As you said, we were set up back in the early 90s to Get Britain Out of the European Union. With the referendum id say we have won the war, what weve got to do now is win the peace. The Prime Minister will only start at the negotiations with the European Union later injune and ukip has to be on the pitch because if ukip isnt on the pitch, then theres no real impetus for the Prime Minister not to backslide and i believe, i worry, that she may backslide with fisheries, or maybe there will be a deal on the divorce bill, or maybe there will be a deal on freedom of movement. What we need is to ensure that ukip is there so that we get the brexit that we voted for onjune the 23rd. But when you launched your manifesto last week, your main focus wasnt on europe. It was on terrorism and extremism. It almost looks like you are flailing around now, trying to stay relevant, arent you . Well, no, not at all. What we have done is we have led on the agenda of islamic terrorism and we launched our Integration Agenda about six weeks ago. A lot of people within the Westminster Bubble felt very uncomfortable about it but we are saying things what people are thinking and what weve got to do is weve got to get to grips with this islamist cancer within our midst, it needs to be cut out because our worry if it isnt, andrew, then what happened the other night in manchester may well become commonplace. Except critics say that your desperation to try to remain relevant is taking you into some unsavoury waters here. One of your meps, gerard batten, has called islam a death cult, islam. Do you agree . No, its language i personally wouldnt use but what i will say, and i have openly called Islamic Fundamentalism, or radical islam, a cancer within our midst, and i repeat that today. But he didnt use islamism. I wouldnt. He said islam, one of the worlds great religions, he called it a death cult. Again its not language that i would use but i want to make it clear. Should anybody use it . No, not particularly. He is your mep. Let me finish. Its not language that i would use and the vast majority of muslims in our country are peaceful, they add to our economy, they love this country. However, there is a small number within that community who hate the way we live, hate who we are and want to do us harm and we need to do something about it. And thats what you would call islamist which is different from islam, but he didnt say islamist. He also went on to say that islam is a barbaric religion. Does he speak for ukip . No, gerard is not speaking for ukip on that. What we see is simply that islamism and Islamic Fundamentalism is a problem. Its notjust a problem in this country, its a problem around the globe and weve got to come together and do something about that. And this is the candidate that your party has chosen to stand against the Prime Minister. He didnt make that distinction. Well, i think he has got his terminology wrong and ill be open and honest about that. What i will say is that we are the only party that put together an Integration Agenda which im not saying, by the way, is the answer to everything, but its the beginning of an answer and what weve got to do is bring the communities together to ensure that Something Like this doesnt happen again. Is islam a religion of peace . The vast majority of muslims. Absolutely, they are peaceful, they live in this country, they love this country, they add to the economy. The problem is there is a small number of people who need to be sorted out, cut out of society altogether and actually what we need to do is we need to ensure that we put more Police Officers on the beat, and we are proposing 20,000 extra Police Officers, to ensure that these people are caught and brought to justice. But you want to ban the burqa . Yes. How would that cut out, to use your words, this small minority . How would that possibly stop atrocities like the one in manchester . Well, there are a number of examples where the burqa has been used in criminality. You had, for example, the killing of the female pc back in 2005 and the jihadist then escaped this country wearing the niqab. We had the 21 7 terrorist. But he could have used another disguise too, couldnt he . The failed bombing on 21 7, one of the people who tried to carry out that act of terror escaped wearing a burqa and only earlier this month in manchester eight men were sent down for carrying out raids in 2015 and 2016 wearing burqas. Its about security and whether we like it or not, andrew, we are the most watched people in the world, 0k . There is more cctv in this country than anywhere else on the planet and for it to be effective you need to see peoples faces. But that is only the first part. The next part is about integration and what we need to do is we need to ensure that communities come together and i would argue that to enjoy the full fruits of British Society you need to be prepared to show yourface. That may be true, but it would not make any difference in the fight against terrorism, would it . Well, its a step towards integration and one of the ways that we will win, one of the ways that we will beat these islamic fundamentalists, is by bringing communities together. One of the ways you bring communities together is you integrate people into British Society and if you show your face, it allows you to communicate better, it allows you to enter certain spheres of employment which they are precluded from at this moment in time, so its about integration. It could, though, be seen as a knee jerk reaction. Let me suggest another one. You now say that where a victim of a Grooming Gang is of a different race or religion to the offenders, it should be an aggregating factor in the prosecution. What are you on about . Well, its obvious their race and their religion is a factor and you only have to look at the 11100 girls who