Nigel Farage MEP The Andrew Neil Interviews: Leave or Remain?

Fewer than two weeks to go until we vote on the big decision. Should

Britain remain in or leave the European Union? Head of the

referendum, I am talking to leading figures on both sides of the debate.

Live in the studio tonight, Ukip leader Nigel Farage.

Good evening. Earlier this week I spoke to figures in the Remained

campaign. Tonight, the man credited by some for bringing about this

referendum and who now, of course, is campaigning hard for Britain to

leave the European Union. The Ukip leader Nigel Farage. Welcome.

Reducing the level of immigration has been central to your pitch to

voters. Can you tell the British public at what level, broadly, you

would expect net migration to fall if we left the EU? Up to us. The

point about the referendum, too much of it sounds like a manifesto, a

Remain or Leave manifesto. The main point about this referendum is who

makes the decisions. Do we have the ability to control the numbers that

come to Britain or not? That is the first and most important point. What

would I think was the right number? You know, from the late 1940s, 60s,

70s, 80s and 90s, we had net migration at 30,000 or 40,000 people

per year. It was a number that was acceptable. It led to us having the

best integration of any country inside Europe. You would like to go

back to that kind of ballpark? 50,000, then? Let's go back to

normality. I would like to see this debated in the House of Commons

every year, voted on by MPs, who then, at elections, can be held

accountable by the electorate. Let's look at this chart, to show the

scale of the challenge if that is what you want to do. This shows net

migration last year. It shows the chunk coming from the EU, 184,000,

just a little more from non-EU countries. Even if we left and you

banned all migration from the EU, and I know you don't want to do

that, we would still have almost 200,000 net migration from outside

the EU. It is nowhere near 50,000? Not with the right government.

