France has been heavily criticised for Channel migrant crossings (Image: PA)
Nigel Farage will demand France pays back the £700 million given to Paris to stop Channel migrant crossings. Reform said it would not hand the French Government “another penny” and “demand a refund for the scam perpetrated on the British people”.
The Home Office is desperately trying to thrash out a new deal for policing operations in northern France, despite warnings Britain is pouring “money into their country for a failed scheme”. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood was on Tuesday night told she must make any new cash conditional on results – and intercepting dinghies in the water.
But Reform’s home affairs spokesman, Zia Yusuf, told the Daily Express: “The French are laughing at us. Hopeless Tory and Labour governments have paid them £700 million of British taxpayer money to stop the boats, yet illegal boat crossings skyrocketed.
“Reform would not pay them another penny and demand a refund for the scam they have perpetrated on the British people.”
He added of current deal, which expires on Tuesday: “This monstrous £475 million, three-year deal has delivered nothing but failure, with more than 107,000 illegal migrants crossing the Channel into Britain since it was struck.
“The arrival rate has risen by 41%, while interception rates have fallen by 13%.
“The French are laughing at us as we pour taxpayers’ money into their country for a failed scheme.”
Mr Yusuf has vowed to stop crossings by dramatically increasing surveillance in the Channel, ordering Royal Marines to tow dinghies back to France and to deport every illegal migrant in the UK. Reform would legally back elite troops and Border Force to intercept dinghies, this newspaper was told.
Some 3,457 migrants have already crossed the Channel this year, with the French police often watching on helplessly. Officers have also been spotted handing out life jackets.
Under Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s proposals, France would only be paid if they intercept a certain number of asylum seekers.
France is understood to have agreed to the idea – but not the payment thresholds.
And critics urged Ms Mahmood to insert a clause in the deal demanding that Paris finally intercepts dinghies in the water.
Former Border Force Director General Tony Smith also called for British officers to “work alongside” the French in Calais and Dunkirk “so we get a better idea of their actual actions”.
French authorities on the beach in Gravelines, France. (Image: PA)
Migrants board a huge dinghy (Image: PA)
He said: “We need an agreement based on performance, with more transparency over outcomes. As things stand, we don’t know what the French mean by a “stop” or prevented crossing.
“Does that include boats that go back anyway because of engine failure? Or people who scatter back into the sand dunes upon sight of an officer?
“How do they count these and how do we audit them?
“Ideally, I’d put boots on the ground to work alongside them, so we get a better idea of their actual actions.
“But I don’t think they will agree to that.”
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp told the Daily Express: “With the French only preventing 30% of embarkations last year, it is clear they need to up their game.
“We should not hand over any more money to the French unless they deliver on their promise to intercept boats near the shore.
“Stopping a third of embarkations is not good enough – illegal immigrants who are stopped just try again the next day.
“Since the election 67,000 illegal immigrants have crossed – a 45% increase.
“Labour have no control of our borders – their claim to smash the gangs lies in tatters and their small boats tsar has just quit in frustration.
“We need to leave the ECHR which will enable us to deport all illegal immigrants within a week. Then the crossings will soon stop. But Shabana Mahmood is too weak to do this.”
France is only intercepting a third of Channel migrant crossings, down from 50% when the £475m deal between Rishi Sunak and Emmanuel Macron was struck.
The French authorities stopped 22,476 migrants from crossing to the UK.
But the vast majority of these are believed to be linked to dinghies sinking, their engines breaking down, overcrowding on the boats and bad weather.
Research compiled by the House of Commons Library revealed how the number of boats being intercepted has fallen over the past five years.
In 2021, 23,923 departures were prevented. This increased to 33,000 in 2022, before dropping again to 26,000 in 2023.
The House of Commons Library said partial figures for 2024 – from May to December – revealed 21,317 were stopped from reaching the UK.
Britain has paid France over £700m since 2018 for police patrols, increased surveillance and military-grade drones to prevent illegal migrants crossing the Channel.
Funding commitments ramped up as the small boats crisis intensified in 2020.
London and Paris agreed a series of deals in 2019, valued at £3.25 million, £28.1m in 2020, £54m in 2021, £62.2m in 2022 and then Rishi Sunak’s £475m in 2023.
Paris has agreed to stop dinghies in the water. But French officers have only done so once.
Shadow Home Office Minister Katie Lam: “It’s astonishing that after spending hundreds of millions of pounds on the so-called ‘one-in, one-out’ scheme, two in every three migrant crossings are still succeeding.
“We cannot go on handing over huge amounts of money and signing complex agreements with the French. This Government has proven itself incapable of getting the basics right and providing the secure borders that the British people rightly demand.
“Since Labour came to power there has been no meaningful deterrent. The only way to stop the boats is if everyone who crosses the Channel illegally is immediately detained and then removed – either to their own country or a safe third country. Until this happens, the smuggling gangs will continue to ply their deadly trade and the boats will keep coming.”
We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our Privacy Policy
The Home Office said: “France is our most important migration partner and together our joint work is bearing down on small boat crossings.
