AN: Paul Nuttall UKIP was established in 1993, it was to get the UK out of the European Union. You won the referendum, your side, last year. So instead of enduring this agonising decline in UKIP why not just declare victory and go home?
PN: Well, we did win. As you said, we were set up back in the early ‘90s to get Britain out of the European Union. With the referendum we won the war, what we’ve got to do now is win the peace. The Prime Minister will start the negotiations with the European Union later in June, and UKIP has to be on the pitch, because if UKIP’s not on the pitch, then there’s no real impetus for the Prime Minister not to backslide, and I believe – I worry that she may backslide. I think fisheries or maybe there’ll be a deal on the divorce bill or maybe there’ll be a deal on freedom of movement. What we need is to ensure that UKIP is there so that we get the Brexit that voted for on June 23rd.
AN: But when you launched your manifesto last week your main focus wasn’t on Europe, it was on terrorism and extremism. It almost looked like you’re flailing around now trying to stay relevant, aren’t you?
PN: Well, no, not at all. What we’ve done is we’ve led on the agenda of Islamic terrorism and we launched our integration agenda, I think it was about six weeks ago. A lot of people within the Westminster bubble are very uncomfortable about it, but you know, we’re saying things that people are thinking, and what we’ve got to do is we’ve got to get to grips with this Islamist cancer within our midst. It needs to be cut out, because I worry if it isn’t, Andrew, then what happened the other night in Manchester may well become commonplace.
AN: Except critics see that your desperation to try to remain relevant is taking you into some unsavoury waters here. One of your MEPs, Gerard Batten, has called Islam a death cult. Islam. Do you agree?
PN: No, it’s language I personally wouldn’t use but what I will say, and I have openly called Islamic fundamental Islamism or radical Islam a cancer within our midst tonight.
AN: He didn’t use Islamist. He said Islam, one of the world’s great religions. He called it a death cult.
PN: Again it’s not language that I would use but I want to make it clear that-
AN: .. going to use it?
PN: No, not particularly – let me finish, it’s not language that I would use and the vast majority of Muslims in this country are peaceful, they add to our economy, they love this country. However, there is a small number within that community who hate the way we live, hate who we are, and want to do us harm, and we need to do something about it.
AN: And that’s what you would call Islamist, which is different from Islam, but he didn’t say Islamist. He also went on to say that Islam is a barbaric religion. Does he speak for UKIP?
PN: No, Gerard’s not speaking for UKIP on that but what we say is simply that Islamism and Islamic fundamentalism is a problem. It’s not just a problem in this country it’s a problem around the globe.
AN: But he didn’t make the distinction. And this is the candidate that your party’s chosen to stand against the Prime Minister. He didn’t make that distinction.
PN: I think he’s got his terminology wrong, and I’ll be open and honest about that. What I will say is that we are the only party that put together an integration agenda – which I’m not saying, by the way, is the answer to everything, but it’s the beginning of an answer, and what we’ve got to do is bring communities together to ensure that something like this doesn’t happen again.
AN: Is Islam a religion of peace?
PN: The vast majority of Muslims, absolutely. I mean, they are peaceful. They live in this country, they love this country, they add to the economy. The problem is there’s a small number of people who need to be sorted out, cut out of society altogether, and actually what we need to do is we need to ensure that we put more police officers on the beat, and we’re proposing 20,000 extra police officers, to ensure that these people are caught and brought to justice.
AN: But you want to ban the Burka?
PN: Yes.
AN: How would that cut out – to use your words, this small minority? How would that possibly stop atrocities like the one in Manchester?
PN: Well, there are a number of examples where the Burka has been used in criminality. You had, for example, the killing of the PC, the female PC back in 2005, and the jihadist then escaped this country wearing a Niqab. We had the 21/7 terrorist –
AN: He could have gone in another disguise too.
PN: Hang on, 21/7, the failed bombing on 21/7. One of the people who tried to carry out that act of terror escaped wearing a Burka and only earlier this month in Manchester eight men were sent down for carrying out raids in 2015 and 16 wearing Burkas. It’s about security. And whether we like it or not, Andrew, we are the most watched people in the world. Okay, there’s more CCTV in this country than anywhere else on the planet, and for it to be effective you need to see people’s faces. But that’s only the first part. The next part is about integration. And what we need to do is we need to ensure that communities come together, and I would argue that to enjoy the full fruits of British society you need to be prepared to show your face.
