Good morning everybody.
Today we launch Operation Restoring
Justice and as far as the people of this
country is concerned, frankly these
measures can't come soon enough. As you
know, we've been running over the course
of the last 6 weeks our very successful
crime campaign. It's seen us rise
further in the polls. It's seen great
new recruits, Vanessa Frank and Colin
Sutton joining our party and today is
the last installment of that campaign
ahead of our party conference in
Birmingham on the 5th and 6th of
September.
Today we're going to talk about illegal
immigration,
in particular the boat crossings, but
there's more, of course, to the story
than that. And perhaps it's appropriate
that we're here this morning after
yesterday. The scenes in Dober that took
place as 650
people arrived. 650 people yesterday
arrived into Dober. And last I heard
this morning, there are many more boats
on the way today. That will take us up
to about 52,000 people since this prime
minister and this government came into
power.
The mood in the country around this
issue
is a mix between total despair
and rising anger. And I would say this
that without action,
without somehow the contract within the
government and the people being renewed,
without some trust coming back, then I
fear deeply that that anger will grow.
In fact, I think there is now as a
result of this a genuine threat to
public order. And that is the very last
thing that we want. And I've been
saying, of course, for a long time that
it's a growing threat to our national
security.
And we've seen just recently some
arrests made of people that came by boat
and they are suspected of being involved
in some form of terrorism.
Huge numbers of undocumented young males
who throw their passports and iPhone
into the English Channel when they get
to the 12 mile line. something that I've
been out and filmed. These huge numbers
of people do constitute a threat.
And I suppose the growing anger in the
country over the course of the last few
weeks is a cultural one in the sense
that many of these young men come from
countries in which women aren't even
secondass
citizens.
And frankly, the public have now just
had enough. And what began as a protest
of mothers and concerned citizens
outside the Bell Hotel in Eping has now
spread right across the country. And all
of it really poses one big fundamental
question.
Whose side are you on?
Are you on the side of women and
children being safe on our streets? Or
are you on the side of outdated
international treaties backed up by a
series of dubious courts?
The channel crisis began with a trickle
of dingies in 2018. The numbers in 2018
and 19 were very small indeed. But I
began to realize in early 2020 that
virtually nobody that came via this
route was being deported. They would
have been even in Tony Blair's
government time. If you'd done that, you
would have been deported. No question
about it. And so in early 2020, I
repeatedly went out into the English
Channel filming what was going on,
saying, "You may as well put a sign on
the white cliffs of Dober saying
everyone welcome."
And unless we start deporting people, I
predicted this would turn into, and yes,
I use the word invasion.
But 180,000 people later, what other
word could possibly describe what has
been going on? It is an invasion as
these young men illegally break into our
country. Well, I did my best in 2020. I
warned everybody.
I said unless we deport, the crisis will
worsen considerably. But I'm afraid that
the Conservative government for the
first few years did literally nothing.
Literally nothing. And then belatedly
they put in place a Rwanda plan. They
put in place legislation.
But none of it could work because they
hadn't got the courage to face up to the
legal obstacles that made sure despite
spending huge amounts of money on these
plans that nothing uh was actually going
to happen.
Richishes stop the boats was a total
failure and frankly
anything that party or people who were
ministers at the time in that government
have to say uh we've got to take with a
very very large pinch of salt. And then
of course we had Karma,
the lawyer,
the man whose second speech as prime
minister in the House of Commons was
where he outlined his love for the
European Court of Human Rights, a party
many of whom have done very well out of
the human rights industry. Smash the
Gangs was never ever going to work. And
even as we speak,
despite the 800 million pounds we've
given the French, even as we speak,
there are French naval vessels
escorting these boats across to a 12mi
line where they'll be picked up by
border force or our volunteers for the
RNLI if it's a busy day and border force
simply can't cope. And now what happens
is the French give them all life
jackets.
And when they're picked up by border
force, border force give the life
jackets back to the French
so they can reuse them on the next
journey. I mean, we're literally
witnessing two governments colluding in
their support of criminal activity.
Well,
this issue has become a scourge of
modern Britain.
Just think about the hotels.
Think about the houses of multiple
occupancy. And not just the cost of it,
but think how unfair that is. Unfair to
the 1.3 million British people currently
on the social housing list. unfair
to those who have legally made their way
into the United Kingdom. It's unfair.
And the cost, frankly, is eye watering.
Official figures show the whole thing
costs about 7 billion pounds a year. But
that doesn't account for the massive
scale of operations in the English
Channel every day. It doesn't account
for the amount of police time and court
time court time that is taken up with
crimes that are committed by those who
frankly shouldn't be here and have come
illegally.
Our proposals
will save
over the course of the next decades tens
and possibly even hundreds of billions
of pounds. By the end of a first
parliament,
we will have saved a huge amount of
money.
I understand the public have had enough
of this. But here's what we have to do
to make Operation Restoring Justice
actually work.
We have to leave the ECR.
No ifs, no buts. It may have been a good
idea 80 years ago. Frankly, it isn't
today. We have the repeal, the Human
Rights Act of 1998,
brought in by a Blair government, many
of whose families seem to do rather well
off the back of it. We will for a 5-year
period discipline the 1951
refugee convention and any other
barriers that can be used by lawyers in
this country to prevent deportations to
prevent the right thing uh from
happening. We'll create a legal duty
for the home secretary to remove those
that come illegally. And crucially, we
will detain
all illegal migrants who come and we
will do so immediately.
The only way
we will stop the boats
is by detaining and deporting absolutely
anyone that comes via that route. And if
we do that,
the boats will stop coming within days
because there will be no incentive to
pay a trafficker to get into this
country. If you come to the UK
illegally, you will be detained and
deported and never ever allowed to stay.
