In an entirely different context, I've heard the phrase ''it's not the size of your boat, it's the motion of the ocean''.
And so it is the case here - the size of the boat is an irrelevance to the arguments often presented. The number of people arriving is something that can be a focus and concern to both sides. Where both sides may disagree is the validity and balance of human rights, and the treatment of people.
There are legal, technical and human behavioural arguments against the suggestion of a real world solution, such that no solution is acceptable.
For example, I might structure a solution thus:
The lack of safe routes imperils the attempts to cross the channel by inflatable craft often overcrowded, and sometime carrying children. To prevent their arrival, the expenditure to police borders is a burden to the taxpayer. The expenditure is also a burden to the RNLI who rely on charitable support to meet the cost.
Protester behaviour is paradoxical. For example, the Portsmouth example from last night, demonstrated that while asylum seekers were already loaded onto coaches ready to be removed to Manston, they were prevented from leaving due to protesters laying down in the road.
One solution to end the unsafe boat crossings is the creation of safer routes for those crossing, and safer environments for landing them.
Manston is only quite recently disused as an airfield and has the UK aslyum seeker's processing centre alongside. A safe route could be provided by flying the asylum seekers direct from an agreed airfield in France directly to Manston and thence the neighbouring processing centre.
In the real world however, there will be sovereignty arguments, and roadblocks by way of legal and technical arguments rather than concern for those who arrive in genuine need of asylum.
I've posting without reading back and editing, as I have something else now to attend to - errors inevitable I'm afraid.