AN: That may be true, but it wouldn’t make any difference in the fight against terrorism, would it?
PN: Well, it’s a step towards integration. And one of the ways that we will win, one of the ways that we will beat these Islamic fundamentalists, is by bringing communities together. And one way you bring communities together is you integrate people into British society, and if you show your face it allows you to communicate better, it allows you enter certain spheres of employment which you’re precluded from at this present moment in time. So it’s about integration.
AN: It could though be seen as a knee-jerk reaction. Let me suggest another. You now say that, ‘we’re a victim of a grooming gang that is of a different race or religion to the offenders. It should be an aggregating factor in a prosecution.’ What were you on about?
PN: Well, it’s obvious their race and their religion is a factor. And you only have to look at the 1,400 girls who’ve been victims in Rotherham. You have to look at the girls who’ve been victims in Rochdale. The vast majority of these girls are white, they’re Christian and they’re basically groomed by Pakistani men.
AN: But why does in the end the race or religion matter? I think we can agree it’s hard to imagine a worse crime than the sexual assault of a child and what happened in the cases you’ve just given. But why race or religion? Surely whoever does this should just be slammed up for a very long time regardless of race or religion if found guilty?
PN: Yes they should. And I would make sentences longer. However, race is already an aggravating factor when it comes to prosecutions, and I just think in these cases, in terms of grooming for example, it is quite clear the race of these young girls has been taken into consideration.
AN: But the law as it stands is race was a motivating factor, you did something bad and race was a motivation for doing it. But you’re simply saying that they’re of a different religion or race and that should be an aggravating factor, not their motivation, just the very fact that they’re not white, they’re not Christian.
PN: But they are – it obviously is a motivating factor because these guys are grooming girls from within their own community, these girls are being picked because they’re white and because they’re Christian.
AN: Except the courts would have to prove that, and that is the law at the moment.
PN: Well, I think it’s pretty obvious when there’s 1,400 of them in Rotherham.
AN: You also said that you’d like to see the death penalty returned for terrorists and child killers.
PN: Well, that’s my own personal view. That isn’t UKIP policy.
AN: You’ve even said you’d act as the executioner yourself.
PN: I was asked that question by the Mail on Sunday, they said, ‘do you support the death penalty?’ I said, yes for people like the killers of Lee Rigby, where it’s quite obvious that the perpetrators of that crime, they’re wandering round with that man’s blood all over their hands, and this was a British soldier who was pretty much executed on a British street by a British citizen. As far as I’m concerned that is treason. And people like Ian Brady, who only died last week has cost us 10 million in taxpayers’ money to keep that man alive.
AN: And you said you would be prepared to do the death penalty yourself. Do you want to be an MP or an executioner?
PN: Well, I don’t want to be Albert Pierrepoint, that’s not what I’m going to go on to when I’m out of politics. What I will say is that, you know, they asked me that question, if I’m prepared to stand up say that I believe in the death penalty, then you know, maybe I would pull the lever on people like Ian Brady in the past.
AN: So you do want to be an executioner?
PN: I don’t want to be an executioner, but I just believe people like Ian Brady who commit awful crimes against children, I don’t see why British taxpayers have to pay much money to keep someone like that alive.
AN: You recently said you’re also okay with waterboarding as an interrogation technique.
PN: No, I used the example – I was talking about if we were in a situation where there was an immediate terrorist attack on the horizon and we had to get information which would save people’s lives in this country, then I would basically, I would use hard measures.
AN: You’d be okay with it.
PN: Well, I’d use hard measures.
AN: No, you actually said, ‘I’d probably be okay with it.’ These were your words.
PN: Let me just make this point: I would put the lives of British families over the human rights of any jihadi, any day.
AN: Including waterboarding.
PN: Including waterboarding.
AN: Is that party policy?
PN: No, it’s not party policy but what I would –
AN: It’s your policy.
PN: No, hang on. As I said, if we were in the situation where there was going to be an immediate attack and people’s lives were on the line, I want to see British families protected. I would put their lives over the human rights of any jihadi.
