Of all the effects of the current conflict in the Middle East, one we can be certain of at this point is that they're going to be a lot of refugees, hundreds of thousands, possibly millions.
Where should they go?
That's a real question.
So if you were to suggest, well, why doesn't Israel take them in?
It's their war.
The response you would get would be immediate and it would be aggressive and it would be, of course not.
That's insane.
These people are dangerous.
If they were moved to Israel, it would be destabilizing.
For that country.
And that's probably true.
In fact, it's certainly true.
But what's interesting is the very same people who would tell you that are now pushing for those refugees to be sent to the West, to English-speaking countries, Scotland, the UK, and yes, the United States.
Calls for this are coming from the left, predictably, but also from the so-called right.
We should take these refugees.
What's going on here?
And is anyone pushing back against it?
Well, Nigel Farage is the head of the UK Independence Party, joins us now with an update on where this conversation is going.
Nigel, thank you so much for coming on.
So it's a little strange that the very people who acknowledge that this would be a massive threat to Israel, and they're absolutely right.
By the way, I'm not calling for Israel to take these refugees.
But those same people are saying the UK and the US and Scotland should take them.
I mean, we have a great history in the UK of taking refugees.
You can go back 300 years to the Protestants in France who were being burnt at the stake.
And we took in a large number of French Protestants, Huguenots, as they were known.
And they did very, very well in commerce, finance, the military in our country.
The same applies to Jewish people.
We took Jews in from Russia.
After the pogroms at the start of the 20th century, we took Jewish people in from Germany and Austria in the 1930s.
And indeed, if you go to the 1970s, we took quite a large number of people from Uganda, where Idi Amin threatened to annihilate the Asian population there.
And again, they were a group that came to the country, assimilated, did incredibly well.
So, you know, we feel...
As a country, with our Christian roots and our desire to help those in genuine need, that we should try and help people.
But remember that the duty of any government, its primary duty, is the integrity of its own country and its citizens.
Now, over the course of the last six, seven years, we've taken over half a million...
They've come to us from Hong Kong, our former colony, being oppressed by the Chinese Communist Party.
They've come to us from Afghanistan.
They've come to us from Syria.
They've come to us, of course, from Ukraine.
The big problem here is that Hamas, the terrorist group Hamas, although the BBC... We'll never call them terrorists.
But Hamas, who launched those appalling, barbaric attacks on everything, down to babies on October 7th, they enjoy considerable support in Gaza.
Indeed, the last elections that were fought in Gaza a few years ago, Hamas came top of the poll.
So if you take any significant number from Gaza into our country, you will have a significant percentage.
Of Hamas sympathisers and supporters among them.
And you have to ask, given the protests we've seen on the streets of London just this weekend and the weekend before, whether maybe we've got enough of a problem in this country already.
And I, you know, we've had successive waves of Islamic extremist terrorism.
On our streets, there's a case going on right at the moment from somebody who was killed just a couple of weeks ago.
The authorities do their best to suppress all of these stories.
So my argument, and I'm pretty much alone in this, is that if we take people from Gaza, they will actually pose, some of them, enough of them, will pose a threat to our national security.
And if anyone should take them, Tucker...
Shouldn't it be the Egyptians?
Shouldn't it be the Saudis?
Shouldn't it be their co-religionists in that part of the world?
And how interesting that Saudi Arabia didn't take a single person from Syria because they were worried.
on Saudi society. - Right. - And the same goes for Egypt right now.
So if they won't take them, why on earth should we threaten national security? - I want to go back to something you said at the beginning, that the English feel good about themselves because it's a Christian country, and it is still, I think, officially a Christian country, though it's obviously not, but it is technically a Christian country.
They feel good because they're expressing Christian charity and receiving all these refugees.
But has that policy made England better?
Is it a more cohesive, happier country than it was 40 years ago?
It's interesting that no one ever says, well, China's got the fastest growing economy in the world.
They have an obligation to take in millions of refugees from other countries.
Nobody ever says that.
Nobody says that about the Gulf states.
It's only Christian countries that have this obligation.
And I think it's obviously destroyed those countries.
Germany, I mean, people are getting raped in Germany on the street long before.
The Hamas attacks of October 7th is a long-standing problem.
But why do you think that is?
Why do you think that prosperous Christian countries in the West have this obligation that every other country, India, China, Saudi, they're all exempt from it?
Well, so your own prime minister, who is a conservative, but obviously has zero interest in the country that he supposedly runs, for example, that's very obvious as an American looking across.
His new priority is ending tobacco use in a country with a massive narcotics problem and a massive refugee problem and an economy based on, what, banking or something that's falling apart?
Do not, for one moment, please make the mistake of thinking the party that is now in power in my country and has been there for 13 years has anything to do We have the highest tax burden we've had since 1951, when we were busy paying off wartime debts.
We have the growth of a surveillance society that punishes the innocent and never the genuinely guilty.
We have legislation.
To control our lives at every level.
We've just put up corporation tax by 30% to damage every man and woman running a small business that wanted to reinvest and grow in this country.
And despite Brexit, we still have not lifted the regulatory burden, which of course supports the big corporates, but damages the entrepreneurs.
And for Sunak, one year on from an election, to decide his main priorities.
We're to stop anybody after 2009 buying cigarettes whilst we have a massive, massive problem with drugs causing huge short-term damage to our youngsters.
Oh, and the other thing is to fiddle around with the A-levels that 18-year-olds do.
Neither of those two things would have been on the top 25 priorities of almost anybody in our country.
And that's why we're headed next year in this country for a dramatic, dramatic...
Collapse of conservative support in the general election.
And you know what?
Not only will they lose the election, they deserve to lose it.