France was cast less as a partner than as a contractor failing its brief: the floor’s highest-respected No argument called the arrangement “Pointless, France will not stop the boats.” No won by nearly two to one, with the result carrying the force of a rejection of payment without proof.
The winning side’s core case was that France has its own responsibility: “France has a duty to stop the boats.” Others called it a “Total waste of money” and wanted British authorities, the navy or tougher action against traffickers to take over; the repeated charge was that there was “No evidence that these funds are actually reducing or stopping the boats.”
Yes voters did not defend the arrangement unconditionally. Its most-respected case argued that “stopping people getting onto dangerously overcrowded boats is better than dealing with the consequences once they’re in the Channel”, but the accompanying demand was emphatic: “No results, no cash!”
The two sides talked past each other over incentives. No voters saw France’s duty as the starting point and the payment as a subsidy; Yes voters saw cooperation as something that had to be bought, particularly after leaving the EU, arguing that this was “the only way we can keep our bilateral return agreement with them.” For a self-selected online chamber, the notable consensus was narrower than the verdict: almost everyone wanted the boats stopped, but only the Yes side seriously argued for repairing the contract rather than simply ending it.
The settled instinct here was that an enforcement deal without visible results is not cooperation; it is a bill.
23 Opinions
Pointless, France will not stop the boats, not in their own interest.
France has a duty to stop the boats. We should not be paying France to protect the rule of law in France. France and the UK should work together to break up the criminal networks, and investigate the role of NGOs and charities in aiding the traffickers, and facilitating illegal camps in Calais.
France should pay us for every boat that lands on our shores. Just watch how quickly they'd stop them if they had to do that.
Yes but not in the current format, we should either pay on a ‘per boat stopped’ basis or reduce payments for each boat that makes it through to UK waters
It has to be results based. Ultimately we are at fault for failing to have an adequate deterrent. The best, and only way to effectively stop the boats is to have a blanket ban on anyone coming in via the channel ever being allowed to stay. Even with safe routes open, those who know they aren't eligible will attempt a crossing. While there is hope that entering the country this way can lead to permanent residence, there will be attempts made. Remove the incentive.
Might as well bring 150 a day on the calais ferry. Save a fortune by not having to send rescue boats out every day.
Paying France to do anything is counterproductive the French are happy seeing those boats leave as they know HR solicitors in the UK will whine about returning them causing us more issues. Personally each boat with men 49 years and under would be brought in and they would be frog marched to waiting troop carriers and sent to military prison to be square bashed and interrogated at the same time. Word will get out the boats will stop
But on;y if they actually stop the boats so make it results based income
It's another gov scam just like sending Ukraine billions! France is pocketing the monies we send, plenty proof the French are helping the stone age men to get to the UK! Deport them ALL! Imho
We have a navy, and boats that are breaching that border. Use the navy and create disincentives for attempting to break that boundary.