AN: You know these are almost never the circumstances in which torture is used. That’s not what waterboarding has been used for, it’s been used to get intelligence and information out of people. Are you in favour of that?
PN: No. And I didn’t say that if you listen to the whole interview.
AN: No, I’m just finding out if you were. You’re not?
PN: No, I’m not. But if you listen to the whole interview I used the example if there was an immediate terror threat to a place like this in London I would always put the lives of British people over the human rights of a jihadi.
AN: Do you agree with another of your MEPs, Roger Helmer, he says that it’s, quote: ‘time to think the unthinkable and just lock up suspected terrorists.’
PN: Well when you read this morning there’s a suspected – 23,000 jihadis living amongst us, obviously MI5 are stretched to capacity at this present moment in time. I think we’ve got to look at ways of ensuring that our people are safe, whether that is – hang on, let me finish, whether that is a return to control orders, whether that is tagging these people, who knows in the future maybe a return to internment.
AN: A return to internment?
PN: Well, look, you know, we’re in a situation now where we’re being told that there are 23,000 possible suspects on our streets who want to do us harm. Now, if you consider that it costs roundly a million pounds year to have 24/7 surveillance on these people, we’re talking a vast amount of money. Maybe, Andrew, we’re just living in a different society now. I’m not saying now is the time to return to this, but I wouldn’t rule it out.
AN: So you wouldn’t rule out internment perhaps of thousands of British citizens. You are aware that when internment was introduced in Northern Ireland in 1971 it was the biggest recruiting sergeant for the IRA ever. Do you know that?
PN: Well, look, what I’m saying is, in the future, not now, maybe we can tackle these people now, maybe we can return to control orders, but you know, I wouldn’t take anything off the table in the future because, as I say, as I say unless we get a grip on this what happened in Manchester the other night, which is part of my constituency, could become commonplace. And that’s the last thing we want to see.
AN: Let’s just take stock then of what you’ve told us, what we’ve discussed, UKIP candidates calling Islam barbaric, banning the burka, calling for the death penalty, waterboarding in certain circumstances, now internment. In your desperation to be noticed in this election you’re becoming pretty extreme aren’t you?
PN: The vast majority of those are not UKIP policy and we’re not looking – hang on, we’re not looking to be noticed, what we’re doing is we’re leading the agenda in many ways on this. We came out with our integration policy about six weeks ago and the Westminster media, the Westminster bubble, they all felt very uncomfortable about it, so what they did is they knocked us and they came up with stupid suggestions saying that beekeepers would be banned or bridal wear would be banned. The fact is we’re the only ones who are coming up with an agenda to try and improve integration in this country.
AN: I would suggest to you it’s beyond the Westminster bubble that people watching this may feel uncomfortable about the idea of locking up suspects without trial.
PN: Let me put it to you this way. Firstly I’ll just quickly move back onto the burka thing. Polls show time and time again that people agreed with me on this.
AN: Internment is what I raised, which is much more serious.
PN: It is far more serious, and as I said we’ll not have that yet. But I tell you what, if people are asked if it would save lives, then people would agree with me on that too.
AN: Let’s look at immigration, it’s a subject very important to UKIP. You propose a one in one out policy so to let somebody into this country as a migrant someone else would have to leave. That’s just a gimmick isn’t it?
PN: No I don’t think it’s a gimmick at all and no one’s talking about pulling the drawbridge here. I mean the other day when the immigration figures were released it showed that 339,000 people left this country which means that we would roughly allow the same amount of people to come in again. But then, beneath that there would be an Australian points based system, like we have pretty much around the world except for countries within the EU, whereby if you’ve got the skills that this country needs and there is a gap in our economy please come here and work.
AN: So the skill system would be on top of the one in one out. We could still have more than one in than one out then?
PN: No. That’s over a five year period so it gives us a lot of wriggle room here. But as I say, we need to get control of immigration in this country. The other day it was announced that last year alone a city the size of Hull came to this country. If we carry on on this road, if we carry on letting in a city the size of Birmingham every four years we’ll end up with a population of 80 million by the middle of this century which is simply unsustainable.
AN: But just think how this would work. We may in the years to come have a desperate need for more doctors. More skilled medical people, or for high tech specialists. Everybody wants to turn this into a great high tech country as well. But we couldn’t bring these skills in from overseas unless somebody was prepared to leave the United Kingdom as well.
