Nigel Farage MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 4 Dec 2025 · Local Elections · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 4 Dec 2025 · Local Elections · Hansard source

  More

  I could scarcely believe it last year when the county council elections in Essex and elsewhere were postponed for a year. Clearly there is no reason at all why they cannot go ahead in 2026—although, I know that the local Conservative administration is fiercely opposed to that. The whole local government reorganisation is a dog’s dinner, and the public do not understand what is going on. You are asking people in Clacton to vote in local elections year after year after year. You are telling them that you are going to get rid of a district council that they know, understand and respect, and replace it with a pretty amorphous unitary authority. If that is going to go ahead—I do not like it, but clearly it is—you need a senior elected figure—

• 12 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister— [ Interruption. ] No, I have only got 30 seconds. The Prime Minister has stated very clearly that he wants to close the migrant hotels by the end of this Parliament. Reform-led West Northamptonshire Council—a brilliantly led council—will be issuing foreclosure notices on three migrant hotels within the next few days, in response to grave public concern about the safety of women and girls on the streets of West Northamptonshire. Would the Prime Minister approve of us speeding up the closure of the migrant hotels?

• 29 Oct 2025 · European Convention on Human Rights (Withdrawal) · Hansard source

  More

  I ask the Liberal Democrats and others in this place: what is wrong with you? Do you not believe that this country is good enough to make its own laws? Do you not believe in the country that since Magna Carta has developed the principle of common law—which, with its faults, has been perhaps the best ever developed by civilisation? Do you not believe we are good enough to make these rules? Should we stick with outdated conventions preyed on by human rights lawyers in this country? This Bill would restore democratic trust and faith in this once great nation.

• 29 Oct 2025 · European Convention on Human Rights (Withdrawal) · Hansard source

  More

  It is marvellous to see the intellectual levels of debate in this place—it really is. Is it any wonder— [ Interruption. ] Is it any wonder that out in the country there is growing frustration— [ Interruption .]

• 29 Oct 2025 · European Convention on Human Rights (Withdrawal) · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure you will allow me the opportunity to continue to try to say something despite such constant interventions. The British people voted clearly, by a massive margin, to bring back the sovereignty— [Interruption.] By the way, what makes me laugh about this is that it is not just about the sovereignty of this country; it is about the sovereignty of this very Chamber and the people within it. It is about bringing power back to this very place, and that is what we voted for. One of the biggest reasons why the vote happened was the deep alarm at the huge numbers of people coming into our country and the fact that we effectively had open borders, making us poorer in every way. Of course, our membership of the Council of Europe and the European convention and its writing into British law in 1998 kind of enshrined that, and I think it is what Tony Blair wanted us to do. I believe that Brexit cannot be complete all the while we are subject to a foreign Court and a piece of legislation brought in by the Blair Government on which judges can choose their own political interpretation. We are not sovereign all the while we are part of the European convention on human rights, the Council of Europe and its associated court. It is as simple as that.

• 29 Oct 2025 · European Convention on Human Rights (Withdrawal) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, and to make further provision in connection with the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from that Convention. In many ways, this is unfinished business. On 23 June 2016, in the biggest democratic exercise in the history of these islands, the British people— [ Interruption. ] Despite what they were told by all the businesses and all the trade unions and much of the press and most of this House, the British people managed, despite everything— [ Interruption. ] Children, be quiet.