were victims in rotherham. You have to look at the girls who were victims in rochdale and the vast majority of these girls are white, they are christian and they were basically groomed by pakistani men. But why does in the end the race or religion matter . I think we can agree it is hard to imagine a worse crime than the Sexual Assault of a child and what happened in the cases you have just given, but why race or religion . Surely whoever does this, they should just be slammed up for a very long time regardless of race or religion if found guilty. Yes, they should and i would make sentences longer. However, race is already an aggravating factor when it comes to prosecutions and i think in these cases in terms of grooming, for example, it is quite clear that the race of these young girls has been taken into consideration by the perpetrators. But the law as it stands is if race was a motivating factor, if you did something bad and race was a motivating factor. I think it is a motivating factor. But you are simply saying if they are of a different religion or race, that should be an aggregating factor, not their motivation, just the very fact that they are not white, they are not christian. But it obviously is a motivating factor because these guys are not grooming girls from within their own community, these girls are being picked because they are white and they are christian. Except the courts would have to prove that and that is the law at the moment. But i think it is obvious when there are 11100 of them in rotherham. You also said that you would like to see the Death Penalty returned for terrorists and child killers. Well, thats my own personal view, that isnt ukip policy. You have even said you would act as the executioner yourself. I was asked that question by the mail on sunday straight out. They said, do you support the Death Penalty . I said, yes. For people like the killers of lee rigby where it is quite obvious these perpetrators of that crime they are wandering around with that mans blood all over their hands and this was a british soldier who was pretty much executed on a british street by a british citizen. As far as i am concerned that is treason. And people like ian brady who only died last week, it has cost us 10 million in taxpayers money to keep that man alive. And you said you would be prepared to do the Death Penalty yourself. Well. Do you want to be an mp or an executioner . Well, i dont want to be Albert Pierrepoint when im out of politics. What i will say is that they asked me that question and if i am prepared to stand up and say that i believe in the Death Penalty, then, you know, maybe i would pull the lever on people like ian brady in the past. So you do want to be an executioner . I dont want to be an executioner but i believe people like ian brady who committed awful crimes against children, i dont see why british taxpayers have to pay so much money to keep someone like that alive. You recently said you are also ok with Water Boarding as an interrogation technique. No, i used the example when i was talking about if you were in a situation where there was an immediate Terrorist Attack on the horizon and we had to get information which would save peoples lives in this country, then i would basically i would use harsh methods. You would be ok with it . I would use harsh methods. You actually said i would probably be ok with it. These were your words. Let me make this point, i would put the lives of british families over the human rights of anyjihadi any day. Including Water Boarding . Including Water Boarding. Is that party policy . No, its not party policy. Its your policy . No, look, ijust said if we were in a situation where there was going to be an immediate attack and peoples lives were on the line, i would want to see british families protected. I would put their lives over the human rights of anyjihadi. You know these are almost never the circumstances in which torture is used. That is not what Water Boarding has been used for. It has been used to get intelligence and information out of people. Yes. Are you in favour of that . No, and i didnt say that if you listen to the whole interview. No, i am just finding out if you were. No, im not, but if you listen to the whole interview i used the example if there was an immediate Terrorist Threat to a place like this in london, i would always put the lives of british people over the human rights of a jihadi. Do you agree with another of your meps, roger helmer, he says, quote, it is time to think the unthinkable and just lock up suspected terrorists. When you read this morning that there is a suspected 23,000 jihadis who could be living amongst us, obviously m15 are stretched to capacity at this present moment in time. I think weve got to look at ways of ensuring our people are safe. Let me finish, whether that is a return to control orders, whether that is tagging these people, who knows . In the future maybe a return to internment. A return to internment . Look, we are in a situation now where we are being told there are 23,000 possible suspects on our streets who want to do us harm. Now, if you consider that it costs roughly £1 million a year to have 24 7 surveillance on these people, we are talking about vast amounts of money. Maybe, andrew, we arejust living in a different society. I am not saying now is the time to return to this, but i wouldnt rule it out in the future. So you wouldnt rule out internment perhaps of thousands of british citizens. You are aware that when internment was introduced in Northern Ireland in 1971, it was the biggest Recruiting Sergeant of the ira ever. You do know that . Well, look, what i am saying is in the future, not now, maybe we can target these people now, maybe we can return to control orders, but i wouldnt take anything off the table in the future. Because as i