:00:07. > :00:13.Fewer than two weeks to go until we vote on the big decision. Should
:00:14. > :00:16.Britain remain in or leave the European Union? Head of the
:00:17. > :00:20.referendum, I am talking to leading figures on both sides of the debate.
:00:21. > :00:38.Live in the studio tonight, Ukip leader Nigel Farage.
:00:39. > :00:44.Good evening. Earlier this week I spoke to figures in the Remained
:00:45. > :00:51.campaign. Tonight, the man credited by some for bringing about this
:00:52. > :00:54.referendum and who now, of course, is campaigning hard for Britain to
:00:55. > :00:59.leave the European Union. The Ukip leader Nigel Farage. Welcome.
:01:00. > :01:05.Reducing the level of immigration has been central to your pitch to
:01:06. > :01:08.voters. Can you tell the British public at what level, broadly, you
:01:09. > :01:13.would expect net migration to fall if we left the EU? Up to us. The
:01:14. > :01:19.point about the referendum, too much of it sounds like a manifesto, a
:01:20. > :01:23.Remain or Leave manifesto. The main point about this referendum is who
:01:24. > :01:27.makes the decisions. Do we have the ability to control the numbers that
:01:28. > :01:32.come to Britain or not? That is the first and most important point. What
:01:33. > :01:40.would I think was the right number? You know, from the late 1940s, 60s,
:01:41. > :01:45.70s, 80s and 90s, we had net migration at 30,000 or 40,000 people
:01:46. > :01:49.per year. It was a number that was acceptable. It led to us having the
:01:50. > :01:55.best integration of any country inside Europe. You would like to go
:01:56. > :01:59.back to that kind of ballpark? 50,000, then? Let's go back to
:02:00. > :02:03.normality. I would like to see this debated in the House of Commons
:02:04. > :02:08.every year, voted on by MPs, who then, at elections, can be held
:02:09. > :02:12.accountable by the electorate. Let's look at this chart, to show the
:02:13. > :02:16.scale of the challenge if that is what you want to do. This shows net
:02:17. > :02:22.migration last year. It shows the chunk coming from the EU, 184,000,
:02:23. > :02:28.just a little more from non-EU countries. Even if we left and you
:02:29. > :02:35.banned all migration from the EU, and I know you don't want to do
:02:36. > :02:40.that, we would still have almost 200,000 net migration from outside
:02:41. > :02:44.the EU. It is nowhere near 50,000? Not with the right government.
:02:45. > :02:49.That's the point. There has been no resolve. Despite the fact the Prime
:02:50. > :02:53.Minister has won two elections, albeit one in coalition, with a
:02:54. > :02:59.pledge to reduce net migration to tens of thousands year. He has shown
:03:00. > :03:02.no resolve with non-EU migration. With EU migration, he is still not
:03:03. > :03:06.admitting the truth in this referendum, that he does not have
:03:07. > :03:15.that ability. Let's remind ourselves of this chart, 184,000 from the EU,
:03:16. > :03:21.188,000 from outside. Let's show you what you said on ITV earlier this
:03:22. > :03:25.week. I take the view that is strongly pro-Commonwealth. If we
:03:26. > :03:32.have an Australian style points system, rather than an open door to
:03:33. > :03:35.508 million people, then, actually, it would be better for black people
:03:36. > :03:41.coming into Britain who currently find it very difficult because we
:03:42. > :03:46.have this Oberndorf. Better for black people, better for the
:03:47. > :03:52.Commonwealth? Yet, already, there are 188,000 non-EU people, net,
:03:53. > :03:58.coming in? It is coming from family reunions or whatever it may be. You
:03:59. > :04:02.want to stop that? This is the mess we are in, a lot of skilled people
:04:03. > :04:09.from the commonwelfie bit difficult to get in, and engineer from India
:04:10. > :04:13.or wherever. So you would like to increase it? I would like a
:04:14. > :04:18.non-discriminatory policy on work permits and settlements, that did
:04:19. > :04:21.not say we will have an open door to Romania, Poland, France, wherever it
:04:22. > :04:29.may be, but we will give everybody an equal shot. I understand that,
:04:30. > :04:36.you were implying, if we left the EU, we could increase the numbers