That's the point. There has been no resolve. Despite the fact the Prime

Minister has won two elections, albeit one in coalition, with a

pledge to reduce net migration to tens of thousands year. He has shown

no resolve with non-EU migration. With EU migration, he is still not

admitting the truth in this referendum, that he does not have

that ability. Let's remind ourselves of this chart, 184,000 from the EU,

188,000 from outside. Let's show you what you said on ITV earlier this

week. I take the view that is strongly pro-Commonwealth. If we

have an Australian style points system, rather than an open door to

508 million people, then, actually, it would be better for black people

coming into Britain who currently find it very difficult because we

have this Oberndorf. Better for black people, better for the

Commonwealth? Yet, already, there are 188,000 non-EU people, net,

coming in? It is coming from family reunions or whatever it may be. You

want to stop that? This is the mess we are in, a lot of skilled people

from the commonwelfie bit difficult to get in, and engineer from India

or wherever. So you would like to increase it? I would like a

non-discriminatory policy on work permits and settlements, that did

not say we will have an open door to Romania, Poland, France, wherever it

may be, but we will give everybody an equal shot. I understand that,

you were implying, if we left the EU, we could increase the numbers

coming from outside the EU. We already have almost 200,000 coming

in from outside the EU, and even you are not going to stop everybody from

the EU coming in. I see no way that you get to that 50,000 figure? Two

points, one is quantity and the other is quality. Stick to the

quantity, that is what I am asking. If you go for quality, you make a

big difference to the quantity. If we had a system that said, we want

people that are coming to settle and work in this country to have trades

and skills to bring, so that they will be net beneficiaries to the

society, they don't have criminal records, they bring their own health

insurance for the first few years, going through that route, you

automatically cut the numbers dramatically. If you cut them like

that, you break your promise to young woman on the ITV debate. It

would actually be less migration coming from outside the EU? What we

would do in terms of the issuance of work permits is not favour the EU

over other parts of the world. We would have a fair,

non-discriminatory approach to this. I am sure that is the right way

ahead. None of this is telling us, given how keen you are on non-EU

migration, or at least that is what you said to ITV, how you get

anywhere near 50,000? Let me simplified. It is worth it, isn't

it? I wondered how long it would take you to bring that out! What

does it say? European Union, any body with that can come to the

country. To get to my aim, which I agree with you, given where we are,

it is a hell of an ask... But you have been picking up non-EU

immigration? What we have to do first is get back control over the

bit over which we have no control at all. One of my concerns is, just a

few weeks after this referendum, we have Greece going, probably, for the

third bailout. We have the Italian banking system in a very serious

crisis. So, we have no control if the eurozone goes pop, on the

numbers that come to this country. The first thing we do is to get

control of the bit you can get control of, then you have to have a

government with resolve. You have talked about legal figures. What

about them coming in illegally? It is only because one of them got in

trouble for talking about it, the Government has been warned

repeatedly, we do not have the right government. EU migrants who come

here are more likely to work than people born in this country, less

likely to claim welfare, they are younger, at a time when the

indigenous population is ageing. What is your The problem is numbers.

The problem is that we get some economic surveys will say EU

migrants get more tax paid, than they takeout. Others say it will

cost us a bit. The House of Lords said, economic, it is about even.

The Chancellor seems to think this is wonderful, because it is good for

GDP. Of course, if the population is growing by 500,000 per year, it

would be surprising if you're GDP was not growing. What is not growing

is GDP per capita, especially for those earning average salaries. My

problem is simple. People living on average salaries have seen a 10%

decrease in their real living standards since 2005. Two, we should

not measure everything in terms of GDP figures or economic 's. There is

something called quality of life. That means the ability to get your

child into the local primary school. It means being able to get the GP

appointment. It means your children and grandchildren being able to

aspire to having a house. Things that you took for granted yourself.

These things, with a population that has risen the way that it has, these

things are real concerns for millions of people. But since they

are nearly all working, I mean, 82% of those from Eastern Europe are

working, the rest are dependent families, compared to 72% of the

British population. Our unemployment rate is only 5%. The employment

rate, the percentage of the available labour force in work, it

is a record high. You cannot claim that migrants are taking jobs from

those already here? There are still 1.7 million people unemployed in

this country. If you look at new jobs created last year in the

British economy, the estimate is about 450,000 new jobs were created

last year. 80% of which were taken by people born overseas. Of course,

this is disputed. OK, disputed or not, I am sure we will all agree it

is a majority. We are a successful country, low unemployment, very high

employment, bright, young, educated people, they find it tough in their

own country, they wanted to come to our country. You and I are old

enough to remember when people fled this country, there was a brain

drain, we didn't do well, people could not wait to leave. Why would

you not welcomed the young and bright of Europe that want to come

to Britain? The young and bright that come is destroying the Baltic

states. Take somewhere like Lithuania, they have lost a third of

their population since they joined the European Union. That is not good

for them. In this country, the problem is we have taken too many

unskilled people into this country and big employers, pretty

unscrupulously, have chosen to employ those over British people. I

do not accept the criticism that I hear that the reason we have to have

all of these and skilled foreign workers is that British workers are

too lazy, too drunk and to useless. I simply don't believe that. On

Tuesday night, you claimed the head of Europol said the EU migration

policy led to 5000 jihadists entering the eurozone.

Is now backtracking... You quoted Europol, the same boss of Europol

said that the migrant policy, these are not refugees, it is mostly

economic migrant policy, sparked by Angela Merkel, it has led to up to

5000 jihadis coming into the European Union in the space of the

last 15 months. So he didn't say that? He did, since I said that, he

has backtracked. What did he say? Three months ago, four months ago...