“We have prevented over 40,000 crossing attempts since this government took office. Our landmark deal means illegal migrants who arrive on small boats are being sent straight back.”
Calls for Boots on the Ground as Nigel Farage Demands £700 Million French Refund Over Migrant ‘Scam’
Britain’s approach to illegal migration across the English Channel has become the focus of renewed political controversy, with Nigel Farage demanding tougher action against people-smuggling networks and questioning whether British taxpayers are receiving value for money from agreements with France. His proposals have reignited the debate over border security, military involvement, international cooperation and the substantial sums London has committed to preventing small-boat crossings.
At the heart of the controversy is a simple but politically powerful question: if Britain is paying France hundreds of millions of pounds to help control the Channel border, why are people still arriving on British shores in small boats?
For Farage and Reform UK, the continuing crossings demonstrate that the existing approach has not delivered the results the public expects. The party has argued that Britain needs a fundamental change in strategy, including a more prominent role for the Royal Navy and a system under which people arriving irregularly from France would be returned rather than allowed to remain while their cases are processed.
However, the precise financial demand requires careful distinction. A parliamentary briefing published in May 2026 records a new UK-France funding agreement worth £662 million over three years, rather than a confirmed £700 million payment that France has formally agreed to refund. The larger figure used in political debate appears to reflect a rounded amount, and any demand for repayment would need to be distinguished from the actual terms of the bilateral agreement.
The £700 Million Question
The financial relationship between Britain and France has become an increasingly important part of the immigration debate. Successive British governments have provided funding to support surveillance, police patrols, intelligence operations and efforts to disrupt the criminal gangs organising dangerous Channel crossings.
Under the agreement announced in April 2026, the United Kingdom committed £662 million for the 2026–2029 period. According to the House of Commons Library, £501 million is intended to strengthen existing controls in northern France, while £161 million is available for new tactics and operational measures.
The scale of the commitment has attracted scrutiny because the public expects tangible results from spending on border security. For critics of the government’s strategy, continued arrivals raise questions about whether the money is being used effectively and whether the agreement provides sufficient accountability.
Farage has made the financial argument central to his wider criticism of the immigration system. His position is that Britain should not continue providing substantial funding to a neighbouring country without a clear demonstration that the arrangements are reducing irregular crossings.
Yet a demand for a refund is not the same as an established legal entitlement to one. The existence of a funding agreement does not automatically mean that France must return the money simply because crossings continue. Whether repayment could be demanded would depend on the agreement’s provisions, its performance measures and the circumstances under which either government could seek compensation or renegotiate the arrangement.
The political argument is therefore broader than the headline figure. It concerns what British taxpayers should reasonably expect from international cooperation and what consequences should follow if a policy does not meet its stated objectives.
Farage Calls for a Different Approach
Farage has argued that Britain must move away from what he regards as an ineffective reliance on funding, diplomatic negotiations and repeated promises of improved cooperation.
In a policy statement published by Reform UK in September 2026, he called for the English Channel to be treated as a national frontier and proposed deploying the Royal Navy as a deterrent and enforcement force. His stated approach would seek to prevent unauthorised arrivals and return people to France, rather than treating the Channel as a route through which people-smuggling gangs can continue operating.
The proposal represents a significant escalation in the political debate. It would place greater emphasis on enforcement at sea and on the practical consequences for people attempting to cross without permission.
Supporters of a tougher approach argue that visible enforcement could weaken the business model of smuggling networks. These criminal groups charge vulnerable people substantial sums to board overcrowded and often unseaworthy boats. A credible prospect of being intercepted and returned could, proponents contend, make the journey less attractive.
But implementing such a policy would involve complicated legal and operational questions. The British government would need to establish the circumstances in which people could be intercepted, where they could be taken, how their protection claims would be assessed and what arrangements would apply to those who could not safely be returned.
International law and the principle of non-refoulement also place limits on removing people to places where they face a real risk of persecution, torture or other serious harm. A policy intended to deter crossings would therefore need to operate within the applicable legal framework.
Should British Troops Be Deployed?
The demand for a stronger response has also produced calls for military involvement. The phrase “boots on the ground” reflects a growing argument among hard-line immigration campaigners that civilian enforcement and existing cross-border arrangements have failed to stop the crossings.
In recent days, the debate has included proposals involving the Royal Navy and controversial remarks about the potential use of force. Reform MP Robert Jenrick suggested that Royal Marines should be permitted to use lethal force against migrant boats, prompting criticism and questions about the legal basis for such a policy.
Farage subsequently denied that Reform would authorise troops to shoot at small boats simply because they were carrying migrants. He said lethal force would be relevant only in self-defence if military personnel were attacked. Reform chairman Zia Yusuf also sought to clarify the party’s position following the controversy.
These distinctions matter. Intercepting a boat, assisting people in danger, arresting suspected smugglers and using lethal force are fundamentally different actions, with different legal consequences.
Military personnel can have roles in border surveillance, maritime security and support for civilian authorities. But a military presence alone would not resolve the legal and humanitarian questions associated with people seeking asylum.