Period. That is our big message from
today. And we're the first party to put
out plans that could actually make that
work.
We will stop the boats from coming.
There'll be no more incentive to pay
traffickers. Public trust will be
restored.
And we genuinely are the only party that
can be trusted on this. I am the only
party leader that has been clear and
consistent on this issue over the course
of the last 5 years. And I have a
feeling I have a feeling that what we're
doing today with Operation Restoring
Justice is going to be very popular in
the wider country. Indeed. Now, to go
through some of the operational phases
we're going to need to go through and
the structures we're going to need to
set up, I'm going to invite Zia Ysef
onto the stage.
Thank you, Nigel. Thank you all for
coming. Look, for decades now,
successive toan labor governments
promised to get tough on illegal
immigration. And yet, year after year,
tens of thousands of fighting age males,
as Nigel said, have arrived on our
beaches. In fact, the total number of
illegal immigrants in the country now
stands at at least a million. The true
number could be considerably higher than
that. There's little doubt that the
United Kingdom is being invaded. In
fact, more people have arrived on our
beaches illegally over the last 8 years
than stormed the beaches of Normandy on
D-Day. And they're rewarded for this by
a political class that puts them up in
hotels at the British taxpayers's
expense. given free meals, free health
care, free TV licenses, and as our doge
team has revealed, even free trips to
the safari park and to the cinema. Even
those that commit heinous crimes are
routinely defended by so-called human
rights lawyers who succeed in preventing
even convicted rapist illegal migrants
from being deported. All thanks to a
legal system that prioritizes the rights
of foreign citizens over our own. While
the patience of the British people is
now exhausted, we're unwilling to accept
that Britain's border should be open and
undefended. Unwilling to accept that
Britain must seed its sovereignty
sovereignty to foreign courts and
unwilling to accept that our own
veterans who served our nation with
valor and distinction be evicted from
their homes to house fighting age males
from Iraq and Afghanistan who turned up
on our beaches uninvited.
This is a national emergency. It's a
national security emergency, and it's
time to put British people first. So,
upon winning the next election, a
reformed government will launch
Operation Restoring Justice, a 5-year
emergency program to track down, detain,
and deport all illegal immigrants in the
United Kingdom. It will also immediately
stop the boats from coming by sending a
very clear message that being in our
country illegally now has an ironclad
consequence. Immediate removal.
Deportation is the ultimate deterrent.
Our plan combines an uncompromising
legal reset with national scale
relentless enforcement through a new UK
deportation command and a powerful
foreign policy campaign. As Prime
Minister Nigel Farage will direct every
instrument of state to ensure illegal
immigrants are detained and deported,
reform will pass the illegal migration
mass deportation act to ensure that no
activist judge can stop deportations. We
will leave the ECR, but that is nowhere
near enough, nowhere near enough to get
this job done. We must also repeal, not
disapport
everyone illegally in the country. And
we'll disapp all international treaties
that are used to keep illegal migrants
in this country. And yes, that means
disapplying the 1951 Refugee Convention
and the UN Convention Against Torture
and the Council of Europe Anti-Traicking
Convention. That is a non-exhaustive
list. These treaties will otherwise be
used by activist judges to frustrate
deportations even after the repeals of
the human rights act and even after the
UK leaving the ECR. We will create
sweeping new detention powers for the
home secretary without Hardy Singh
constraints. That means illegal migrants
can be detained until they are deported.
This is essential because activist
lawyers routinely use Singh to secure
their client's bail after which the
client disappears. And we'll pass a law
that makes clear that if you came to
this country illegally, you will never
be granted asylum. End of story. This
will mean all asylum claims will become
inadmissible if made by a person within
this act scope. So if you came to the
country illegally, you'll never be
allowed to stay. It strips the home
office, the immigration tribunals, and
the higher courts of jurisdiction to
even consider asylum claims because a
claim that cannot be considered, cannot
suspend removal, and therefore cannot
delay a flight. Nothing less than what
we've just described will do. And when
Nigel's prime minister, there will not
be a lawyer nor a judge in the country
that will be able to prevent a
deportation flight from leaving. If you
come to the UK illegally, you will
receive a lifetime ban from ever coming
back to our country. Re-entering after
deportation will become a criminal
offense, punishable by up to 5 years in
prison. Deliberately destroying your
identity documents, having come here
illegally, will also become a criminal
offense, punishable by up to five years
in prison. We will pair this legislative
reset with a UK deportation command.
that is a dedicated force to
identifying, detaining, and deporting
illegal migrants at scale. We'll create
a cuttingedge data fusion center that
will automatically share data between
the police, the home office, the NHS,
the DBLA, HMRC, and banks. This will
allow deportation command to
relentlessly track down and detain all
those who entered our country illegally.
will build capacity to detain up to
24,000 illegal migrants at a time. That
enables us to deport up to 288,000
illegal migrants a year. Detention will
mean deportation, no chance of bail, no
chance of absconding. We will expand
charter flights to five departures every
day. And to guarantee success, His
Majesty's Royal Air Force will keep a
Voyager aircraft on standby as a hot
spare. So even if a plane has mechanical
issues, flights will not be stopped.
