Nigel Farage has warned that Labour is letting terrorists, serious criminals and dangerous sex offenders into the country as he vowed to shut the asylum system. Standing in front of a replica mega dinghy at a press conference in Kent, the Reform UK leader warned that Britain is facing its biggest security emergency linked to an asylum crisis in history.

And he said his party would deport “north of one million people” if it wins the next election. Mr Farage’s home affairs spokesman, Zia Yusuf, told the Daily Express that “evil” people are among the thousands crossing the Channel on small boats. Reform vowed to close the asylum system for five years and order food safety investigators, environmental health teams and trading standards to help immigration officials snare illegal migrants living in the UK. They would carry out “basic” immigration checks, it is understood.

In an alarming assessment of the small boats crisis, Mr Farage said in Kent: “What is happening is a national security emergency. We are letting terrorists come into the country.

“We are letting serious criminals come into the country. We’re letting dangerous sex offenders into the country. And our primary purpose is to stop that from happening. We have got to be very, very careful about not letting any more of our enemies into the country.”

Mr Farage declared he wanted Britain to return to being a “normal country”. He said: “Nothing radical or crazy. We want to get back to being a normal country, a country that puts national security at the top of the agenda, a country that does everything it can to protect its own citizens, and a country that detains and deports people that come illegally, as virtually every other country in the world does, and indeed, as we used to do.”

Reform would review the status of anyone who has been granted asylum since 2024, with those coming from countries deemed safe by the home secretary losing their permission to remain in the UK. All legal resettlement routes would also be abolished, except for those set up for Ukrainians in the wake of the full-scale Russian invasion in 2022.

And the asylum system will be closed to all new applicants for five years. Those with outstanding claims will be automatically rejected.

Reform’s Zia Yusuf warned Britain will disappear without mass deportations. He confirmed a Nigel Farage government could remove more than one million people.

“If we fail to do that, if we fail to uphold the law, if we fail to say that Britain’s borders mean something … in very short order, we will not have a country at all,” said Mr Yusuf.

And Reform’s home affairs spokesman insisted he will not send anyone to their death or to face torture. He told the Daily Express: “The first thing we’ve got to acknowledge is the enormous amount of fraud that goes on inside the system, right? So, a lot of the people claiming that their life would be in danger, their lives would not be in danger.

“The vast majority of people will end up going back to their countries of origin. As I said, there will be some edge cases.

“As home secretary, I’m not going to send people back to be tortured or killed. But those are going to be very, very few people. For those people, we’re going to work with third countries to resettle them.”

Mr Yusuf admitted opponents and sections of the media will try to spin Reform’s plan. But he told the Daily Express: “The asylum system, clearly, has been a large-scale scam perpetrated against the British people. We have to take that seriously.

“The system was built for a post-World War 2 world. It’s totally unfit for purpose today – not just the scale of the fraud, but the sheer number of people now in this country who shouldn’t be.

“We’ve already got north of a million people illegally in this country who we are going to need to deport. We don’t want to make that problem even worse.

“We’re just being really honest with the British people about what our plan is. And I do think there is a moral obligation to be candid and clear and frank with the British people about what our plan is, so that if we’re successful and we win a mandate from the British people, we have the moral high ground.

“If you haven’t been honest with the British people about what your plan is, you won’t have that mandate, you won’t have the moral high ground to do some things that, absolutely, will be challenging to do, and you’re going to need to take the public with you.”

And housing officers, food safety investigators, environmental health teams and trading standards will help immigration officials by checking whether foreign nationals living in the UK are here legally.

Outlining the proposals, Mr Yusuf told this newspaper: “If you go through life in Britain, there’s already a lot of regulatory inspections that happen. We will point every organ of state at ensuring that people who break the law in this country are caught and held to account. And immigration law will be no exception.

“So, when trading standards are visiting a premise, they will check whether the workers have the right to work there, for example. We will do that on something called a strict liability basis. And what that means is the prosecutor does not need to prove intent.”