I've got it on documentation, I have been using that quote since February

of this year. Now we are reaching a critical point in the referendum, he

is backtracking. Crucially, what is he saying? Let's see what he is

saying. We can put up what he said in response. Rob Wainwright,

British, head of Europol. Actually, what he said the next day

was that the number was about a third of that. Now, let's say he has

backtracked from 5000, even if it is a third of that, all right, even if

it is 1500, bear this in mind. It just took eight people to cause that

atrocity in Paris. We can also go to the former boss of Interpol, who

says we might as well hang up a sign saying terrorists welcome. When you

playing something and it turns out not to be true, you say something

else is almost true? It is true, he's obviously worried I am using

him... The 5000, it refers to the European citizens, including

British, that have gone to Syria and become jihadists. Some have come

back. But EU migration policy has nothing to do with that figure? Two

of the eight people that caused the atrocity in Paris got back into the

European Union, having fought in Syria, posing as migrants through

the Greek islands. The point about this, and I have been saying this

now for well over a year, the point is this, we have absolutely no

mechanism, the Schengen zone, it has no mechanism of vetting or checking

who anybody is. But we do? Despite that clear risk, around 1.8 million

people last year came into the European Union. Of course, you can

say, it is OK, we're not in Schengen . Well, thank goodness. But, as we

know, interestingly, after a European judgment this week, even if

you are there illegally, you cannot be stopped from moving around

countries. That leads, any short-term, to the pressures at

Calais, Dunkirk and elsewhere. Longer term, it is clear that come

and settle in the will get, at some point in time, EU passports. That

brings me to what I want to go on to. The Sunday Telegraph said you

were predicting cologne style sex attacks. You told the ITV audience

you were being misrepresented. Let's see what he said on LBC in January.

A lot of women are saying, goodness gracious, if we vote to stay in, is

that what is coming to this country? Is it? Yes, of course it is. Those

thousand young men outside a train station in Cologne, they will have

German passports in two or three years, which means they can come

here and there is a problem with this. You did predict those sex

attacks? I did, months ago, but I chose to make it a nonissue in this

referendum. Why? Because there were so many other things to talk about.

Is what I said on LBC wrong? Of course it is not. Is there a

problem? It is not just Germany, it is Sweden... This issue that you

said they could come here, you said they could come here in a few years,

that's not true? In Hungary... Let's stick with Germany.

