Postscript

I stopped updating this blog due to getting ‘follows’ and ‘likes’ from troll accounts.  The former, WordPress allows the facility to remove, the latter it doesn’t.  I also realise that I got caught up with the groupthink, which was the determining factor in the run-up to last year’s referendum, the result of which was as much due to participation – or the lack of – among certain age groups.  A year on, it is obvious that the last blog post was full of false optimism and that ‘Brexit’ could only ever have worked in the pre-Thatcherite era, when Britain’s infrastructure and much of Britain’s main industries were still British-owned; hence British identity was nowhere near as fragmented as it is now (and that was before the invention of ‘multiculturalism’).  This was the world of Old Labour, which the late Peter Shore inhabited; so it was no surprise that the values of those who grew up in that pre-Thatcherite era formed the backbone of support for ‘Brexit’.

The false optimism of the last blog post was based on the assumption that the government would implement what it had promised, based on the referendum result and do so decisively.  It is clear now that everyone who voted ‘Leave’ was led along by a bunch of charlatans for whom it was and is all a game.  Two weeks before the referendum I had wondered if it was just a joke between the Bullingdon Boys on all of us, but I gave it the benefit of the doubt.  I shouldn’t have done.  I don’t regret voting ‘Leave’ so much as voting at all in a referendum that was a wasteful and costly exercise, which has been recently added to by a general election that few people wanted.  A year of dysfunctional government – ‘led’ by a woman whose penchant for wearing heels is appropriate given how good she is at dragging them – has caused a great deal of uncertainty for people and businesses, to the point where no-one in their right mind who isn’t British is going to make any long-term commitment to Britain in terms of investment.

I subsequently started another blog with the intention of getting away from politics but fell into it again and mostly on the same subjects; though I managed a couple of book reviews, a magazine article review, a film review, a tribute to a certain actress and added several pages on miscellaneous subjects; some of which are recycled stuff that I may recycle again.  I still believe deep down that the European Union needs to be demerged into an entity which allows individual countries more autonomy, i.e. a ‘Common Market’ for tariff-free trade with co-operation in several areas, including scientific research.  This is how Western Europe was prior to Margaret Thatcher signing the Single European Act in 1986.  Even after the witch is long since dead, her legacy still haunts us.  She and her Tory colleagues wanted an enlarged labour market to suppress wages.  The Tories still do want this and if they can’t source that labour from Eastern Europe then they’ll do so from elsewhere.  So we shall still have a high rate of immigration if ‘Brexit’ in any form goes ahead, but it is likely to be from nationalities who are less willing to integrate than are the Poles, Czechs, Hungarians etc.

With or without the European Union, Britain’s Establishment will remain rotten to the core, so ‘Brexit’ will not be a panacea for anything.  The mass murder in Manchester by a Muslim misogynist at an event popular with young girls, was an extension to the rape of thousands of girls in Rochdale and other towns by predominantly Muslim ‘grooming’ gangs.  None of this can or should be blamed on ‘Europe’.  The suicide bomber was part of a group allowed free rein by Britain’s security services, just as the rapists have been allowed free rein by social services in local authorities up and down the country.  The contrived ‘migrant crisis’ whereby many thousands of adult male economic migrants – again, mostly of Muslim cultural background – have been allowed to rape their way around Europe, acts to compound a situation that was already bad in the first place.  There is a growing backlash and a lot of pent-up anger, but still not enough, from women towards the Feminist Establishment, which has betrayed them, an issue which I summarised on my newer blog.

In summary with regard to that, ‘Brexit’ will make no difference one way or the other and I can’t help but think that conflict with the European Union is trying fight a war on two fronts at once.  A Polish couple were among those murdered in the Manchester bombing.  Polish immigrants are not our enemies and nor should they ever be treated as such.  Whilst I have always had reservations about any kind of ‘pan-European’ movement, Muslims must be pissing themselves laughing at the divisions within Britain over the EU; and within the EU over the apportioning of those economic migrants between countries.  Conspiracy theorists might believe that the ‘migrant crisis’ was contrived in order to engender a common European identity in reaction to it; but that seems too convoluted and it hasn’t worked anyway.  Islam is a sufficiently serious threat to every secular democratic society which allows it to flourish, so this is not a specifically ‘European’ issue.  People who have been brought up with that Islamic ideology that advocates the rape and murder of non-believers need to reject that; and if they don’t then they should not be appeased.  Islam is a barbaric ‘culture’ which should never be accommodated.  As it is, this weekend, its adherents will indulge in a mass slaughter of animals; the mass slaughter of humans being an extension to that.

