WarRoom Battleground EP 994: Brussels Aims For Greater Role Dictating EU Foreign Policy Now That Viktor Orbán’s Gone
Stephen K. Bass and Jacob Reynolds analyze the post-Orbán EU landscape, where Péter Magyar's victory signals a shift from sovereignty defense to technocratic accommodation despite migration rhetoric. The discussion highlights Brussels' push for Qualified Majority Voting to dismantle national vetoes, potentially funded by withheld 35 billion euros to install compliant leadership akin to Thatcher's Blair. Ryan Bridge then contrasts this with UK repression, detailing his arrest in Oxfordshire for flag-raising while illegal migrants flood Calais unchecked. Ultimately, the episode argues that both Hungary and the UK face eroding national autonomy as elites prioritize EU integration and suppressing patriotic dissent over protecting citizens from mass migration. [Automatically generated summary]
Good evening, Hanwell here at the helm on Steve Bannon's War Room.
I've got Jacob Reynolds, who's the head of policy at the Matthias Corvinus Collegium, that great think tank, one of the great legacy projects launched and financed by Viktor Orban, here on the show tonight to talk a bit about the Hungarian elections.
And he has an analysis on that, which I would like to start off with, just because, like my own, it's somewhat idiosyncratic in that it's not what most of the Mainstream media is picking up on it's not their narrative, but I happen to think, and I share his conclusion pretty solidly.
I'll ask him to talk a bit about that what his reaction to the Viktor Orban defeat is and what he thinks it means.
And then I'm going to talk about the Politico article mentioning Ursula von der Leyen and the power grab that she has announced on the back of Orban's defeat, about which.
Jacob's been pretty active on social media, and then after I did the short ad read halfway in the first half of the show, I'll talk about the article that he's had published developing these themes in the legendary Brussels Signal.
So, Jacob, welcome onto the show.
Thanks for joining us this evening.
Firstly, then tell us what is your reading of the defeat from Sunday?
What do you think it means?
Because we know what the mainstream media thinks it means, we know what.
Ursula von der Leyen says she thinks it means that it's a defeat for economic nationalism, it's a defeat for populism, it's a return for Hungary within the rabidly pro-European fold.
Yeah, well, firstly, I can't quite speak for the entire Matthias Korvinis Collegium.
I'm MCC Brussels, but that won't stand in the way of the analysis.
I think it's important to note, in the first instance, that the defeat of Orban in Hungary is obviously an enormous defeat, a really significant blow in this case, and it's clearly a demand for change.
We should make no kind of bones about that.
But one thing that's very important and interesting from the campaign is that the challenger, Petter Magyar, formerly an insider in Orban's own party, He never once challenged, as it were, the ideological project with which Viktor Orban is so strongly associated.
So he was very careful to kind of clothe himself in the Hungarian national clothing, to feature the Hungarian national flag prominently, to maintain and pledge to maintain and even strengthen Viktor Orban's policies on migration and as promised on certain things that Orban was famous for as well, such as not allowing Ukraine's accession to the European Union.
So the level of ideology that wasn't necessarily a challenge to.
Those things that Orban is associated with.
But at the same time, it's important to note that there is a reason why figures from Alex Soros to Ursula von der Leyen were celebrating the victory of Petter Magyar.
And that's because the one thing that he will concede on and won't maintain from the Orban era is precisely that Orban always demanded Hungary's right to choose, fundamentally, that question of sovereignty.
And that's the kind of thing that it seems already is kind of being given up by.
Petter Magyar in promising to implement certain reforms that the EU has long demanded of Hungary and that Orban always has stayed away from accessing to.
So, in that respect, there is a kind of populist quality to Petter Magyar.
And I'm sure that promise of fundamental change and reform, which resonates right across the globe in this big populist moment, he was certainly able to kind of capitalize on that and to maintain these important things.
But at the same time, he does represent a new model, a model of accommodation to the European Union.
So, I mean, I think that's a pretty accurate reading of it.