Asked if employees may be concerned about the huge expansion of their roles, Reform’s home affairs spokesman said: “I’m not too concerned about the quote ‘comfort level’ of government employees who are asked to uphold the law. There are some great people who work at the Home Office – I know some of them. There are also some people who are, frankly, far-Left, open-borders activists literally working inside the Home Office.

“If they don’t like it, they still need to do that job. And if they don’t do the job of ensuring these people are marked for deportation and we ensure that they’re removed from our country, they will be fired for gross misconduct, and they won’t receive any notice pay.

“It’s actually morally far worse because these people are paid from the taxes from nurses, from teachers, from people who go to work every day and work hard. So I think it’s actually morally repugnant for civil servants to say, ‘we’re not going to do that thing’.”

And Reform’s home affairs spokesman slammed the Home Office’s accommodation providers for effectively fuelling a housing crisis by bidding against families who need the homes.

He said: “There’s a 29-year-old teaching assistant who’s trying to move out of her parents’ home, her childhood home, at the age of 29. She’s struggling to do that. Every time she tries to bid on a flat that comes up near her child’s school, she gets outbid. And it’s suddenly off the market again.

“What she didn’t realise was that her own government, via a government contractor, was outbidding her on terms that she could never compete with.

“It’s insane. With her own tax money. And that’s when we talk about betrayal, a colossal betrayal. That’s what it is. And then we wonder why, as I said, we have such a high proportion – a third of young adults aged 19-30, still living at home with their parents. And this is one of the key reasons why.”

Reform has vowed to deploy the Royal Navy in the Channel to intercept every small boat crossing. Royal Marines will also be authorised to use lethal force and take migrants back to France. But former paratrooper Major Andrew Fox warned that some elite troops will refuse to open fire.

Mr Yusuf dismissed this and outlined the party’s position. He said: “Our armed forces will be authorised to use lethal force where necessary to protect innocent life, where, for example, if a people smuggler is armed. We know agents operating at the behest of the Iranian regime are using the English Channel and using boats like this to come to our country.

“In that scenario, our position is our armed forces will be authorised, if necessary, to protect innocent life. It would be foolish, and you would put our own boys in harm’s way, if you did not take into account the evil of some of the people coming across – again, not everybody.

“But fundamentally, it is a humanitarian mission. We’ll be ready for anything.”

Reform Reveals Its Rules on When the Military Could Use ‘Lethal Force’ Against Small Boats

Reform UK has ignited a major political controversy after senior figures discussed whether British military personnel should be permitted to use lethal force during operations to stop small boats crossing the English Channel. The remarks have raised difficult questions about border security, the responsibilities of the armed forces and the legal limits of government policy.

The debate intensified after Robert Jenrick, Reform UK’s Treasury spokesperson, suggested that the Royal Marines could be deployed to intercept migrant boats and would be allowed to use lethal force if necessary. Nigel Farage subsequently sought to clarify the party’s position, insisting that troops would not routinely shoot at boats carrying migrants and that force would be used in response to an attack on British personnel. The comments have exposed significant differences in how senior figures have communicated the policy. <Cite refs={[“turn209602news16″,”turn209602search1”]}/>

For Reform, the controversy concerns one of its central political commitments: ending unauthorised small-boat crossings. For its critics, it raises a more fundamental question about whether military power is an appropriate instrument for dealing with people attempting to reach Britain by sea.

What Reform UK is proposing

Reform UK’s broader policy, known as Operation Fortress, would place the Royal Navy at the centre of an operation intended to prevent unauthorised boats from reaching British shores.

The party says naval personnel would intercept migrant vessels in the Channel, ensure the safety of those on board and escort them back to France or Belgium. Reform argues that a more determined approach would disrupt smuggling networks and demonstrate that crossing the Channel in a small boat would no longer lead to arrival in Britain.