A New Beginning

As in most workplaces I guess yesterday, some colleagues and myself had a frank discussion about the referendum.  The age-division was apparent but the reasons not as straight-forward as have been caricatured by the mainstream media.  We are all professionally employed people so I’m not going to claim that this is representative of anything than among our group.  My younger colleagues voted Remain, but some did so reluctantly, as whilst they don’t like the EU and they don’t trust any politicians (both healthy outlooks in my opinion), they are worried about the future and didn’t want to risk the uncertainty of Leaving.  They are too young to know any different and should not be derided for that.  I can no more put myself into their mindset than I could that of my parents’ generation, born during wartime, experiencing austerity that I have never known.  These ‘millennials’ are well aware that Brexit could lead to the break-up of the EU and the Eurozone if other countries follow suit.  This will no doubt lead to the next financial crash being blamed on Brexit, rather than on the creation of the Eurozone.

So whilst some ‘millennial’ Remainers are being cast as cry-babies, I believe that that the vast majority are not.  Their worries should be respected and not ridiculed.  There are a minority of Remainers who are cry-babies, just as there are a minority of Leavers who are xenophobes, would be and still will be regardless of whether the EU exists.  The cry-baby Remainers are so angry that they don’t know what to do.  I heard a student couple this morning, with private school educated accents, talking loudly enough so that everyone around them could hear, how angry they are.  They’ll carry on being angry long after they should have grown out of it, but hey ho.

But it is not just the ‘millennials’ who need re-assurance, skilled workers from other EU countries need to be assured that their employment and residential status are not under threat.  Many may feel that it is and decide to leave, but if better employment opportunities existed in other EU countries then they would already have made that decision.  I’ll admit a bias in that I work with professional people from other EU countries and I don’t want them to feel threatened; but I also work with professional people from outside the EU and they have to meet skills and qualifications criteria in order to live and work here.  That the British economy depends on importing skilled workers, especially in STEM fields, is itself a damning indictment of the failure of our education system.  Migrants from other EU countries without professional qualifications should not fear deportation, if they are employed on a permanent or fixed-term contract basis and paying taxes; or if they work freelance in some field and can prove that they are self-supporting and paying taxes.  We need to stress to EU migrants that we do not object to the presence of the vast majority of them, but that the scale of immigration that the UK has experienced since 2004 is more than our infrastructure can cope with.  This is especially true in England.

There is one group of people who have been overlooked and who are justifiably likely to feel the most insecure.  In the first post on this blog I mentioned about Poland having lost part of a generation to children born in the UK to Polish parents.  These children and those uprooted from Poland by their parents should not feel that they or their parents are threatened with deportation; many of those who moved to the UK during their childhood sometime during the last 12 years are now young adults and stuck in limbo.  If they do not already have British citizenship they should be offered it.  The same applies to the children of other EU nationals though the scale of immigration from those countries has been nowhere near as large.  Of course the very fact that we were denied a referendum on the Treaty of Nice, which led to EU expansion, is why this issue has arisen in the first place.  Behind the issue are thousands of people who should not just be dismissed as statistics.

Immigration is a thorny issue and the fact that it came to dominate the referendum is that since 2004 anyone who expressed concern about the scale of it, and particularly its economic impact on low-waged, low-skilled workers, was slandered as a ‘racist’ by the ‘progressive’ corporate globalists.  That the scale of immigration has led to the slumlordisation of many inner-city areas and council estates, in which the housing stock was sold off by the Thatcher government, is something which these ‘progressives’ are happy to ignore.  Immigration policy henceforth should be to reduce the scale to a level which is more sustainable, no more than fifty thousand people a year say, rather than six or seven times that amount as it is now.