My reading of this, I want your take on that, is that really, I think, and you can certainly say this with the benefits of hindsight, I think you could have said it before, to be honest with you, that Viktor Orban's going for this, I think we're doing the fifth.
Cumulative term after 16 continuous years was pushing somewhat at the electoral laws of gravity.
Because if you remember what the UK was like in 1997 after the Tories had been in for 18 years, it's just a bit longer, but not a huge degree longer.
People get restless in a democratic country, people get restless, and 16 years is a long time, and they want to exercise their agency in determining the direction of their country.
And against the mainstream media narratives, the mainstream media's narrative, I would simply suggest if the country had really wanted to reject organism, it would have picked someone from the left, and it didn't.
It picked someone who, as you were saying, up until as recently as February 2024, just two years ago, was still in Fidesz, right?
That's a very short period of time to come out and start a new movement.
And I think those sort of things are what the mainstream media.
Are either misreading or trying to do a bit of narrative shaping to justify their own agenda.
That brings us back on to Ursula von der Leyen.
Tell us then, before going into this, for our largely American audience that won't probably be so well, there are a lot of Europeans that won't be so au fait with this, but just in talking about what she's called for, really within 24 hours, within hours of this, to say a bit about what.
QMV is qualified majority voting, what that is, what it represents.
Say a bit about unanimity as well, what these two parallel concepts work on different areas of the European Union's policy and why, because the EU's been pushing at this, especially on foreign policy for some time.
Germany was floating it just a few or so months ago.
This goes back, the battle over this goes back for when the UK was still in the European Union.
Just say a bit about what these two concepts are then.
Because that sets the frame to understand what Ursula von der Leyen is actually trying to achieve right now.
Yeah, so I mean, the European Union is itself hugely and horribly complicated, one suspects deliberately so to make it hard to work out what's going on.
But in essence, the European Union kind of votes on various different issues, and some of that's determined by the Commission itself, which is the kind of executive body.
You've got the European Parliament, which has some degree of power, although it's largely a kind of, in my opinion, largely a ceremonial.
Institution.
And then the majority of the work happens in what's called the European Council, which is where all of the heads of states get together.
And on most issues, they vote by qualified majority.
So they take a majority of the people in the council, although it's weighted slightly depending on how big the country is.
And so on most issues, they vote by that kind of majoritarian voting system, or vaguely majoritarian voting system.
But on certain issues, really important fundamental issues, it's always been understood that you have to have complete unanimity.
So every country has to sign up to a particular proposal.
And foreign policy is obviously one of those really important, fundamental, sovereign areas of national life.
And so, historically and up until now, the European Union works on the basis of unanimity.
So, if the European Union wants to make a foreign policy decision that affects the whole European Union, then everybody has to agree to it.
And the lesson that the European Union has very much learned from the, as it were, Viktor Orban era is that this is an enormous problem because it means that a country like Hungary, which has a different take, for example, on the war in Ukraine, Hungary can effectively block certain decisions or use its veto to extract concessions on these issues.
And this has been hugely problematic for the European Union.
They've wanted to have a much more assertive policy on Ukraine, for example, certainly the European Commission has.
They've wanted to have a more assertive policy here, and Orban's always been able to hold it up by exercising his veto.
And the lesson they draw from that is that it's time to abolish that veto, abolish the unanimity requirement in the European Council voting.
This is itself a very controversial.
A kind of idea, even among lots of other European Union countries, because lots of small countries would, for example, miss out.
But essentially, this is their dream, the European Commissioners, the von der Leyen's dream, to move to a situation where one country no longer gets to exercise that veto, which in effect means that no country gets to exercise its sovereignty with regard to these fundamental decisions.
Are there any issues of practical importance on the foreign policy front that would come?
You basically said it, but I want you to say it again.
What are the foreign policy issues that would then come into play?
If the European Union switched to qualified majority voting on foreign policy issues rather than unanimity.