:04:37. > :04:40.coming from outside the EU. We already have almost 200,000 coming
:04:41. > :04:45.in from outside the EU, and even you are not going to stop everybody from
:04:46. > :04:50.the EU coming in. I see no way that you get to that 50,000 figure? Two
:04:51. > :04:55.points, one is quantity and the other is quality. Stick to the
:04:56. > :04:59.quantity, that is what I am asking. If you go for quality, you make a
:05:00. > :05:05.big difference to the quantity. If we had a system that said, we want
:05:06. > :05:08.people that are coming to settle and work in this country to have trades
:05:09. > :05:11.and skills to bring, so that they will be net beneficiaries to the
:05:12. > :05:14.society, they don't have criminal records, they bring their own health
:05:15. > :05:17.insurance for the first few years, going through that route, you
:05:18. > :05:21.automatically cut the numbers dramatically. If you cut them like
:05:22. > :05:25.that, you break your promise to young woman on the ITV debate. It
:05:26. > :05:32.would actually be less migration coming from outside the EU? What we
:05:33. > :05:38.would do in terms of the issuance of work permits is not favour the EU
:05:39. > :05:40.over other parts of the world. We would have a fair,
:05:41. > :05:44.non-discriminatory approach to this. I am sure that is the right way
:05:45. > :05:49.ahead. None of this is telling us, given how keen you are on non-EU
:05:50. > :05:53.migration, or at least that is what you said to ITV, how you get
:05:54. > :05:59.anywhere near 50,000? Let me simplified. It is worth it, isn't
:06:00. > :06:05.it? I wondered how long it would take you to bring that out! What
:06:06. > :06:09.does it say? European Union, any body with that can come to the
:06:10. > :06:16.country. To get to my aim, which I agree with you, given where we are,
:06:17. > :06:20.it is a hell of an ask... But you have been picking up non-EU
:06:21. > :06:24.immigration? What we have to do first is get back control over the
:06:25. > :06:29.bit over which we have no control at all. One of my concerns is, just a
:06:30. > :06:33.few weeks after this referendum, we have Greece going, probably, for the
:06:34. > :06:38.third bailout. We have the Italian banking system in a very serious
:06:39. > :06:41.crisis. So, we have no control if the eurozone goes pop, on the
:06:42. > :06:45.numbers that come to this country. The first thing we do is to get
:06:46. > :06:49.control of the bit you can get control of, then you have to have a
:06:50. > :06:55.government with resolve. You have talked about legal figures. What
:06:56. > :07:00.about them coming in illegally? It is only because one of them got in
:07:01. > :07:03.trouble for talking about it, the Government has been warned
:07:04. > :07:07.repeatedly, we do not have the right government. EU migrants who come
:07:08. > :07:11.here are more likely to work than people born in this country, less
:07:12. > :07:15.likely to claim welfare, they are younger, at a time when the
:07:16. > :07:23.indigenous population is ageing. What is your The problem is numbers.
:07:24. > :07:32.The problem is that we get some economic surveys will say EU
:07:33. > :07:36.migrants get more tax paid, than they takeout. Others say it will
:07:37. > :07:39.cost us a bit. The House of Lords said, economic, it is about even.
:07:40. > :07:45.The Chancellor seems to think this is wonderful, because it is good for
:07:46. > :07:49.GDP. Of course, if the population is growing by 500,000 per year, it
:07:50. > :07:54.would be surprising if you're GDP was not growing. What is not growing
:07:55. > :07:59.is GDP per capita, especially for those earning average salaries. My
:08:00. > :08:02.problem is simple. People living on average salaries have seen a 10%
:08:03. > :08:09.decrease in their real living standards since 2005. Two, we should
:08:10. > :08:13.not measure everything in terms of GDP figures or economic 's. There is
:08:14. > :08:17.something called quality of life. That means the ability to get your
:08:18. > :08:22.child into the local primary school. It means being able to get the GP
:08:23. > :08:25.appointment. It means your children and grandchildren being able to
:08:26. > :08:31.aspire to having a house. Things that you took for granted yourself.