say, look, unless we get a grip on this, what happened in manchester the other night, which is part of my constituency, could become commonplace and that is the last thing we want to see. Lets just take stock then of what youve told us so far and what weve discussed. Ukip candidates calling islam barbaric, banning the burqa, calling for the Death Penalty, Water Boarding in certain circumstances, now internment. In your desperation to be noticed in this election you are becoming pretty extreme, arent you . Hang on, the vast majority of those are not ukip policy. They are your views. Hang on, we are not looking to be noticed. We are leading the agenda in many ways on this. We came back with our Integration Policy about six weeks ago and the westminster media, the Westminster Bubble, they all felt very uncomfortable about it so what they did is they mocked us and they came up with stupid suggestions saying beekeepers would be banned, or bridal wear would be banned. The fact is we are the only ones who are coming up with an agenda to try and improve integration in this country. I would suggest this to you, it is beyond the Westminster Bubble that people watching this may feel uncomfortable about the idea of locking up suspects without trial. Well, let me put it to you this way. Firstly, ill quickly move back onto the burqa thing. Polls show time and time again that people agree with me on this. Internment is the issue i raised, which is much more serious. It is far more serious and as i said we are not at that point yet but, i tell you what, if people were asked if it would save lives, then people would agree with me on that too. Lets look at immigration, its a subject very important to ukip. You propose a one in, one out policy, so to let somebody into this country as a migrant somebody else would have to leave. That isjust a gimmick, isnt it . I dont think its a gimmick at all and no one is talking about putting up the drawbridge here. The other day when the Immigration Figures were released it showed that 339,000 people left this country which means that we would roughly allow the same amount of people to come in again, but then beneath that there would be an australian points based system like we have pretty much around the world, except in countries within the eu, whereby if youve got the skills that this country needs and there is a gap in our economy, please come here and work. So the Skills System would be on top of the one in, one out . We could still have more than one in and one out, then . No, thats over a five year period, so it gives us a lot of wriggle room here. As i say, we need to get control of immigration in this country. The other day it was announced that last year alone, a city the size of hull came to this country. If we carry on along this road, if we carry on letting a city the size of birmingham in every four years, we will end up with a population of 80 million by the middle of this century, which is simply unsustainable. Butjust think how this would work. We may, in the years to come, have a desperate need for more doctors, more skilled medical people, orfor high tech specialists. Everybody wants to turn this into a great high tech country as well. But we couldnt bring these skills in from overseas unless somebody was prepared to leave the United Kingdom as well. Well, look, 339,000 people left this country last year. It was 323,000 the year before. Were not talking about pulling up the drawbridge and not letting anyone in. Im sure that number of skilled people can be incorporated into the amount of people that leave the country and then come back in. But we cannot bring in 100,000 skills unless at least 100,000 other people are prepared to leave. But were not in that situation, are we . Because theres over 300,000 people virtually every single year leaving this country. Thats at the moment. You dont know what itll be like in the future. Your Immigration Policy will be determined by the number of people prepared to leave. But in the meantime, in the meantime, what we need to do is to train our own people. We need to train our own nurses, our own doctors, our own teachers. Therefore you can reduce the amount of people that have to come in to fill skills. But that takes time, as you know. Of course it takes time, but were saying this would work over a five year period. But did you just pluck this policy out of thin air, because even your own candidate in derby north, he said the idea was stupid. We got this idea. The first people to put this forward were frank field from the labour party, Nicolas Soames from the conservatives. They are talking about balanced migration here, because we have realised that somebody has to get a grip on the population because otherwise we are going to be in a situation in the future where we will have to have a huge School Building programme. The nhs, which is fit to bursting at the moment, will only be under more pressure. We will end up with more motorways, a new rail network. It cant continue. Capital spend will be massive unless we get control of population. But as you will know, derby north, your candidate who thinks the idea is stupid, thats the home of rolls royce, one of our Great British companies. He says, i think its not practical. I think rolls royce would say it was stupid. And i would agree with them. Thats your own candidate. I dont see how anyone can think its stupid, because, as i say, what we will be bringing in is skilled migration, migrants who will add to the economy. Migrants who will add to the tax receipts, and therefore it will be good news all round. Itjust creates the general impression that in your desperation to be noticed in this election and its been a struggle for you you are becoming ever more extreme. 