Any plan involving soldiers or marines would also require clear rules of engagement, appropriate training, coordination with coastguards and police, and safeguards to protect life. Migrants travelling in small boats may include children, families and people who cannot swim or have limited access to life-saving equipment. An enforcement operation that increases the danger of capsizing could create a serious humanitarian emergency.
The government would therefore need to explain not only how a military deployment would work, but also how it would reduce crossings without creating greater risks at sea.
France’s Record and the Limits of Cooperation
The argument over British funding should also account for the actions already taken by French authorities.
In August 2026, the UK Home Office reported that French police units had prevented 185 small-boat crossing events during the first three months of the new agreement, from 27 April to 2 August. The government said those interventions included stopping launches, seizing boats and equipment, and arresting suspected smugglers.
British officials reported that the interventions prevented approximately 4,300 migrants from reaching the UK during that period. These figures suggest that cooperation has produced operational activity, even though they do not establish that the overall problem has been solved.
The distinction between stopping individual launches and ending irregular migration is important. A successful intervention can prevent one crossing while smuggling networks adapt their methods, move to another departure point or attempt another launch later.
The two countries also face different political pressures. Britain wants to reduce arrivals and the associated costs of asylum accommodation and processing. France must manage policing in northern coastal areas while addressing its own legal responsibilities and domestic concerns.
The relationship has become more complicated following the end of the UK-France “one in, one out” pilot arrangement. Reporting by Le Monde in September indicated that France intended to end the programme, which had linked the return of some migrants from Britain to the admission of asylum seekers through a legal route.
That development illustrates the fragility of agreements that depend on political cooperation between two governments. Even when both countries acknowledge the need to address irregular crossings, they may disagree over the distribution of costs, responsibilities and legal obligations.
The Human Cost Behind the Political Debate
The language used in political arguments can sometimes obscure the human circumstances behind Channel crossings. People arriving by small boat do not all have the same motivations or legal status. Some may be fleeing conflict or persecution, while others may be seeking employment or joining family members. Their circumstances must be assessed individually under the relevant rules.
At the same time, the dangers of the crossing are undeniable. Inflatable boats can become unstable in rough weather, engines can fail, and overcrowding can leave passengers vulnerable to drowning. Smuggling networks profit from people willing to take enormous risks, often without reliable information about the journey ahead.
An effective response must therefore address both the criminal organisations arranging crossings and the incentives that sustain their business. This could involve stronger intelligence sharing, prosecutions, financial investigations, faster asylum decisions, effective returns where legally permissible and safer legal routes for people who qualify for protection.
The central disagreement is over the balance between deterrence, enforcement and international cooperation. Farage argues that the current arrangements are insufficient and that Britain should adopt a much harder line. His critics contend that measures which disregard asylum obligations or rely excessively on confrontation could create legal disputes, strain relations with France and place vulnerable people at greater risk.
What Would a Refund Actually Achieve?
Even if Britain were able to secure a refund or reduce its future payments, the financial consequences would need to be considered alongside the operational impact.
Money returned to the Treasury would not, by itself, stop boats from leaving the French coast. The government would still need a workable plan for surveillance, interception, prosecution of smugglers and the processing of people who reach British territory.
Likewise, maintaining the funding agreement without clear performance standards would make it difficult for taxpayers to judge whether the spending was justified. A stronger accountability framework could include transparent reporting on attempted crossings prevented, arrests and prosecutions, the recovery of smuggling assets, and the longer-term effect on the number of people making the journey.
It would also need to distinguish between measures that prevent departures, measures that rescue people at sea and measures that identify and prosecute criminal organisers. These activities serve related but different purposes, and their results should not be treated as interchangeable.
For France, a demand to repay money would raise questions about the commitments already made, the costs incurred by its police and other agencies, and the future of bilateral cooperation. A unilateral financial dispute could make joint enforcement more difficult unless both governments established a negotiated process for resolving it.
A Political Test for Britain’s Immigration Strategy
The controversy surrounding Farage’s demand reflects a wider crisis of confidence in the way successive governments have managed irregular migration across the Channel.
For Reform UK, the issue offers an opportunity to argue that Britain needs a more forceful border policy and a more rigorous approach to public spending. The party’s proposals place particular emphasis on deterrence, removals and the use of state power against smuggling networks and countries that refuse to cooperate with deportations.
For the government, the challenge is to demonstrate that its existing agreements can deliver measurable results while complying with domestic and international law. It must also explain how it intends to respond if crossings continue despite the money already committed.
The question of whether Britain should seek a refund cannot be answered solely by the number of boats arriving. It requires an examination of the agreement’s terms, the results achieved, the costs of enforcement and the practical alternatives available.
Ultimately, the British public will judge the policy debate by its consequences: whether dangerous crossings decline, whether criminal gangs are disrupted, whether public money is properly accounted for and whether the country’s legal responsibilities are met.
Farage’s call for a tougher approach has brought those questions back into the political spotlight. But a demand for £700 million, a deployment of military personnel or a promise of immediate returns will not constitute a complete strategy on its own. Any government seeking lasting change will need to demonstrate that its proposals are legally workable, operationally effective and capable of producing results that can be independently measured.