Nigel Farage has threatened deploying sanctions on Pakistan over what he described as a migrant “invasion”, amid plans to suspend Britain’s asylum system for five years, including scrapping existing applications and deporting migrants awaiting decisions.
The Reform UK leader announced the proposals at a conference in Hythe, Kent, today, pledging to halt the asylum system for an entire parliamentary term if the party form a government.
With much of the influx coming from Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Reform leader threatened sanctions against countries who failed to agree to take back deportees, such as tariffs, visa bans and flight bans.
Under the plans, all active applications would be declared void, while legal refugee routes, asylum tribunals and existing resettlement schemes would be abolished.
The party says it would remove people with pending asylum and humanitarian protection appeals rather than process their cases. Around 90,000 appeals are currently awaiting consideration, according to Home Office figures cited in the proposals.
Mr Farage would also immediately close resettlement programmes which Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood recently said would reopen. Around a quarter of arrivals under the schemes were expected to be Palestinians, as well as Afghan women and girls.
The party argues there is “no mandate” for the programmes and says those who have already arrived through them would also face deportation.
In addition, refugees granted asylum within the previous five years would have their cases reviewed by the Home Office.
Speaking at the conference, Mr Farage said: “Can we please stop calling this a small boats crisis? It is not a small boats crisis. Have a look at this behind me. This is a replica size of the boat carrying 230 people that recently crossed the English Channel.
“It is not a small boats crisis, and it doesn’t matter how much money we give to France.”
Moreover, Reform UK would promise to impose tariffs to pressure other countries into accepting the return of foreigners.
Follow for the LATEST UPDATES throughout the day…
Downing Street has conceded no Russian interference successfully affected the result of the 2016 Brexit referendum, in spite of the Prime Minister’s earlier claims.
A No10 spokesman said: “The Prime Minister accepts the result. We do believe the result to be legitimate”.
When probed on Mr Burnham’s use of “loose” language in his comments, they added that he “has been very clear”, and that “Russia has indeed attempted to interfere in a series of democratic events in UK and across Europe – they haven’t succeeded”.
They continued: “The prime Minister has been clear about the threat Russia poses in the information sphere. It is inconceivable they didn’t try to use the referendum to their advantage.
“The Prime Minister is clear the Brexit deal we have inherited leaves Britain worse off and we can do much better. This is not about leaping to a referendum.”
-
‘He’s a liar’ – Nigel Farage blasts Andy Burnham and rejects Russian influence in Brexit vote
Nigel Farage has accused Andy Burnham of “lying” over claims that Russia influenced the Brexit referendum, rejecting suggestions that foreign interference tainted the result.
“There was no Russian interference,” the Reform UK leader said, describing the allegations as part of a “Russia hoax”.
He also defended his friend and supporter Aaron Banks, who successfully won a High Court libel case related to the allegations.
Mr Farage criticised the Prime Minister, calling him “out of touch” and “out of date”, and dismissing his views as “bizarre”.
However, he has signalled that Reform UK would be willing to work with any political party to implement its deportation plans.
He argued that the Conservatives had “disappeared” across the Midlands and northern England, questioning their ability to win the next general election.
However, Mr Farage said party politics would not prevent cooperation on immigration enforcement.
“We would work with anybody, anybody from any party that would help us get this done,” he said, “regardless of party, absolutely.”
-
Nigel Farage denies seeking deportation advice from Donald Trump
Nigel Farage has confirmed that he has not sought advice from Donald Trump on how to implement mass deportations.
Asked by GB News at the Kent conference whether he had approached the US president for guidance, Mr Farage replied: “No is the answer to that.”
However, he praised the Trump administration’s approach to immigration control, saying: “We can disagree with many things the US president has said in recent times, but one thing he has done is control immigration.”
He claimed that six million undocumented migrants crossed the US southern border under Joe Biden, adding that crossings had now fallen to virtually zero each month.
Mr Farage also defended the administration’s handling of mass deportations, acknowledging that there had been “one or two examples” highlighted by the press, but arguing that, overall, the approach had been “rather clever”.
-
Britain ‘cannot be a refuge for the world’, Zia Yusuf says
Zia Yusuf has claimed that successive governments have spent £32bn on the asylum system since 2010, arguing the money could instead have funded the military or NHS.
