On September 4, Jordan Bardella, leader of France's National Rally (RN), and Nigel Farage, a prominent British politician, signed an agreement concerning the return of migrants intercepted in British waters. The agreement, published in both English and French, states that "France will repatriate these people to their country of origin." However, the English version adds the phrase, "France will in principle accept these people," which could change the interpretation of the commitment. This subtle difference in translation has raised questions about the extent of France's obligation under the agreement. According to a report, Jordan Bardella appears to commit to accepting the return of migrants to French territory. This stance has surprised some supporters of the National Rally in Calais, a region known for its migrant crisis. One supporter said, "I believe you, but it seems so crazy to me," while another expressed confusion, saying, "Ah, he wants to bring them back? Ah, no, if they have to be brought back, no." These reactions suggest that the decision may not align with the expectations of some of the party's base. The National Rally has stated that the difference in translation was intended to make the text more readable, but critics argue it represents a reversal of previous positions. In 2021, Marine Le Pen, the former leader of the National Rally and Bardella’s predecessor, advocated for the British to manage migrants who arrived in their waters. During an interview with RTL in November 2021, she called for revising the Touquet agreements, which allow France to return undocumented migrants to their country of origin, to shift responsibility to the UK. When asked about the recent agreement on September 7, Le Pen said she would address the issue "soon," indicating she had not yet made a definitive stance. The National Rally has dismissed concerns about the controversy, emphasizing that the agreement is an initial statement of intent that will be refined in the future. While the party insists it is not a binding commitment, the language used has sparked debate about the direction of its migration policy and its alignment with its supporters’ expectations.