:08:32. > :08:34.These things, with a population that has risen the way that it has, these
:08:35. > :08:39.things are real concerns for millions of people. But since they
:08:40. > :08:44.are nearly all working, I mean, 82% of those from Eastern Europe are
:08:45. > :08:48.working, the rest are dependent families, compared to 72% of the
:08:49. > :08:53.British population. Our unemployment rate is only 5%. The employment
:08:54. > :08:58.rate, the percentage of the available labour force in work, it
:08:59. > :09:04.is a record high. You cannot claim that migrants are taking jobs from
:09:05. > :09:08.those already here? There are still 1.7 million people unemployed in
:09:09. > :09:12.this country. If you look at new jobs created last year in the
:09:13. > :09:16.British economy, the estimate is about 450,000 new jobs were created
:09:17. > :09:23.last year. 80% of which were taken by people born overseas. Of course,
:09:24. > :09:30.this is disputed. OK, disputed or not, I am sure we will all agree it
:09:31. > :09:34.is a majority. We are a successful country, low unemployment, very high
:09:35. > :09:38.employment, bright, young, educated people, they find it tough in their
:09:39. > :09:41.own country, they wanted to come to our country. You and I are old
:09:42. > :09:45.enough to remember when people fled this country, there was a brain
:09:46. > :09:49.drain, we didn't do well, people could not wait to leave. Why would
:09:50. > :09:53.you not welcomed the young and bright of Europe that want to come
:09:54. > :09:57.to Britain? The young and bright that come is destroying the Baltic
:09:58. > :10:00.states. Take somewhere like Lithuania, they have lost a third of
:10:01. > :10:04.their population since they joined the European Union. That is not good
:10:05. > :10:10.for them. In this country, the problem is we have taken too many
:10:11. > :10:13.unskilled people into this country and big employers, pretty
:10:14. > :10:17.unscrupulously, have chosen to employ those over British people. I
:10:18. > :10:21.do not accept the criticism that I hear that the reason we have to have
:10:22. > :10:25.all of these and skilled foreign workers is that British workers are
:10:26. > :10:30.too lazy, too drunk and to useless. I simply don't believe that. On
:10:31. > :10:37.Tuesday night, you claimed the head of Europol said the EU migration
:10:38. > :10:45.policy led to 5000 jihadists entering the eurozone.
:10:46. > :10:50.Is now backtracking... You quoted Europol, the same boss of Europol
:10:51. > :10:54.said that the migrant policy, these are not refugees, it is mostly
:10:55. > :11:00.economic migrant policy, sparked by Angela Merkel, it has led to up to
:11:01. > :11:05.5000 jihadis coming into the European Union in the space of the
:11:06. > :11:11.last 15 months. So he didn't say that? He did, since I said that, he
:11:12. > :11:15.has backtracked. What did he say? Three months ago, four months ago...
:11:16. > :11:19.I've got it on documentation, I have been using that quote since February
:11:20. > :11:24.of this year. Now we are reaching a critical point in the referendum, he
:11:25. > :11:28.is backtracking. Crucially, what is he saying? Let's see what he is
:11:29. > :11:31.saying. We can put up what he said in response. Rob Wainwright,
:11:32. > :11:48.British, head of Europol. Actually, what he said the next day
:11:49. > :11:54.was that the number was about a third of that. Now, let's say he has
:11:55. > :11:58.backtracked from 5000, even if it is a third of that, all right, even if
:11:59. > :12:04.it is 1500, bear this in mind. It just took eight people to cause that
:12:05. > :12:09.atrocity in Paris. We can also go to the former boss of Interpol, who
:12:10. > :12:12.says we might as well hang up a sign saying terrorists welcome. When you
:12:13. > :12:17.playing something and it turns out not to be true, you say something
:12:18. > :12:24.else is almost true? It is true, he's obviously worried I am using
:12:25. > :12:29.him... The 5000, it refers to the European citizens, including
:12:30. > :12:33.British, that have gone to Syria and become jihadists. Some have come
:12:34. > :12:37.back. But EU migration policy has nothing to do with that figure? Two
:12:38. > :12:42.of the eight people that caused the atrocity in Paris got back into the
:12:43. > :12:45.European Union, having fought in Syria, posing as migrants through
:12:46. > :12:49.the Greek islands. The point about this, and I have been saying this
:12:50. > :12:57.now for well over a year, the point is this, we have absolutely no
:12:58. > :13:03.mechanism, the Schengen zone, it has no mechanism of vetting or checking
:13:04. > :13:08.who anybody is. But we do? Despite that clear risk, around 1.8 million
:13:09. > :13:14.people last year came into the European Union. Of course, you can
:13:15. > :13:22.say, it is OK, we're not in Schengen . Well, thank goodness. But, as we
:13:23. > :13:25.know, interestingly, after a European judgment this week, even if
:13:26. > :13:30.you are there illegally, you cannot be stopped from moving around
:13:31. > :13:33.countries. That leads, any short-term, to the pressures at
:13:34. > :13:43.Calais, Dunkirk and elsewhere. Longer term, it is clear that come
:13:44. > :13:46.and settle in the will get, at some point in time, EU passports. That
:13:47. > :13:53.brings me to what I want to go on to. The Sunday Telegraph said you
:13:54. > :13:57.were predicting cologne style sex attacks. You told the ITV audience
:13:58. > :14:03.you were being misrepresented. Let's see what he said on LBC in January.
