Nigel Farage backed the use of the military if the UK ever sees rioting on the scale that began in France over the weekend. Riots erupted on Saturday in France, which saw its worst rioting in years as authorities. At least 2,400 people were arrested after rioters in cities across the country clashed with police that day. Rioters set cars on fire, stormed public buildings and engulfed a historic city hall in flames during nationwide demonstrations against rising living costs and poor conditions in schools. On Sunday evening, small groups set fire to bins, bicycles and other objects in the streets, and looted businesses in Paris, Lyon, Marseille and other cities.
Curfews were imposed in several cities in an effort to prevent more chaos, and the French capital Paris returned to calm on Tuesday (October 20) the Associated Press reports. France’s interior minister, Laurent Nuñez, confirmed today that the Government will deploy some military personnel during further protests expected this coming Saturday.
He told the National Assembly that some personnel from the Operation Sentinelle, a group tasked with supporting authorities during major national crises, would be deployed “to replace internal security forces mainly on static guarding duties” so police officers and gendarmes can be freed up to “carry out public-order missions”, EuroNews reports.
Mr Farage, the leader of Reform UK voiced surprise that the military wasn’t made involved sooner, and backed calling up the British military if anything similar started to emerge on Britain’s streets. Speaking to GB News, the Clacton MP said: “The mystery to me is why Macron did not call the army in more quickly, and I hope if we even begin to descend to those levels that we use the military as quickly as possible.”
The Brexit architect also suggested he’s fearful of unrest in Britain too, saying: “There is now such an intolerance, political intolerance, on the new left of British politics, and by the way, elements of the right, too. “We don’t respect democracy anymore, or some people don’t. And they think direct action and violence is acceptable.”
He referenced riots that took place in London in 2011 and said I’m “genuinely concerned”. However, there’s no evidence to suggest Britain is on the verge of riots or widespread unrest akin to the scenes in France, which has a long history of mass protest.
The country has seen national unrest over various issues in recent years, including the raising of the state pension age from 62 to 64.
In a televised address about the violence seen on French streets, the country’s president Emmanuel Macron said: “Those who looted will have to pay back for the damage, and those who sought to bring down the Republic will be held accountable.”
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
He also condememned “unrestrained violence” which he said had been committed by “insurrectionist elements from radical far-left groups, joined by numerous criminals”.
Nigel Farage Backs Deploying British Army if French-Style Riots Erupt in UK
Nigel Farage has called for the British Army to be deployed quickly if the United Kingdom begins experiencing riots on the scale of the recent unrest in France. The Reform UK leader has raised concerns about public order, political intolerance and the possibility that violent demonstrations could spread across British towns and cities.
His comments have reignited a debate about how the government should respond if police forces become overwhelmed by widespread disorder.
The discussion comes after serious riots in France during October 2026, when demonstrators clashed with police, vehicles were set on fire and businesses were damaged. French authorities reported thousands of arrests during the unrest, which was linked to widespread dissatisfaction with living costs, public services and government policies.
Farage questioned why French President Emmanuel Macron had not called on the military sooner and argued that Britain should be prepared to act quickly if comparable violence begins to emerge.
Speaking to GB News ahead of a political rally in Plymouth, Farage said: “The mystery to me is why Macron did not call the army in more quickly, and I hope if we even begin to descend to those levels that we use the military as quickly as possible.”
The comments reflect his concerns about the ability of the authorities to maintain public order if demonstrations develop into sustained violence.
However, there is an important distinction between preparing for a possible emergency and suggesting that Britain is inevitably heading towards widespread riots. There is no established evidence that the United Kingdom is on the verge of experiencing unrest on the same scale as France.
Nevertheless, Farage’s remarks have raised important questions about the role of the armed forces, the responsibilities of the police and the government’s preparations for major public disturbances.
The Reform UK leader said he was concerned about what he described as increasing political intolerance on both the left and right.
He argued that some people no longer respect democratic processes and instead believe that direct action and violence are acceptable ways to achieve political objectives.
Farage also referred to the riots that swept across parts of England in 2011, when widespread looting, arson and confrontations with police exposed the difficulties authorities can face when disorder spreads rapidly.
Those events began in London following the fatal police shooting of Mark Duggan and developed into disturbances in several English cities.
The violence caused significant damage to businesses and residential areas, while police forces faced considerable pressure to restore order.
Farage’s reference to 2011 highlights a concern that remains relevant to public safety: serious disorder can spread quickly, particularly when rumours, anger and confrontational behaviour circulate through social media.
However, the circumstances behind each episode of unrest are different. Understanding the causes of a particular disturbance is essential when deciding how the authorities should respond.
For Farage, the central issue is whether the government has adequate plans to deal with a major breakdown in public order.
He believes that military assistance should be considered early if the police cannot manage a situation safely.
Yet deploying soldiers to assist with domestic emergencies would involve important legal, operational and practical considerations.
In Britain, responsibility for maintaining public order normally rests with civilian police forces. The armed forces can provide assistance to civil authorities in specific circumstances, but military involvement does not automatically replace the police or transfer ordinary policing responsibilities to soldiers.
A House of Commons Library briefing published in September 2026 explains that military assistance can be requested when civil authorities require capabilities or additional support that they cannot adequately provide themselves.
Such assistance may be used during major emergencies, terrorist incidents, natural disasters and other situations requiring specialist military resources.
Ministerial approval is generally required, except in circumstances where life is immediately at risk.
The arrangements are designed to allow the armed forces to support civilian authorities while maintaining the legal responsibilities of the organisations leading the response.
This framework matters because the deployment of troops during riots would raise questions about command, the use of force, public safety and the limits of military powers.
Soldiers are trained primarily for military duties, not for the full range of responsibilities carried out by civilian police officers.