Apart from the privileged cry-babies, whom I mentioned above and who want the referendum result to be invalidated to force another one, the other group of Remainers for whom I have no sympathy are Labour voters (there is an overlap between these groups).  What happened on Thursday was the revolt of Old Labour (mildly patriotic and mildly socialist) against New Labour (corporatist, ‘liberal’ and globalist).  The late Peter Shore MP puts the latter group to shame:

Contrary to the lies told by ‘progressives’ in their defence of the EU, we British are not, by nature, an insular people.  We have long been more outward looking than most of the nations of continental Europe.  For more than four decades we’ve been continually derided that Britain is ‘small and weak’.  Britain is small but not weak and there are more than sixty million of us on this island.  We have been derided that Britain is ‘old and tired’.  Britain’s infrastructure is old and tired, but that is because our taxes have been diverted from upgrading our own infrastructure to finance the infrastructures of the countries of southern, central and eastern Europe, with lovely highways and bridges from Nowhere to Nowhere Else, such as appear on the Euro notes.  We can and shall develop bi-lateral trade agreements with other countries, that is what the ‘progressives’ are frightened of, that the EU itself is becoming redundant.

Anyway, unless another referendum is forced through or the exit negotiations stall, there is no point in doing numerous blog posts about Brexit.  That David Cameron has tendered his resignation as Prime Minister should mean that the government is not going to over-ride the referendum result.  The EU, worried that the electorates of other countries will demand an ‘exit’ referendum, wants Brexit completed as soon as possible before the trend catches on.  The SNP want a Dependence referendum so that Scotland can continue being ruled from Brussels, whilst Sinn Fein want an Irish Unification referendum to liberate English taxpayers from the economic burden of the Six Counties, so that all Thirty-Two Counties of Ireland can continue being ruled from Brussels.

International Labour Day

tony-blair-finger

Today is International Cheap Disposable Migrant Labour Day, the 12th anniversary of Britain’s Labour Government – New Labour under Blair – opening the floodgates to unrestricted immigration from three former Warsaw Pact countries (one of which had already split in two), three former Soviet Republics and one former part of Yugoslavia (or part of former Yugoslavia, if you prefer).  It is strange that those so keen on multinational political unions overlook the fragmentation of Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.  Some multinational political unions are obviously ‘good’, others ‘bad’, the ‘good’ ones being those that provide unscrupulous employers with the largest possible pool of cheap disposable migrant labour; that provide affluent householders in the host nations with the opportunity to hire immigrant tradespeople at the lowest possible prices; that provide so much demand for rented accommodation that landlords can charge what they want.  Hurrah for the Labour Party.  Hurrah for the European Union.

Now you might think, hang on a minute, surely the Labour Party would be concerned that too high a rate of inward migration might just put downward pressure on the working-class that it once claimed to represent?  Not at all, for under Blair and his spinmeister Peter Mandelson, any pretensions of Labour being ‘working-class’ were washed away, except when it became necessary to hold on to ‘safe’ seats such as Hartlepool.  Mandelson was appointed Labour’s Director of Communications by Blair’s predecessor but one, Neil Kinnock, who like Mandelson has a left-wing background, of which he divested himself to become an EU Commissioner and a wealthy one at that (aren’t they all?)  Labour’s support among the working-class had already declined along with the trade unions and through the rise of self-employed, Sun-reading, Thatcher-voting, ‘white van man’, many of whom bought into the Tories’ property-driven boom-bust of 1987-92 and paid the price for it, by over-leveraging themselves and getting their homes repossessed.

So as the working-class had adopted Thatcherism, why shouldn’t the Labour Party go even further, to out-Tory the Tories, to pursue an ideology of Social Darwinism, the survival of the fittest and get rid of any elements of patriotic paternalism?  Those who support competition shouldn’t complain about that being from overseas.  The problem is that plenty of the working-class didn’t adopt Thatcherism and not just those in the former mining communities; millions stayed loyal to Labour principles and misguidedly voted for a Labour Party, whose leadership had abandoned them.  Millions of others, the low-skilled, the unskilled or the potentially talented but just dirt poor, got left behind by Thatcherism.  But even Thatcherism offered some hope for the last group.  In Thatcher’s Britain, all students had their fees paid by their local authority and those from a low-income background were eligible to receive a susbistence-level maintenance grant, which was enough to pay for rent, bills and food.  The Blair regime soon put a stop to all that malarkey.