That is to say, if smaller countries or even larger countries lost the veto power, and there's a question mark over Slovakia here, but if they lost their, that is to say, with regards to Russia, but if they lost their, the veto power, the holdout on simply one country, like even Malta, it doesn't matter, because if it's Malta or if it's Germany, on this point, they have the same veto blocking power.
Well, it's important to understand the context, which is that over the last few years, the European Union has kind of abrogated more and more power to itself and wanted to play a much bigger role in foreign policy and international issues.
Some of this started with the coronavirus pandemic, where the European Union wanted to be effectively in charge of all of the lockdowns and wanted to procure all of the vaccines, et cetera, et cetera.
And similarly, in foreign policy, since the war in Ukraine, they wanted to have a much more assertive role.
And in this case, they wanted.
The ability to send weapons, maybe even engage in weapons manufacturing, to go as far as you might imagine going as far as if there's a possible peace deal that troops are involved, the European Union will want to be involved in that, might want to set up its own army.
So there are a whole number of issues.
Another classic one has been the example of the kind of seized Russian frozen assets, which the European Union has wanted to put to work in Ukraine.
And so, in the near term, it's really this issue of Ukraine that they want to get around this veto for.
It's somewhat ironic, isn't it, that they're waiting for.
Because, of course, to make this change, they're going to need unanimity to get this change.
They can't do this change.
They can't abolish the national veto by qualified majority voting.
They're going to need unanimity on that, which is probably why they were waiting for Viktor Orban to vacate the scene.
On that point, I'm going to.
Come back just in two minutes after this short shout out to one of our sponsors for this evening because there's another point here, Jacob, that I'd just like to run through with you, and I'll also discuss now your article in Brussels Signal.
But, folks, when the dollar's convertibility into gold ended in 1971, gold was fixed at $35 an ounce.
Now, fast forward to today, and the US dollar has lost over 85% of its purchasing power.
Gold, on the other hand, has increased in value by over 12%.
Thousand percent.
That's why central banks are buying gold at record levels, and it's why major firms like Vanguard and BlackRock hold significant positions in gold.
And that's why we at the War Room encourage you to consider diversifying your savings with physical gold from Birch Gold Group.
But it starts with education, and Birch Gold has just announced their Learn and Earn Precious Metals event.
This free online event rewards you.
For learning the basics of investing in precious metals, sign up to get free silver on your next purchase.
Get even larger incentives as you go, and the more you learn, the more you earn.
But you must act now, as this special event only runs through until April 30th.
So that's another two weeks, folks.
The dollar lost its anchor in 1971.
You don't have to lose yours.
Text Bannon to the number 989898 to join Birch Gold's Learn.
And earn precious metals event by April the 30th.
Once again, Bannon, B A N N O N to 989898.
Back now with Jacob Reynolds, head of policy at the Matthias Corvinus Collegium.
You mentioned earlier on the issue that Peter Magyar wants to get, not unreasonably, he wants to get his hands on the 35 billion euros worth.
Of infrastructure financing that the European Union has illegitimately blocked in order to destabilize the Viktor Orban government.
He wants to get his hands on that money because a large part of it would have been provided via Hungarian taxpayers to Brussels, handed over via the Budapest government, which is how the European Union works.
There's no direct taxation to the EU from member states.
It's all handled by the Member state level.
So he wants to get his hands on that 35 billion.
It's a large, huge sum of money.
Ursula von der Leyen has indicated that they know, with it jumping through a few hoops, that money will be released rapidly.
It strikes me that the European Union has played a very cynical game here.
They've tried to manipulate the outcome of this election, in part with Hungarians' own money, in order to get Viktor Orban, an obstacle, out of the way, in order to push through with this.
power grab, which they haven't just wanted for the last six months or since the Ukraine war.
Brussels has been looking to move foreign policy over to qualified majority voting for decades.
Is there a straight line here, do you think, between the withholding of the $35 billion of funding and the eventual goal of Brussels to take greater control and direction over shaping the European Union's foreign policy programme?
