Nigel Farage has just alleged that “the establishment” is trying to force him out of the UK by closing his bank accounts.
The one-time UKIP leader, former Brexit Party leader and previous MEP posted a video on Twitter on Thursday claiming he has received “no explanation or recourse as to why this is happening to me”.
Obviously, this has caused quite the stir – the clip got 19.5 million views in less than 24 hours.
What is exactly is Farage claiming?
Farage said he’s been with the same banking group – which he isn’t naming yet – since 1980, but now they are closing his accounts.
He claimed someone from the bank in question told him it was a “commercial decision”, but he has dismissed this explanation.
He’s supposedly been to seven banks since to see if he could open a personal and business account with them, but he’s been turned down by each one.
The GB News presenter said: “There is nothing irregular or unusual about what I do. The payments that go in and come out every month are pretty much the same.”
He suggested: “This is serious political persecution at the very highest level of our system.
“If they can do it to me, they can do it to you too.”
He claims he could still open a fintech account to receive and pay funds, but that means he can’t borrow money, take out a mortgage or earn interest on savings.
He later said on GB News that the bank in question had offered him a personal account with in the banking group division but not a business account, and again suggested he might move abroad.
That’s a pledge he has made before. Only in 2021, he said on LBC radio: “If Brexit is a disaster, I’ll go and live abroad.”
Who is Farage blaming for this?
Farage said he does not believe it was a “commercial decision”, but suggested it might be due to the EU’s definition of PEP – a politically exposed person.
This is a financial regulation term for high-profile people in political roles who might be at risk of bribery or corruption because of their position.
Although the UK is no longer part of the EU, the UK still implements PEP legislation.
Financial Conduct Authority guidance explains that “gatekeepers” to the financial system need to perform checks on PEPs – figures who are usually MPs, heads of states, ministers, assistant ministers, ambassadors, high level judicial bodies, among others.
Financial companies have to go through processes to see if customers may be PEPs, including seeing the risk they might bring to the bank.
Farage claimed: “There is some hope that this EU definition which came into British law may be moderated in some way. We’ll have to see.”
He claimed banks can interpret the meaning of PEP in any way they like, saying: “I don’t think anybody has been treated like me in the world of politics.”
The Eurosceptic also brought it back to Brexit, alleging: “The banks you see are part of the corporate structures in this country, and they did not want Brexit to happen.”
“I think in my case, probably the corporate world will never forgive me,” Farage suggested, claiming he was the one to “carry the blame” for the EU referendum and the subsequent Brexit.
He also suggested there was a third reason, dating back to when Labour MP Chris Bryant, using parliamentary privilege claimed Farage had received large sums of money directly from the Russian government last year.
Farage says he hasn’t received a penny from any source with any link to Moscow and called for an apology from the MP.
The former MEP continued: “Without a bank account you effectively become a non-person. You don’t exist.”
He said this was comparable to the “worst regimes of the mid-20th Century”, as he won’t be able to “exist or function” without access to a bank account.
“I’m beginning to think that perhaps life in the United Kingdom is becoming completely unliveable because of the levels of prejudice against me,” he concluded.
But what does Twitter think?
There was a lot of scepticism over the video from Twitter users.
Plenty pointed out how Farage’s language was reminiscent of the way he’s spoken about asylum seekers.
But, others were quick to point out that – if true – these were very serious claims.
Others were... less sympathetic and substantially more sarcastic.