• 29 Oct 2025 · European Convention on Human Rights (Withdrawal) · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was talking about fear and anger growing in the country—and I sense there is also a bit of that growing in this Chamber. When it comes to controlling our borders and to who should be able legally to live, work and settle in this country, and, indeed, to who should not be allowed to stay in our country, I do not believe it is right that that should be under the remit of judges in Strasbourg—who by the way are jurists, most of them not even legally qualified—and under the political control of judges in this country, who now can make their own interpretation of what we have understood for many, many years to be British common law. This Bill intends to restore the power of this Parliament—the power of all of you as MPs to actually be in control of the things that matter most to all voters, whether they supported you or not. This Bill intends to bring back British common law and some ideas—rather than state-given rights, those of birthrights of liberty and freedom. These are things that over centuries served our country far better than any other nation in the European continent. This is about liberty, it is about freedom, it is about democratic control. Just think, whatever the election result, even if 650 of us wanted to change rules on who can come across the channel and stay, we could be overruled by a convention that we signed up to in 1998— [Interruption.] Members shake their heads, but we could literally be overruled. This is about sovereignty—sovereignty of the country, sovereignty of our Parliament. It is about our voters being able to choose the future course and direction of our own country. That is why this matters. Let us remind ourselves briefly of some of the worst examples of the ECHR taking away our democratic rights. Interestingly, it was the last Conservative Government who decided to put in place the Rwanda legislation. It was, in theory, very good, as it would act as a deterrent— [ Interruption. ] Unless people support the criminal gangs, yes it was a very good idea. The trouble was that it could not happen. Why could it not happen? In the case of the 2022 Rwanda deportation flight, at 10 pm a single judge in Strasbourg, without any legal qualification, decided on the basis of article 3 that the flight could not take off. We have since seen horrendous stories, particularly under article 8 on the right to family life. Well, whose family? The families of British people, or the families of those who have come into Britain, in some cases illegally, and been waved through? Some of it is disgusting beyond belief. A Pakistani child sex offender dodged deportation on the basis that his removal would harm the children he had had in this country. The list goes on and on—Brazilian murderers, rapists and many others who claim the right to a family life under article 8. Well, what about British families? What about their rights and their freedoms? What are the priorities of Members of this place? Of course, we will be told that by leaving this completely outdated, 75-year-old convention— [ Interruption. ] By the way, I fully understand why it was signed up to in the 1940s—the other European countries did not have constitutions or democracies that could prevent them from going into extremism—but we are not Russia and we are not Belarus. Nobody in the Chamber would say that countries like New Zealand, Australia and Canada are barbaric or backward; they defend freedoms. But I do not defend state-given human rights, because they can be taken away by the very states who has given them in the first place. [ Interruption. ] I have never seen so many Liberal Democrats in all my life—it is absolutely marvellous. [ Interruption. ]

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  When the Americans realise that, actually, Mauritius is not a trustworthy nation—it is bankrupt; it needs the money; it will not honour this treaty—we will be in a very different place. I do ask the question about the role of our National Security Adviser, somebody very much in the news in the last few days. He was seemingly very happy that a trial against two alleged Chinese spies, operating at times within this building, had disappeared. Not only is he honouring the Labour manifesto, which is very soft on China, but apparently he is very for this Chagos deal. I put it to Members that this deal is un-British, it is against our national interest, and there is no upside or gain. I can assure them that a future that a future Reform Government will not honour this treaty—end of.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I can assure you that America is not backing this deal. What it is saying is, “What we have is what we hold.” That is the American attitude at the moment, but as I said, when it wakes up to the satellite observation deal done with India already, as reported in The Economic Times of India on 12 September this year, and once you realise—

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Before I speak to amendment 10, which stands in my name on the amendment paper, I have a quick reminder: the International Court of Justice made an “advisory” judgment—it has no force in law. Quite why the previous Government sought to enter 11 rounds of negotiation off the back of it is beyond me, but it is even more extraordinary for a Government that is full to the rafters with human rights lawyers. They believe in human rights so much that somehow they are seeking to follow a court that is part of the United Nations in total contrast, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) pointed out, to one of the most basic principles of the United Nations: namely, national self-determination. We thought it mattered so much 40 years ago that we sent a taskforce 8,000 miles away to defend the rights of the people of the Falkland Islands. I feel great sympathy for the Chagossians. They got a rotten deal 50 years ago, and in many ways they are perhaps getting an even worse deal now. They should be consulted. The fact they are not being consulted is shameful for a Government who go on endlessly about human rights and the international rule of law. That is the human cost of this. As to the economic cost, well, lots of sums have been bandied about, from £3.4 billion from the Prime Minister to £35 billion, but it all depends on the rate of inflation. If the average rate of inflation over the next 100 years is 3%, it will be over £50 billion, but that may be as nothing to the opportunity loss here. This marine park should have been turned decades ago into the greatest marine tourism site in the world.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly will, and I will come to that in short order. The opportunity for marine tourism is massive; it is worth billions of pounds a year, and it would provide a lot of jobs for Chagossians. On top of that—perhaps more controversially—I have little doubt, having spoken to some geologists who work for the world’s biggest mining companies, that within those waters we would find cobalt and many of the minerals needed for the very green revolution that this Government say that they are in favour of, so economically we are not just paying £50 billion or whatever the number is; we are losing out on a huge future opportunity.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My mind is filled with the horrendous images of the assassination yesterday of Charlie Kirk: an American, a conservative, a Christian, a family man—gunned down. He had attracted the following of many millions of young Americans and had a growing online presence in our country, especially after he spoke at the Oxford Union last month. I absolutely believe in free speech, but we all understand that there are limits to free speech: incitement, constant personal vilification, the use of horrendous historical images. This is not a left/right issue. It is not a left/right debate. I think it is incumbent upon all of us—whichever side of the divide we are on, however passionately we feel—to behave with personal responsibility, and I mourn the loss of my friend.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The main reason why that this country wisely voted for Brexit back in 2016, including millions of Labour supporters, is that we wanted to take back control of our borders, so that we alone decide who comes and settles in our country. Does the Prime Minister understand that this demand is even greater today than it was back in 2016, and that we demand—the country demands— [ Interruption. ] Does the Prime Minister understand that the country demands that he says to the French President that we will not accept undocumented males coming across the English channel, and that he is not dictated to by an increasingly arrogant, anti-Brexit French President?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The main reason— [ Interruption. ]