Deportations will not be delayed. And
beyond our shores, our foreign office
will act with the urgency of a nation
that is determined. Return agreements
will be secured. Countries of origin
will take back their illegals. Where
persuasion and financial incentives
fail, we will use leverage. If a country
refuses to take back their illegal
migrants, we will stop issuing visas to
people from that country. and if
necessary, we will sanction them. Let
there be no doubt those who arrive
illegally will be detained, deported,
and banned for life from re-entering the
United Kingdom. And this is not just a
national security emergency. It's a
fiscal emergency, too. Right now,
Britain is spending more than 7 billion
pounds every year on the costs of
illegal immigration. And that excludes
the huge cost items like the burden on
the NHS. Billions are spent on hotels,
community housing, and welfare for those
who have no respect for our laws. Those
who obey the rules are forced to pay for
those who break them. The cost of
deporting those here illegally will be
10 billion pounds over 5 years. But in
that same period, our plan will save the
taxpayer over 17 billion pounds. So the
next so the net savings to the British
taxpayer will be very very significant
over 5 years and over a decade the
savings will exceed 42 billion pounds.
That is money that is returned to
hardworking families to our schools to
our NHS and to rebuilding Britain's
prosperity. This is a transformative
plan that will mean those who are here
illegally will be deported at
unprecedented speed and scale. And I
want to be clear that with Nigel as
prime minister, a reformed government
will show unflinching resolve to ensure
that Britain regains control of its
borders. The hopes and the dreams of
British people and their children rests
on their government's willingness to do
what it takes to defend and secure our
country's borders and keep them safe.
A reformed government will ensure that
the United Kingdom will once again be a
proud sovereign nation with full control
of its borders. And it is in that
sovereignty that lies the foundation of
our country's next chapter. One in which
our country is secure, one in which our
people are prosperous, and one in which
Britain is powerful again. Thank you
very much. And we're going to move to
questions.
I'll go to the other my hearing
zia. Thank you very much indeed. Right,
we have a pretty extensive list of
questions from the press and the first
up is Ben Wright from the BBC.
>> Uh thank you very much Mr. Farage. Uh,
your plans could mean sending thousands
of asylum seekers back to countries
where they might face imprisonment,
torture, even death. Does that bother
you at all? And what happens if
countries refuse to take people back?
>> Does it bother me? Of course, it bothers
me. But what really bothers me is what
is happening on the streets of our
country. What really bothers me is what
is happening to British citizens. What
really bothers me is, and you've seen
this from the Bell Hotel onwards, the
growing concern uh with justifiable
justifiable evidence that women and
girls are far less safe on the streets
than they were before this began. So,
it's all about whose side are you on?
Whose side are you on? Are you on the
side of the British people or
international treaties? Now where
countries and I think Zia laid that out
that it's going to be a carrot and stick
approach to it. But if we can't get
deals with certain countries though we
think this country has considerably more
muscle, diplomatic muscle uh than
perhaps those in Westminster currently
recognize. uh then we will have to find
other locations and you know we're going
to be talking to Albania, we'll talk to
Rwanda, we will find solutions.
Katherine Foster from GB News.
>> Thank you. Katherine Foster, GB News. Um
Nigel Farage, last September you told GB
News that it was a political
impossibility to deport hundreds of
thousands of people and that you simply
couldn't do it. What has changed your
mind that you now believe that you can?
>> The political impossibility was
deporting millions and millions of
people and that's where the argument had
gone. We had
we had a situation,
a political difficulty within reform UK.
This does happen to parties. They do
have difficulties and problems. Uh we
had a problem that one of our MPs who
was no longer an MP was talking about
deporting entire communities
including people who'd been born here.
Uh and and and frankly uh we found that
unacceptable and so I just did not want
I think I think you can quote me for
another interview to get dragged down
the route of mass deportations at that
stage. We have sorted out that political
internal difficulty that we had and
since that time the work has been done
on a credible plan uh so that we can
deport hundreds of thousands of people
over the 5 years of a reform government.
Thank you Harry Horton ITV.
>> Thank you very much Harry Horton ITV
News. Um, Nigel Farage, you've said that
you can't be held responsible for
everything that happens in the world.
But if someone says that if you deport
me, I'll be tortured. I'll face abuse,
surely there is some responsibility on
you to stop that from happening. And
secondly, if I may, um, how far back
does this go? Where do you draw the
line? You say you're going to deport
everyone who's arrived here illegally.
What are the parameters for that? Yeah,
I mean look, you know, how far back you
go with this is the difficulty and I
accept that, you know, and the next
question that that Z and I will get
asked is what about those that are here
illegally and have got children? So, you
know, I'm not standing here telling you
all of this is easy. All of this is
straightforward. You know, and we had,
of course, with the Wind Rush row, we
had a situation there where people who'd
come 50, 60, in fact, nearly 70 years
ago had faulty paperwork. So, there is
an exercise of common sense that has to
come in here. But do we realistically
think, Z, we can deport 5 600,000 people
in in the lifetime of the first
parliament?
>> Totally. Totally. Yeah. I mean, so look,
uh, one of the key points to make here
is if you look at the population who are
illegally, and by the way, this is
difficult because you're trying to count
the uncountable almost by definition.
You're talking north of 650,000 adults
without children who are in this country
legally. And by the way, those are the
ones the British people are most
concerned about. They're the ones who in
some cases are terrorizing local
communities, hanging around bus
shelters. Let's start with deporting
them. Let's get that done promptly and
efficiently.
>> Yeah. And of course once we start this
people will not in future be coming to
Britain illegally. The president for
this is Australia in 2012 where within
two weeks of Tony Abbott taking the
right actions the boats stopped coming
from Indonesia. The solution to this is
not difficult. It's been the lack of
political will to put in measure the
right places. uh is why we're now in
this position where as I said earlier uh
the public are between a mixture of
utter despair uh but increasing and
growing anger. Um Serena Bankan Singh
from Sky.