Well, there was definitely, I think, a direct line between the withholding of these funds and the desire to see the back of Viktor Orban.
It was always said about these by the European Union officials themselves, but especially by their propagandists.
It was always said that this kind of intervention, they would call it the enforcement of European values in their kind of Orwellian terminology.
It was always said that these were supposed to be levers that they would use to either get Orban to change his behavior and to give up his kind of attachment to Hungarian sovereignty or Later on, to make things very difficult for Orban to achieve re election.
Now, don't get me wrong, it was clear that this was a kind of momentous landslide election result.
So there were clearly lots of factors at play.
But certainly the difficult situation in the Hungarian economy, which is in part because of these withheld funds from the European Union, that certainly would have played a role.
And the challenger, Peter Magyar, made no mistake that he was going to be the ones who would deliver the sanctioned assets, in effect, if he were to win.
And the European Union here has a tested playbook because.
They did the very same thing in Poland, where they withheld significant sums of money that Poland was entitled to.
And then, the day, almost the day after their man, Donald Tusk, won the election and formed a coalition that won the election and now did the old Conservative government, they picked up the phone and they said, Well, now here's all of your money.
And so it was clear that this was a reward for the Polish people choosing the right person.
And it was very obvious that a similar reward would be in the offing if they chose the right person in the European Union's eyes in Hungary.
Now, what is their quid pro quo here?
They're going to give him all of this money, but they expect something in return.
And in this case, they don't just expect him to lift his veto on the current money that they want to send to Ukraine, but they also want him to implement a series of reforms.
They call them reforms in line with European values, but reforms that would effectively give the European Union a much greater degree of leverage inside Hungary, such that in the future, if the Hungarian people elect another conservative figure, or even against this existing one, they will have the levers that they can pull.
It's very worth mentioning on that point that Brussels' relationship with the smaller countries and the eastern accession countries, especially moving further out, is very different from Brussels' relationship with, say, France or Germany, on the other hand, because they have far more ability to drive, to capture the political elites of the smaller country.
And smaller countries, obviously, are going to have.
Less proposed, less resistance to the European Union juggernaut.
I want to come on to this excellent article that you had out in Brussels, Signal here, and I'll pick up with your line in there that populism means nothing without national sovereignty.
Just say a bit what you mean about that, and then I'm going to sort of pick up something that you mentioned in the article.
Yeah, well, this is quite an important point to understand because it's clear that the European Union is going to.
Allow Peter Magyar, at least rhetorically, his rhetoric on controlling migration.
And in the case of, again, I make the comparison with Donald Tusk, the current prime minister of Poland, where they've allowed Donald Tusk an opt out of their migration pact, which is basically a kind of a system where they reallocate refugees from across the Union.
And so they allowed this to Donald Tusk because he was one of them.
But this was a concession that they gave.
This was something that was, as it were, a reward for the good behavior.
Poland, in effect, had given up its ability to choose on this fundamental question of, for example, how many.
Asylum seekers or refugees, you might have to take.
And the same thing is in the often here.
Peter Magyar talks tough on migration, but fundamentally, sovereignty is the ability to choose.
It's not a sovereign migration policy that you have if it's one that comes with a kind of natural veto from Brussels.
So, even if Brussels accede to this and allow a strict migration policy, you've still given up that sovereign right to choose, which is really the lifeblood of national sovereignty.
Just to go back, because you mentioned this twice now, I want to underline this.
I think you called it a playbook, right?
You referred to the absolute sort of parallel between what happened in Poland and what's just happened in Hungary.
And, you know, the announcement that blocked funds will soon be flowing.
Didn't take place after weeks or months of negotiations.
This was within hours.
So it's absolutely clear that they're standing by, as it were, waiting for this.
On the subject of Donald Tusk, let's just remind folks that, correct me if I'm wrong, but he was, when you said he was one of them, indicating that he was a leading figure in the European Union, he was precisely the president of the European Council, right?
Which is the very body we're talking about now that's going to gain out of this power grab.
