The brutal truth is that nobody else appears to have solved the problem, writes the former army officer
Nigel Farage and Reform UK have done something that Britain's political establishment has largely failed to do for years. They have put forward a proposal that is bold, controversial and designed to solve a problem rather than merely manage it.
Their idea is straightforward enough: use the Royal Navy to stop illegal migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats from France and Belgium.
Predictably, the proposal has been greeted with howls of outrage from some quarters. Yet before dismissing the idea, it is worth examining whether it is practical.
The first question is the most obvious one. Is this the Royal Navy's job? I would argue that it is.
The Royal Navy exists to protect Britain's interests, secure our maritime borders and defend the nation's sovereignty. In the modern world, that means far more than fighting wars and protecting shipping lanes. It means confronting whatever threats emerge, whether they involve hostile states, terrorism, cyber warfare, organised crime or uncontrolled migration.
The English Channel is one of the busiest shipping routes in the world. If thousands of people are crossing illegally in small boats under the noses of the authorities, then it is entirely reasonable to ask whether Britain's senior maritime service should play a more prominent role.
The second question is whether the Royal Navy possesses the right equipment. Again, the answer is yes.
Nobody is suggesting that aircraft carriers, destroyers or nuclear submarines should be deployed against inflatable dinghies. The Navy already operates offshore patrol vessels (OPVs), which are specifically designed for constabulary and surveillance duties, as well as rigid inflatable boats operated by the Royal Marines.
These vessels are fast, highly manoeuvrable and perfectly capable of operating in the Channel.
Of course, the Navy already has plenty on its plate. Russia remains an active threat. Tensions in the Middle East continue to grow. China is becoming increasingly assertive. Senior officers would undoubtedly prefer to focus on these strategic challenges rather than acting as a maritime border force.
That brings us to the next problem. Suppose a Royal Navy vessel intercepts a boat carrying migrants. What happens next? This is where the political and diplomatic difficulties begin.
Without the agreement of France and Belgium, returning migrants directly to the territories from which they departed would be extremely difficult. International law is a complicated business, and no military commander wants to become entangled in legal arguments while carrying out operational duties.
Reform's proposal would therefore require agreements with Britain's European neighbours. Whether such agreements could be reached is another matter entirely.
The party's most intriguing idea may be the creation of an offshore processing facility. Rather than bringing migrants to Britain, a suitably equipped merchant vessel could be anchored in international waters, where asylum claims and immigration checks could be carried out before decisions were made.
Critics will undoubtedly describe such proposals as impractical or inhumane. Supporters will argue that they are no more controversial than policies already adopted elsewhere around the world.
Would the Royal Navy welcome such a mission? Probably not. Sailors join the Senior Service to defend the country, deter adversaries and project British power around the globe. Processing migrants was unlikely to feature prominently in the recruiting brochure.
On the other hand, if such a mission brought additional resources, extra personnel and a larger fleet of offshore patrol vessels, the idea might become considerably more attractive.
The brutal truth is that nobody else appears to have solved the problem. Governments have come and gone. New laws have been introduced. Countless promises have been made. Yet the boats continue to come.
Reform UK may or may not have found the answer. Only time will tell.
However, at the very least, Farage and his colleagues deserve some credit for recognising that extraordinary problems often require unconventional solutions.
Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results has never been a sound military strategy. Nor is it an effective immigration policy.
