Elon Musk has called the uh government
decision to fight that uh court case in
relation to the Eping Asylum Hotel. He
says the government is committing
treason uh against its own people. Um I
wonder if you'd agree with that
assessment. Uh I wouldn't use that
language. No. But the government have
got themselves into a terrible pickle on
this because on the one hand they say
they want to close the hotels. They've
promised that. And on the other hand,
they're using lawyers and taxpayers
money to say that actually the hotels
have got to stay open and the rights of
uh illegal migrants is greater than the
rights of British citizens. That's
literally what part of their uh their
application was. So, they're in a
terrible mess on this. What they should
do is adopt our policy, which is to set
up uh detention centers in remote areas
away from residential areas and rapidly
process people. And on every metric the
government's failing. They uh the number
of people crossing this year the channel
is up about 50%. The backlog is up. The
number of people using their hotels I
believe is up. So uh all of these all of
these metrics where the government said
they were going to do something actually
the opposite is happening.
>> And you've spelled out your plan list
with there's a couple of sort of issues
that have got a bit of attention and and
not entirely clear. Let's just see if we
can clear them up. The first is the
deportation deals that you want to
strike with with countries uh where
people are coming from. Would that
include countries like the Afghanistan
Afghanistan and the Taliban leadership
there?
>> Yeah, we'll be negotiating deals with a
range of countries. You need a range of
options so you're not overexposed to one
country like the tries were with Rwanda.
Do you know sometimes you have to do
business with people that you may not
like, you may not want to go to the pub
with
>> even the Taliban. Well, for example, if
we want a ceasefire in Gaza, which
everybody does, you have to deal with
the terrorist Hamas. If we want a
ceasefire in Ukraine, which everybody
does, then you have to deal with Putin
and his team.
>> We're talking about deportations. It's
different slightly different matter.
>> You know, it's the principle of dealing
with people that uh you may not like
that happens in business. It happens in
running countries. Governing is a
difficult process. But ultimately, yes,
you know, we send 150 million quid a
year to Afghanistan, which effectively
means we're sending it to the Taliban.
>> If you were in business, you wouldn't be
striking deals with the Taliban. You
wouldn't be dealing with Hamas in
business. You'd be done.
>> But if if we're lucky enough to be
running the country, then yes, we will
be looking to do deals with a range of
countries. Now, there's no guarantee
that you can do a deal with any of these
people, and that's why you need to look
at a range of countries so that you will
uh do deals with some. And what that
does is start to create a proper
deterrent so that people stop coming
across the channel because they know
they will be immediately detained and
they will be rapidly processed, rapidly
rejected and rapidly removed from the
United Kingdom.
>> Any qualms at all morally, ethically
about doing business with
>> you know what the job of the British
government is? It's to advance the
prospects and prosperity of British
citizens. And we're not, we should not
be held responsible for every weird,
wacky, despotic regime around the
country. Terrible things happen. It's
very sad. We'd all love the world to be
a perfect place. It's not. That's the
harsh. I'm just saying, do you would you
have any qualms about going and meeting
the Taliban, signing a deal, shaking
hands, backslaps all around. We've done
the deal. Would that not bother you in
any way? Um, if it means that we are
advancing the removal of people who've
come here illegally, uh, and advancing
the protection of British women and
girls, then if that's got to be done,
it'll be done.
>> Because you would say actually that when
it comes to getting deporting people on
mass like you're talking about, that
trumps any sort of ethical objections at
all to working with these sorts of
regimes.
>> Yes, it does. Because the role of the
British government is to look after the
British people. No ifs, no buts. on in
terms of um actually what happens when
people are here. You're talking about a
new British bill of rights. So you'd
pause the refugee convention. You'd
pause or pull out of the
>> No, we would sorry would pause the
refugee convention. We'll pull out of
the ECR locks, stock, and barrel and
we'll scrap the human rights act. And
then then there'll be a gap before a
British Bill of Rights
>> and this British Bill of Rights would
only apply to British citizens.
>> Yes.
>> So if you if you've lived here for 30
years, but you're not actually a
citizen, you have worse rights or fewer
rights than somebody. Isn't it
interesting that before the human rights
act of 1998 actually the country was
doing quite well. Public services were a
lot better than they are now. The
economy was growing at 2 and a half to
three and a half% a year. And there is a
strong argument that actually things
like the human rights act, things like
the Equalities Act of 2010 have actually
um been partially responsible, not
totally but partially responsible for uh
more lawfare, declining productivity,
and declining growth. But just to be
clear on the policy, people who have
lived here, however long they've lived
here, if they're not British citizens,
would have fewer rights than people who
were British citizens under your plans.