The European Council, by the way, folks, is the collection of the heads of government of the 27 member states.
And it also comprises thematically, you'd have all the defence ministers that will gather at these meetings, or what have you, or the foreign ministers will gather at these meetings.
That's the vehicle.
So Donald Tusk, the Prime Minister of Poland, is very much a European Union guy.
And, you know, what you were saying, Jacob, about sort of trying to get the reforms in, the European Union, trying to get these reforms in, so that in a future point,
it doesn't matter even if the country changes its mind at an election, the EU's policy making infrastructure and diktats will be so well ingrained within the system that it will be pretty much impossible for a people to choose its own destiny.
whilst remaining a member of the European Union.
That's pretty much the situation that the UK found itself in.
On that point, you come out with something which I loved, and that you said that you quoted Margaret Thatcher as saying that her greatest achievement was Tony Blair.
What did she mean by that, and why are you citing it in the present context?
Yeah, well, so Margaret Thatcher, when asked about this, Tony Blair, I'm sure your viewers will know and remember, but the key point was that Tony Blair was nominally a Labour Prime Minister, but in effect had accepted all of the fundamental elements of Margaret Thatcher's political programme.
Elements that maybe some of your viewers might actually agree with, although probably not her aversion to economic nationalism, but fundamentally, she made this enormous change, broke the power of the trade unions in In the UK, resolved the decision about a market economy, as it were, once and for all in Britain.
And Tony Blair, despite wanting a little bit more welfare spending, a bit more redistribution here and there, didn't challenge any of those fundamentals and didn't challenge and indeed strengthen the kind of managerialist, technocratic approach to government, which arguably Margaret Thatcher pioneered.
So that's why she was his achievement.
And in some ways, you could say, I mean, at least lots of people are saying that that's somewhat true of Peter Maguire, the guy who's replacing Viktor Orban, because again, Orban's intellectual legacy of Strong borders, strong cultural attachment to Hungary, the kind of rejection of, as it were, woke ideology.
All of these things are not yet officially challenged by Peter Magyar.
So, Orban's kind of intellectual victory is to some degree kind of secure.
But that's why it's so important to realize that politics is not just about particular policies, which might change from week to week or month to month or year to year, but it's also about the question of sovereignty.
Because whilst Peter Magyar, even, I mean, I have my suspicions, but he might not even be the man to fundamentally challenge some of these.
Policies, even if the EU manages to sneak in through the back door.
But in giving up Hungary's right to choose into the future by accepting all of these European Union institutions and kind of technocratic approaches to government, which he's going to accept over a period of time, he will give up the Hungarian kind of right to choose and be different on these questions.
So that's why I make the point that populism really is nothing without sovereignty.
Look, so in the final sort of 45 seconds, do me the great favor of just quickly going through the The main issues that are going to be of interest to the war in the audience the LGBT agenda, Ukraine, immigration, the relationship with Russia.
What on those four issues would you expect broadly?
Perhaps the rhetoric might change, but broad continuity.
And where do you think there will be significant change?
Well, I imagine in the short term on migration, on the war with Ukraine, for example, lots of things won't change.
But the one place I'm especially on the lookout for is over the question of work ideology, especially in education.
We know that the European Union likes to begin there, it likes to, as it were, indoctrinate people while they're young.
And I suspect that the first kind of sliding that we'll see from Peter Bangia will be over areas of education policy, where I suspect that you'll begin to see some of the more kind of progressive ideology begin to seep into Hungarian schools.
Well, that was just a scene of the Raise the Flags group putting out the Union Jack flag and the English flag of St. George in the UK.
Their co founder, Ryan Bridge, was arrested earlier on this April for, and I quote, on suspicion of causing religiously and racially aggravated harassment.
And Ryan Bridge joins us this evening to explain exactly what happened, why he was arrested.
Folks, you are not going to believe this.
As we go through this, some of this you're going to think this guy, who's Harnwag, got on the show tonight.
