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