Reform UK’s home affairs spokesman said at today’s Kent conference: “Perhaps we’d feel safer if that money had been spent on our military. £32bn buys two Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, two Type 26 anti-submarine frigates, four astute-class attack submarines, nine Poseidon submarine hunters, 70 F-35B Lightning fighter jets, and 150 Challenger 3 battle tanks.”
He added: “Or instead of British people struggling to get access to the treatment they need, that £32bn could have been spent on 40 state-of-the-art, world-leading hospitals.”
Mr Yusuf also argued that Britain could not be a “refuge for the world” while “its own people die waiting for an ambulance”.
He said a Reform UK government would ensure that when someone dialled 999, “the ambulance comes”.
“For too long, the British people have been told to wait forever, wait for the ambulance, wait for the operation, wait for a home, wait in their own country, while foreign nationals jump the queue,” he added.
“The waiting ends with us.”
-
‘We just want this to be a normal country’, says Nigel Farage on plan to suspend asylum system
Nigel Farage has said that he wants Britain to become a “normal country”, as he outlined Reform UK’s plan to suspend the asylum system for five years and deport some 90,000 migrants.
Explaining the party’s position, Mr Farage said: “What Zia and I are saying today is that we just want this to be a normal country. That’s all.
“Nothing radical or crazy. We want to get back to being a normal country, a country that puts national security at the top of the agenda, a country that does everything it can to protect its own citizens, and a country that detains and deports people that come illegally, as virtually every other country in the world does, and indeed, as we used to do.”
He also called for the small boats crisis to be renamed, given the increasing size of vessels and emerging “mega-dinghies”.
Standing with a replica boat behind him, Mr Farage said: “Can we please stop calling this a small boats crisis? It is not a small boats crisis. Have a look at this behind me. This is a replica size of the boat carrying 230 people that recently crossed the English Channel.
“It is not a small boats crisis, and it doesn’t matter how much money we give to France.”
-
Nigel Farage says his description of small boat crossings as an ‘invasion’ was justified at Kent conference
Nigel Farage has insisted that his 2020 description of small boat crossings as an “invasion” was justified, arguing that the number of people arriving across the Channel has vindicated his warning.
Speaking at a press conference in Hythe, Kent, this morning he recalled facing widespread criticism and personal abuse after predicting that the crossings would continue.
He said his concerns had been dismissed at the time, but said subsequent arrivals had proved his assessment correct.
Mr Farage said: “It was on that day when on YouTube I said that this was going to be the beginning of an invasion, but you might as well put a sign on the White Cliffs of Dover saying ‘everybody welcome’.
“I remember the howls of indignation with which my comments were met – that somehow I’d lost touch with reality. I was desperately seeking a new political life now that Brexit was done, and of course much, much abuse.
“Well, now that over 200,000 have come, I can stand here and say I was right. I was well ahead of the rest of the pack.”
-
Labour considers broader definition of ‘British’ defence firms to extend contracts to foreign businesses
Andy Burnham is poised to support a broader definition of a “British” defence company, potentially allowing US and European-owned businesses with UK operations to qualify for government contracts.
The Labour Government pledged to “back British” when purchasing military equipment, aiming to boost domestic jobs, skills and economic growth.
However, industry sources say the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is leaning towards including foreign-owned firms that employ British workers and invest in the UK.
One industry source told the Telegraph: “If you restricted it to companies that are truly British, the list would be very small indeed”, while another said officials appeared to have settled on a “more sensible definition”.
Defence minister Luke Pollard indicated at Labour’s conference in September that companies with UK sites, employees, skills investment and tax contributions could qualify.
“We are open to US[and other foreign companies that do that,” he said.
The policy is expected to face a major test when the Government selects a contractor for its multi-billion-pound Skynet 6 military satellite programme.
Airbus, which manufactures satellites in Stevenage, is competing against Lockheed Martin, which has pledged to establish a new UK facility if successful.
Lockheed Martin said it employs 2,000 people in Britain and contributes £2.4 billion annually to the economy.
The MoD said its forthcoming measures would support local communities and strengthen UK defence capabilities while meeting international obligations, and that the definition remained under development.
