Proponents of Reform UK’s Operation Fortress argue that the current approach to managing English Channel crossings is insufficient and that a more robust, military-led strategy is required to restore border integrity. By framing the arrival of small boats as a national security emergency, supporters believe the government has a duty to utilize all available resources, including the Royal Navy, to prevent unauthorized entry. They contend that existing policies have failed to act as a sufficient deterrent and that only a firm, visible, and consistent enforcement mechanism can stop the flow of illegal arrivals.
From this perspective, the use of military assets is justified by the scale of the challenge. Supporters point to the need for a unified command structure involving the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, and other branches to ensure that no unauthorized vessel reaches the UK shore. They argue that the primary responsibility of the state is to protect its borders and that humanitarian concerns are best addressed by preventing dangerous sea crossings in the first place. By intercepting boats and returning them to the point of departure, the policy aims to break the business model of smuggling networks.
Furthermore, advocates of this plan emphasize that national interests must take precedence in border management. They argue that if the current diplomatic arrangements with France are not yielding the desired results, the UK must be prepared to take unilateral action to protect its sovereignty. For those who hold this view, the potential for diplomatic friction is a secondary concern compared to the immediate need to regain control over the nation's borders and address the public's concerns regarding immigration levels and national security.