This is clearly, he's clearly just inventing this and making it all up.
It's horrific.
It is a horror story.
Ryan, thanks for coming on the show.
You're a great English patriot.
Tell us, right?
Tell us a bit about why you were arrested by the police a couple of weeks ago.
I appreciate you having us on and hello to everybody.
So, firstly, it's Raise the Colours.
So, it's raisethethecolours.org.uk.
That's our site.
And us at Raise the Colours, we are normal working class guys.
We are, you know, your patriots.
We like unitism, patriots, you know, and there's our website as you're putting on for us now.
That's us.
And, you know, we've got an Instagram page and a Facebook page, and we're gaining followers daily.
And the momentum we're getting that we're really interested in is when we're on the street raising these flags on lampposts in the street, we are getting a driving force.
Sometimes there'll be 20 guys.
In the summer months, there's like 50 odd guys.
It's brilliant and it's a carnival style atmosphere.
And it's because we feel that in the UK, we are suffering to the hands of our left wing Labour government.
And it makes us, instead of rioting, instead of holding up places to ransom, we believe that by putting a flag up, it makes us feel a little bit better because we are being invaded on a daily basis by people from third worlds.
So we went to a little town called Oxford, which is in middle class central England.
And it was the white middle class liberal left that sort of attacked us that night.
I got attacked quite a few times myself.
And basically, yeah, they attacked me and threw a kick and this and that.
And it's all take the flags down, the flags are racist.
And it's just horrendous that people from the left can think that you're being racist because you're raising the flag of your own country.
You can see there that, you know, we've got, you know, we hire a cherry picker and we're all over the country doing this and supporting towns and villages where they're feeling under threat because we're losing our identity in the UK.
We're losing our identity of what our forefathers fought for.
Now, let's just dig into this because, for our largely American audience, whenever they think of Oxford, they probably think of a medieval sandstone university with all its sort of picturesque spires.
They might think of Inspector Morse, perhaps, Gentile.
But people in Oxfordshire are living in fear, apparently.
It is crazy to think that middle class liberal left Britain is in a state that it's in today, where places like Shakespeare's country, Shakespeare's home of Stratford on Avon, is completely flooded with people that despise the flag of their country.
Oxfordshire, absolutely beautiful, beautiful English cities there in the county of Oxfordshire.
Cambridge is the same.
And it's flooded with these people that absolutely despise the flag of their own country.
And it's because of people like Starmer, who he outly says, we believe that people like us raising the flag are using it as a tool of hate.
And he has said that in Parliament in the UK.
And it's just disgusting for him to say that we're using the flag of our country that our forefathers fought for as a tool of hate.
Now, you refer to the invasion that is taking place, the third world invasion.
Some of the footage of you that you can get on YouTube, I was looking at it earlier.
You're actually out there on the north coast of France stopping the dinghies from leaving, which is heroic, I think.
By the way, that's most admirable about what you guys are doing.
It's just like ordinary guys taking the initiative to do something to save their country.
Because they know that the British government won't do it.
So the invasion is taking place, and undoubtedly, undoubtedly, there are many people coming in who do hate the UK and everything that it stands for, and they're coming as invaders.
Not everybody, but a huge number.
But that is a separate category of what I loathe, because what I loathe more than that, what is higher than that on my ontological hierarchy of despising, is the fact that there are people like.
Keir Starman, and we'll talk about it just in a few moments in the second half of this, of our chat tonight about the Oxfordshire, the leader of the Oxfordshire County Council.
And what I find objectionable about these people is that they have the hatred of the United Kingdom and everything that it stands for, right?
Let me repeat this.
This is white middle class people have a greater hatred.
Of what the country stands for than the third world invaders coming in.
And these people, our globalist elites, our sociopathic overlords, are using the fact that there are people from different cultures and backgrounds in the UK to promote their own agenda and suppress everything that is great about the UK.
Is that a fair reading to you, Ryan, or have I got that wrong?
