Share

  • Nigel Farage needs to get a grip on how his policies would impact Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales

  • It remains to be seen whether Reform will be an asset or a hindrance to the devolved regions

  • The Clacton MP is astute in judging the mood of English voters, but does that extend across the UK?

Last week, Nigel Farage claimed that, if he became prime minister, his government would deport up to 600,000 illegal immigrants. The announcement dominated the week’s news, panicked Labour and the Tories and strengthened Reform UK’s status as the party to beat at the next general election. From that point of view, it was another resounding success. 

In West Lothian, the next day, though, Farage was less bullish about removing everyone who arrived on a small boat. And he seemed to have an unsure grasp of some of the details of his proposals. The Reform leader struggled, for example, to explain how he planned for Northern Ireland to leave the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) alongside the rest of the UK. He resorted to cliches about the labyrinthine complexity of ‘Irish politics’, hinted that a solution could take years to negotiate and admitted that the province was, in any case, not at the forefront of his thinking. 

It was difficult to imagine another party leader being so dismissive about an integral part of Britain’s national territory and it illustrated one of the potential problems with the idea of Farage as a UK prime minister. The Clacton MP has an instinctive feel for the mood of English voters and his language resonates with them. His understanding of issues specific to Britain’s devolved regions, though, seems more patchy. And when he speaks about Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, he sounds less assured, often falling back on generalisations or eye-catching statements that few people take seriously.

Yet despite Farage’s reputation as a tribune of middle-England, Reform’s performances in Scotland and Wales have been increasingly impressive. Thanks to Labour’s deep unpopularity, and the Conservatives’ lacklustre leadership, the party is almost by default becoming the main alternative to nationalists there. In recent polls, Reform overtook the Scottish Conservatives and, from nothing, it competed seriously in the Hamilton by-election. Indeed, it was because of his party’s improved prospects in Scotland that Farage found himself in West Lothian last week, defending his immigration plans.   

Reform had just gained a new Holyrood MSP, Graham Simpson, who became their only current representative in the Scottish parliament. The former journalist was persuaded to defect from the Scottish Tories and believes his new party can create something ‘new, lasting and exciting’ in Scotland. His decision, though, and the fractious press conference that accompanied it, raised another question about Reform. Can Farage get serious about bringing his message to the whole UK, or is he at heart a leader only for England, who does not understand or care much about the health of the Union?

The Reform chief, during his immigration announcement, at least acknowledged that Northern Ireland complicated his party’s plans to leave the ECHR. Irish and pro-EU lobbying has entrenched a widespread belief that the UK cannot ditch the convention without breaching the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. The implication is that, either Northern Ireland must remain under its auspices even if Great Britain leaves, creating another constitutional division between the province and the mainland, or the government risks trashing the peace process. Farage effectively endorsed this argument, by claiming, initially at least, that his party would renegotiate the agreement with nationalists and Dublin. Unfortunately, this suggestion was simplistic and almost certainly inaccurate. 

The agreement required the ECHR to be ‘incorporated’ into Northern Irish Law; an obligation that was fulfilled through the UK-wide Human Rights Act. That does not mean that the UK (or even Northern Ireland) must remain signatories to the treaty. The think tank Policy Exchange published a detailed paper, which it said ‘dismantled’ this interpretation. The report described the claims about the agreement as ‘completely groundless’. It pointed out that the references to the convention concerned only ‘the domestic law in Northern Ireland’ and were anyway only intended to protect against the ‘abuse of devolved power’. These commitments could be satisfied by retaining the text of the ECHR in domestic law (or keeping the Human Rights Act in force), while the UK leaves the convention and removes the authority of the human rights court at Strasbourg. 

Rather than drawing on this kind of legal analysis, Farage sounded like he was improvising on a matter he knew little about. That impression was exacerbated by his vague comments about ‘Irish politics’, which were almost guaranteed to rile unionists. In fact, it was Article 2 of the Northern Ireland Protocol, and its enactment through the Withdrawal Act, which courts have used to apply the ECHR directly and strike down Westminster immigration laws in Northern Ireland. The Irish Sea border is a far greater challenge to leaving the convention than the much vaguer commitments in the Belfast Agreement. 

The Reform leader seems poorly briefed and liable to ad-lib on other devolved issues too. For example, some of his party’s supporters in Scotland were frustrated at Farage’s insinuation that the Barnett Formula could be easily replaced or amended. The next Holyrood election will take place in May next year, at the latest, and a threat to bin this funding formula, which unionists describe as a ‘union dividend’, is hardly a vote winning theme, even if he believes the question is valid. The Tories quickly alleged that Farage’s comments would ‘delight the SNP’. And his suggestion that the Scottish parliament should be awarded new ‘revenue raising’ powers will have dismayed many devolution sceptics. A growing cohort of unionists believes that the Scottish government already has too many powers.

In Wales too, Farage’s pledges to re-open coal mines and blast furnaces generated headlines, but drew allegations that he wasn’t making a serious contribution to a debate about solving the country’s problems. At the same time, the issue of immigration will almost certainly dominate the next general election, and its effects are being experienced across the UK. That ensures Reform and Farage are serious contenders wherever they stand. 

It is not yet entirely clear, though, whether the party leader is an asset or a hindrance in the devolved regions. His knowledge of important issues, like the Belfast Agreement’s effect on withdrawing from the ECHR, can seem, at best, superficial. If he is ever to become a prime minister for the whole UK, Farage needs to get serious about understanding how his policies play out across the country and he has to start thinking properly about what the Union means to him and his party.

 – the best pieces from CapX and across the web.

CapX depends on the generosity of its readers. If you value what we do, please consider making a donation.

Owen Polley is a writer, commentator, consultant, and the co-author ‘An Agenda for Northern Ireland After Brexit’.

Columns are the author’s own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of CapX.