>> Um you've said that you're going to
detain anyone who arrives via small
boats. Will that apply to women and
girls? And what about unaccompanied
children? Will they remain in Britain
while their parents are turfed out? And
then you said you would leave the UN
torture convention. Australia and the US
haven't done this. Are you comfortable
of the risk of people being killed or
tortured if they're sent back to their
country of origin? Um, and will pulling
out of these international treaties lose
UK credibility on the international
stage?
>> Well, we're talking about disapplying
for up to 5 years a variety of
conventions that that do need broader
debate and certainly at a UN level uh
need reform and change. uh as far as the
ECR is concerned, we're very much of the
view that it is it's a body that they
say is separate from the European Union,
but you know, I could walk from my
office in Strasburg straight into the
European Court of Human Rights. Uh
they're joined at the hip. I don't see
any prospect, frankly, in the short term
of the ECR being reformed. Now you might
argue you might argue that Germany who
now of course have have a whole series
of deportation flights set up. You might
argue that Denmark which now has a zero
asylum policy. You might argue uh that
well if those countries can do it why
can't we do it? But of course the
problem has been our own judiciary. We
have to remove the tools from our own
judiciary for them to be a barrier to
this process. And yes, women and
children, everybody on arrival will be
detained. And I've accepted already that
how we deal with children is a much more
complicated and difficult issue. But you
know what? The people protesting outside
the Bell Hotel and at 30 migrant hotels
on Saturday around the country weren't
doing it because of a few children
coming. They were doing it because over
3/4 of those that come are young
undocumented males who come from
cultures that are entirely different
from ours who are very unlikely to
assimilate into our community who pose a
risk to women and girls and some of them
I'm afraid pose a risk to national
security. So that's pretty clear I think
what our priorities are. Paul McNamara
Channel 4.
>> Hi Mr. Faraj,
there is a realistic possibility that if
you go forward with this, there might be
a case where someone arrives in the UK
by a small boat, you send them back to
the country from which they came, and
they will be tortured or killed because
of a decision that you've made. How does
that sit with you?
>> Well, the alternative, of course, is to
do nothing. I I mean, that's the very
clear alternative is we just do nothing.
we just allow this problem to magnify
and grow. We head to a point where we
where whether and I genuinely I'm not
you know I don't want this to happen. I
want our proposals to be accepted so
that we can prevent uh civil disorder
from happening. But that is the
direction this country is headed in. And
we cannot be responsible for all the
sins that take place around the world.
It's just literally impossible. that we
can recognize that the primary duty of a
British government is to protect the
integrity, the safety and security of
its own people. Um, and you know that's
why we have to do this. I mean I mean
Zia said in his speech that nothing
short of these measures will work and I
think we all genuinely believe that if
we allow any loopholes to remain open
with this it isn't going to happen. You
know, is this a perfect world? Are all
are these things all that we want to do?
Well, we shouldn't have been put in this
position, but we've been put in this
position by Conservative and Labor
governments. We have to do something
tough. We have to do something radical.
And this is a plan that will work. Andy
Bell, Channel 5 News.
>> Thank you. Uh Andy Bell, 5 News. Um, so
if you're able to implement your policy,
do you accept that that means border
force agents going into towns looking
for people who are here illegally, maybe
who already have families, maybe who
already have children, and you mentioned
Windrush earlier and say, well, this is
slightly complicated. There are going to
be any number of people who, as far as
they're concerned, have been living in
this country legally for years, who will
then be very, very worried about what
your party has in store for them. Are
you not concerned about the sort of
message you're sending out with all of
that?
>> No, they won't have been living here
legally, will they?
>> They would have been living here
>> So, for instance, the people caught up
in the Windrush episode, the whole point
was that their situation was not clear.
So, would they be covered?
>> Wind Rush was a mess over paperwork.
>> Yeah. And I understand that. It's why I
made mention of it earlier. Um, will
border force be seeking out people who
are here illegally, possibly many of
them working in the criminal economy?
Yes. It's what normal countries do all
over the world. It's what normal
countries do.
I mean,
what what sane country what sane country
would allow undocumented young males to
break into its country to put them up in
hotels? They even get dental care. How
about that? Most people can't get an NHS
dentist. This is not what normal
countries do. We are talking about
normality. And actually, the funny thing
is, I'll say it once again. In the first
Blair government, if you came here
illegally, your feet didn't touch the
sides.
But it is this gradual drift.
Ever since really, I think the Human
Rights Act was incorporated into UK law.
It's this gradual drift to just
accepting that anything goes. Well,
we're not accepting it. And I tell you
what, there's a big silent majority out
there who were not accepting it either.
And they are crying out. They are
desperate to have some leadership that's
got some courage. They're desperate for
a political party that can put forward
people who genuinely will put the needs
of the British people first. That is
what government is supposed to do. Thank
you, Christopher Macauan from the Press
Association.
Uh,
>> thanks Chris McKen PA. Um, one of the
countries you suggested sending people
back to uh is Iran, a country which
poses a national security risk to the UK
and has attempted to kidnap and murder
people in this country. Um, what
financial incentives are you suggesting
you offer them to take deportes back?
Can I be clear that nobody that nobody
no young man from Iran who arrives by
boat should be walking the streets of
our country
under no circumstances
absolutely no way never that shouldn't
be done but actually it's quite
interesting that Germany now has this
mass of deportation flights going
including Iran I think
>> well what we're seeing one thing I'll
comment I just want to very quickly make
about when we're talking about returning
people to Afghanistan or returning
people potentially uh to Iran or I was
asked earlier today would you send uh
young women would you send women back to
uh Afghanistan well what about the fact
that men from Afghanistan because it's
predominantly men predominantly men from
Afghanistan and Iran are streaming
across the channel illegally on almost a
daily basis in fact sometimes they say
would you send them back to quote women
hating Afghanistan. Well, why are
British women being subjected? Because
it's not the women who are coming. In
fact, most estimates, most estimates put
the total population of women and young
girls from Afghanistan in this country
legally at less than 2,000. Less than
210 of 1% of the total illegal migration
population. So, these are totally bogus
questions, frankly, and we should be
talking about the much bigger issue
about the safety of British women and
girls. Yeah.