The proposal represents a substantial expansion of the military’s role in border enforcement. Reform has described the planned operation as an exceptionally large deployment, involving the armed forces alongside civilian authorities.

However, questions remain about how such an operation would work in practice. The Channel is one of the world’s busiest maritime routes, and the boats involved can be overcrowded, unstable and vulnerable to changing weather conditions. Intercepting them requires careful coordination because an operation intended to prevent a crossing can itself create serious risks for passengers and personnel.

Reform says its plan would be conducted lawfully and safely. Whether it could be implemented as described would depend on operational arrangements, applicable law and cooperation with France or Belgium. <Cite refs={[“turn209602search2″,”turn209602news18”]}/>

The controversy over lethal force

The most contentious element emerged when Jenrick discussed the possibility of the Royal Marines using lethal force.

His remarks suggested that the military should have the option of using deadly force if required during operations against small boats. The comments quickly attracted criticism because they appeared to raise the prospect of armed personnel firing on vessels carrying people who might include children, families and individuals seeking asylum.

Jenrick also indicated that the objective would be to intercept the boats and return their occupants to France, rather than to shoot at them as a routine measure.

Farage then moved to clarify the distinction. He said that military personnel would have the right to respond if they were fired upon, framing the issue around self-defence rather than a general authorisation to use lethal force against migrants. <Cite refs={[“turn209602news16″,”turn209602search1”]}/>

That distinction is crucial. A policy permitting soldiers to defend themselves against an armed attack is fundamentally different from one authorising them to use deadly force simply to prevent a boat from entering British waters.

Nevertheless, the episode has created uncertainty about exactly what Reform would authorise. If the party intends to restrict lethal force to exceptional circumstances involving an immediate threat to life, it will need to explain how those circumstances would be identified and what safeguards would govern decisions made at sea.

Clear rules would be essential for military commanders, individual service members and the public.

Why the armed forces cannot simply be given unlimited powers

The British military operates within a framework of law and established rules governing the use of force. A political announcement cannot, by itself, remove those obligations.

Defence Readiness Minister Luke Pollard strongly criticised Jenrick’s comments, describing the proposal as illegal and incompatible with British military values. He emphasised that armed forces personnel cannot lawfully be expected to follow an unlawful order and rejected the idea of using military action against unarmed civilians. <Cite refs={[“turn209602news7″,”turn209602news17”]}/>

The legal position depends on the circumstances. The use of force in self-defence, the protection of life and the conduct of a maritime interception are distinct issues. Each must be assessed against the relevant legal requirements.

A government would also need to consider its obligations towards people rescued or intercepted at sea. People aboard an overcrowded vessel may be in danger regardless of whether they have permission to enter the United Kingdom. Maritime operations must take account of that danger, rather than treating every encounter solely as an immigration enforcement exercise.

There are further questions about jurisdiction and international cooperation. Britain’s ability to return people to France cannot be assumed simply because a British government announces such a policy. France’s agreement and the applicable legal arrangements would be central to any sustained return operation.

These practical constraints do not prevent governments from enforcing border controls. They do mean that proposals involving military personnel must be supported by detailed legal advice, operational planning and clear instructions.

The humanitarian risks in the English Channel

The Channel crossing is dangerous. Small inflatable boats may carry far more passengers than they can safely accommodate, while cold water, waves, mechanical failures and overcrowding can turn an interception into an emergency.

Any attempt to block a vessel or escort it towards another country’s coast must therefore consider the possibility that passengers could fall into the water or that a boat could become unstable.

This is one reason why the debate over lethal force has attracted such strong reactions. The phrase can mean different things in different operational contexts, but its use in a discussion about migrant boats immediately raises the prospect of people being killed during an enforcement operation.

Supporters of a tougher approach argue that the current system allows criminal smuggling networks to profit from dangerous journeys and exposes passengers to exploitation. They believe that stronger enforcement could discourage crossings and weaken the organisations arranging them.