:14:04. > :14:09.A lot of women are saying, goodness gracious, if we vote to stay in, is
:14:10. > :14:14.that what is coming to this country? Is it? Yes, of course it is. Those
:14:15. > :14:18.thousand young men outside a train station in Cologne, they will have
:14:19. > :14:22.German passports in two or three years, which means they can come
:14:23. > :14:28.here and there is a problem with this. You did predict those sex
:14:29. > :14:32.attacks? I did, months ago, but I chose to make it a nonissue in this
:14:33. > :14:37.referendum. Why? Because there were so many other things to talk about.
:14:38. > :14:43.Is what I said on LBC wrong? Of course it is not. Is there a
:14:44. > :14:48.problem? It is not just Germany, it is Sweden... This issue that you
:14:49. > :14:54.said they could come here, you said they could come here in a few years,
:14:55. > :15:06.that's not true? In Hungary... Let's stick with Germany.
:15:07. > :15:11.It takes eight years in Germany before you can apply. You need
:15:12. > :15:14.adequate knowledge of German. You need to support yourself and your
:15:15. > :15:20.family financially. Most important of all to do with the sex attackers,
:15:21. > :15:23.you need a clean criminal record. Ah, the Cologne sex attackers there
:15:24. > :15:27.have been hardly any convictions at all. They couldn't come here in a
:15:28. > :15:31.couple of years, that's just not true. It won't be for us to decide
:15:32. > :15:35.whether people in Germany or Sweden or elsewhere get passports that give
:15:36. > :15:41.them full access to Britain. It's not a couple of years. Which you
:15:42. > :15:48.tried to make out. I said three or four years. Turns out it's eight. In
:15:49. > :15:52.Hungary it's three, in many other countries it's four. The point
:15:53. > :15:56.remains the same, the reason I got that passport out earlier, is we do
:15:57. > :16:01.not have control who gets the passports. We've seen in Cyprus, in
:16:02. > :16:07.Malta, that literally EU passports are for sale to anybody. That surely
:16:08. > :16:12.doesn't make us safer? Most people do want to control immigration. The
:16:13. > :16:16.polls suggest, most people think it's too high. Language and tone are
:16:17. > :16:20.important, particularly for public figures. This is what the head of
:16:21. > :16:31.your church said about your Cologne comments. I think that is an
:16:32. > :16:39.inexcusable pandering to people's worries and prejudices. That's
:16:40. > :16:44.giving legitimisation to racism, which I've seen in parishes in which
:16:45. > :16:51.I serve and it's led to tacks. We cannot -- led to attacks in those
:16:52. > :16:55.parishes. We cannot legitimise that. Let's not pander to people's worries
:16:56. > :17:00.as the and bishop says. We have good Archbishops and bad... What category
:17:01. > :17:03.does he fall into? Given he was talking specifically about what
:17:04. > :17:08.appeared in a Sunday newspaper, he clearly had read a headline and not
:17:09. > :17:13.the very careful words that I used. Did he listen to you on LBC? I doubt
:17:14. > :17:16.it very much. He would have been right, if he had, because that's
:17:17. > :17:19.what you said. What I'm saying is I want to make sure Britain is safe. I
:17:20. > :17:25.believe by controlling its borders and by having a strict policy about
:17:26. > :17:28.who can come to this country, we can't completely isolate ourselves
:17:29. > :17:32.from international terrorism and the problems the world faces, but the
:17:33. > :17:37.question in this referendum is - can we make ourselves safer? I genuinely
:17:38. > :17:41.believe we can. Let me come to one other thing before we move to the
:17:42. > :17:45.economy. Why have you been telling people that a vote to remain is a
:17:46. > :17:48.vote for curbingy to join the EU -- for Turkey to join the EU and quite