>> Okay. Um,
I think one of the most interesting
things about this press conference and
about the media the last few days is the
questions that are being asked about the
practicalities
of individual pieces of implementation.
What I notice there's very little push
back from the media against the idea
that we really are in very very big
trouble in this country. And I think
every one of you know I thought Andrew
Neil's piece in the mail on Saturday was
was was very reflective. I think
everyone understands we have a massive
problem here. We are not very far away
from major civil disorder. And I think
the acceptance as a whole of the big
picture that we're putting forward uh
shows you that once again it's reform
that are leading national debates. No
Hoffman from the Sun.
>> Thank you Mr. Faraj. Noah from the Sun.
Um, you just mentioned there about this
growing anger, you know, this seeding
anger at Cir Sama for what some people
think putting the human rights of
foreign rapists above British families.
But there's still around 4 years until
another general election and a lot of
people will be feeling very helpless and
like they want something to happen
quicker than that time. So, how would
you recommend members of the public
should put pressure on a Labor
government to do more than just site
human rights laws and actually tackle
this issue?
>> I think that one of the things I've
learned over quite a long time in this
game is that if you lead with arguments,
if you get the public to follow you, the
other politicians start to change their
tune. And let's face it, this is a Labor
government famed for its number of
U-turns already. So, I would urge
everybody out there that's got a Labor
MP to go to that MP and say to him or
her, unless you get a grip on this, we
will absolutely not be voting for you
next time round and you will lose your
seat. And if that happens on a big
enough scale, I think it could be a
remarkable effect of concentrating the
mind. Um, four years to the next
election. Do you really think so?
I think
I think the 30-year bond market is
giving us a somewhat different
indication.
um particularly as we have a chancellor
of the exjecker dubbed famously by my
colleague Lee Anderson as Rachel from
accounts
who is clearly desperately out of her
depth and actually I'm not sure there's
anybody in the cabinet that really has a
clue how to turn around uh the economic
downward spiral and possible possibly
even fiscal doom loop that we're
beginning to enter into. So they may not
last quite as long as you think. Martin
Beckford from the Mail.
Thank you very much. Martin Beckford
from the Daily Mail. Um we know that
Afghans make up the largest proportion
of small boat crossings, about 6,000 in
the past year. We know that lots of
people who work with British and
American forces have are still trying to
flee the Taliban. Would you make any
exceptions for them and allow them to
stay?
>> Yes, you would.
>> Yes, absolutely. There were brave
Afghans who supported the British forces
and American forces during that 20-year
war who of course absolutely of course
deserve recompense for the enormous
risks they took. And and and and by the
way Martin you know just bear this in
mind that this country has taken half a
million refugees since the Brexit
referendum. This country is not
close-minded
to groups that genuinely face
persecution, to groups that genuinely
are refugees. We just don't believe by
any traditional definitions of a
refugee. We just don't believe those
people crossing the English Channel or
at least very few of them take that box.
Carry on. Will you have a a scheme
continue some of the resettlement
schemes?
>> Yes, but because once again, the whole
thing's been messed up beyond all
belief. uh the list of a couple of
thousand interpreters becomes a list of
100 thousand people. The whole thing
gets leaked. It's a complete and utter
shambles. But you know where it's right
and proper you know operation restoring
justice would apply to those Afghan
interpreters as well. Absolutely. Thank
you for your question.
Do come in whenever you want. C can I
just very quickly uh mention to the
degree someone wants to make the case uh
for legitimate asylum claims as no doubt
some uh may exist those can only ever be
taken seriously when you have a secure
border and you actually have control
about who's coming this is one of the
biggest problems I put it to you that a
infinite decimal number of the Afghans
who are crossing the channel illegally
served with our military bravely it will
be an infinite decimal number and we
know this so again this is a big part of
what reform is going to do if you don't
have have a border, you don't have a
country. If you don't have a border, you
don't have an immigration policy. You
can we can talk about it all we want.
>> Quite. Absolutely. Absolutely. Uh
Michael Nolles from the Daily Express.
>> Thank you very much. Your operational
plan speaks about a six-month voluntary
return window. Can you spell out why
you're going to do that and why it
precedes the large scale raids?
>> Well, because there's a nice way of
doing this and there's a very tough way
of doing this. And if people think criy,
you know, they're breathing down my
neck, they're actually going to catch up
with me and deport me. I might as well
take the offer of 2 and a half thousand
quid and a free comfortable flight back
to my home country. Difficult to assess.
Difficult to assess just how successful
that will or will not be.
But if you know if you think you know
this time next week they're going to be
knocking on my door, I suggest quite a
few people might take that up. Uh and I
think that is you know that is part of
our sort of carrot and stick approach to
individuals illegally in Britain but
equally to other countries as well. You
know we will try to make it easy and
after all the countries we're talking
about we're giving nearly all of them
foreign aid anyway.
So there are ways that we can offer them
constructive deals to take back their
people or we can get tougher by applying
diplomatic or economic pressure.