• 18 Jun 2025 · HS2 Reset · Hansard source

  More

  I have campaigned against this HS2 project ever since 2010, up and down the line. I never believed the original £35 billion price tag. Furthermore, it would have benefited only rich businessmen and driven businesses from the north of England to London—it would have had the opposite of the intended effect. Rather than having another reset, has the moment not come to recognise that this is a failure? Let us scrap HS2, use the tens of billions of pounds that we can save in the next decade to upgrade railway lines across the entirety of the United Kingdom to the benefit of many millions, and spend the rest on other national priorities in these financially straitened times. Surely the time has come to scrap the entirety of the project and to recognise that we have got it wrong.

• 14 May 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q8. We at Reform, a party that is alive and kicking, very much enjoyed your speech on Monday. You seem to be learning a very great deal from us. But can I encourage you please to go further as a matter of national security? Over the weekend, an illegal immigrant from Iran, who we believe came by boat, was arrested in the north of England on serious charges of terrorism. Since the speech on Monday, 1,000 undocumented young males have crossed the English channel. Does the Prime Minister agree that now is the time to declare the situation in the English channel a national security emergency?

• 12 May 2025 · Immigration System · Hansard source

  More

  The Home Secretary will be aware that five years ago I warned that if we did not leave the European convention on human rights and immediately deport those who arrived in Dover via small boats, there would be an invasion. Sure enough, I was right. Already today, a further 600 young men have been processed through Dover, perhaps the odd Iranian terrorist among them—who knows? [ Interruption. ] Does the Home Secretary accept that the Government’s policy of “smash the gangs” is a complete and total failure? If that is the case, why should we believe anything else that they say?