Police officers receive specific training in public-order management, arrest procedures, evidence gathering and the protection of individual rights during demonstrations.
The armed forces can provide valuable assistance in exceptional circumstances, but they do not automatically possess the same powers as police officers.
According to the parliamentary briefing, service personnel generally have the same powers of arrest as ordinary citizens when supporting civil authorities, which can limit their role in certain operations.
Consequently, any proposal to deploy the Army during widespread unrest would need to establish exactly what soldiers would be expected to do.
They might provide logistical support, protect important locations or release police officers from certain security duties so that officers could concentrate on managing disorder.
The precise arrangements would depend on the circumstances and the decisions made by the relevant authorities.
Farage’s comments have also brought attention to the differences between the British and French approaches to public order.
France has a long history of large demonstrations, including protests over pensions, employment conditions, fuel prices and government reforms.
Its security system includes specialised forces that regularly deal with large-scale demonstrations and violent confrontations.
The French government can also deploy military personnel for certain domestic security duties, including protecting sensitive locations and supporting wider national security operations.
During the October unrest, French authorities announced that some military personnel would support security operations by taking over static guarding duties, allowing police officers and gendarmes to concentrate on public-order responsibilities.
That arrangement illustrates an important distinction: military personnel can support a broader security response without necessarily taking direct responsibility for controlling demonstrations.
Britain’s system has developed differently, with civilian police forces generally responsible for public order.
Whether the French approach could be adapted to British circumstances would require careful consideration of the country’s legal framework, police capabilities and military resources.
The British Army also has responsibilities overseas and must maintain its readiness for national defence.
Deploying personnel domestically can place additional demands on a military that already has training commitments, operational requirements and recruitment challenges.
Any decision to use soldiers for public-order support would therefore need to consider both immediate security needs and the effect on the armed forces’ other responsibilities.
Farage’s warning is also connected to a broader debate about political divisions and public dissatisfaction.
Across Britain, political arguments over immigration, economic hardship, national identity and government performance have generated strong reactions.
Large demonstrations can provide an opportunity for people to express disagreement with government policies and draw attention to issues they believe are being ignored.
Peaceful protest is an important part of democratic life.
However, when demonstrations involve violence, looting, arson or attacks on individuals, the authorities have a responsibility to protect the public and enforce the law.
The challenge is to distinguish between lawful political activity and criminal behaviour without treating disagreement itself as a threat.
Farage argues that the authorities must be prepared to respond decisively if violent disorder develops.
Supporters of this position may believe that visible preparations and a clear response could discourage criminal activity and reassure communities concerned about their safety.
Critics may question whether early military deployment would be proportionate or effective, particularly if police forces remain capable of managing the situation.
They may also warn that the presence of soldiers could increase tensions in some circumstances if the deployment is not carefully planned and communicated.
These concerns demonstrate why decisions about military assistance should be based on operational assessments rather than political rhetoric alone.
Another important question is the condition of Britain’s police forces.
Managing widespread unrest requires sufficient officers, appropriate equipment, effective communications and the ability to coordinate responses across different areas.
If disturbances occur simultaneously in several towns or cities, police leaders may need to redistribute personnel and request additional assistance.
The experience of previous riots demonstrates that the speed at which disorder spreads can create substantial logistical challenges.
Preparation can help authorities respond more effectively, but it also requires training, planning and cooperation between different organisations.
Local police forces, national government departments, emergency services and military planners may all have relevant responsibilities during a major crisis.
Clear procedures can help prevent confusion about who is in charge, which resources are available and what actions are legally permitted.
The government’s approach must also consider the reasons why public dissatisfaction develops.
Economic insecurity, concerns about housing and public services, distrust of politicians and disagreements over national policy can all contribute to public frustration.
These factors do not justify violence, but understanding them can help authorities and policymakers address problems before tensions escalate.
Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, has also expressed concern about the possibility of serious unrest in Britain. She has linked the risk to economic hardship and cultural divisions, arguing that declining living standards can intensify existing disagreements.
Her comments highlight a broader argument that public order cannot be separated entirely from the economic and social conditions experienced by communities.
Nevertheless, neither Farage’s warning nor Badenoch’s concerns establish that Britain will experience French-style riots.
Predictions about future unrest should be treated cautiously because demonstrations can develop in different ways and the actions of governments, police forces and protest organisers can influence events.
The most useful response is to assess credible risks, maintain appropriate emergency plans and ensure that public authorities have the resources needed to protect people.
For the government, the immediate challenge is to demonstrate that Britain can manage serious disorder while preserving democratic freedoms and maintaining public confidence in law enforcement.
For Farage, the issue forms part of his wider argument that the authorities must take public safety and political instability seriously.
His call for rapid military deployment has placed the question of the Army’s domestic role at the centre of the discussion.
Ultimately, the British Army can provide assistance during exceptional emergencies, but any deployment must operate within the law and reflect the needs of the situation.
Police forces remain responsible for ordinary public-order operations, while military assistance must be carefully defined and properly authorised.
Britain does not have to experience the same events as France, and warnings about possible unrest should not be confused with evidence that such a crisis is imminent.
However, preparing for emergencies is a legitimate responsibility of government.
The debate raised by Farage therefore concerns more than whether soldiers should be deployed during riots. It also concerns how Britain balances public safety, military readiness, civil liberties and the effective management of demonstrations.
If serious disorder were to occur, the authorities would need to respond according to the facts on the ground, the law and the resources available.
The objective would be to protect lives, prevent further violence, restore public order and ensure that peaceful political activity remains possible.
As discussions about public safety and political divisions continue, the government’s ability to demonstrate preparedness without creating unnecessary alarm will remain an important test of its approach to national security.