It takes eight years in Germany before you can apply. You need

adequate knowledge of German. You need to support yourself and your

family financially. Most important of all to do with the sex attackers,

you need a clean criminal record. Ah, the Cologne sex attackers there

have been hardly any convictions at all. They couldn't come here in a

couple of years, that's just not true. It won't be for us to decide

whether people in Germany or Sweden or elsewhere get passports that give

them full access to Britain. It's not a couple of years. Which you

tried to make out. I said three or four years. Turns out it's eight. In

Hungary it's three, in many other countries it's four. The point

remains the same, the reason I got that passport out earlier, is we do

not have control who gets the passports. We've seen in Cyprus, in

Malta, that literally EU passports are for sale to anybody. That surely

doesn't make us safer? Most people do want to control immigration. The

polls suggest, most people think it's too high. Language and tone are

important, particularly for public figures. This is what the head of

your church said about your Cologne comments. I think that is an

inexcusable pandering to people's worries and prejudices. That's

giving legitimisation to racism, which I've seen in parishes in which

I serve and it's led to tacks. We cannot -- led to attacks in those

parishes. We cannot legitimise that. Let's not pander to people's worries

as the and bishop says. We have good Archbishops and bad... What category

does he fall into? Given he was talking specifically about what

appeared in a Sunday newspaper, he clearly had read a headline and not

the very careful words that I used. Did he listen to you on LBC? I doubt

it very much. He would have been right, if he had, because that's

what you said. What I'm saying is I want to make sure Britain is safe. I

believe by controlling its borders and by having a strict policy about

who can come to this country, we can't completely isolate ourselves

from international terrorism and the problems the world faces, but the

question in this referendum is - can we make ourselves safer? I genuinely

believe we can. Let me come to one other thing before we move to the

economy. Why have you been telling people that a vote to remain is a

vote for curbingy to join the EU -- for Turkey to join the EU and quite

soon? Because although the Prime Minister has taken different

positions on this, I give you that. It's official Government policy that

Turkey should one day become a member. But you and I both know, it

is not going to happen any time soon. Let's be clear about the Prime

Minister, who has the biggest cheerleader for Turkish entry since

2005. I put that to George Osborne, so we've done that. And including

March 18 this year. I put that to George Osborne too. They says they

would speed up the accession process. I would add to, that

because now he's pretending that he's got a veto. Not that he'll use

it, of course. We're being told that Turkey - the Prime Minister said

Turkey won't join till the year 3,000. He said on the current trend

that would be the case. When do you think they will join? Why, Prime

Minister, does the British Embassy in Ankara on its website today... I

understand. Boast clearly they are working - That it wants Turkey to

join. I understand that. How quickly do you think it will happen? Could

he explain why the British Government is paying over ?1 billion

- I put that George Osborne too. In pre-accession aid? Let me try for a

third time. 2025? Well, let's lock at that time table. Turkey applied

to join in 1987. '63 the first did. 1987 is the current membership

application, 40 years old almost. They need to qualify in 35 areas to

join. How many have they done so far? Two I think. One, in science.

They've made little progress in 14 areas. They haven't even begun talks

in 20. What Loued Romania to join -- we allowed Romania to join, whose

treatment of three to four million Roma minority meant it shouldn't

have been allowed. But if the European Union want to do it they

will. The hypocrisy is not from our side. I've campaigned against EU

enlargement for 20 years because I thought letting in countries whose

average incomes were so much lower than ours would lead to big

migratory waves and problems. For the Prime Minister and for the

Chancellor, now to be pretending that Turkish accession is not

happening, when 27 heads of state said they wanted Turkey to join as

soon as possible - It's the time table I was trying to get. On this

time table, we are a long way away. Let's move onto the economy. It's

not just Turkey. It's Albania, Macedonia, five countries en route

to joining. You criticised the Prime Minister for saying the following,

"The Prime Minister is saying we wouldn't be able to access the

single market unless we accepted the free movement of people. Let me tell

you that is completely and utterly untrue." The Prime Minister is

right. Of course we still have access in the sense that in or out

we would continue to trade with the EU. Good. We trade with the whole

world in or out. We would not be able to trade on the same terms as

we have with the single market rkts do you accept that? What I object to

in this debate is that quite deliberately the Prime Minister and

the Remain campaign, Lord Rose, well he's disappeared, but the Remain

campaign continually say that you cannot have access to the single

market. Now the truth is... I'm not saying that. Good. I'm trying to

work out what is the basis do you think, if we left, what basis would

we have access? For the viewers, can we clear this up. The whole world

has access to the single market. Let's get that straight. Trying to

work out the basis. The question is on what basis. That's what I've been

asking. Let's ask a bigger question. Why did we join the European project

40 years ago? I'd just like an answer to the question I've asked,

what basis? I'm going to explain it to you. We joined for tariff-free

access to the European market in a world of high tariffs. We now live

in a world of low tariffs. That cuddly common market has become a

political union, where the costs of being part of a single market

outweigh any benefit that we get through reduction of tariffs. So,

OK, we go into, we vote for Brexit. We go into a negotiation. Let us

just for the moment assume that the Germans and the French decide

they're going to cut off their noses to spite their face with their

biggest trading partner in the world and we go to WTO rules with tariffs.