PN: Well look, you know, 339,000 people left this country last year. It was 323 the year before. We’re not talking about pulling up the drawbridge and not letting anyone in. I’m sure that number of skilled people can be incorporated into the amount of people that leave the country and then come back in.
AN: But we cannot bring in a hundred thousand skills unless it leads to a hundred thousand other people are prepared to leave.
PN: Yeah, but we’re not in that situation, are we, because there’s over 300,000 people virtually every single year leaving this country. But look –
AN: Well that’s at the moment. You don’t know what it will be like in the future and your immigration policy will be determined by the number of people prepared to leave.
PN: But in the meantime, in the meantime what we need to do is to train our own people.
AN: Of course.
PN: We need to train our own nurses, our own doctors, our own teachers and therefore you can reduce the amount of people that have to come in to fill skills –
AN: But that takes time as you know.
PN: Of course it takes time, but we’re saying that this will work over a five year period.
AN: But did you just pluck this policy out of thin air, because even your own candidate in Derby North, he said the idea was quote: “stupid.”
PN: Well, we got this idea. I mean the first people to put this forward was Frank Field from the Labour Party. Nicholas Soames from the Conservatives. They’re talking about balanced migration here because we realise that somebody has to get a grip on the population, because otherwise we’re going to be in the situation in the future where we’ll have to have a huge school building programme, the NHS, which is fit to bursting at the moment will only be under more pressure. We’ll end up with more motorways, we’ll end up with a new rail network, it cannot continue. Capital spend will be massive unless we get control of population.
AN: But as you will know Derby North, your candidate who thinks the idea is stupid, of course that’s the home of Rolls Royce, one of our great British companies, he says “I think it’s not practical. I think Rolls Royce would say it was stupid and I would agree with them.” Your own candidate.
PN: Well I don’t see how anyone can think it’s stupid because as I say, what we will be bringing in is skilled migration, migrants who’ll add to the economy, migrants who will add to the tax receipts and therefore it will be good news all round.
AN: It just creates the general impression that in your desperation to be noticed in this election, and it’s been a struggle for you, you’re becoming ever more extreme. On immigration you’re now more hard line than Nigel Farage.
PN: Well actually we’ve moved on from where we were at the last election, but you know, between 1970 and 1997 migration was running net roughly at around 20,000 so we weren’t that far off balanced migration in those years anyway.
AN: Let’s move on to Brexit, a matter very important to UKIP. And the debate’s moved now to the nature of the Brexit deal. Now at some point there’ll need to be a deal done to give current EU residents continuing rights in the UK. In your view how long will they have to have lived in the UK to be given those rights?
PN: Well look, I mean we’ve made it perfectly clear in our General Election Manifesto that the 167,000 EU migrants who are working in the NHS can stay. Okay, no debate about that, but I think once Article 50 had been triggered, it’s then up for negotiation how long people can stay.
AN: So if you’re an EU citizen and you’ve come in since the end of March when Article 50 was triggered, you won’t necessarily have a right to remain?
PN: No well that will be down to the government of the day.
AN: Well I’m asking you what your view is.
PN: Hang on. That will be down to the government of the day to go into negotiation with the European Union because what we’ve got to do is to ensure that the right of British citizens in Spain, in Portugal, in Italy and Greece and everywhere else can stay as well. If they come to a satisfactory agreement whereby British citizens rights are protected in those countries then I’ll have no problem whatsoever.
AN: I understand that, but you mentioned only EU citizens working in the NHS. Is that it?
PN: Yes, at the moment. We’re going to make that point perfectly clear.
AN: That’s it? So others – so EU citizens who are teachers, university professors, lecturers, they may have to leave?
PN: But these are people who’ve come before Article 50 was triggered. Those who’ve come after – and there won’t be that many who’ve come after at this present moment in time, will just have to wait and see what the Prime Minister comes up with in terms of the negotiation.
AN: Let me just clarify this, Mr Nuttall. Everybody who’s here when Article 50 was triggered has indefinite right to remain?
PN: Yes.
AN: With all the same access to services, the NHS, in work benefits and schools? But after Article 50 that’s uncertain? If you’ve just arrived here from Germany or Italy or France you’re not quite sure?