:17:49. > :17:51.soon? Because although the Prime Minister has taken different
:17:52. > :17:54.positions on this, I give you that. It's official Government policy that
:17:55. > :17:59.Turkey should one day become a member. But you and I both know, it
:18:00. > :18:05.is not going to happen any time soon. Let's be clear about the Prime
:18:06. > :18:08.Minister, who has the biggest cheerleader for Turkish entry since
:18:09. > :18:14.2005. I put that to George Osborne, so we've done that. And including
:18:15. > :18:17.March 18 this year. I put that to George Osborne too. They says they
:18:18. > :18:21.would speed up the accession process. I would add to, that
:18:22. > :18:25.because now he's pretending that he's got a veto. Not that he'll use
:18:26. > :18:28.it, of course. We're being told that Turkey - the Prime Minister said
:18:29. > :18:31.Turkey won't join till the year 3,000. He said on the current trend
:18:32. > :18:36.that would be the case. When do you think they will join? Why, Prime
:18:37. > :18:40.Minister, does the British Embassy in Ankara on its website today... I
:18:41. > :18:45.understand. Boast clearly they are working - That it wants Turkey to
:18:46. > :18:49.join. I understand that. How quickly do you think it will happen? Could
:18:50. > :18:54.he explain why the British Government is paying over ?1 billion
:18:55. > :18:59.- I put that George Osborne too. In pre-accession aid? Let me try for a
:19:00. > :19:06.third time. 2025? Well, let's lock at that time table. Turkey applied
:19:07. > :19:11.to join in 1987. '63 the first did. 1987 is the current membership
:19:12. > :19:14.application, 40 years old almost. They need to qualify in 35 areas to
:19:15. > :19:19.join. How many have they done so far? Two I think. One, in science.
:19:20. > :19:28.They've made little progress in 14 areas. They haven't even begun talks
:19:29. > :19:36.in 20. What Loued Romania to join -- we allowed Romania to join, whose
:19:37. > :19:38.treatment of three to four million Roma minority meant it shouldn't
:19:39. > :19:42.have been allowed. But if the European Union want to do it they
:19:43. > :19:47.will. The hypocrisy is not from our side. I've campaigned against EU
:19:48. > :19:50.enlargement for 20 years because I thought letting in countries whose
:19:51. > :19:55.average incomes were so much lower than ours would lead to big
:19:56. > :19:58.migratory waves and problems. For the Prime Minister and for the
:19:59. > :20:02.Chancellor, now to be pretending that Turkish accession is not
:20:03. > :20:05.happening, when 27 heads of state said they wanted Turkey to join as
:20:06. > :20:12.soon as possible - It's the time table I was trying to get. On this
:20:13. > :20:18.time table, we are a long way away. Let's move onto the economy. It's
:20:19. > :20:21.not just Turkey. It's Albania, Macedonia, five countries en route
:20:22. > :20:24.to joining. You criticised the Prime Minister for saying the following,
:20:25. > :20:29."The Prime Minister is saying we wouldn't be able to access the
:20:30. > :20:34.single market unless we accepted the free movement of people. Let me tell
:20:35. > :20:37.you that is completely and utterly untrue." The Prime Minister is
:20:38. > :20:40.right. Of course we still have access in the sense that in or out
:20:41. > :20:45.we would continue to trade with the EU. Good. We trade with the whole
:20:46. > :20:49.world in or out. We would not be able to trade on the same terms as
:20:50. > :20:55.we have with the single market rkts do you accept that? What I object to
:20:56. > :21:00.in this debate is that quite deliberately the Prime Minister and
:21:01. > :21:04.the Remain campaign, Lord Rose, well he's disappeared, but the Remain
:21:05. > :21:08.campaign continually say that you cannot have access to the single
:21:09. > :21:13.market. Now the truth is... I'm not saying that. Good. I'm trying to