>> Can I just add as well that it's also
much cheaper frankly and I might stick
in the throat a little bit paying people
who are coming illegally. But if you
look at the Department of Homeland
Security, you've looked a lot of what
the Trump administration uh has done
that the DHS have said, you know, their
voluntary programs about a,000,500 bucks
uh relative to $17,000 for an enforced
uh deportation. And as Nigel said, one
of the things that will happen
immediately once we pass this
legislation is UK Deportation Command
will start issuing letters informing
them, we know, we're on to you and if
you don't take this voluntary program,
you're gone forcibly in 6 months time.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, James Hill, spectator.
>> The risk of a British Bill of Rights is
that it simply empowers those same
activist judges that you've decrieded
here today. Uh would it not be
preferable instead to simply repeal the
1998 Human Rights Act, leave the ECR,
and go back to the old system of legal
governance?
>> Yeah, I mean, common law really is what
you're talking about, and that's how we
used to do it. And you know, our
tradition has always been that we're
freeborn people, that everything is
allowed unless there is a law that
specifically prohibits us from doing
something as opposed to the more
European system of state given human
rights, which incidentally they can
withdraw at pretty much at a moment's
notice. Um, look, we've used the Bill of
Rights as a term because it is an
historic term in British history. Uh,
but it won't be full of European style
human rights. It'll be a reassertion of
what the basic liberties are of people
in this country. And let me assure you
of one thing. It will include the right
to free speech, which I'm afraid to say.
And yes, we all want to protect
children, but I'm afraid to say uh that
the recent legislation, the online
safety act that has come in is already
genuinely curtailing free speech in this
country in a way that I think is deeply,
deeply alarming.
Aubry Aliggressi from the Times.
Uh hello Mr. Farage Aubry Algresi from
the Times. There are a very few number
of disused or surplus RAF bases. So to
prove that this plan is viable, can you
name any that you would use either to
hold migrants or to operate deportation
from? And would they, for example,
include RAF Scampton? And if I may, why
do you want these powers to sunset after
5 years? Is it because you're concerned
they could be used by a future
government in a way you don't foresee?
No, because look, you know, we do think
we do think there is hope that the 1951
refugee convention at the UN can be
revisited and redefined for the modern
world. So, we've done it for a period of
5 years and we'll see where we go after
that. Uh, can I just make one thing very
very clear that the last government and
this one have been housing people in
military bases. One or two campaigns
have stopped them using certain
particular geographical locations, but
quite a few have been used around the
country. So, you get put into a military
base, but you're free to walk the
streets at night.
You're free to possibly even go and
drive a delivery bike for somebody. The
military bases that we will use,
people will be detained.
They won't be out walking the streets on
the road to being deported. So I would
suggest to you that whichever
geographical locations are chosen, local
residents will be far less concerned by
this plan than they would young men
being free 24 hours a day to walk
through their village or walk through
their town. On the practicalities of
building accommodation, some very
interesting thoughts that have come from
America over the last few months. Yeah,
look, um, there's 100,000 square miles
of land mass in this country. We're
going to need about a third of one
square mile for the entire detention
estate of the incremental 21,000 that
we're talking about here. And Trump,
whatever you think of President Trump,
he has cut illegal border crossings by
97%. They said that it couldn't be done.
He has done it. How? Because ICE has
gone out, made 150,000 arrests, and
embarked on these deportations. If you
look at the detention capacity he
created in Florida, he created 3,000
beds in 8 days. If we were to be able to
do at that rate, we'd have the whole
24,000 up and running in 2 months.
That's not in our numbers. But there is
modern technology. These steel modular
structures, these are all things that we
can use. This notion that Britain can't
do anything, Britain can't build
anything is for the birds. It's just
about the political will. Yeah. And we
managed it, didn't we, at the start of
CO with the nighting girl hospitals
which sprung up in no time at all. So
yeah, creating creating the first few
thousand places can happen very quickly.
Of that there is no doubt at all.
Charles highass from a telegraph.
There currently about 100,000 more than
100,000 people who've got asylum
applications half of whom are going to
be rejected. You also got more than
50,000 who've got appeals that are
currently going through and probably
will a significant number will be
rejected. So when you come, if you were
to win the next election, you're going
to have a tens of thousands, hundreds of
thousands potentially of failed asylum
seekers. Are you going to deport them?
And are they in your figures? One final
question is what are the sanctions that
you would use against a country that
refused to take back its migrants? Fine.
Well, the answer is yes. The worry of
course is that to ease government's
difficulty, it just waves through an
increasing number of people. It just
says, "Look, you know, all right, we'll
give you refugee status." Even though,
as I said, two decades ago in more
normal times, that would never have been
contemplated. That is this government's
get out to the backlog problem. I'd also
mention, Charles, while we're here, if
you look at those that have claimed
asylum in the last year, the biggest
single category comes from Pakistan.
And they haven't come by boat.
They've come with the excuse they're
coming to visit relatives then they
overstay and that racket
absolute racket that's been going on for
years has to end. The same applies to
students who come here and then
deliberately and willfully overstay. And
and one of the most remarkable things
about those stats is under half
of all people making these claims have
come by boat.
Overstaying is a massive problem and
neither of the last two governments
frankly have done very much at all to
deal with it. There are there are people
there are overstayers now being deported
on a relatively small scale but nobody
is actually gripping this issue. Um oh
we'll give the Telegraph two questions
shall we? Did you have a question
Camila?
>> Very generous. This is for the Daily Tea
podcast. Um, you mentioned earlier that
there are three million people on social
housing waiting lists.
>> 1.3 I
>> 1.3. Would it be your uh policy to have
a British first approach to appointing
housing when it comes to local areas?