0n immigration, you are now more hardline than nigel farage. Were actually, we have moved on from where we were at the last election. But between 1970 and 1997, migration was running net roughly at around 20,000. So we werent that far off balance in migration in those years anyway. Lets move onto brexit, a matter very important to ukip. And the debate has moved now to the nature of the brexit deal. At some point there will need to be a deal done to give current eu Residents Continuing Rights in the uk. In your view, how long will they have to have lived in the uk to be given those rights . Well, look, i mean, we have made it perfectly clear in our General Election manifesto that the 167,000 eu migrants working in the nhs can stay, 0k . No debate about that. But i think once article 50 had been triggered, its then up for negotiation how long people can stay for. So if you are an eu citizen, and you have come in since the end of march, when article 50 was triggered, you wont necessarily have a right to remain . That will be down to the government of the day. Im asking you who is. Thatll be down to the government of the day to go into negotiation with the European Union, because what weve got to do is ensure the rights of british citizens in spain, portugal, italy and greece and everywhere else can stay as well. If they come to a satisfactory agreement, whereby british Citizens Rights are protected in those countries, then i will have no problem whatsoever. I understand that, but you mention only eu citizens working in the nhs. Is that it . Yes, at the moment. We are going to make that point perfectly clear. Thats it . So others, eu citizens who are teachers, university professors, lecturers, they may have to leave . But these are people who have come before article 50 was triggered. Those who have come after and there wont be that many who have come after at this present moment in time willjust have to wait and see what the Prime Minister comes up with in terms of negotiation. Let me just clarify this, mr nuttall, everybody who was here when article 50 was triggered as a definite right to remain . Yes. With all the same access to services, nhs, in work benefits and schools . Yes. But after article 50, thats uncertain. If you have just arrived here from germany or italy or france, youre not quite sure . That will all depend on the agreement that the Prime Minister can strike with the European Union. As we all know, the eu in various ways has been demanding billions of pounds, people call it a sort of divorce bill. Your manifesto says we shouldnt pay a penny. But if even a modest sum, not tens and tens of billions, but a modest sum secured substantial access for us and continuing access to the single market, you wouldnt pay it . Well, i dont see why we should. Because since the early 1970s when weve been members of this organisation, weve handed over £183 billion net to this organisation in Membership Fee alone. I dont see why we should have to pay a divorce bill on top of that. Look, the eu Werejust Picking figures out of the air on this. 50 billion. But you wouldnt pay anything . I dont see why we should. Weve got 9 billion wrapped up in the European Investment bank. Surely we must own part of eu buildings or real estate all over europe. That may be, but if we got into a situation where for a modest, but modest to governments, not modest for individuals, ten, 12, 15 billion, and in return we would have tariff free access to the European Union, and all the jobs that would guarantee and save, you wouldnt pay that . Hang on, we are going to get tariff free access anyway. You dont know that. I will tell you why. The European Union might be a corrupt organisation, it might be a bullying organisation, but it isnt a stupid organisation. There are millions ofjobs on the continent that are dependent on british trade. We have a huge trading deficit with the European Union. Have you asked the greeks if its not a stupid organisation . Laughter. Yeah, maybe. Theyve had problems, of course, with europe. Its a trade off. To continue with tariff free access for several billion pounds, that would be money well spent . Andrew, we are the fifth largest economy on the planet. We are germanys biggest marketplace outside germany. We frances biggest marketplace outside france. In fact, for the french farmers, we bought 39 million bottles of champagne last year. The germans sold 800,000 cars into our economy. There will be a trade deal. Its mutually beneficial. I understand thats your argument, but it seems to me to be that for a relatively small amount of money, nothing like the hundred billion that has been floated, perhaps not even the 50 or 60 billion, to secure us continuing largely as we are, which would be a huge triumph for britain to have got that, you wouldnt pay a penny . I dont see why we have to pay this organisation a single penny, considering, as i said, that we have paid in almost 200 billion in Membership Fee alone since we have been members since 1973. I think its wrong. All right. Major parties use their manifesto, they hope, to set out a grand vision. