On paper, if I had to choose between the French police and our own Border Force to try and prevent people smugglers and illegal migrants crossing the Channel, I would choose the French police.
Faced with the prospect of violent resistance, this paper reports that officials in Paris are debating whether officers “should be armed and wearing body armour when they engage the boats”. Imagine the furore if that were suggested here.
Sir Keir Starmer could certainly use some cavalry about now. But are les gendarmes really going to ride in and save the day? That feels like a long shot.
Successive British governments have several times announced with great fanfare this or that arrangement with France, only for the small boats to just keep coming.
We pay a lot for the privilege too. The latest tranche of spending, covering 2023 to 2025, was a cool €541 million (about £476 million when the deal was signed).
It’s not that the French pocket the cash and don’t do anything – crossings would be even higher without their efforts. But “even higher” is cold comfort to British politicians facing mounting public anger at a completely unacceptable level of crossings, especially when photos or footage appears of French officers standing idly by as a boat pushes off.
But France does not have a huge incentive, beyond our cash, to keep these people in France rather than letting them set sail for their intended destination. Paris might also, and fairly, blame the UK’s continual refusal to address the pull factors that attract people here – a poorly-policed black economy, for one – for creating a migration superhighway to their northern coast in the first place.
Perhaps this move does represent a sea change (no pun intended). Having previously refused to engage boats at sea, France now says it will (although a lot depends on how they end up interpreting the need to “respect the law of the sea”).
One must pity the Conservatives, who struck several expensive deals with Paris, reading that in this latest deal our two governments have confirmed “for the first time, the need for action to prevent irregular crossings of the Channel”. The first time!
But when Emmanuel Macron’s embattled government next faces down the Rassemblement National, is he really going to want Sir Keir Starmer boasting of his strenuous efforts to keep illegal migrants in France, all for the benefit of Les Rosbifs? I’ll believe it when I see it.
On paper, if I had to choose between the French police and our own Border Force to try and prevent people smugglers and illegal migrants crossing the Channel, I would choose the French police.
Faced with the prospect of violent resistance, this paper reports that officials in Paris are debating whether officers “should be armed and wearing body armour when they engage the boats”. Imagine the furore if that were suggested here.
Sir Keir Starmer could certainly use some cavalry about now. But are les gendarmes really going to ride in and save the day? That feels like a long shot.
Successive British governments have several times announced with great fanfare this or that arrangement with France, only for the small boats to just keep coming.
We pay a lot for the privilege too. The latest tranche of spending, covering 2023 to 2025, was a cool €541 million (about £476 million when the deal was signed).
It’s not that the French pocket the cash and don’t do anything – crossings would be even higher without their efforts. But “even higher” is cold comfort to British politicians facing mounting public anger at a completely unacceptable level of crossings, especially when photos or footage appears of French officers standing idly by as a boat pushes off.
But France does not have a huge incentive, beyond our cash, to keep these people in France rather than letting them set sail for their intended destination. Paris might also, and fairly, blame the UK’s continual refusal to address the pull factors that attract people here – a poorly-policed black economy, for one – for creating a migration superhighway to their northern coast in the first place.
Perhaps this move does represent a sea change (no pun intended). Having previously refused to engage boats at sea, France now says it will (although a lot depends on how they end up interpreting the need to “respect the law of the sea”).
One must pity the Conservatives, who struck several expensive deals with Paris, reading that in this latest deal our two governments have confirmed “for the first time, the need for action to prevent irregular crossings of the Channel”. The first time!
But when Emmanuel Macron’s embattled government next faces down the Rassemblement National, is he really going to want Sir Keir Starmer boasting of his strenuous efforts to keep illegal migrants in France, all for the benefit of Les Rosbifs? I’ll believe it when I see it.