This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . The next check for changes will be

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/aug/26/nigel-farage-plan-deport-asylum-seekers-scorn-from-legal-experts

The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 6 Version 7
Farage’s plan to deport thousands of asylum seekers draws scorn from legal experts Farage attacked for ‘ugly’ rhetoric of plan for mass deportation of asylum seekers
(30 minutes later)
Reform UK leader told scheme is ‘simply not rooted in reality’ after he dodges questions on how it would work Reform UK leader says he will rip up UK’s human rights commitments and pay despotic regimes to take people back
Nigel Farage’s plans to deport hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers to despotic regimes such as Afghanistan’s Taliban and withdraw the UK from vital human rights protections have triggered fierce condemnation from legal experts and political opponents, who said the proposals would dismantle Britain’s postwar commitments and shred fundamental rights. Nigel Farage has been accused of “ugly” and “destructive” rhetoric after announcing plans to deport hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers, and pledging to pay despotic regimes such as the Taliban to take them back.
Unveiling Reform UK’s “Operation Restoring Justice” at a combative Oxford press conference, Farage claimed his party would detain and deport “absolutely anyone” arriving by small boat and ensure they are “never, ever allowed to stay”, insisting this would stop crossings “within days” and “save tens and possibly hundreds of billions of pounds”. Unveiling Reform UK’s “Operation Restoring Justice” at a combative press conference in Oxford, Farage said he would rip up the UK’s postwar human rights commitments, contained in a range of international conventions, to deport “absolutely anyone” – including women and children – arriving by small boat.
Pressed by reporters, Farage confirmed that women and children would also be detained under the plans, conceding that “how we deal with children is a more complicated and difficult issue” but insisting all arrivals would be subject to removal. Branding asylum seekers as a threat to national security and to British women, he claimed his plans would stop Channel crossings “within days” and “save tens and possibly hundreds of billions of pounds”.
Farage dodged questions repeatedly about how the scheme would work in practice. He was unable to name a single RAF base to be converted into secure detention facilities, despite insisting they would be central to his plans. Downing Street accused Farage of not being serious about his plans but in a sign of how Reform has set the tone for public debate, the prime minister’s spokesperson refused to criticise his references to irregular migration as an “invasion” and a “scourge”, or his prediction that Britain is “not far away from major civil disorder”.
He offered no detail on how Reform would secure deportation agreements with countries such as Iran, Afghanistan, Eritrea and Sudan, many of which have no return treaties with the UK and are considered unsafe by British courts. Farage could not explain how Reform’s scheme would be funded, beyond claiming costs would be a fraction of independent estimates. Pushed on whether it would be a good idea to sign a returns deal with Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, as Farage proposed, the spokesperson said the government was “not going to take anything off the table”.
Reform’s leadership said it would repeal the Human Rights Act, leave the European convention on human rights (ECHR), and disapply the 1951 refugee convention and UN convention against torture, with senior party figure Zia Yusuf declaring that “no lawyer and no judge” would be able to prevent deportation flights from leaving. The Conservatives merely accused Reform UK of “reheating and recycling” Tory plans.
George Peretz KC, the chair of the Society of Labour Lawyers, said: “The Reform party’s policy is simply not rooted in reality. They want to institute a mass deportation programme with no real, or workable, idea of where people would be deported to. The Liberal Democrat leader, Ed Davey, said: “We really are through the looking glass now. Nigel Farage pretending to be patriotic while pledging to rip up Britain’s proud record of leading the world on human rights.
“Reform’s policy would require a returns policy to be negotiated with regimes such as the Taliban and Iran, and may, by their own admission, involve paying those regimes to do so. Which is impractical and extremely concerning, as well as unlawful (as our own courts ruled in the Rwanda case).” “As we’ve seen across history, his populist playbook is ugly, powerful and incredibly destructive. We know where it will lead if we don’t stop it.”
Kolbassia Haoussou, the director of survivor leadership at Freedom from Torture, called the plans “a gift to repressive regimes” and said Britain would be abandoning one of humanity’s “clearest moral lines”. He said: “This is not who we are as a country. Laura Smith, the co-head of legal at the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI), said:“If today feels like a Rubicon moment, it’s because it is. We are hearing proposals that would tear through centuries of British legal tradition – from the Magna Carta to the Human Rights Act – with barely any resistance from those who should be defending those values.
“Men, women and children are coming to the UK looking for safety. They are fleeing the unimaginable horrors of torture in places like Afghanistan, Sudan and Iran. These laws were created in the aftermath of the second world war to protect us all. If Britain were to abandon this legacy it would hand repressive regimes around the world a gift and undermine the promise to defend our shared right to live a life free from torture.” “The ban on torture is absolute and fundamental; it cannot be bargained away. That mainstream parties have failed to push back is deeply alarming. This isn’t about migration policy any more, it’s about whether we still value the basic human rights and freedoms that define a democratic society. Now more than ever, we must fight against the normalisation of this rhetoric.”
The human rights lawyer Adam Wagner KC said Reform’s promises were not only “legally extreme” but fundamentally misleading. Farage argued that “over three-quarters” of small-boat arrivals were “young undocumented males” from “cultures entirely different from ours” who were “unlikely to assimilate” and “pose a risk to women and girls”.