The legacy of this disgusting policy of the Blair regime, implemented within a year of taking office, is the disenfranchisement of a generation from higher education; and hence the chance to improve their economic prospects by upskilling themselves.  Concomitant with this, manufacturing industry continued to decline under Blair and received little support, except where it became politically expedient to do so.  Labour’s legacy was rampant house price inflation between 1999 and 2003, which moderated but continued to grow during the following five years, with the encouragement of buy-to-let, which priced that same generation out of housing.  New Labour’s New Landlords must have rubbed their greedy hands with glee in 2004, knowing that unrestricted immigration would keep them in business; and better than that, they’d receive housing benefit from the government to pay for the cost of their low-income tenants.  Overall, Labour’s legacy was to shit on the indigenous working-class, removing all hope from them for a better life.

It should be no surprise therefore that when Labour needs to rely on the indigenous working-class, which were once the mainstay of its support, that support is now lacking.  Labour failed to regain office last year precisely because of this.  It lost a few million votes to UKIP, a party led by and still largely personified by a former commodities broker from ‘The City’ who was a Thatcherite Tory.  The ‘Kippers played the ‘left-wing’ card very well, but they didn’t really need to.  It doesn’t need to be explained to those who are too young to remember when Thatcher was in office that the Labour Party doesn’t care about them.  Labour has become the party which was happy to bail out the debts of its merchant banker friends, with Alistair Darling, former Chancellor of the Exchequer and former MP for Edinburgh Central & South West, who is one of the leaders of the ‘Remain’ lobby, being the person responsible.  The Labour Party supports the single European labour market (with immigration from outside the EU where ‘needed’ by its corporate benefactors).

Surely Jeremy Corbyn, as an ally of the late Tony Benn, must oppose this?  Unfortunately not, Corbyn recently claimed that the immigration that Britain – and mainly England at that – has experienced since EU enlargement, isn’t enough.  Although he refuses to campaign with David Cameron, it is clear that Corbyn is singing from the same pro-EU songsheet.  His middle-class preparatory and grammar school background is not as privileged as that of Cameron or Blair, but it is clear that Corbyn has never had to compete at the bottom of the economic pile for council housing or shop work.  That he has sold out is therefore unfortunately unsurprising.  By contrast, Frank Field, MP for Birkenhead, who was one of those that nominated Corbyn for the Labour Party leadership, is part of an honourable minority of Labour MP’s who do understand the impact that the increased economic competition, due to EU enlargement, has had on the indigenous working-class.  He is a man of social conscience in an otherwise overwhelmingly rotten Labour Party.

 

Population, Migration & Sustainability

border_2393232b

Comparative population figures and growth forecasts for different EU member-states are available from the the Eurostat website.  The high growth figures for the UK (or post-UK as it may well be) should be of alarm to all ecologists.  The Office for National Statistics has its own forecasts for up to 2035, thus, broken down into the four constituent parts of the UK. These indicate that within fifteen years, England, with a land mass of slightly more than fifty thousand square miles, will have an official population level of just over sixty million people.  The Eurostat data also forecast that Poland, Romania and Bulgaria will experience significant population decreases by 2040.  In the case of Poland, this is hardly surprising as it has already lost part of a generation to children born in the UK to Polish parents.  This is because the UK, along with the Republic of Ireland and Sweden permitted unrestricted immigration from the eight former Eastern Bloc countries from their date of joining the EU on 1st of May, 2004.  Germany, France and the other ten incumbent EU members blocked immigration from the accession countries for seven years, something to bear in mind given the German media’s criticism of the UK on the matter of immigration; and similar criticisms of the UK from the comparatively sparsely populated USA.