:21:14. > :21:18.work out what is the basis do you think, if we left, what basis would
:21:19. > :21:21.we have access? For the viewers, can we clear this up. The whole world
:21:22. > :21:26.has access to the single market. Let's get that straight. Trying to
:21:27. > :21:32.work out the basis. The question is on what basis. That's what I've been
:21:33. > :21:37.asking. Let's ask a bigger question. Why did we join the European project
:21:38. > :21:41.40 years ago? I'd just like an answer to the question I've asked,
:21:42. > :21:45.what basis? I'm going to explain it to you. We joined for tariff-free
:21:46. > :21:49.access to the European market in a world of high tariffs. We now live
:21:50. > :21:54.in a world of low tariffs. That cuddly common market has become a
:21:55. > :21:59.political union, where the costs of being part of a single market
:22:00. > :22:06.outweigh any benefit that we get through reduction of tariffs. So,
:22:07. > :22:11.OK, we go into, we vote for Brexit. We go into a negotiation. Let us
:22:12. > :22:14.just for the moment assume that the Germans and the French decide
:22:15. > :22:17.they're going to cut off their noses to spite their face with their
:22:18. > :22:25.biggest trading partner in the world and we go to WTO rules with tariffs.
:22:26. > :22:30.That's the worst case scenario. Let's take that scenario. WTO, the
:22:31. > :22:34.World Trade Organisation, it overviews, authorises the global
:22:35. > :22:40.trade rules. Their own analytical survey said if we traded on that
:22:41. > :22:46.basis our businesses, we would face in this country ?9 billion more of
:22:47. > :22:52.tariffs on imports coming into this country. 9 billion in higher costs
:22:53. > :22:56.to the British consumer, that's about the same for the net
:22:57. > :23:00.membership fee if we don't join, gone, not a puff of smoke. Not a
:23:01. > :23:04.penny for the NHS or the other things you'd spend it on. I've given
:23:05. > :23:11.you the worst case scenario. Deal with that. What would could do --
:23:12. > :23:16.what we could do is take away the 10% tariff on every car made in
:23:17. > :23:25.Japan sold here. We could take away the 17% tariff on shoes manufactured
:23:26. > :23:28.in Vietnam. There's favourable standards and you have to treat
:23:29. > :23:34.everybody the same. You couldn't do that. Our exports would face 5
:23:35. > :23:38.billion tariffs in markets. Your own business in Britain says 7 billion,
:23:39. > :23:45.lower profits, jobs lost. I don't accept that. What is the worst case
:23:46. > :23:49.scenario mean for that 12% of our economy, let's get some figures on
:23:50. > :23:55.this, 88% of the British economy does not export goods or services to
:23:56. > :23:59.the EU. Of the 12% that does, what would, if this worst case scenario
:24:00. > :24:04.occurred, it would make their products a bit more expensive. Yes,
:24:05. > :24:08.?9 billion worth more. Currency fluctuations every month are bigger
:24:09. > :24:12.than those tariffs. Here's the point: There is a tariff-free zone
:24:13. > :24:18.that extends from Iceland to Turkey. Sure. Interestingly. Turkey has a
:24:19. > :24:24.tariff free deal with the European Union. For goods, not services. 80%
:24:25. > :24:28.of our economy is services. To be honest with you, I worked in the
:24:29. > :24:35.service sector. I saw the single market arrive in 1986 and 30 years
:24:36. > :24:38.later... I understand that. We have a vested interest in staying in
:24:39. > :24:43.then. We could take the decision that we wouldn't put tariffs on any
:24:44. > :24:47.imports if we leave the EU. At the moment, we put tariffs on non-EU
:24:48. > :24:54.stuff because that's the EU rule. Even if others slapped tariffs on
:24:55. > :24:59.our exports we didn't need to. That's what Patrick Brinford said.