“A lot of the rights contained in the European convention come from British common law: the right to a fair trial, freedom of religion, and the right not to be tortured,” he said. Asked about some of his language, the Downing Street spokesperson said “we have to recognise the strength of feeling about this” and stressed “the serious, practical action” it was taking to address the issue.
Politicians swiftly challenged the scale and practicality of the plans. His criticism was instead focused on how leaving the European convention on human rights (ECHR), as proposed by Farage, was unrealistic because it underpinned key international agreements on trade, security and migration and the Good Friday agreement.
Downing Street accused Farage of not being “serious” about his plans to deport asylum seekers, saying that leaving the CfhrECHR would undermine peace in Northern Ireland. As well as leaving the ECHR, Reform’s leadership said it would repeal the Human Rights Act, disapply the 1951 refugee contention and the UN convention against torture as well as the Council of Europe’s anti-trafficking convention. Legal experts said such moves would not be a panacea.
The prime minister’s spokesperson criticised the Reform leader on Tuesday, saying that any plan that required leaving the ECHR was bound to fail. Adam Wagner KC, a leading human rights barrister, said: “As much as there’s this focus on international law, as if international law is the thing that’s stopping people being sent, for example, to be tortured in other countries, I think they might find that the British courts, which I think they still quite like at the moment over international courts, have something important to say about people’s rights.
“The ECHR underpins key international agreements on trade, security and migration – and the Good Friday agreement,” Downing Street said. “Anyone who is proposing to renegotiate the Good Friday agreement is not serious.” “A lot of the convention rights come from British common law rights.”
Sign up to First EditionSign up to First Edition
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it mattersOur morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion
No 10 refused, however, to criticise other elements of Farage’s speech, including his references to irregular migration as an “invasion” and a “scourge”, as well as his prediction that Britain is “not far away from major civil disorder”. Farage was unable to name a single RAF base to be converted into secure detention facilities, despite insisting they would be central to his plans. He could not explain how Reform’s scheme would be funded, beyond claiming costs would be a fraction of independent estimates.
Asked about those comments, the spokesperson said: “We have to recognise the strength of feeling about this and the pressure that it puts on public services. That’s why we are taking the serious, practical action to address this issue, and not just returning back to the old gimmicks, the old slogans that failed to deal with this and left us with the crisis that we currently face.” He offered no detail on how Reform would secure deportation agreements with countries such as Iran, Afghanistan, Eritrea and Sudan, many of which have no return treaties with the UK and are considered unsafe by British courts.
Pushed on whether it would be a good idea to sign a returns deal with Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, as Farage has suggested, Downing Street said: “We’re not going to take anything off the table in terms of striking returns agreements with countries around the world.” George Peretz KC, the chair of the Society of Labour Lawyers, said: “The Reform party’s policy is simply not rooted in reality. They want to institute a mass deportation programme with no real, or workable, idea of where people would be deported to.
Daisy Cooper, the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, said: “Farage’s plan crumbles under the most basic scrutiny. The idea that Reform is going to magic up places to detain hundreds of thousands of people and deport them to countries who haven’t agreed to take them is taking the public for fools. Of course, Nigel Farage wants to follow his idol Vladimir Putin in ripping up the human rights convention. Winston Churchill would be turning in his grave.” “Reform’s policy would require a returns policy to be negotiated with regimes such as the Taliban and Iran, and may, by their own admission, involve paying those regimes to do so. Which is impractical and extremely concerning, as well as unlawful (as our own courts ruled in the Rwanda case).”
Kolbassia Haoussou, the director of survivor leadership at Freedom from Torture, said: “Men, women and children are coming to the UK looking for safety. They are fleeing the unimaginable horrors of torture in places like Afghanistan, Sudan and Iran. These laws were created in the aftermath of the second world war to protect us all. If Britain were to abandon this legacy it would hand repressive regimes around the world a gift and undermine the promise to defend our shared right to live a life free from torture.”
Farage claims the programme would deport up to 600,000 asylum seekers in a single parliament, yet the costings remain opaque.Farage claims the programme would deport up to 600,000 asylum seekers in a single parliament, yet the costings remain opaque.
A report by the Centre for Migration Control, which produced costings alongside the MP Rupert Lowe but is not led by him, estimated a near-identical mass deportation scheme would cost £47.5bn more than five years. Farage insists his plan would provide the same scale of removals for £10bn, but offered no operational blueprint or independent evidence to support the claim. A report by the Centre for Migration Control, which produced costings alongside the MP Rupert Lowe but is not led by him, estimated a near-identical mass deportation scheme would cost £47.5bn. Farage insists his plan would provide the same scale of removals for £10bn, but offered no operational blueprint or independent evidence to support the claim.
Farage argued that “over three-quarters” of small-boat arrivals were “young undocumented males” from “cultures entirely different from ours” who were “unlikely to assimilate” and “pose a risk to women and girls”, language likely to draw criticism from equality groups and anti-racism campaigners.
He also spoke of a “genuine threat to public order” if his proposals were not adopted, framing his plan as the only bulwark against rising anger and “civil disorder”.