>> And and frankly, that's not an
unreasonable proposition. Of course,
we'll debate it. We'll look at the
specific details.
>> You you probably more than any
politician have warned about two-tier
justice in this country in recent
months. That is the epitome of two-tier
justice. Whether you have rights and
which rights you have would depend on
whether you were a citizen or not.
That's two-tier justice in action.
>> A British citizen is a British citizen.
someone who is a foreign national, by
definition, that is a two-tier
structure. They're not a British
citizen,
>> even if they've lived here for 40 years.
>> And and look, we we will look at all the
specific detail of how long someone has
lived here. But I don't think it's
unreasonable to reiterate, and this is
why I think one of the reasons we're
leading in the polls. We tell it as it
is. Our job is to focus on advancing the
interests of the British people, British
citizens, and to make people better off
and improve the quality of housing and
public services. That's what we're
focused on.
>> The Archbishop of York coming out this
weekend and describing your plan as
isolationist, short-term, and knee-jerk.
I know you're you're proud Christian
man, Mr. Ty, does that does that bother
you church leaders criticizing you in
that way?
>> No, it doesn't. To be honest, I think
that the Church of England should focus
on their own internal problems. Uh let's
let's start perhaps they should start by
finding a new archbishop of Canterbury
uh who should do a a decent job increase
the congregations like other churches
are doing and um focus on all the things
around Christianity
>> uh and leave international immigration
policies to elected politicians.
>> They are supposed to be the sort of
moral authorities or some of them in
this country. they speak out when they
think that, you know, vi that unviable
and norms and and sort of ethical rules
are being broken. And it sounds to me
like that's what he thinks your policy
does.
>> Well, he's uh he's veering into areas
that historically and traditionally and
I think should be dealt with by elected
politicians, which is international
immigration policy. So yeah, he can he
can talk about uh being kind and
thinking carefully and justice and all
those good things that I uh view from
the uh from the Church of England. And
that's sort of Christianity that I that
I've grown up with. But um I I don't
recall hearing any uh sermons about
international immigration policies in
the 60 years I've been going to church.
>> Just one other element of of your policy
that sort of caused some concern and
confusion, I think. Would women and
girls be included amongst the people
that you would deport?
>> The overall principle is that no one who
is here illegally can expect to remain
here forever? That is an overarching
guiding principle because otherwise you
continue the magnet factor. But look, we
don't actually know how many people are
here illegally. It might be a million.
So look, the first includes women and
girls.
>> Of course, it includes women and girls
um and uh and and boys as well. The
first phase is about removing uh men and
then we will see once we try and
understand what actually are the real
numbers we're dealing with. What are the
specific cases of course you can look at
but there has to be an overarching
principle which is that if you are here
illegally you cannot expect to stay here
forever. If you think you can come here
illegally, you cannot expect to remain
here and that includes women and girls
>> and and that ultimately uh will include
women and girls,
>> including sending them to places like
Afghanistan.
>> Well, those are all the details that we
got to look at when we know what sort of
details we've got. Look, at the end of
the day, nothing's off the table.
>> Okay. Okay. Um, and it's really
important that's the advantage to
reiterate of having a range of deals
with a range of countries including
potentially as Nigel said last Tuesday,
British overseas territories
>> who would be able to come here and claim
asylum um under a reform government.
>> Well, actually we were doing uh asylum
quite well 20 years ago when on average
we were welcoming about give or take
20,000 people and to its credit the then
Labor government was deporting over
40,000 people every year. I think they
were welcoming about they were accepting
about 18 to 25% of applications. Now
that figure is in the 70s.
>> Of course, the conservatives closed all
the routes you're referring to.
>> The conservatives made a complete
message. Would you reopen?
>> You just got to you just got to you got
to start everything again.
>> So you would reopen some of the legal we
need to have a working asylum policy.
But the first to be honest initially I
think one's got to just just press the
complete pause button whilst we work out
what actually on earth has really gone
on. How many people really are here and
where are they? What are they up to?
>> Your party chairman talking about that
your deportation plan being akin to
Trump 2.0 is how Ysef put it. Is the
sort of Trump administration a bit of an
inspiration for reform when it comes to
this?
>> Well, they do uh seem to have succeeded
with regard to closing their border with
Mexico. Uh they're talking about having
reduced illegal immigration across that
border to the square root of not a lot.