The UK and the RoI have long shared a Common Travel Area, along with shared residency, working and voting rights, reflecting the fact that all of Ireland used to be part of the UK, with the future status of Northern Ireland within the UK still ambiguous.  In pre-EEC terms there has long been a pattern of economic migration from Ireland to Britain, particularly to England’s major towns and cities. Unskilled and semi-skilled Irish labourers were used to fill labour shortages in Britain, the ‘navvies’ who dug the canals being obvious examples. Until the post-war ‘baby boomers’ started to come of age during the mid-1960’s, Britain had labour shortages, with Ireland being the principal source to fill these.  Writing in 1995, Fintan O’Toole quoted the level of migration as approximately fifty thousand people per year during the 1950’s and early 1960’s.  These Irish workers were automatically ‘settled’ and given the same status as British workers.  This state of affairs still exists and is likely to in any post-UK, non-EU arrangement between England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.  For a generation, the Catholic Church in England benefitted from the high level of Irish immigration in terms of bums on pews, more money in the collection tin on Sundays and the increased demand for Catholic schools, but assimilation into the host society took place quickly.

Although the presence of Polish and other Eastern European immigrants from 2004 on might seem no different to that of the Irish mentioned above, the significant difference is that there are no labour shortages to fill. The British economy has a surplus of unskilled and semi-skilled labour, so much so that wage levels can and are being suppressed to such a level by unscrupulous employers that the employees depend on tax credits and in some cases housing benefit just to survive, so slumlords are the other beneficiaries, courtesy of the exchequer.  Although the Poles, like the Irish, are predominantly Catholic, the benefit to Catholic churches and schools of their presence is somewhat counteracted by the need to employ additional priests and teachers who speak Polish.  Because the Poles have retained their own language then assimilation may take more than a generation.  The Polish immigrants themselves are now finding that their livelihoods are being undercut by Bulgarians and Romanians, who have been allowed to live and work in the UK since the 1st of January 2014.  The net effect for British people is a continued chase to the bottom with increased demand for jobs and housing putting downward pressure on living standards, all supported by those bastions of political correctness, The Guardian and the BBC.

Flick through the careers section in The Guardian and you’ll see that it is skewed towards well-salaried positions in the public sector; those which have so far not experienced the full effects of the Single European Market, which have affected the private sector.  It is therefore easy for The Guardian and so many of its hard left ‘liberal’ readership to have a pro-EU bias.  Just as the private sector has moved manufacturing jobs to east of the former Iron Curtain so that it can cut costs, then the public sector could do likewise with all PC-based back-office jobs.  I wonder how the public sector unions would react to that!  UNISON for example pro-actively supports Eastern Europeans being employed in the public sector in Britain, but why not employ them to do those British public sector roles in Eastern Europe?  If the roles are not be relocated then the salary for a public sector role, with the same skill-set and experience, should not vary between EU member-states.  Why should a health service manager, a chief executive for a local authority or a reporter for the state broadcaster be paid more in Britain than in Bulgaria?  Why not apply consistency of salary levels to EU public sector professionals and see how they like it?  What is good enough for the lower orders, in the chase to the bottom, should be good enough for them!

Although a political party preaching environmental sustainability should advocate stringent immigration restrictions (with only in very exceptional circumstances immigration being permitted), this is not the case with the Green Party, its standpoint is quite the opposite.  The way that the ‘Greens’ reconcile this is by claiming that our ‘First World’ lifestyles are themselves unsustainable and that if we were all to adopt a subsistence-level standard of living, then Britain – or even just England – could accommodate and support many millions more people.  Aside from the difficulty of trying to convince any of the electorate to think likewise, I have yet to met any ‘Greens’ who are themselves willing to make such sacrifices.  If they were, they wouldn’t be blogging about it on the net, as they wouldn’t have the hardware, let alone the power supply to go on-line.  Only those who have never experienced such subsistence-level living would consider it to be desirable.  I have experienced it only once when visiting the west of Ireland, forty years ago, where I was surprised to learn that some people still lived in cottages without an electricity supply or hot water, depending as they did on turf for fuel.  Nowadays, turf would have to be replaced by solar panels and a wind turbine, if the household surviving at subsistence-level could afford to buy them.