-
Lib Dems campaign for enforcement action against drivers who run over beloved pets
The Liberal Democrats have launched a campaign to enforce drivers who run over cats to be legally required to inform police, demanding a law change to protect Britons’ pets.
Under current UK law, drivers must report collisions involving certain animals, including dogs, goats and cattle, but this requirement does not extend to cats.
Liberal Democrat MP Freddie van Mierlo believes the legislation should be amended to ensure injured cats are not left suffering at the roadside without assistance.
Speaking to the Mirror, Mr van Mierlo argued that animals can experience pain and distress and should not be abandoned after a collision, while emphasising the importance of cats as beloved pets and members of many families.
Calls for reform have gained considerable support, with almost 190,000 people signing a petition earlier this year.
The proposed changes are backed by the RSPCA, and are expected to be debated by MPs in Westminster next month.
Mr van Mierlo said: “Most upstanding citizens, if they sadly hit a cat, they will stop and try and identify it and take it to a vet and do the right thing.”
He clarified that reform would require drivers to stop following a collision, without automatically prosecuting those involved in genuine accidents.
-
‘Come on, Andy, move on. It’s not 2016. It’s 2026’, says Shadow Energy Secretary on Brexit debate
Shadow Energy Secretary Andrew Bowie has urged Andy Burnham to “move on” from the Brexit debate and take advantage of being outside the EU, rather than pivot back toward it.
He told GB news: “Firstly, I think we need to see any evidence behind the Prime Minister’s claim. But of course, we do know that Russia and our adversaries have attempted to interfere in referenda, an election in this country and in elections within our allies for many, many years, unsuccessfully.
“I think it’s very dangerous of the Prime Minister to seek to reopen the Brexit division that this country has moved on from. Frankly, what we need to do now is face the future and make the best of what we have right now.
“The huge opportunities afforded to us by being outside the European Union that people voted for in a legitimate vote in record numbers. We need to respect that vote.
“It was taken over a decade ago now. Come on, Andy, move on. It’s not 2016. It’s 2026. Let’s deal with the issues we’re facing today.”
-
Russian interference in Brexit was ‘unsuccessful’ claims Foreign Office minister
Russian attempts to interfere in the Brexit referendum were not successful, a Foreign Office minister has said.
Stephen Doughty told LBC: “We know what the result was. I don’t think they’ve succeeded in their efforts.
“I don’t think they’ve succeeded in their efforts to undermine our elections.”
He added: “The security minister’s been very clear that they’ve attempted but not succeeded, in his evidence that he gave previously on this.
“But the fact is that they are attempting to interfere, and we all need to be alert to that and respond accordingly.”
-
Zia Yusuf brands Andy Burnham ‘awful’ as he calls out U-turn on pledge not to re-run Brexit
Reform UK home affairs spokesman Zia Yusuf has described Andy Burnham’s expressed interest in closer ties with the EU as “awful”, having U-turned on a key election pledge to not re-run Brexit.
His comments come after Andy Burnham claimed Russia “clearly” meddled in the 2016 Brexit referendum, as he indicated he may push to rejoin the EU.
Mr Yusuf told GB News breakfast: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Andy Burnham has provided not a thread of evidence.”
He pointed to the Makerfield by-election, where Mr Burnham had pledged not to re-run the Brexit debate, and that “within months of winning that election in Makerfield and making himself Prime Minister on that promise, he’s already U-turning on that.”
“More people voted for Brexit in this country than have voted for anything for the history of this country in a single election. For him to be doing this now I think is really awful, but it’s why people have such a dim view of career politicians.
“They will say anything they can to get elected.”
-
Sagal Abdi-Wali enters Parliament today after beating Zack Polanski in Holborn & St Pancras by-election
Labour’s Sagal Abdi-Wali will enter the House of Commons this afternoon after winning Friday’s Holborn & St Pancras by-election, succeeding former prime minister Sir Keir Starmer, who resigned as MP after being ousted from Downing Street.
Abdi-Wali secured 12,292 votes, representing 45.17 per cent of the total, while Green Party leader Zack Polanski finished second with 8,928 votes (32.81 per cent).
In her victory speech, she identified tackling homelessness and bringing Thames Water into public ownership as key priorities, describing the company as “appalling”.
She also condemned the racist abuse she experienced during the campaign, emphasising the importance of protecting Britain’s diversity and social cohesion.
