Reform UK’s launch of “Operation Fortress”—a plan to use Britain’s armed forces to intercept small boats and return their occupants to France—has descended into an increasingly bitter war of words involving the French Government, the BBC and senior Reform figures.
The policy was presented by Reform leader Nigel Farage and the party’s home affairs spokesman, Zia Yusuf, as the “biggest military operation in the English Channel since the Second World War.”
However, France immediately rejected the proposal as a violation of its sovereignty and international law. Richard Tice subsequently accused the BBC of “rushing to the French,” while Reform MP Sarah Pochin responded with a provocative reference to France’s defeat by Nazi Germany in 1940.
What is Operation Fortress?
Under the proposals, a Reform government would establish a combined command bringing together the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, RAF, British Army, Border Force and intelligence services.
Reform says military surveillance would be used to identify small boats, which would then be intercepted by British forces.
Those on board would be transferred to British vessels, provided with food, water and medical assistance, and returned to France or Belgium.
Yusuf said Reform would prefer to reach an agreement allowing those intercepted to be handed to French authorities at a port.
However, he insisted that the absence of French consent would not prevent the policy being implemented.
“If the Élysée Palace refuses, make no mistake, His Majesty’s Royal Marines will disembark them safely on the very shore they left that morning,” Yusuf said.
“Those are the only two options.”
Reform argues that once prospective migrants understand they will be returned rather than taken to Dover, payments to people-smuggling gangs will stop and Channel crossings will become commercially unviable.
Farage said he was confident that Operation Fortress could end small-boat crossings “within a fortnight.”
France rejects Reform’s plan
The French Government responded unequivocally to the proposal.
A spokesperson for France’s interior ministry said:
“This would constitute a violation of French sovereignty, as well as a violation of the law of the sea and international law.”
That response challenges one of the central assumptions behind Operation Fortress: that British forces could return people to French territory regardless of whether France agreed to receive them.
A British government can order the Royal Navy to operate within the law, but it cannot compel France to admit British military vessels into French territorial waters or accept people brought ashore by them.
Without a negotiated returns agreement, any attempt by Royal Marines to enter French territory and disembark passengers would risk a major legal and diplomatic confrontation between two NATO allies.
What do maritime treaties say?
Richard Tice accused the BBC of hostility towards Reform after it sought a response from the French authorities.
“Surprise surprise,” Tice wrote on X. “The BBC, who hate Reform and its leaders, rush to the French, to criticise our brilliant small boats policy.”
He argued that France was failing to meet obligations under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea—known as SOLAS—and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Those treaties do create important obligations relating to people in distress at sea.
Article 98 of the UN Convention requires ships to provide assistance to people in danger of being lost at sea. International Maritime Organization guidance also requires states to coordinate so that rescued people can be taken to a place of safety.
However, those obligations do not provide Britain with an automatic right to land rescued people in another sovereign country without that country’s agreement.
The rules require rescue, cooperation and safe disembarkation. They do not establish that France must accept every person intercepted by a British vessel, particularly where the interception is part of a deliberate migration-enforcement operation rather than an emergency rescue coordinated by the relevant authorities.
Whether Operation Fortress could operate lawfully would therefore depend heavily upon where an interception occurred, whether the vessel was in distress, which country controlled the relevant search-and-rescue region and whether France agreed to the return.
Pochin invokes France’s wartime defeat
The dispute then took an extraordinary turn when Reform MP Sarah Pochin responded to France’s sovereignty argument.
“Pity the French did not show the same resolve in defending their sovereignty in June 1940,” she wrote.
The remark referred to the German invasion and defeat of France during the Second World War.
It transformed a dispute about maritime and immigration law into a historical insult directed at one of Britain’s closest military and diplomatic allies.
France suffered substantial military and civilian losses during the German invasion, while French troops were also involved in the evacuation of Allied forces from Dunkirk. Free French forces subsequently continued fighting alongside the Allies under Charles de Gaulle.
Pochin’s intervention may appeal to some of Reform’s supporters, but it risks further inflaming relations with the very government whose cooperation would be crucial to making the proposed returns policy workable.
Serious policy or political theatre?
Operation Fortress is built around a straightforward deterrent argument: if everyone attempting the crossing is returned, the incentive to pay smugglers disappears.
Australia’s Operation Sovereign Borders is cited by Reform as evidence that military-led interception can reduce maritime migration.
The English Channel, however, presents different legal, geographical and diplomatic circumstances. France is a sovereign state, a NATO ally and Britain’s principal operational partner in preventing Channel crossings.
Former Royal Navy commander Tom Sharpe has also questioned whether the Navy has suitable vessels available for the proposed operation. Existing warships are required for duties including monitoring Russian naval activity and protecting critical infrastructure.
The Government has pointed out that the Royal Navy previously took operational responsibility for Channel crossings in 2022 without producing a sustained reduction in arrivals.
Reform maintains that its plan is different because intercepted passengers would not be brought to Britain. Its critics argue that the plan cannot work without French consent—and France has now publicly withheld that consent.
The launch was intended to demonstrate determination and military resolve. Instead, it has exposed the unresolved legal and diplomatic question at the heart of the policy: what happens when a British vessel carrying rescued or detained passengers reaches France and the French authorities refuse to let it land?
Yusuf says the Royal Marines would disembark them regardless. France says doing so would violate its sovereignty.
Unless one side changes its position, Operation Fortress appears capable of creating a stand-off in the Channel rather than ending small-boat crossings.
Sources
- Reform UK: Operation Fortress policy document
- Reform UK announcement and remarks from Nigel Farage and Zia Yusuf
- French Interior Ministry response reported by LBC
- Sarah Pochin’s statement on X
- United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea—Article 98
- IMO and UNHCR guidance on rescue and safe disembarkation