I mean, we've got continents like Africa where people are circumnavigating their way through Africa from third worlds where their education isn't as good as it is in the UK and in Europe.
They're getting into Europe.
They're coming from places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, circumnavigating their way south into Syria.
They're coming into Turkey.
If you go to places like Italy now, Italy's gone.
You've got Germany, it's gone.
They had over a million in last year, 1.1 million.
I went to Paris and investigated in Paris before I got banned from France because I'm also banned from going to France for reporting on this.
And when I was in Paris, Paris is completely gone, completely gone.
And these people are monitoring their way through Europe and they're being instructed to get through by the likes of Care for Calais, Hope Not Hate, Utopia 56.
And these are big companies that are pretending to be.
They're left wing NGOs, we call them, non government organisations.
And these NGOs are getting these guys to Calais.
And it's literally when you get to Calais and Dunkirk, that's the way.
It's 11 miles over the border.
And these people are risking their lives getting on these dinghies and coming across to the UK.
And we are guiding them in, literally like a taxi service on a daily basis.
And we have Border Force, we have 11 boats on Border Force.
Collect all the engines.
And I reported on it the other week in Ramsgate, a port in our country, because I can't leave our country at the moment because of this ban going into northern France.
And when I was there, there were 11 engines and 11 boats on there.
And it just made me sick to my stomach to think that that's a potential of 1,100 people that are on our shores.
And these people are coming because of the fruits of our government and what we are giving them.
We're giving them three meals a day, we're putting them in hotels, and these men.
This isn't an asylum claim of somebody that's from a third world country fleeing war.
These are people from places like South Sudan, Eritrea, where yes, there is war zone, but they're going through 17, 15 safe countries to get to England because we will give them three meals a day.
We will give them shelter.
We will give them a top up credit card, mobile phones.
And these people aren't safe.
And now the other side of the coin is we're dealing with the rapes, the murders.
And us at Raise the Colours, we're going out there putting flags up of our country, being patriots, because we feel like we're just trying to do something to highlight that it's not normal for these people to be living in these hotels.
And if anything, it's encouraging more and more to come over.
And that's why when I've been on the beaches in France, I've seen what's coming.
And this year, we're going to be flooded.
The UK is going to be flooded with dinghies and small boats coming over from northern France.
And they have blocked me from coming over.
So, you know, I thought I'd carry on flagging.
And now I'll.
Oxfordshire have now banned me from putting a flag up for my own country.
In the UK, when these people get there, they're not arrested.
They're put in hotels at taxpayer expense to get three meals, straight meals a day.
You're the person being arrested, right?
In Oxford, right, if you're looking at the sex holocaust against women and young boys as well, frankly, that's taking place thanks to the third world illegal invasion.
Occasionally, a judge might put one of those orders on that won't let you go within.
100 meters of someone if they put a complaint out.
You, however, are banned from the whole of the county of Oxfordshire, right?
So, this really shows, it really illustrates the priorities, right, of the British government, this, right?
It shows you what their priorities are.
They have the instruments of law, they won't use them to protect British citizens.
They'll use them to harass British citizens, and also on YouTube, you can see.
The police coming in and harassing you at your place of work.
They'll use these instruments not to stop the invasion, but against British citizens who are speaking out against the invasion.
Ryan, hold on.
I'm just going to do a quick ad read and then I'll come back in just a moment for your reaction.
I realize there are many choices when it comes to who you choose for your cell phone service, and there are new ones popping up all the time.
But here's the truth there's only one that boldly stands in the gap.
for every American that believes that freedom is worth fighting for.
And that's Patriot Mobile.
For more than 12 years, Patriot Mobile has been on the front lines fighting for God-given rights and freedoms whilst also providing exceptional nationwide cell phone service with access to all three of the main networks.
Don't just take my word for it.
Ask the hundreds of thousands of Americans who've made the switch and are now supporting causes They believe in simply by joining Patriot Mobile.
Switching is easier than ever before.
Activate in minutes from the comfort of your own home and keep your number, keep your phone, or even upgrade.