Before entering Parliament, Abdi-Wali became Camden Council’s first black female leader in May this year.
Elected as a councillor in 2022, she previously led the borough’s housing team, where she says she secured more than £670 million for social housing improvements.
Born in Somalia, she arrived in Britain as a child refugee in the 1990s, fleeing the country’s civil war.
Labour says her background includes more than a decade of voluntary work and charity trusteeship, alongside roles in local government and school governance.
When selected as Labour’s candidate, Abdi-Wali said she wanted to give back to the country where she had been able to build a life, and will now represent Holborn & St Pancras in Parliament.
-
Andy Burnham to fight for new EU deal in Commons
Andy Burnham will tell MPs it would be a “dereliction of duty” not to seek a new deal with the European Union.
In a Commons address later today, the Prime Minister is expected to reiterate his argument from the Labour Party conference Brexit has done “more harm than good”.
He will call on all parties to support the Government’s approach in seeking a closer relationship with the EU, arguing such a move could help control immigration and boost growth.
A No10 source said: “Andy understands why some politicians don’t want to face up to the reality that Brexit has not delivered what they once promised.
“But it is time for a different conversation about what our long-term relationship should be. Sticking with the status quo and not working relentlessly to secure a good deal that boosts growth would be a major dereliction of duty.”
At the Labour conference in Liverpool last month, Mr Burnham said he would set out the “options” for Britain’s long-term relationship with Europe around the time of a UK-EU summit planned for the end of the year.
He has suggested those options could include rejoining the bloc.
Nigel Farage Threatens Sanctions on Pakistan Over Migrant ‘Invasion’ Amid Vow to Shut Down Asylum System
Nigel Farage has unveiled one of Reform UK’s most far-reaching immigration proposals, threatening sanctions against Pakistan and other countries that refuse to accept the return of their nationals from Britain. The Reform UK leader has also pledged to suspend the country’s asylum system for five years if his party wins the next general election, setting the stage for a major political and legal confrontation over Britain’s borders.
Announcing the proposals on 12 October 2026, Farage argued that the existing system had failed to prevent irregular migration and had left the country struggling to remove people who had no legal right to remain. His proposed measures include rejecting pending asylum applications, restricting new claims, deporting people without permission to stay and applying economic or diplomatic pressure to foreign governments that refuse to cooperate.
Pakistan has emerged as a particular focus of the announcement. Farage said a future Reform government could introduce visa bans, restrict flights, target Pakistani nationals’ assets in London and, in extreme circumstances, impose tariffs.
The proposals have immediately raised questions about their legal feasibility, their potential impact on international relations and the consequences for people seeking protection from persecution. They also place immigration firmly at the centre of the political contest between Reform UK, Labour and the Conservatives.
Farage’s Plan to Suspend the Asylum System
At the heart of Farage’s announcement is a proposed five-year suspension of the asylum system, which he says would give a future Reform government time to regain control of immigration and address what he considers serious failures in border enforcement.
Under the plan, approximately 90,000 outstanding asylum applications and related cases would be declared void rather than processed through the existing system. New claims would face automatic rejection, while those affected could become liable for removal from the country.
Reform also proposes reviewing the status of people who have already received asylum protection, particularly those whose countries of origin are subsequently considered safe. The party says it would expand deportations to include foreign criminals and people who have no legal entitlement to remain in Britain.
The proposals go substantially further than simply increasing removals of people whose asylum claims have been refused. They would change the way the country determines who qualifies for protection and how individuals can challenge decisions affecting their future.
Farage has defended the approach by arguing that the government cannot effectively manage immigration while a large backlog of claims and appeals remains unresolved.
However, an outstanding asylum application is not the same as a rejected claim. Some applicants may qualify for refugee protection because they face persecution, torture or other serious dangers if returned to their home countries.
Automatically rejecting applications without examining individual circumstances would therefore raise fundamental questions about Britain’s obligations under domestic and international law.
The government would also need to establish how people could be removed lawfully, how their identities and nationalities would be verified and what arrangements would exist for those whose countries refuse to accept them.
Why Pakistan Is Facing the Threat of Sanctions
Pakistan has become a central target of Reform’s proposed enforcement strategy because the party wants foreign governments to cooperate more readily with British deportation arrangements.