So yes, I mean that actually uh I think
we should learn lessons from that and we
should be prepared to learn lessons from
countries all over the world that
succeed in different areas. And what I
what I fear is that for too long our
establishment class and civil service
think that we know best about
everything. We don't. The country is in
a terrible state. It's also, by the way,
going bankrupt. You only got to look at
the cost of 30-year borrowing at the
moment, which is at a give or take
30-year high to realize the financial
markets, the bond markets are very
anxious about the lack of growth, uh the
extraordinary amount of government
borrowing and uh the inability of this
government to control public spending.
>> Let me let me just bring you back to
migration just just finally. Zeus, if
also defending the use of the word
invasion to describe what's happening on
the southern coast, Mr. Z, is that is
that language you would echo?
>> Yes, it is an invasion. About 180,000
people
coming here to take it's double the size
of the British army. If if we had said
if we had said 5 years ago, oh by the
way folks, 180,000 people are just going
to rock up on the shores of the south of
England without any form of
documentation illegally. I think most
people say, "Hang on, that sounds a bit
like an invasion."
>> But an invasion suggests they're here to
take control, doesn't it?
>> It's you. You can read into it. Well,
they are here to take advantage
>> here to claim asylum. No, they're here
to take advantage of our hospitality,
our generosity, and I'm afraid the
British people have had enough of that
because we are we are heading towards
bankruptcy. We cannot afford this. It
was working well in sensible numbers. A
sensible asylum policy,
>> right? Give or take 20,000 a year 20
years ago was working well.
>> They are invaders. These these men and
women and children are invaders in your
view.
>> Uh this is effectively that's what it
is. It is uh they're all coming here
illegally and many some of them I regret
to say are coming either as part of
criminal gangs or they are essentially
slaves of criminal gangs because they've
borrowed the money to pay for their
crossing and then they have to work for
these gangs in hideous conditions.
>> This country is a tinder box at the
moment. I'm sure you'd agree with that.
Part of it I completely accept is the
failure to stop the problem we're
talking about here. I put it to you as
well that language like invasion it
makes things so much worse.
makes this country so much more.
>> You know what makes things better?
Telling the truth. Even if even if it's
uncomfortable, why we're leading the
polls is because we tell it as it is and
we come up with solutions that will work
to make this country better. And
actually the the country voters are
furious with both the tourists and I'm
not disagreeing promised one thing and
have done exactly the opposite.
>> I'm just I'm not deny disputing that for
a minute. I'm also saying language
matters. And at a time of heightened
tensions, we had Bridget Phillips on
earlier. He was saying she, you, all
people in positions of power have a
responsibility to use moderate language
to try and dial down the rhetoric rather
than ramping it up. Phrases like
invasion are the opposite of that. They
intentionally ramp up.
>> It might upset some some people in the
establishment class in and around
Westminster. Let me tell you, in Boston
and Skess and my constituency, it
doesn't upset almost anybody. I tell you
what it is. It's the truth. And that's
how they talk about it. and they
appreciate me standing up for their
interests. And I think that's what's
going on.
>> It's not about people. It's about
whether you are contributing to a
greater sense of national unity that
makes this country a better place to
live or deepening the division that make
this country so divided at the moment.
>> Clearly, we are because look at the
polls we're leading in the last poll by
about 15 points. So I think actually we
are beginning to bring people together
under the reform plans and proposals and
even if individual there might be quite
a few people for example who say well
that wasn't quite where I was a few
years ago but the country's in such a
state we've got to change things because
it's gone way too far and sometimes
that's what happens and that's that's
the joy of democracy people can say well
I'm going to lend you my vote for a few
years to see if you genuinely can do
what you say you can do the others have
tried they failed they messed it up and
and this idea of banning words and
language banning it. It's about the
consequences. No one saying it should be
bad. It's about all I'm putting the
consequences are more harmful than they
are.
>> I think I think the British people
appreciate some honesty about the
emergency situation that this country is
in and saying we need to stop it and
change it. And if this government masks
men trying to break into hotels, does
this sort of and I know you I'm sure you
condemn that, but does this but does
this sort of language not is it not a
slippery slope to those sorts of things
because you are whipping up anger and
you are whipping up hatred.
>> What by being a sensible, responsible
party uh that is looking to run this
country, we are preventing anything much
worse coming. And that's what happens if
if if you try and and bury something and
not not allowed to talk about it, which
in a sense for the last decade people
haven't been, then then bad things can
happen underground. Much better to talk
about it openly even when it's difficult
and uncomfortable.
>> I appreciate your time. Thank you very
much, Lee, for coming in. Richard Ty,
deputy leader of Reform UK. Your calls
coming in on that. Come to those just
after the news headlines here on LBC.