one conspiracy-theory they tend to fall right down the rabbit hole.
I seriously doubt many of those that want the government to be stricter in the way it deals with illegal immigration would like the RN to slaughter illegal migrants in the channel.
It purely your opinion as you seek to imply anyone who questions unfettered access to the UK is a psychotic racist.
In the same way I could suggest many seek to welcome illegal migrants with open arms and tea & cake , don’t care about why they want to come into the country and do not believe or are not bothered that they are just coming here for benefits and criminality.
I’m sure you would shoot that narrative down in an instant.
The truth for the majority at least is , I would suspect, somewhere in-between.
My opinion is this level of illegal immigration cannot continue and greater emphasis needs to be placed on stopping it.
The trouble is there are those that do not , will not and cannot accept that statement and therefore any attempt at a solution will be undermined.
BOOM. Exactly.
The problem is our rules.
The law says that asylum seekers must physically be in the UK in order to claim asylum, but you cannot get a plane ticket here from most countries without a visa. So people get creative e.g. try to sneak in.
My solution would be this: enable asylum claims to be processed at British embassies abroad. Anyone coming to claim asylum goes there. We process them, and if successful get a visa and can go onto the next available flight to the UK. All legal and above board.
It also means that we have details (including photos) if unsuccessful applicants who are deemed to not be genuine asylum seekers, and if they’re later caught trying to sneak into the UK via boat, or are found here after managing to sneak in, then they can easily be deported quickly as they’ve already applied for asylum and been rejected prior to arrival.
Morning Steve.
To me, that is one of the most sensible posts I’ve read here.
I wonder why this system isn’t so? The logistics of extra people needed at the embassies?
@Daniele Probably to make seeking asylum more difficult in all honesty.
If you have to physically be in the UK to claim Asylum that means having to get out of your country, cross the Med somehow, get to the channel, and then cross it. Which is a pretty massive hurdle to overcome, and means that anyone who lacks the physical or financial means to get to the UK is, rather cynically, filtered out and “not our problem.”
Extraordinary how many seem to think invading Drsnce is the best way to solve this. Warships are not suitable for stopping small boats, you need a load mire opvs fot that. And then? As pointed out here where do you put them?
The idiocy of wanting to use a £100’s million of warship designed and crewed to do specialist stuff to stop refugees is utterly nutty.
Under International Law as I understand it a refugee is entitled to stay in the first safe country they enter.
Given our location that is almost certainly not the UK as they are unlikely to have come via the Altantic around the Iberian peninsular. Whilst this is clearly a serious problem for mainly Spain, Italy and Greece it is very generous for the UK to pick up the tab on their behalf as it was they who failed to prevent their original entry. No doubt safe in the knowledge that we are the backstop.
National Security trumps pretty much everything in these agreements, no one has ever challenged most of what has become the status quo in the UK in the ECtHR.
UK courts say we have to have fantastic accommodation (far better than we provide our service personnel as cases have shown) with meals provided (rather than ingredients and ability to prep) for asylum seekers, I say challenge that and see how all the other European countries providing “tent cities” and near-expired MRE’s react.
UK courts say chicken nugget preference trumps national security, I think the ECtHR would find differently. We shoot ourselves in the foot and scream that it’s because of the ECHR as if it pulled the trigger.
“(Far better than we provide our service personnel…)” well yes and no. Generally the accommodation we provide to refugees beats transit accommodation and battle camps, but isn’t really up to the standards of SFA and SLA.
Yep because you need a 2000 ton ocean going patrol ship to pull over a dinghy.. it’s not the navies job… that’s why you have boarder force cutters.
Taxi service
The Royal navy should be involved in stopping Criminals from entering our country via the channel. Every person that sits in a rubber boat and leaves the coast of France to arrive here is a criminal. There is not a single genuine asylum seeker in those boats. I think personally that the number of opv like the river class should be massively increased and rafts towed behind so these criminals can sit on them and be towed back into french territory..the French coast guard should be called to collect their people from these rafts and return them to France . I agreed completely with Lowe on this ..the RNLI should be fined £10,000 for every illegal immigrant criminal they bring into our country .not a single criminal should be allowed to step foot on our shores . The ones that are here should be kept in a concentration camp under canvas with no medical aid unless they have the funds to pay for it . If they refuse to give genuine details of identity and country of origin then give them life on one of the Atlantic islands with no chance of parole. Enough is enough. If anyone thinks this is wrong then they should put up their names in a register and house indefinitely the criminals they want here whilst paying private health care and taking responsibility for any crimes they commit..wonder how quickly the enthusiasm to be letting themselves criminals would last .
Fine the RNLI.. yes that’s a really good idea. Not.
Do you honestly want the RNLI demanding to see your passport before they rescue you from stormy seas? I don’t know about you but when I go to the coast and take a dip in the sea, I don’t bring mine.
The RNLI’s job is to save lives. That’s it. I’d rather them pick up illegal, knowing if I’m stuck at sea one day that they’ll do the same for me and not leave me to die because I don’t have my passport on me.
It’s the job of Border Force and Customs & Immigration to stop and process illegal immigrants & asylum seekers.
They refuse to be rescued by french warships escorting them over to here,boats are not in distress .The rnli are aiding illegal migrants
We need to look at mass deporting people and looking for answers not making excuses.
Welcome refugees.
Get the scum sent back to France, no more rapists child killers and peados thanks.
Paedophile, no one molests peas.
I must admit to being relieved that the Right wing hasn’t all been weeded out by MOD since Hitler suicide.
I’m sure GCHQ will be logging the gist of our exchanges, and hope to God the Neonazis grow human before their children start shooting kids for being the wrong colour. But secretly, I hope you wind up needing a doctor…and there’s only a coloured one, and that he’s gay
The Border Force are NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE, taxpayers are not getting what their taxes are paid for,use of our armed forces MUST be used to stop the INVASION of these unwanted people.!!!
People smugglers are paid by migrants to gain illegal entry,no migrants no smugglers .Both are guily of offences and should be returned straight back to where they come from,mainly france.The royal navy should escort border force vessels whilst doing their job properly to counter the french warships escorting the criminals over to here.
I disagree that it is not a defence matter. Masses of military age men flooding into the country undocumented. This is at great risk to our country.
O/T but the French seem to have had a great idea. Reported on the BBC “France will build a new high-security prison in its overseas department of French Guiana to house drug traffickers and radical Islamists”. Outstanding 👍