That's the worst case scenario. Let's take that scenario. WTO, the

World Trade Organisation, it overviews, authorises the global

trade rules. Their own analytical survey said if we traded on that

basis our businesses, we would face in this country ?9 billion more of

tariffs on imports coming into this country. 9 billion in higher costs

to the British consumer, that's about the same for the net

membership fee if we don't join, gone, not a puff of smoke. Not a

penny for the NHS or the other things you'd spend it on. I've given

you the worst case scenario. Deal with that. What would could do --

what we could do is take away the 10% tariff on every car made in

Japan sold here. We could take away the 17% tariff on shoes manufactured

in Vietnam. There's favourable standards and you have to treat

everybody the same. You couldn't do that. Our exports would face 5

billion tariffs in markets. Your own business in Britain says 7 billion,

lower profits, jobs lost. I don't accept that. What is the worst case

scenario mean for that 12% of our economy, let's get some figures on

this, 88% of the British economy does not export goods or services to

the EU. Of the 12% that does, what would, if this worst case scenario

occurred, it would make their products a bit more expensive. Yes,

?9 billion worth more. Currency fluctuations every month are bigger

than those tariffs. Here's the point: There is a tariff-free zone

that extends from Iceland to Turkey. Sure. Interestingly. Turkey has a

tariff free deal with the European Union. For goods, not services. 80%

of our economy is services. To be honest with you, I worked in the

service sector. I saw the single market arrive in 1986 and 30 years

later... I understand that. We have a vested interest in staying in

then. We could take the decision that we wouldn't put tariffs on any

imports if we leave the EU. At the moment, we put tariffs on non-EU

stuff because that's the EU rule. Even if others slapped tariffs on

our exports we didn't need to. That's what Patrick Brinford said.

He then says this: "Over time, if we left the EU, it seems likely on the

basis we've been talking about that we would mostly eliminate

manufacturing, but this shouldn't scare us." It scares me, doesn't it

scare you? It worries me greatly. He is your favourite economist. I went

to his full presentation the other day, he also says we would have the

ability to use whatever social means we need Ed to support industries.

That's your saving on the membership fee. But you've spent that on having

to pay higher tariffs. As I say, the worst case extremely unlikely

scenario, the worst case scenario means not only are we no worse off

because our net membership fee is best part of ?10 billion a year, but

we would also not have to go on regulating with new EU regulations,

88% of our industry that does not do business, we would not have to

accept free movement of people and we'd be able to do our own trade

deals, if we chose with Japan to get cheaper motor cars. Are you really

telling the British people tonight, if we vote to leave the EU the

prospect for manufacturing industry is that it heads over time for

elimination and all it can hope for is subsidies just to reduce the pain

as we eliminate it. That's what you're saying. Do you know what has

happened to manufacturing industry? What has happened to our chemical

plants, two dozen have closed, our aluminium plants... We have a highly

successful manufacturing sector and now you're saying we could eliminate

it. No, I'm not. We've lost heavy engineering. We've lost much of our

heavy manufacturing and why? Because we went down the European Union

route of going for wind technology and expensive costs of electricity.

Hang on, Tony Blair signed us up to a strategy and we have beggared

heavy industry in this country. The Chancellor ended the interview by

claiming the referendum was a choice between what he called mean and

divisive vision of Britain. And a more confident and open one. Remain

want to make you the poster boy for leave. They think if they do that

they'll win, doesn't that worry you? Not in the least. They are part of

the Westminster bubble. None of them have ever had a proper job in their

lives. None of them go out and meet ordinary people and perhaps in my

case, occasionally, have a pint with them. My vision is to put this

country and the British people first and for us to divorce ourselves from

political union and to re-engage with the rest of the world. It is

upbeat, optimistic. Do you know something, I think we're going to

win. Nigel Farage, thank you for being with us tonight.

That's it for tonight. I'll be back next Friday with Leave campaigner

and former Tory Cabinet minister, Iain Duncan Smith. That's at the

later time of 8. 30pm here on BBC One. Hope you can join me then.

Until then, bye-bye. Hello, I'm Sophie Long

with your 90 second update. Thousands of people have lined

the streets of Louisville Actor Will Smith and ex-boxer

Lennox Lewis helped It's the start of three days

of official birthday celebrations A national service of thanksgiving

was held today at The partner of former Eastenders

actress, Sian Blake, has admitted killing her

and their two children last year.