Some local areas do look at localism,
but others don't. Would that be a
blanket policy? And while we're speaking
about housing, what's your reaction to
the revelation that the deputy prime
minister Angela Raina has got an 800,000
second home in Hoveve? Do you think it's
hypocritical? Should MPs have second
homes?
>> So, I would say this to you. I would say
this to you. Uh, isn't it funny that the
residence that Angela Raina is living in
in London
is now coming under criticism
from James Cleverly.
He wasn't complaining when Michael Gove
lived there.
So, it's just party politics. And if
Angela Raina has been tremendously
successful in business
and managed to acquire a property
portfolio and done it properly, well,
jolly good luck to her. Uh and and and
this sort of whole this whole sort of
hair shirt approach. I mean, I think
probably most of the press want
politicians in sackcloth and ashes.
um would like us all to go vegan and
give up drinking. Well, it's not
happening here. Um
that I can assure you.
Do you want to answer the other bit or
not?
We are opposed to two tier justice
within our country. We are opposed to
two-tier polle pleasing within our
country. Uh we are opposed to two-tier
sentencing. We've just seen Lucy Connley
coming out of prison as Ricky Jones
walks free. And yes, I know the
circumstances were different. Uh but we
are pro
a two-tier approach from government when
it's deciding who are the priorities for
housing, for benefits, for any of these
things. Is it Britishborn people or is
it people swaning in from all over the
world? And we are pro
British in this country having more
rights than those that have recently
come. Yes. Yes. Yes. And in time in
time,
you know,
if you go to Australia, you can't access
the health system. Doesn't happen. You
got to pay your insurance for four or 5
years. You commit a crime, you'll be
deported. We've just been so weak on all
of this. We welcome those that will
come, will benefit our society,
integrate, contribute, and in time
become British citizens, and have the
full rights of everybody else. But I'm
afraid that's just not what is actually
going on. It hasn't been it hasn't been,
frankly, for many, many years. Natasha
Clark from LBC, we are getting towards
the end, folks. I promise you.
>> Natasha from LBC, um, you talk about a
self-epport app in your document today.
Can you tell us about how that would
work? And second, you talk about the
risk of unrest on our streets. You
obviously know this plan is going to
face legal challenges, operational
issues, political pressure. Your
opponents are going to absolutely throw
the book at you to try and stop this.
What is your message firstly to them and
secondly to voters whose trust is
absolutely on the floor over this issue.
Prime Ministers have repeatedly failed
to do enough about this and fix this
very tricky problem. We've got years of
promises. Why should the public trust
you?
>> Well, you're right. I mean, you know,
every prime minister since David Cameron
has said clearly, if you come to Britain
illegally, you will be removed and they
all do it and none deliver. Although I
think they say it because they think the
public wants to hear it rather than they
actually mean it.
The fundamental point of your question
is correct.
That the social contract that exists in
this country between those that work and
pay their taxes and those that govern
them
is is at a very very fragile moment.
That trust in politics and trust in
politicians uh frankly it's certainly
never been lower in my lifetime. And I
think you might have to go back a long
way in history to find a parallel
period. So the restoring of that trust
is absolutely vital. A lot of people
around the country who say they're going
to vote reform believe that we're pretty
much the last shot.
Pretty much the last shot. that if we
don't win that election and start
putting in place some of the very
necessary changes that are needed, then
goodness only knows what this country
will look like in 10 years time.
Goodness only knows how many more
talented people will have left not just
the ultra rich but the young, ambitious,
hardworking. So it is vital that we do
this. All I can say to you is there's
nobody on these issues of sovereignty,
on these issues of national
self-interest, on these issues of
predicting what would happen in the
future and it coming true. There is
nobody more determined
to do this than me.
Okay, Edena Langford from the eye paper.
Hello, Mr. Farage. Um, just to confirm,
are you willing to negotiate with the
Taliban and potentially pay them tens of
millions of pounds to allow increased
returns from the UK? And one more if I
may, are you concerned that leaving the
ECR could jeopardize the Good Friday
Agreement?
>> Could jeopardize
>> the Good Friday Agreement?
>> Yeah. I mean, look, you know, Blair, of
course, wrote the ECR into everything.
He wrote it into everything to try and
embed it deeply in British law. Uh, can
we renegotiate the Good Friday Agreement
to get the ECR out of it? Yes. Is that
something that can happen very, very
quickly? No, it'll take longer. It'll
take longer. So unfortunately
and for a variety of reasons, previous
governments have placed Northern
Ireland, I'm afraid, in a different
position to the rest of the United
Kingdom, something that we vigorously
opposed. It will take a little bit
longer with Northern Ireland. Z.
>> Um yeah, so look, we are I just want to
very quickly go back to the question
about the app as well. Um because again,
we want to emphasize that the goal is to
get as many people to leave voluntarily.
And what deportation command do will do
will make very clear they will issue
dates once they've tracked people down.
This is the date that you will be
arrested uh and you will be uh deported.
U going back to the earlier point as
well about what you know why should
people believe Nigel when so many
political leaders have stood in front of
the British people and said we would do
it. Well, one of the signs that it this
is going to work is how number one the
human rights lawyers the so-called human
rights lawyers are furious. It's a
really good positive indicator that this
plan will work because these people,
there's an industrial complex, I've seen
this in courtrooms, an industrial
complex of so-called human rights
lawyers um who defend the human rights
of foreign citizens at the expense of uh
British ones. And you know, to James
Heel's question earlier about the
British Bill of Rights, I will tell you
this, the draftsmen who put this
legislation together have been under a
very, very clear and strict instruction.
But Nigel's the prime minister. There
will not be a judge in the country that
will be able to prevent a single plane
from departing. And that is why
and that is why that is why we are
clearing the decks um from a uh
legislative standpoint.
