John Barnes Takes Aim at Nigel Farage in Jim Ratcliffe Immigration Debate
Former England international footballer John Barnes has entered the fray surrounding Sir Jim Ratcliffe's contentious immigration comments, specifically targeting Reform UK leader Nigel Farage for his response. The Manchester United part-owner sparked widespread backlash this week by suggesting the United Kingdom has been "colonised" by immigrants, a statement that has drawn criticism from politicians, fan groups, and now the ex-Liverpool star.
Barnes Welcomes Debate but Challenges Language
Speaking on Good Morning Britain, Barnes clarified his position, stating he has no issue with Ratcliffe raising the topic of immigration itself. "I have no issue with Jim Ratcliffe. I have no issue with his debate on immigration, that's a valid debate to be had," Barnes explained. "Of course, immigration brings lots of good, and of course when he talks about illegal immigration, that has to be addressed... I agree with him on that."
However, Barnes took strong exception to the specific terminology used by the billionaire businessman. "The only thing I have an issue with was the word 'colonised'. That is the only thing about this whole debate, because we have to have meaningful discussion on immigration, as to whether it's good or it's bad."
Direct Criticism of Nigel Farage's Position
The former footballer, who was born in Jamaica and moved to England as a child, saved his sharpest criticism for Nigel Farage. After Ratcliffe's initial Sky News interview - in which the businessman cited inaccurate immigration statistics and called Farage an "intelligent man" - the Reform UK leader publicly agreed with Ratcliffe's assessment.
Barnes challenged this interpretation directly. "Now, the 'colonised' bit is the thing that I have an issue with, because of course by no stretch of the imagination can we interpret what's happening with immigration as colonisation," Barnes stated. "Colonisation is when a settler community from a different country comes to our country and dominates and exploits economically and politically and controls the system."
He continued with a pointed rebuttal of Farage's dictionary-based defense: "For Nigel Farage to come and say... that by the interpretation in the dictionary he agrees with him about England being colonised or Great Britain being colonised: No. The interpretation in the dictionary, the meaning in the dictionary, actually states that it's the domination, exploitation and control of an indigenous population by foreign entities, which is not happening here."
Ratcliffe's Apology and Ongoing Fallout
Following the significant backlash, Sir Jim Ratcliffe issued a statement on Thursday expressing regret for his choice of language while maintaining his position on the need for immigration discussion. "I am sorry that my choice of language has offended some people in the UK and Europe and caused concern, but it is important to raise the issue of controlled and well-managed immigration that supports economic growth," the Manchester United co-owner said.
Ratcliffe explained his comments were made during a discussion about UK policy at the European Industry Summit in Antwerp, where he was emphasizing the relationship between migration management and economic prosperity. "My intention was to stress that governments must manage migration alongside investment in skills, industry and jobs so that long-term prosperity is shared by everyone," he added. "It is critical that we maintain an open debate on the challenges facing the UK."
The controversy has drawn responses from numerous political figures including Labour leader Keir Starmer and Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham. Additionally, the Football Association has reportedly launched an investigation into Ratcliffe's comments, potentially leading to disciplinary action against the Manchester United stakeholder.
Barnes' intervention adds a significant voice to the ongoing discussion, highlighting the tension between legitimate immigration policy debates and the inflammatory language that can sometimes accompany them. His distinction between welcoming discussion on immigration while rejecting the specific "colonised" terminology - and his direct challenge to Nigel Farage's interpretation - underscores the complexity of public discourse on this sensitive issue.