PN: That will depend on the agreement that the Prime Minister can strike with the European Union.
AN: Now as we all know the EU in various ways has been demanding billions of pounds, as people call it a sort of divorce bill. Now your manifesto says we shouldn’t pay a penny. But if even a modest sum, not tens and tens of billions, but a modest sum secured substantial access for us and continuing access to the single market, you wouldn’t pay it?
PN: Well I don’t see why we should. Because since the early 1970s when we’ve been members of this organisation we’ve handed over £183 billion net to this organisation in membership fees alone. Now I don’t see why we should have to pay a divorce bill on top of that.
AN: Anything?
PN: And look, the EU – and the EU are just picking figures out of the air on this.
AN: I understand that.
PN: You know 50 billion, a hundred billion.
AN: But you wouldn’t pay anything?
PN: Well I don’t see why we should. We’ve got 9 billion wrapped up in the European Investment Bank. Surely we must own part of EU buildings all over … all over Europe.
AN: But if we got to a situation where for a modest – modest to governments, not modest to individuals, but modest to governments, 10, 12, 15 billion and in return we would have a tariff free access to the European Union and all the jobs that would guarantee and save you wouldn’t pay that?
PN: Hang on. D’you know we’re going to get tariff free access anyway. I’ll tell you why –
AN: But you don’t know that.
PN: Well look, d’you know, the European Union might be a corrupt organisation, might be a bullying organisation but it isn’t a stupid organisation. There are millions of jobs on the continent which are dependent on British trade and we have a huge trading deficit with the European Union.
AN: Yes, the Greeks have just noticed it’s not a stupid organisation.
PN: Well yeah, maybe. I mean they’re had problems of course with Europe.
AN: It’s a trade off. To continue with tariff free access for several billion pounds, that would be money well spent wouldn’t it?
PN: Andrew, we are the fifth largest economy on the planet, okay. We’re Germany’s biggest marketplace outside Germany. We’re France’s biggest marketplace outside France. In fact we bought – for the French farmers I mean we bought 39 million bottles of champagne last year. The Germans sold 800 thousand cars into our economy. There will be a trade deal. It’s mutually beneficial.
AN: I understand that’s your argument but it just seems to me to be – for a relatively small amount of money, nothing like the hundred billion that’s been floated, perhaps not even the 50 or the 60 billion. To secure us continuing largely as we are, which will be a huge triumph for Britain to have got that, you wouldn’t pay a penny?
PN: I don’t see why we have to pay this organisation a single penny, considering, as I said, that we’ve paid in almost 200 billion in membership fee alone since we’ve been members since 1973. I think it’s wrong.
AN: All right. Now major parties, they use their manifestos, they hope, to set out a grand vision. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. But your manifesto’s got – talk about scrapping VAT on fish and chips, tackling what you call the ‘lad culture.’ We’ve talked about banning the burka, but it’s interesting that in the manifesto you want to prevent it because it quote: “it prevents an intake of essential vitamin D from sunlight.”
PN: Well hang on, hang on, hang on.
AN: These aren’t quite serious, are they?
PN: Well that last point you know, there is a myriad of research by the way, medical research which proves our point on this. However that’s peripheral to the burka point.
AN: But you put it in the Manifesto.
PN: But hang on, hang on. I mean the problem that we’ve got with the burka and the niqab is that it prevents people from communicating. It prevents people from integrating –
AN: But you’ve made that point.
PN: – into society. No but this is a really serious point. And as I say if you want to enjoy the full fruits of British society you have to be able to show your face.
AN: So why mention vitamin D and sunlight?
PN: Well because there’s lots of research proves our point on this.
AN: I mean isn’t the truth is that UKIP is becoming increasingly irrelevant? That the 2017 General Election it’s the beginning of the end for UKIP isn’t it?
PN: Well, look, sometimes in politics the tide comes in, the tide goes out. And this very opportune for Theresa May at the moment because she’s able to talk the talk and tough on the issue of Brexit because she hasn’t gone into those negotiations. It will get difficult for her once the negotiations start and that’s why it’s so important that UKIP remains on the pitch. And if she does backslide I’ll make a prediction. UKIP by the end of 2018 could be bigger than it ever has been before.