Patriot Mobile's all US base support team is standing by to take care of you.
Call 972 Patriot today or go to patriotmobile.com forward stroke Bannon.
Use promo code Bannon for a free month of service.
That's patriotmobile.com forward slash Bannon or call 972 Patriot and make That switch today back now.
Ryan, tell me, give me your reaction to what I was just saying about the priorities of the British state, because then I want to talk about the leader of Oxfordshire County Council.
Have I got that right?
This is the case, right?
You're banned, they're letting hundreds of thousands of Africans into France, but you're banned.
In the UK, they're not arresting people who are arriving on the dinghies, they're arresting you.
In the UK today, if you go to northern France and you've come from a third world country or you've come from Afghanistan, Iraq, Kurdistan, Syria, Iranians, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan.
I could keep going on.
It's on and on and on.
And you can see these people on the boat.
These aren't women and children, these are men of fighting age.
We are being invaded on a daily basis.
Yet I go out there and exploit this and take videos like the one your viewers can see on the screen now.
And when I show that these are coming over the 12 mile line, which bear in mind, it's 23 miles to get over from France to UK, so it's not far at all.
Now, at the 100 metres away from where this boat is now, there is a French rescue boat which will tug them to the halfway line, and our border force will be there to get them onto the border force boat.
We sail them in, and then we put them in a processing centre for a day.
Then they're put into these hotels, they're walking the streets.
Towns and cities are getting flooded with third world, I call them illegal economic invaders.
Because they're not migrants, because they're not going through the front door legally.
They're going through the back door illegally with no papers, no documents.
We don't know who they are.
Yet I'm there, and the French Interior Minister, Mr. Nunes, he then got some allegations from a company called No Borders, More Food.
So these are a left wing company that don't believe exactly that don't believe in borders.
And they base themselves in northern France and they put allegations against me that I was interfering with.
Police and obstructing of police.
And I had stolen tablets off a migrant.
So when the migrant jumped on the boat, I picked up his tablets off the floor.
I shot his tablets to see what they were.
They were tuberculosis tablets.
Now, the UK has eradicated tuberculosis from the 70s.
Yet these people are coming into our country on a daily basis, and we don't know who they are with things like TB, with things like scabies.
We're having outbreaks of this in all sorts of hospitals and the hotels.
We've got 44 hour wait times at our National Health Service, yet you can't get a dentist, you can't get an optician, things like this.
Yet these people are flooding in on a daily basis, and we're giving them absolutely everything.
And it's not that they're women and children, and I'm not against looking after people from other countries that are less fortunate.
We give enough in aid, but what's going on here?
We are being invaded on a daily basis by fighting aged men.
So they ban me from there, and then to be banned by the police.
From the whole of Oxfordshire, which is, I don't know how many square miles it is, but it's near enough from Birmingham, which is mid centre, down to London, is a disgrace, not just a city, but from a whole county.
On the subject then of, because we've only got like about two minutes left, on the subject of this, I do want to ask you, the leader of the council, Liberal Democrat, Councillor Liz Leffman, said that the scale and persistence of this activity, raise the colours, raising the flags, is affecting communities across Oxfordshire, and residents have reported feeling distressed, unwelcome, and unsafe.
The widespread installation of flags, this is the national flag, folks, it's the flag of the UK by Raise the Colours, is not a sign of patriotism.
It's an act of intimidation and division that's having a real and damaging impact on our communities.
I want to ask you, just like, because you've got about a minute, okay?
When the police arrested you earlier on this month for acts of intimidation and division and creating alarm, They said that they had received complaints.
Do you know whether that's true, whether ordinary citizens have made complaints or whether this is being organised by the left at a political level?
It is the organisation that you need to go online now and make a donation.
ordinary working guys in the families supporting their country because they love their country and they hate that the fact that the country is being destroyed by people who hate them.
Brian Bridges, very, very grateful.
Come back.
I'll give you all the space you want on this show.