NotKindle.com ( No Worries ) . 100% FREE

agreements can become too vague. A government can announce that millions of pounds are being provided for cooperation. It can announce new patrols. It can announce new equipment. It can announce new meetings. But the ordinary taxpayer wants to know something much simpler: **Did it work?** How many attempted crossings were prevented? How many smugglers were arrested? How many boats were stopped before launching? How much money was spent? And most importantly: **Did the number of successful crossings fall?** Those are the measurements that matter. If an agreement costs hundreds of millions of pounds but crossings continue increasing, the policy needs to be examined. That does not necessarily mean the money was wasted. It means the Government needs to explain what the money achieved. ## Britain and France need a common objective The objective should be shared. Britain wants fewer dangerous Channel crossings. France wants fewer dangerous Channel crossings. Neither country benefits from people drowning in the Channel. Neither country benefits from criminal smuggling organisations becoming richer. And neither country benefits from public confidence in immigration policy collapsing. So there is a common interest. The question is how to achieve it. ## Work further upstream One possibility is to move the fight against smuggling further away from the beaches. If smugglers are obtaining boats, engines and equipment somewhere in Europe, that supply chain should be investigated. If money is being transferred through particular financial networks, those networks should be investigated. If organisers are operating from particular countries, those countries should be approached. The further upstream the criminal organisation can be disrupted, the less opportunity there is for the final journey to take place. ## What Britain should expect Britain is entitled to ask whether agreements with France are achieving their purpose. That does not mean Britain should simply blame France. It means there should be clear expectations. If Britain provides funding, there should be measurable results. If Britain provides equipment, there should be accountability. If joint operations are promised, the public should know what those operations achieved. And if a particular policy is failing, both governments should be prepared to admit it and change it. That is what a serious partnership looks like. ## What Britain cannot do There is also a limit to what Britain can demand. France is a sovereign country. Its police operate under French law. Britain cannot simply order French officers to do something. Nor can Britain decide unilaterally what happens in French territorial waters. This is another reason why diplomacy matters. If Britain wants stronger action in France, it needs an agreement that France is willing and able to enforce. ## The question of intercepted boats There is a particularly difficult issue here. What happens when French authorities intercept a small boat at sea? There are legal and safety considerations. People may be in immediate danger. The authorities have responsibilities towards those on board. This is why simple slogans such as ?just turn the boats around? do not explain the whole situation. A serious policy needs to deal with what happens to the people on the boat, who has responsibility for them and where they can legally be taken. Again, the answer requires cooperation. ## A better agreement? Perhaps the most useful question is not: **?Is France doing enough??** It is: **?What agreement would actually reduce crossings??** That agreement should have clear targets. Clear responsibilities. Clear funding. Regular reviews. And clear consequences if the agreed objectives are not being achieved. The public should not have to take either government's word for it. The results should be visible. Because ultimately, the Channel does not care which