Critics counter that a policy focused on deterrence cannot be judged solely by its stated intention. They argue that the safety of passengers must remain central and that a military operation could create additional risks if its rules are unclear or if boats are intercepted in dangerous conditions.

Both the effectiveness of the policy and its humanitarian consequences would need to be assessed using evidence rather than political slogans.

Would military intervention stop the boats?

Reform argues that a more forceful approach would change the calculations of people smugglers and those considering the journey. Farage has previously claimed that the party’s proposed operation could stop the crossings within a short period.

Yet preventing departures, intercepting boats at sea and returning passengers to another country are different operational tasks. Success in one area would not automatically guarantee success in the others.

A sustained operation would require sufficient ships, trained personnel, surveillance capabilities, medical support and coordination with civilian border authorities. The Royal Navy also has other responsibilities, including protecting British waters and monitoring potential military threats.

Experts have questioned whether the available naval resources and the legal and diplomatic arrangements would be sufficient to deliver Reform’s ambitions. In particular, returning passengers to France would require cooperation that Britain cannot simply assume will be available. <Cite refs={[“turn209602search2″,”turn209602news18”]}/>

There is also the possibility that smugglers would adapt their methods. They could change departure locations, use different vessels or seek alternative routes. A policy would therefore need to be evaluated against actual crossing numbers, deaths at sea, successful interceptions and the disruption of criminal networks.

The government would also need to consider what happens to people who are intercepted but cannot immediately be returned. A workable plan requires answers to those questions before deployment, not after difficulties emerge.

A political battle over immigration and national security

The dispute has given Reform an opportunity to underline its commitment to tougher border enforcement. Immigration remains a major political issue, and the party has argued that successive governments have failed to establish effective control over small-boat crossings.

Its supporters may view the proposed military operation as evidence that Reform is prepared to consider measures other parties have rejected. They may also argue that the government must demonstrate that unauthorised entry has meaningful consequences if public confidence in the asylum system is to improve.

Opponents, however, contend that a military deployment described in dramatic terms does not necessarily amount to a workable policy. They have questioned the legality, feasibility and humanitarian implications of the proposals.

The disagreement also places pressure on Reform itself. Senior figures must explain whether their statements describe a single, settled policy or reflect different interpretations of how force would be used.

A consistent position would need to distinguish between intercepting a boat, protecting service personnel from an attack, rescuing people in danger and deciding whether passengers can lawfully be returned to another country. These are related responsibilities, but they are not interchangeable.

For voters, the key question is not simply whether a party promises tougher enforcement. It is whether the proposed measures can be implemented lawfully, safely and effectively.

The questions Reform still needs to answer

The controversy over lethal force has highlighted several questions that any government adopting Operation Fortress would need to resolve.

First, what precise circumstances would permit the use of force, and who would authorise it? Second, what training and rules would govern naval personnel during an interception? Third, how would the government protect passengers if a vessel became unstable or someone fell into the sea? Finally, what arrangements would guarantee that people could be returned to France or Belgium lawfully?

These are practical questions, not merely political objections. The answers would determine what military personnel could be expected to do and how the operation would be judged if something went wrong.

Reform’s stated objective is to stop small boats reaching Britain. Whether its proposed approach could achieve that objective remains a matter of policy, legal and operational assessment.

The latest dispute has made one point particularly clear: the rules surrounding the use of lethal force cannot be left ambiguous. Military personnel need precise instructions, the public needs an accurate account of the policy, and the government must be able to demonstrate that its actions comply with the law.

The debate over the Channel is likely to continue because it brings together questions of national sovereignty, immigration control, public safety and humanitarian responsibility. A credible policy must address all four.

Ultimately, stopping dangerous crossings and protecting human life should not be treated as mutually exclusive objectives. Any proposal to deploy the armed forces must demonstrate how it intends to achieve both, while making clear exactly when force may be used and what legal limits apply.