:25:00. > :25:04.He then says this: "Over time, if we left the EU, it seems likely on the
:25:05. > :25:07.basis we've been talking about that we would mostly eliminate
:25:08. > :25:13.manufacturing, but this shouldn't scare us." It scares me, doesn't it
:25:14. > :25:17.scare you? It worries me greatly. He is your favourite economist. I went
:25:18. > :25:21.to his full presentation the other day, he also says we would have the
:25:22. > :25:25.ability to use whatever social means we need Ed to support industries.
:25:26. > :25:35.That's your saving on the membership fee. But you've spent that on having
:25:36. > :25:40.to pay higher tariffs. As I say, the worst case extremely unlikely
:25:41. > :25:45.scenario, the worst case scenario means not only are we no worse off
:25:46. > :25:51.because our net membership fee is best part of ?10 billion a year, but
:25:52. > :25:56.we would also not have to go on regulating with new EU regulations,
:25:57. > :25:59.88% of our industry that does not do business, we would not have to
:26:00. > :26:03.accept free movement of people and we'd be able to do our own trade
:26:04. > :26:06.deals, if we chose with Japan to get cheaper motor cars. Are you really
:26:07. > :26:11.telling the British people tonight, if we vote to leave the EU the
:26:12. > :26:15.prospect for manufacturing industry is that it heads over time for
:26:16. > :26:19.elimination and all it can hope for is subsidies just to reduce the pain
:26:20. > :26:22.as we eliminate it. That's what you're saying. Do you know what has
:26:23. > :26:27.happened to manufacturing industry? What has happened to our chemical
:26:28. > :26:30.plants, two dozen have closed, our aluminium plants... We have a highly
:26:31. > :26:35.successful manufacturing sector and now you're saying we could eliminate
:26:36. > :26:40.it. No, I'm not. We've lost heavy engineering. We've lost much of our
:26:41. > :26:46.heavy manufacturing and why? Because we went down the European Union
:26:47. > :26:52.route of going for wind technology and expensive costs of electricity.
:26:53. > :27:01.Hang on, Tony Blair signed us up to a strategy and we have beggared
:27:02. > :27:04.heavy industry in this country. The Chancellor ended the interview by
:27:05. > :27:09.claiming the referendum was a choice between what he called mean and
:27:10. > :27:13.divisive vision of Britain. And a more confident and open one. Remain
:27:14. > :27:17.want to make you the poster boy for leave. They think if they do that
:27:18. > :27:21.they'll win, doesn't that worry you? Not in the least. They are part of
:27:22. > :27:25.the Westminster bubble. None of them have ever had a proper job in their
:27:26. > :27:28.lives. None of them go out and meet ordinary people and perhaps in my
:27:29. > :27:32.case, occasionally, have a pint with them. My vision is to put this
:27:33. > :27:37.country and the British people first and for us to divorce ourselves from
:27:38. > :27:41.political union and to re-engage with the rest of the world. It is
:27:42. > :27:44.upbeat, optimistic. Do you know something, I think we're going to
:27:45. > :27:49.win. Nigel Farage, thank you for being with us tonight.
:27:50. > :27:53.That's it for tonight. I'll be back next Friday with Leave campaigner
:27:54. > :27:57.and former Tory Cabinet minister, Iain Duncan Smith. That's at the
:27:58. > :27:59.later time of 8. 30pm here on BBC One. Hope you can join me then.
:28:00. > :28:37.Until then, bye-bye. Hello, I'm Sophie Long
:28:38. > :28:39.with your 90 second update. Thousands of people have lined
:28:40. > :28:41.the streets of Louisville Actor Will Smith and ex-boxer
:28:42. > :28:45.Lennox Lewis helped It's the start of three days
:28:46. > :28:48.of official birthday celebrations A national service of thanksgiving
:28:49. > :28:53.was held today at The partner of former Eastenders
:28:54. > :28:58.actress, Sian Blake, has admitted killing her
:28:59. > :29:03.and their two children last year.