Reform UK’s new immigration plans would have been seen as extreme just a few years ago

Published

3 days ago

August 23, 2025

admin

Mass deportations. Prison camps. Quitting the Refugee Convention and the UN Convention on Torture.

A shrug of the shoulders at the idea of the UK sending asylum seekers back to places like Afghanistan or Eritrea, where they could be tortured or executed.

“I’m really sorry, but we can’t be responsible for everything that happens in the whole of the world,” says Nigel Farage.

“Who is our priority?”

The Reform UK leader has been setting out his party’s new plans to address illegal migration in an interview with The Times newspaper – a set of policies, and a use of language, which would surely have been seen as extreme just a few years ago.

Only last autumn the Reform leader repeatedly shied away from the concept of “mass deportations”, describing the idea as “a political impossibility”.

But now he’s embraced Trump-style immigration rhetoric.

It’s not surprising that Reform want to capitalise on the outpouring of public anger over the use of hotels to house asylum seekers. The policy was started by the previous Conservative government, in response to housing shortages – and Labour has failed to make significant progress on its promise to stop it.

But all the major parties have shifted firmly to the right on this issue.

There’s been very little political criticism of the aggressiveness of Farage’s policy suggestions, and the premise that the UK should no longer offer sanctuary to anyone who arrives here illegally.

The Tory response has been to complain that he’s just copying the ideas they didn’t quite get round to implementing before calling the general election.

“Four months late, this big reveal is just recycling many ideas the Conservatives have already announced,” said Chris Philp MP, the shadow home secretary.

“Labour’s border crisis does urgently need to be fixed with tough and radical measures, but only the Conservatives have done – and will continue to do – the detailed work to deliver a credible plan that will actually work in practice.”

Certainly, the ambition to arrest and deport everyone who arrives in a small boat – regardless of whether or not they have legitimate grounds for asylum – has clear echoes of the Tories’ Rwanda policy.

Despite spending £700m on the controversial idea, only four volunteers were ever sent to Kigali before it was cancelled by Sir Keir Starmer, who branded it a gimmick.

Labour have suggested they’ve diverted Home Office resources that were freed up by that decision into processing asylum claims more quickly and increasing deportations.

They’re hoping tougher action against the criminal gangs and the new “one in one out” deal with France will help deter the number of people crossing the Channel in small boats in the first place, currently at record levels.

But rather than offering any defence of the principle of offering asylum to genuine refugees – Labour’s Angela Eagle MP, the border security minister, has also focused on the feasibility of Farage’s policies.

“Nigel Farage is simply plucking numbers out of the air, another pie in the sky policy from a party that will say anything for a headline,” she said.

“We are getting a grip of the broken asylum system. Making sure those with no right to be here are removed or deported.”

Even the Liberal Democrats have taken a similar approach.

“This plan sums up Nigel Farage perfectly, as like him it doesn’t offer any real solutions,” they said.

“Whilst Farage continues to stoke division, we Liberal Democrats are more interested in delivering for our local communities.”

It’s been left to the Refugee Council to defend the principle of asylum.

“After the horrors of the Second World War, Britain and its allies committed to protecting those fleeing persecution,” said CEO Enver Solomon.

“The Refugee Convention was our collective vow of ‘never again’ – a legal framework ensuring that people who come to our country seeking safety get a fair chance to apply for asylum.

“That commitment remains vital today. Whether escaping conflict in Sudan or repression under regimes like the Taliban, people still need protection.

“Most find refuge in neighbouring countries. But some will seek sanctuary in Europe, including Britain.

“We can meet this challenge by upholding a fair, managed system that determines who qualifies for protection and who does not.”

But with Reform leading in the polls, and protests outside hotels across the country – politicians of all stripes are under pressure to respond to public frustration over the issue.

A recent YouGov poll found half of voters now believe immigration over the last ten years has been mostly bad for the country – double the figure just three years ago.

While the government has made some progress in reducing the cost of asylum hotels – down from £8.3m a day in 2023/4 to £5.77m a day in 2024/5 – the overall numbers accommodated in this way have gone up by 8% since Labour took charge, thanks to the surge in new claims.

Sir Keir has previously said he won’t make a promise he can’t keep.

But current efforts to end the use of asylum hotels by 2029 are clearly not working.

That’s a credibility gap Farage is more than ready to exploit.

Politics

Binance and Tether are watching Korea closely: Here’s why

Published

1 hour ago

August 26, 2025

admin

Binance and Tether are watching Korea closely: Here’s why

Binance and Tether are eyeing Korea’s stablecoin rules that may boost coins pegged to the South Korean won or strengthen USD dominance.

Politics

Nigel Farage’s deportation plan relies on these conditions – legal expert explains if it could work

Published

3 hours ago

August 26, 2025

admin

Nigel Farage's deportation plan relies on these conditions - legal expert explains if it could work

Explaining how they plan to tackle what they described as illegal migration, Nigel Farage and his Reform UK colleague Zia Yusuf were happy to disclose some of the finer details – how much money migrants would be offered to leave and what punishments they would receive if they returned.

But the bigger picture was less clear.

How would Reform win a Commons majority, at least another 320 seats, in four years’ time – or sooner if, as Mr Farage implied, Labour was forced to call an early election?

How would his party win an election at all if, as its leader suggested, other parties began to adopt his policies?

Politics latest: Starmer ‘angry’ about Farage’s language on migrant hotels

Highly detailed legislation would be needed – what Mr Farage calls his Illegal Migration (Mass Deportation) Bill.

But Reform would not have a majority in the House of Lords and, given the responsibilities of the upper house to scrutinise legislation in detail, it could take a year or more from the date of an election for his bill to become law.

Reform’s four-page policy document says the legislation would have to disapply:

• The United Nations refugee convention of 1951, extended in 1967, which says people who have a well-founded fear of persecution must not be sent back to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom

• The United Nations convention against torture, whose signatories agree not expel, return or extradite anyone to a country where there are substantial grounds to believe the returned person would be in danger of being tortured

• The Council of Europe anti-trafficking convention, which requires states to provide assistance for victims

According to the policy document, derogation from these treaties is “justified under the Vienna Convention doctrine of state necessity”.

That’s odd, because there’s no mention of necessity in the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties – and because member states can already “denounce” (leave) the three treaties by giving notice.

It would take up to a year – but so would the legislation. Only six months’ notice would be needed to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, another of Reform’s objectives.

Mr Farage acknowledged that other European states were having to cope with an influx of migrants. Why weren’t those countries trying to give up their international obligations?

His answer was to blame UK judges for applying the law. Once his legislation had been passed, Mr Farage promised, there would be nothing the courts could do to stop people being deported to countries that would take them. His British Bill of Rights would make that clear.

Courts will certainly give effect to the will of parliament as expressed in legislation. But the meaning of that legislation is for the judiciary to decide. Did parliament really intend to send migrants back to countries where they are likely to face torture or death, the judges may be asking themselves in the years to come.

They will answer questions such as that by examining the common law that Mr Farage so much admires – the wisdom expressed in past decisions that have not been superseded by legislation. He cannot be confident that the courts will see the problem in quite the same way that he does.