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt. But your manifesto has got talk about Scrapping Vat on fish and chips, tackling what you call the lad culture. We have talked about banning the burqa, but its interesting that in the manifesto you want to prevent it because it, prevents an intake of essential vitamin d from sunlight. Hang on, hang on, hang on. These arent quite serious, are they . That last point, there is a myriad of research, by the way, medical research, that proves our point on this. However, that is peripheral to the burqa point. But you put it in the manifesto. Hang on, the problem we have got with the burqa and the niqab is that it prevents people from communicating. It prevents people from integrating into society. This is a really serious point. If you want to enjoy the full fruits of British Society, you have to be able to show your face. So why mention vitamin d and sunlight . Because theres lots of research that proves our point on this. Isnt the truth is that ukip is becoming increasingly irrelevant, that the 2017 General Election is the beginning of the end for ukip, isnt it . Sometimes in politics, the tide comes in, the tide goes out. This is very opportune for theresa may at the moment because she is able to talk the talk and act tough on the issue of brexit, because she hasnt gone into those negotiations. It will get difficult for her once the negotiations start. Thats why its so important ukip remains on the pitch. If she does backslide, i will make a prediction. Ukip, by the end of 2018, could be bigger than it ever has been before. But the tide has gone out for ukip and its been showing you have no clothes bar a particularly extremist set of garbs. No, i dont buy that at all, actually. I think our manifesto has been agenda setting. We are leading the agenda when it comes to integration. Obviously the Conservative Party in some areas have stolen our clothes. But equally, as i say, ukips job is to set the agenda in politics. We have been very successful at that in the past. When we spoke about brexit 15 years ago people looked at us as if we were lunatics. Weve now got brexit. When we spoke about grammar schools, people said that they were unfair, bad for the working class. Its now government policy. When we spoke about a Points System for immigration, we were called racists and xenophobes. Its now government policy. I put it to you that many of the things which are in the ukip manifesto this time round will be government policy, or at least policies of other parties within the next decade. But this time, for the big picture, you are in an uncomfortable position because the truth is that for ukip to succeed, Theresa Mays Brexit has to fail. No, because ukip will move on and campaign on other issues. Other issues which are contained within our manifesto. I dont want theresa may to fail. But you just said she becomes relevant if she backslide. But i will put country above party. I want theresa may to succeed in these negotiations thats if shes still the Prime Minister. Of course. But i want her to succeed in these negotiations. I want her to do well, i want her to get the best deal for britain. My problem is that if you look at her record as home secretary, im not sure she will get that best deal. But if, come the next election, whenever that is, were out of the customs union, we are out of the single market, we are out of the european court, were also out of ukip. There would be no purpose to you by then. There would, because we would continue to set the agenda on integration. 0bviously, im a Big Proponent of an english parliament. We are talking about scrapping the house of lords. Theres lots of things for ukip to campaign on. Your period as leader hasnt been covered in glory, has it, mr nuttall . You lost the stoke central by election, even though it was a hugely pro brexit constituency. A number of claims you made on the website during that campaign turned out to be untrue. You did badly in the local elections. During the itv debate you forgot the name of the Welsh National party leader. Youre not the man to save ukip, mr nuttall, are you . Hang on, do you know i was elected as leader of ukip with the biggest mandate that anyones ever received in a Leadership Election . I took a flyer on stoke, i took a gamble. And it didnt pay off. We halved labours majority in that election. You crashed and burned. I would love to have been an mp and i would love to have won that seat. It didnt work. We knew these local elections would be the hardest set of elections we ever fought. As i say, sometimes in politics the tide comes in and the tide goes out. It will come back in again. But you know what a lot of people say, including some critics in your own party, is that ukip under paul nuttall is a pale imitation of Nigel Farages ukip. I think if you look at our manifesto its proof that its not. Ukip has moved on, its campaigning on other issues. Ukip in the future will be relevant, if not more relevant, than it has ever been in the past. We both know nigel farage, mr nuttall. Youre no nigel farage. Im not nigel farage. Quite obviously we come from completely different backgrounds. We have a completely different leadership style. Ive only been the leader of ukip for six months. Im now in a General Election and i believe i will lead ukip after this General Election and we can go on to great things. Are you the last leader of ukip . No, absolutely not. Who else would want it . Weve got some really good people coming through at the moment. I think in the future being the leader of ukip is a four year term we will go on and we will have another really good leader of ukip. As i say, ukips future is secure. Ukip will campaign on other issues in the future. But beyond that, if theresa may backslides on brexit, she must know that ukip will be bigger and more important than its ever been in the past. Paul nuttall, thank you very much. Thanks, andrew. Welcome to newsday. The headlines. After a deadly siege and a week of heavy fighting against islamist insurgents have Government Forces in the philippines now retaken control of the Southern City of marawi . 0ne week on from the manchester attack, Exclusive Bbc Pictures of the bomber, salman abedi is seen shopping the day before and Police Released an image of him with a suitcase. I am released an image of him with a suitcase. Iam in released an image of him with a suitcase. I am in london. Also in the programme. Tiger woods blames a reaction to Prescription Drugs for his driving while under the influence arrest. He says no alcohol was involved. It is the indian version of Silicon Valley but bangalore has a problem, it is running out of water. Live from