>> Yeah. Anna Gross Financial Times.
Thank you. Um, you said that we're
facing a massive and unprecedented
crisis of people coming over to the
country uh to claim asylum. The numbers
have gone up. Uh, it was 108,000 in
2024, but this was only the 17th highest
number in Europe per capita of the
population. Are you willing to
acknowledge that this is an
international phenomenon? that Britain
is much less affected than many other
countries and that there are millions of
people in the UK that want to provide
refuge to those who may be killed in
their home countries. In 2015, the boat
started crossing the Mediterranean.
Jean called Junka, who at the time was
the president of the European
Commission, announced that the EU would
put in place a common refugee and asylum
policy for the European Union.
And I was there through all of it. And I
spoke repeatedly in parliamentary
debates and I said, "If you allow
anyone that sets foot across the
Mediterranean to stay in the European
Union, millions will come.
Do not make this fundamental mistake."
Of course they did.
And one of the reasons for voting Brexit
was to prevent that catastrophic mistake
that was made by the European Union
compounded by Angela Merkel in the most
astonishing and stupid way. One of the
reasons for Brexit was to get ourselves
away from that, you know, necessary
obligation in that a few years in a
European country, they become European
citizens, they could come to Britain.
Um, so I've been right about this from
the very start. Singularly alone right
about this from the very start. If you
make it easy for people to come, they
will come. It's just as simple as that.
And it is, you know, to the deep regret
of everybody, especially 17.4 4 million
Brexit voters and many many more uh that
despite the fact we've got back control
of our lives uh we've actually not
bothered to use it properly. We should
not be paying for the mistakes of the
European Union.
Um Esme Kenny from the Oxford Mail.
>> Thank you. Esme Kenny Oxford Mail.
>> Yes.
>> Um so we're not far away from Campsfield
House which is a detention center which
closed in 2018. Um the current
government have said that they want to
reopen and expand the site. Um what
would a reform government do about
Campsfield House and how would it
respond to the backlash that reopening
the site has faced from uh local
residents and the district council?
>> Yeah, I mean look, nobody wants no
nobody wants a hotel near them. Nobody
wants an HMO near them. No one wants a
detention center around them. Well, at
the moment they've got lots of them all
over the country. And I'm not going to
be drawn. I'm not going to be drawn. I'm
aware of the problem. Of course, I'm not
going to be drawn on the on the
specifics of any individual geographical
location cuz if we were to do that and
present it as a plan, what the
government would probably do is sell off
the site and turn it into a solar farm.
So, we're going to keep
>> true. It's actually true.
>> Well, why not? I suppose you know. Um,
so no, we're not going to go into
individual specific geographies.
Certainly not at this stage. Um, okie
dokie. Alexa from the Guardian.
>> Thank you. Elisa Addi from the Guardian.
>> Misspelled. Sorry. Yeah.
>> Sorry.
>> Your plan promises mass deportations at
a cost of 10 billion pounds over 5
years. Yet the Center for Migration
Control, which is led by your former
colleague, Rupert Low, proposed a near
identical plan at a cost of around 47.5
billion pounds. So why do you believe
you can deliver the same scale of
deportations for less than fifth of that
price?
>> Cuz Zia is really good at maths.
>> Okay. Right now,
the last question.
The last question of this conference
goes to David Burke of the Daily Mirror.
This is the last one. David, where are
>> Thank you very much, Mr. Raj. Um, last
year you said that Judeo-Christian
values were at the root of everything in
this country. You've previously caused
for a muscular defense of Christianity.
Uh, we saw under the Tories the Church
of England bishops were probably among
the most uh vocal critics of the Rwanda
plan when it came to the Lords. Uh it
seems frankly ludicrous that they'd fall
behind sending people to the Taliban, to
Eratraa, uh to Iran and so forth. If you
found yourself in a position where
senior Christian leaders oppose the
plans on moral grounds, are you prepared
to say I don't care and do it anyway?
And if so, isn't there a hypocrisy built
into that?
>> Well, look, I mean, you know, whoever
the Christian leaders are at any given
point in time, um I think over the last
decades, quite a few of them have been
rather out of touch.
perhaps with their own flock. Um, given
the types of people appointed to be the
Archbishop of Canterbury, that's
probably the biggest understatement of
the day. Um,
we believe that what we're offering is
right and proper
and we believe for a political party
that was founded around the slogan of
family, community, country that we are
doing right by all of those things with
these plans we put forward today.
Somebody else asked me a moment ago
about the the pressures from the
establishment that we'll face. Yes, of
course there'll be pressures from the
establishment. Of course, there'll be
condemnation from all sorts of parts of
society.
But no big fundamental
change that advances people's lives ever
comes without a battle against the
establishment. a battle against the
existing interests as Zia mentioned a
moment ago the human rights industry
etc.
Some of this will be hard,
but that's why we have to get a proper
mandate for it at an election. And it's
why I believe that as a result of what
we're doing today, the general center of
gravity of this debate will move
considerably between now and the next
general election. Uh, and I think a lot
of people who maybe now are criticized.
I've noticed actually one or two
commentators, you know, who would have
been even a handful of years ago would
have said really quite vicious things in
their commentaries about these proposals
and now saying, "Well, you know what?
Actually, you know, I can't walk down
the King's Road and wear jewelry
anymore." You know, something
fundamentally is going wrong. This
feeling that we're living in broken
Britain. And this is, of course, but one
part of broken Britain, but it's the
most visible part. And it's the part
that is leading to the greatest anger in
the country.
Right. Can I say thank you very much
indeed everybody?
Yeah.
Heat. Heat.
Heat
up here.
up
here.