What is our Policy?

​​

We believe that Everyone is God and as such possesses inherent value, we believe Britain is fundamentally enriched by a balanced immigration strategy and a vibrant mix of cultures.  We are also committed to playing our part in the international response to refugees.  This is a conviction I hold personally as I have a British father, a Greek mother, and half Indian children, I know from personal experience the broadening of knowledge and experience that a diverse background brings to a family and a nation.  Grounded in these core principles, our policy is built on seven definitive pillars:

​

• We welcome Balanced Legal Immigration: Actively welcoming lawful migration that aligns with our national interest.

• Celebrate Cultural Diversity: Recognizing and valuing the rich contributions of different cultures within our society.

• Maintain Demographic Stability: Managing annual migration numbers, to ensure a stable or slightly contracting UK population to ease pressure on public infrastructure.

• Streamline Application Architecture: Implementing transparent immigration rules alongside a high-efficiency, simplified application process.  

• Work on entry: Fostering connections with employers to ensure immigrants have a confirmed job before entry.

• Establish Secure Borders: Maintaining our sovereignty and right to manage our boarders by completely stopping illegal small boat crossings and all unlawful entry into the United Kingdom.

• Foster Shared Respect and Accountability: Encouraging all residents, both native and foreign, to openly express their cultural identity, while mandating absolute adherence to British law and appropriate respect for British cultural heritage.

 

Stopping the boats - The monumental challenge of this task

​​

We wish to stop the boats; however securing Britain’s maritime borders involves overcoming three huge barriers. To implement a decisive deterrent, we must directly confront each of them:

​

1. The Legal & Political Challenge: Entrenched Treaties

​

The primary barrier to immediate maritime deportation is a web of international agreements that prioritize individual asylum claims over territorial borders. Under the current framework, Britain is legally bound by:

​

• The 1951 UN Refugee Convention: Specifically Article 33 (Non-Refoulement), which strictly prohibits the return of any individual to a territory where they face threats to their life or freedom.

• The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): Article 3 bans torture or inhuman and degrading treatment, which British courts routinely rule includes sending individuals back to unsafe vessels or third countries with poor human rights records.

• The 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): Imposes a binding international legal duty on all captains to rescue anyone found at sea in danger of being lost.

• The Rescue Obligation: Once a vessel is compromised or its occupants are in the water, international maritime law requires border force to rescue them, legally forcing British crews to take the individuals on board.

• Many vessels are automatically considered compromised as they are overloaded, underpowered, and of unsafe construction.

• Deliberate Sabotage Tactics: Crossing networks know the law and regularly instruct occupants to deflate their dinghies, puncture the hulls, or throw their outboard motors overboard the moment a British Border Force vessel approaches, in order to ensure rescue.

• French Territorial Sovereignty: British vessels cannot legally push boats back into French waters without the explicit permission and coordination of the French government—an agreement that does not currently exist.  We have to manage our relationship carefully with our closest neighbour if we are to stop boats.

• Pulling out of our legal agreements will cause widespread international criticism from countries and human rights organisations.

 

2. The Practical Challenge: 

​

Physically intercepting and turning around small unseaworthy vessels in the English Channel presents extreme operational risks:

​

• It is extremely difficult to turn around determined immigrants; it is liable to become confrontational and require the use of force.

• The English Channel is the busiest shipping lane in the world, on average, between 400 and 500 large commercial ships pass through every single day, roughly one every 3 minutes.  For a standard large container ship or supertanker  it takes roughly 1.5 to 3 nautical miles to come to a complete stop from cruising speed and takes anywhere from 10 to 20 minutes. 

• Given these two points it is likely or inevitable, people will end up in the water, there will be capsizing, and collisions will take place between small boats and commercial shipping.

• Casualties are possible or inevitable, ranging from an individual to an entire boat of 100 or more.

 

3. The Social Challenge: Public Conscience & Casualties

 

The final hurdle is the ethical and psychological boundary of the British public when confronted with the physical reality of stopping boats:

​

• A strict push-back policy will inevitably result in confrontation and casualties.

• The Media Impact: The British public is highly sensitive to human suffering.  Images of casualties, particularly children, broadcast on the nightly news, will test the nation's collective resolve.  

• The Moral Paradox: For a policy of stopping the boats to succeed, the British people must be prepared to accept that enforcing it will likely lead to conflict and casualties who are both adults and children.

​​

It is for these reasons that no British Government has had any success in stopping the boats, it is an extremely difficult, dangerous, and potentially inflammatory high-risk policy.

​

Our Moral and logistical Position

​

The most comprehensive, evidence-based, global data, tracking the baseline desire to migrate comes from the Gallup World Poll. Across its long-running surveys tracking hundreds of thousands of individuals worldwide, Gallup calculates the Potential Net Migration Index by asking adults where they would move permanently if given the absolute opportunity.

According to Gallup’s global findings, approximately 45 million adults worldwide name the United Kingdom as their top desired destination for permanent relocation, and 120 million to 140 million people would come here if given the opportunity (although preferring to go elsewhere as their top choice).  The British state is asked to process roughly 1 million potential new resident requests annually.  This proves that the demand to enter Britain is effectively a bottomless reservoir.

 

Geographically, the UK as a whole is highly densely populated compared to its European neighbours.  The UK’s total population density sits at roughly 289 people per square kilometre. This places it significantly higher than major European nations like France ~127 or Spain ~98.  If you look at England specifically (where 84.6% of the population resides), the density skyrockets to 434 people per kilometre.  Excluding tiny micro-states like Malta or Monaco, England is the second most densely populated major territory in Europe, surpassed only by the Netherlands.