• 30 Apr 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  To date so far this year, 10,000 young undocumented males have illegally crossed the English channel into our country—a 40% increase on this time last year—many coming from cultures that are somewhat alien to ours. They are being housed at a cost of many billions of pounds a year in hotels and, increasingly, in private rented homes. The effect on communities is one of a sense of deep unfairness, bordering on resentment. In Runcorn alone, there are 750 of these young men just in one community. Is it not time to admit that “smash the gangs” was nothing more than an election slogan, not a policy, and is it not time to declare a national emergency and to act accordingly?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Spring Statement · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Chancellor agree that GDP as a measure of growth and relative wealth is not the most relevant number to our constituents? As we are living in an age of mass immigration and a rising population, surely, what matters to our constituents is GDP per capita, which has fallen consistently for the past two years and is falling still. Should we not tell people that, actually, they are getting poorer?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is quite possible that sugar should be banned, so yes, I agree. It is possible, but I do not think that is what the Government are here to do. The Government can educate; individuals should make up their own mind. Some of the nonsense I have heard this afternoon has been quite extraordinary. A smokefree generation! We even had the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) suggesting we would be smokefree by 2030. To begin with, the idea that nobody born after 2009 could buy the tobacco products that those born before then could is just another aspect of two-tier Britain. And not a single Member—not one, despite the fact that we are discussing nicotine and tobacco products—so far has mentioned drugs. Oh, no! Let’s forget about that, because drugs are illegal already and we cannot do anything about them. I have been hearing for decades that there will be a war on drugs. Where is it getting us? Drug use is rocketing, and class A drugs in particular, with all the associated crime, are proliferating everywhere. Here is the danger: believe it or not, an ounce of tobacco is now more expensive, if purchased legally in a shop, than an ounce of silver, so already we have a rocketing trade in illegal cigarettes and loose tobacco. If we carry on down this route, with age bands and so on, we will find ourselves in the position that Australia has stupidly put itself in by over-taxing tobacco and making it very difficult to smoke. There have been 40 fire-bombings of premises in Melbourne alone in the last two years. Do not drive tobacco into the hands of the criminals. Do not create a new black market. I totally agree with the Minister: this is not an activity that we should encourage. We are not keen for our kids to smoke, but please treat us as grown-ups. Educate us. Let us make our choices. Do not let the criminals win.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I must declare an interest: I am a co-founder of Action on World Health. I have to say, I find the tone of moral superiority in the Chamber this afternoon almost unbearable. Members clearly believe they are better human beings than those outside who choose to pursue activities that Members perhaps would not pursue. It would come as a bit of a shock, I suppose, to some in this Chamber, but there are some of us who like a smoke—we do. We even go for a few pints in a pub, we have a punt on the horses and I am even tempted to have the odd doughnut—I know; that is perhaps the naughtiest of all. We want to have fun. We want to make our own minds up. This place can educate us, tell us, give us the facts, but the idea that it should make those decisions for other people shows me that the spirit of Oliver Cromwell is alive and well.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  It may be a great irony that a remainer Prime Minister used our Brexit freedoms as effectively as he did yesterday. Indeed, as No. 10 briefed, we are now in a unique position compared with the rest of Europe, and yesterday was a triumph. I also applaud him for saying such positive words about President Trump and our relationship with America, even if nobody behind him agrees. But here is the key: President Zelensky has now accepted that he will sign the minerals agreement with America. America is going to put in £100 billion or whatever it is, and thousands of Americans will be in Ukraine. Is that, in itself, enough of a security guarantee, or does it mean that we need to send British troops? If we do, and given the size of our Army, how many?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  What is agreed universally is that the cost is £9 billion—the Government do not question that at all. Whether there is front-loading or not, we do not yet know, but let us assume that the cost is £90 million a year for 99 years. A lot of people in the media and in politics seem to have a problem with basic arithmetic and compounding: £90 million a year, index-linked at 3%, is £52 billion—a completely eye-watering sum. I am very surprised that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are not using that number, or perhaps they are just so embarrassed about having begun the negotiations themselves—I do not know.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  As an elected representative of a very young political party, I watch this game going on between the two old parties and find it difficult not to conclude that it is anything other than a complete and utter charade. Although I agree with the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who made the argument that this is British sovereign territory and that there is nothing—literally nothing—to be gained by giving it away, and I see those on the Benches behind her cheering, as we heard earlier, this was the party that went through 11 rounds of negotiations. The Conservative Government were happy to surrender the sovereignty of the Chagos islands, but did not like the final shape of the deal. Then the Government tell us that this deal has to be done because of legal uncertainty, but of course there is no legal uncertainty whatsoever. Labour Members can shake their heads if they want, but they know I am right. The International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction over this whatsoever, so why are we doing it? I guess that it is because of post-colonial guilt and a Government run by human rights lawyers. Beyond that, I really do not understand it. I made a comment earlier about the cost. I promise the House that £90 million a year for 99 years with 3% compounded inflation is £52 billion. That of course is madness. Members of this House have been saying, “Why are we not debating health or other issues?” Well, 50 billion quid is a very good reason to debate this. I have tried in this House and elsewhere to make these arguments. I have explained that China already has a smart city right next to Port Louis. I have explained that Huawei is the communications system. We see now that Prime Minister Modi is worried about missing out on the action. There is a 200-mile marine park, which potentially has cobalt and other mineral resources that could be worth tens, perhaps even hundreds, of billions of pounds over the next few years, and we are prepared to give it all away. The timing of the debate is perfect, because the Prime Minister is mid-Atlantic as we speak. I have spoken in the course of the last week to American Cabinet Ministers. While they are concerned about Chagos, they are even more concerned about bringing an end to the war in Ukraine, which I think we are all very keen to see, provided that it is on the right terms. There is also going to be a big debate about tariffs. Here is the point: Chagos is not especially high on the American agenda at the moment. I would love to see the American Administration veto this terrible deal, but I am not even sure then that this Government would move their position. They are clearly hellbent on giving away the Chagos islands, whatever the risks to global security or our own budgetary constraints, completely ignoring the will of the majority of the Chagossian people. If that is the case, I would rather see America have the sovereignty of the Chagos islands than a corrupt Mauritius. If we are going to give up this sovereignty, we should sell and get a few billion quid for the Chagos islands. Mauritius has no legal basis and no legal claim. Investment would come, and the Chagossians could go back and get well-paid jobs. I want us to keep sovereignty, but if the Government are prepared to give away this country’s interests, they should sell the territory to America, not give it away to corrupt Mauritius.