AN: But the tide has gone out for UKIP and it’s been shown you’ve got no clothes bar a particularly extremist set of garbs.
PN: No, I don’t buy that at all actually. I think our Manifesto has been agenda setting. We’re leading the agenda when it comes to integration. Obviously the Conservative Party in some areas have stolen our clothes, but equally, as I say, UKIP’s job is to set the agenda in politics and we’ve been very successful about the past. Look, do you know when we spoke about Brexit 15 years ago people looked at us as if we were lunatics. We’ve now got Brexit. When we spoke about grammar schools people said that they were unfair, they were bad for the working class. It’s now government policy. When we spoke about a points system for immigration we were called racist and xenophobes, it’s now government policy. I put it to you that many of the things which are in the UKIP Manifesto this time round will be government policy or at least policies of the other parties within the next decade.
AN: But this time for the big picture you’re in an uncomfortable position because the truth is that for UKIP to succeed Theresa May’s Brexit has to fail.
PN: No, because UKIP will move on and campaign on other issues. Other issues which are contained within our Manifesto. Listen, I don’t want Theresa May to fail.
AN: But you just said she becomes relevant if she backslides.
PN: Hang on. Yes, but look d’you know I will put country above party. I want Theresa May to succeed in these negotiations, that’s if she’s still the Prime Minister.
AN: Of course.
PN: But I want her to succeed in these negotiations. I want her to do well. I want her to get the best deal for Britain. My problem is that if you look at her record as Home Secretary I am not sure she will get that best deal.
AN: But if come the next election, whenever that is, we’re out of the customs union, we’re out of the single market, we’re out of the European Court, we’re also out of UKIP, there would be no purpose to you by then.
PN: Oh no there would because we’d continue to set the agenda on integration. Obviously I’m a big proponent of an English parliament. We’re speaking – we’re talking about scrapping the House of Lords. There’s a lot of things for UKIP to continue to campaign.
AN: Still to do. All right. Now your period as Leader hasn’t been covered in glory, has it Mr Nuttall? You lost the Stoke Central by election, even though it was a hugely pro-Brexit constituency. Number of claims that you made on the website during that campaign turned out to be untrue. You did badly in the local elections. During the ITV debate you forgot the name of the Welsh National Party Leader. You’re not the man to save UKIP, Mr Nuttall, are you?
PN: Well hang on. D’you know I was elected as Leader of UKIP with the biggest mandate that anyone ever received in a leadership election. You know I took a flier on Stoke. I took a gamble and it didn’t pay off.
AN: No, crash and burned.
PN: You know sometimes you get – well we halved Labour’s majority in that election.
AN: You crashed and burned.
PN: – but you know. Look, I would love to serve as an MP, I would loved to have won that seat, it didn’t work, we knew that these local elections were goingto be the hardest set of elections that we ever fought. As I say, sometimes in politics the tide comes in, the tide goes out. It will come back in again.
AN: But you know that what a lot of people say, including some critics in your own party, is that UKIP under Paul Nuttall is a pale imitation of Nigel Farage’s UKIP.
PN: Well I think if you look at our Manifesto it’s proof that it’s not. UKIP has moved on. It’s campaigning on other issues and UKIP in the future will be relevant, if not more relevant than it’s ever been in the past.
AN: We both know Nigel Farage, Mr Nuttall.
PN: Yes.
AN: You’re no Nigel Farage.
PN: Well d’you know, I’m not Nigel Farage, quite obviously. We come from completely different backgrounds, we have a completely different leadership style and I’ve only been the Leader of UKIP for six months. I’m now in a General Election and I believe I’ll lead UKIP after this General election and we go on to great things.
AN: Are you the last Leader of UKIP?
PN: No. Absolutely not.
AN: Who else would want it?
PN: Well you know we’ve got some really good people coming through at the moment and I think you know in the future being the Leader of UKIP is a four year term. We will go on and we will have another really good of UKIP. But as I say, UKIP’s future is secure. UKIP will campaign on other issues in the future, but beyond that, if Theresa May backslides on Brexit she must know that UKIP will be bigger and more important than it’s ever been in the past.
AN: Paul Nuttall, thank you very much.
PN: Thanks Andrew.
End of Interview
Comments