When a person has no legal right to remain in the United Kingdom, removing them can still be complicated. Authorities may need to establish their nationality, obtain travel documents and secure agreement from the receiving country.
Some governments cooperate with removals more readily than others. Where cooperation is limited, deportations can be delayed, creating additional administrative costs and leaving cases unresolved for extended periods.
Farage argues that Britain should use its economic and diplomatic influence to change that situation.
His proposed measures against Pakistan could include suspending certain visa routes for Pakistani nationals, restricting airline access to British airspace and imposing tariffs on Pakistani goods. He has also raised the possibility of threatening Pakistani nationals’ assets held in London.
These are different forms of pressure, with different legal implications. Visa restrictions would affect people seeking permission to enter Britain, while tariffs could raise the cost of imported goods. Restrictions on flights could affect airlines, passengers and commercial links between the two countries.
Any action involving private assets would require particularly careful consideration of the legal rights of the individuals concerned. A person’s nationality alone does not establish that they have broken immigration law or that their property should be confiscated.
The government would also need to consider the potential consequences for British businesses, families with connections to Pakistan and the wider diplomatic relationship.
Farage’s central argument is that countries should face meaningful consequences when they refuse to accept the return of their nationals. His critics are likely to question whether broad sanctions would be proportionate or effective, especially if they affected people who have no connection to immigration offences.
The Wider Deportation Strategy
Pakistan is not the only country that could be affected. Reform has previously identified Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea, Sudan and Somalia among the countries whose nationals could face visa restrictions if their governments failed to cooperate with deportations.
The party’s latest proposals suggest that the range of potential measures could extend beyond visa bans. Tariffs and restrictions on airlines would provide additional ways to pressure countries that have economic ties with Britain but might not be significantly affected by restrictions on visas alone.
The underlying strategy is to make cooperation with deportations a higher priority for foreign governments.
Yet the practical results would depend on how those measures were designed and implemented. A country facing trade restrictions might agree to accept more deportees, but it could also retaliate, reduce cooperation in other areas or challenge the measures through international legal channels.
Tariffs could raise costs for British importers and consumers. Restrictions on airlines might disrupt travel and trade. Visa bans could affect students, workers, relatives visiting family and business travellers who have no involvement in irregular migration.
A government pursuing such a strategy would therefore need to assess not only the potential benefits but also the economic and diplomatic costs.
There is also a practical distinction between securing an agreement to accept deportees and carrying out the removals themselves. Even when a country agrees to cooperate, British authorities must still complete the necessary checks, obtain documentation and comply with applicable legal requirements.
Sanctions may increase pressure, but they cannot by themselves resolve every administrative or legal obstacle.
The Human Rights Question
The most contentious element of Farage’s proposal is the intention to suspend the asylum system itself rather than simply accelerate decisions or increase removals after claims have been refused.
The right to seek asylum is a central feature of the international refugee protection framework. Britain has obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and other legal instruments, including protections against returning people to places where they face persecution or certain forms of serious harm.
Reform has indicated that implementing its programme would require significant legal changes, including leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, repealing the Human Rights Act and changing the application of international refugee protections.
Those steps would be politically and legally consequential. Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights would not automatically remove every international obligation relating to refugees or eliminate all domestic legal challenges.
The principle of non-refoulement, which restricts the return of people to places where they face specified serious dangers, is particularly important to the debate.
For example, an applicant from a country experiencing conflict or systematic persecution cannot safely be assessed solely by reference to nationality. Individual circumstances, changes in conditions and the risks facing the person must be considered under the applicable legal framework.
Refugee charities and legal experts have warned that a blanket approach could expose vulnerable people to serious danger. Reform, meanwhile, says its proposed deportation programme would include third-country arrangements for cases in which direct return was not possible.
The details of those arrangements would be crucial. A third country would need to be safe for the person concerned and willing to accept them, and the relevant legal requirements would still have to be satisfied.
Without workable arrangements, the government could face expensive legal challenges while finding that some proposed removals could not proceed.
What the Figures Say About Britain’s Asylum Challenge
The debate is taking place amid continuing public concern about small-boat crossings, asylum accommodation and the cost of processing claims.