​

To have a policy that stabilizes the population of Britain, net migration must be restricted to ~45,000 per year. (This is a dramatic reduction from the 171,000 net migration recorded in 2025, and the historic peak of 944,000 in 2023).  Even if we allow more than this, we could never hope to meet the demand of up to 140 million people who may want to come here.  Whatever your morality is, it remains a fact that we have to carefully and massively limit the number of people who enter Britain.

​

​It is better that we have legal safe immigration rather than illegal unsafe channel boat crossings, so that the people who do enter our country do so in a humane and safe way.  Our view therefore is that the more authoritative our approach is to illegal immigration the kinder this is for everyone, as it limits the risk of attempting dangerous channel crossings, and promotes safe legal immigration.  If we are not authoritative and allow illegal immigration then it leads to all the following effects:

 

• It will encourage trafficking gangs and their criminal activity.

• It increases the risk of attempting dangerous channel crossings, and loss of life.

• It decreases the amount of safe legal immigration; as we have to limit total numbers of immigrants and ultimately every illegal immigrant must take the place of a legal immigrant.

• It causes great costs in processing and housing illegal immigrants ~£5 billion costs every year.

• It causes endless frustration, conflict, and social unrest in Britain.

 

The costs of illegal immigration currently:

​

The entire financial burden of managing illegal small boat crossings can be split into two entirely different operational categories.  The underlying data shows that the maritime interception is actually a tiny fraction of the cost, the overwhelming bulk of taxpayer money is spent on the land-based machinery required after arrivals set foot on British soil:

​

1. Maritime & Strategic Operations (In the Channel)

​

This group covers the physical border wall—detecting, intercepting, and escorting boats, alongside international deterrence treaties.  The annual operational cost for the sea-based phase hovers around £400 million to £500 million per year, distributed across three main pillars:

​

• The UK-France Border Treaties (~£220 Million/year): Direct cash transfers from the UK Treasury to French authorities. This funds beach vehicles, night-vision equipment, a 50-strong specialized French riot control force, and coastal surveillance to stop boats before they launch.

• The Border Security Command & Maritime Fleet (~£150 Million/year): Core funding for the intelligence operations, Border Force catamaran crews, and the joint military-civilian command centre tracking Channel movements.

• High-Tech Surveillance & Search Contracts (~£50 Million to £80 Million/year): Payments to private defence contractors (like BAE Systems and Tekever) for continuous drone patrols, aerial tracking, and specialized rescue helicopter standby contracts.

 

2. Onshore Infrastructure & Asylum Management (On Land)

​

This group covers everything that happens the moment a person is brought ashore; processing, housing, legal systems, and long-term state support.  This is where the massive, multi-billion-pound financial crisis sits costing British taxpayers between £4.7 billion and £5.4 billion annually. It is driven by:

​

• Emergency & Short-Term Accommodation (~£3.1 Billion/year).

• Initial Reception Facilities (~£150 Million to £200 Million/year).

• Immigration Enforcement & Casework (~£482 Million/year): The internal Home Office directorate budget required to employ thousands of asylum decision-makers, track down unauthorized individuals within the country, and manage domestic detention centres.

• Subsistence & Basic Support (~£250 Million/year): Direct weekly cash allowances provided to asylum seekers awaiting decisions to cover food, clothing, and basic hygiene necessities.

• Legal Aid and Court Appeals (~£100 Million+/year): The burden placed on the UK justice system to handle tens of thousands of asylum appeals, immigration tribunals, and judicial reviews.

 

This split in cost strongly guides policy.  A system that spends 90% of its budget on land-based management is fundamentally reactive.  By investing robustly up front to fix the maritime and border integrity side (Category 1) using an unyielding deterrent, the state can entirely eliminate the multi-billion-pound, hyper-inflationary drain of the land-based asylum bureaucracy costs (Category 2).

​

Our cost estimates for stopping the boats, and cost savings for the taxpayer:

​

We estimate that an absolute military/boarder force blockade demands roughly £300 million up front (CapEx) and close to £400 million a year to run (OpEx), this creates an immense financial cost saving for the state:  

 

Currently, managing illegal immigration on land costs between £4.7 billion and £5.4 billion every single year. By spending roughly £400 million a year on a maritime wall, you completely avoid these ~£5 billion costs every year.  Investing in the sea-based OpEx pays for itself within weeks by systematically shutting off the multi-billion-pound onshore asylum costs.

​

We absolutely have no choice but to limit the number of people entering this country, and we do not see why we should place ourself in a position where we are morally or legally required to facilitate illegal and dangerous immigration.  Britain has the right to decide who enters and who does not and has no choice but to do this.  From every possible viewpoint; moral, safety, economic, and practical, Britain overwhelmingly should have a fully authoritative method of stopping boat crossings and should remove any barriers to doing so.  We believe therefore that we should redefine our legal position in the world, and proactively turn boats around, as in the long run this will:

​

• Stop the trafficking gangs and their criminal activity.

• Decrease the risk of attempting dangerous channel crossings, and loss of life it causes.

• Promote safe legal immigration.

• Save approximately £5 billion of tax payers money.

• Eliminate the ongoing frustration, conflict, and social unrest in Britain.

 

Consultation and referendum determination.

​​

We trust it is clear now how demanding stopping the boats is; legally, politically, practically, and morally there are huge challenges.  The issue of stopping the boats is already highly contentious and divisive in Britain, carrying out a policy of stopping the boats has the potential to be even more contentious and divisive.  Given the magnitude of these challenges, we will firstly explore the reality of our policy with the French, and international community, and if there seems a beneficial and viable way forward for Britain, we will hold a referendum to decide if the people of Britain want to stop the boats given all the consequences of carrying this policy out.

​​​​​​​​​

Witten by Marcus white © 17-7-2026.