Official figures for the year ending June 2026 recorded 85,891 asylum applicants in Britain, a decrease of 21 per cent compared with the previous year. Pakistan, Eritrea, Iran, Sudan and Afghanistan were among the leading nationalities represented in applications during that period.
The figures illustrate the scale of the administrative challenge, but they need to be interpreted carefully. An asylum application is not proof that someone entered Britain illegally, nor does it establish whether the individual qualifies for protection.
Some people seek asylum after entering through irregular routes, while others may arrive through different channels. The number of applicants also differs from the number of people whose claims are refused, the number of people who receive protection and the number who can legally be removed.
These distinctions matter when assessing whether a policy is working.
A government seeking to reduce irregular migration could measure success through fewer dangerous crossings, faster processing of claims, increased lawful removals of people with no right to remain and reduced reliance on expensive accommodation.
It would also need to consider whether the measures complied with the law and whether they reduced the influence of smuggling networks rather than simply shifting routes or creating new administrative problems.
The debate is therefore not only about how tough a government sounds on immigration. It is also about whether its policies can deliver measurable results.
Labour and the Conservatives Face Pressure
Farage’s announcement creates another challenge for Labour, which has promised stronger border enforcement while maintaining Britain’s obligations to people fleeing war and persecution.
Labour has criticised Reform’s proposals, describing the plan as an abandonment of protections for people escaping danger. The party argues that the asylum system should be reformed and enforced, rather than suspended wholesale.
The Conservatives have also advocated tougher immigration controls, including restrictions on asylum claims and changes to the appeals process. Some of Reform’s proposals overlap with policies previously advanced by Conservative politicians, although the five-year suspension and proposed treatment of outstanding applications represent a more sweeping approach.
This overlap creates a political contest over who can offer an effective immigration system while keeping the public’s confidence.
For Reform, the announcement reinforces its claim that existing governments have failed to control irregular migration. For its opponents, the central question is whether Farage’s approach would solve the underlying problems or create new ones through legal disputes, international retaliation and difficulties securing safe returns.
The outcome will depend partly on whether voters prioritise the promise of rapid enforcement or place greater weight on the legal and practical constraints involved.
Could the Plan Become Law?
Even if Reform won the next general election, implementing the programme would require legislation, administrative changes and negotiations with foreign governments.
A parliamentary majority could enable a government to introduce major changes to domestic law, but it would not guarantee that every element could be implemented immediately. International agreements, judicial challenges and the practical capacity to detain and remove people would all influence the timetable.
The proposal to declare outstanding applications void would be particularly significant. The government would need to determine what happened to applicants who had been waiting for decisions, those who had already appealed and people whose cases involved serious protection concerns.
The capacity of detention facilities, the availability of flights and the willingness of receiving countries would also constrain the pace of removals.
There would be financial implications as well. Reform argues that removing people who have no right to remain would reduce the burden on taxpayers. However, detention, legal proceedings, diplomatic negotiations and deportation operations also carry costs. The final financial effect would depend on how the policy worked in practice.
The government would need credible costings and a clear implementation plan to demonstrate that the promised savings were achievable.
A Defining Debate Over Britain’s Borders
Farage’s threat to sanction Pakistan and suspend the asylum system for five years has widened the immigration debate beyond Channel crossings and accommodation costs.
It raises questions about the balance between national border control, international cooperation, economic interests and the protection of people who face persecution.
Supporters of Reform’s approach argue that a credible immigration system must be able to remove people who have no legal right to remain and persuade foreign governments to cooperate. Critics warn that suspending asylum protections could place vulnerable people at risk and expose Britain to legal, diplomatic and economic consequences.
Both the political arguments and the practical details will matter. Sanctions must produce cooperation if they are to achieve their stated purpose, while deportation policies must operate within the legal framework that applies to each case.
For Pakistan, the proposals could mean a more confrontational relationship with a country that has substantial family, commercial and diplomatic connections to Britain. For people seeking asylum, they could represent a dramatic change in how protection claims are handled.
And for British voters, the question is whether the proposed measures would deliver a more controlled and effective system without creating consequences that outweigh the intended benefits.
The next general election is not due until 2029, giving Reform time to develop its proposals and opponents time to challenge their feasibility. But Farage’s announcement has already made one thing clear: immigration policy is likely to remain a major battleground in British politics, with the future of the asylum system at its centre.