Michael O’Leary, a man not given to modesty as CEO of Ryanair, once claimed that he and Stelios Haji-Ioannou, the founder of Easyjet, had done more than any of the politicians in the EU to enable ‘European integration’.  O’Leary may like to believe his own publicity, but this is not quite true, as it was the politicians and Eurocrats who made the relevant decisions; Ryanair, Easyjet and the other budget airlines have simply facilitated the mass migration of people from East to West, in which they have a Polish competitor, Wizzair. These airlines have allowed Polish and other Eastern European immigrants to Britain and Ireland to permanently settle, whilst still being able to visit their respective home countries regularly, cheaply and with minimal travelling time.  Not all migrate by aeroplane, some do so by car, as is obvious from the number of Polish and now Romanian and Bulgarian, registered vehicles on British roads.  This places ‘Greens’ in a predicament as they regularly preach against these modes of transport.  The Green Party, whilst supporting the rights of Eastern Europeans to live and work in Britain, prefers not to comment about their preferred methods of migration.  To be fair, some migrate by long-distance coach, but this still means a large volume of vehicular traffic that didn’t exist prior to their countries’ EU accession.

The obnoxious hard left support unrestricted immigration, not out of any altruistic concern for the immigrants, as they would like you to believe, but because they want those immigrants – or at least some of them – to be a destabilising influence on society. It is for the same reason that the hard left support the segregationist ideology of multiculturalism, not out of any love for other cultures.  Their ideology is one of Negative Nationalism, such as George Orwell described seventy years ago as ‘Anglophobia’.  But it is not a fear of England or Englishness that motivates them, it is a hatred of Britain and all things British.  The irony when they describe themselves as ‘anti-racists’ is that they themselves are the biggest bunch of racists and in-breds of all; their racism being directed towards the great mass of the British people, whilst they themselves are an insular community virtually unchanged since Orwell wrote about them.  They complain about ‘Fortress Britain’ as it there is something wrong with living on an island that has not experienced a military invasion for centuries. (The last one was led by King Billy and he was invited in by Parliament).  Because they see themselves as ‘revolutionaries’, then living in a stable society doesn’t do their street cred any good.  After all, how can they claim to be ‘oppressed’ when they aren’t?

When anyone in Britain, or just England, expresses concern about unsustainably high levels of immigration, there is a school of thought that goes you Brits colonised half the world so suck it up. This supposes that every British person alive today is responsible for the British Empire, when the reality is that hardly anyone alive today is.  Such views are from people who are always anti-British, Sinn Feiners and their American supporters for example, so they are not even worth a moment’s consideration, they are Negative Nationalists as above.  Even David Cameron bears no responsibility for the British Empire, though some of his landed gentry forebears may have done.  With reference to Syria, under the terms of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, it became an area of French influence, which doesn’t mean that the French should have to bear responsibility for it nearly a century later.  Ultimately, tribal conflicts between different groups of Arabs are issues for the Arab nations themselves to sort out.  That the ‘rebels’ in Syria and in Libya were abetted by the interfering hand of NATO means that it should be those within NATO who made those decisions who are held responsible and no-one else.  It does not mean that the indigenous populations of the NATO countries should be burdened with thousands of migrants from Syria or elsewhere.

Al Jazeera, the state broadcaster for Qatar, an absolute monarchy, peddles propaganda to the effect that the mass migration of Syrians, via Turkey, is ‘Europe’s crisis’.  Never does it explain why neither Qatar nor any of the other oil-rich Arab Gulf States are willing to take in any migrants from Syria.  Turkey, a member of NATO, but not the EU, has taken in approximately 1.8 million according to CNN.  Looking at the pattern of migration from Turkey into Europe, it is clear that it is primarily economic.  Those who arrive in Greece quickly seek to move on as it is well-known worldwide that the Greek economy is screwed. Slovakia will take a limited number and only if they are Christian, not Muslim, whilst Hungary has turned them away altogether.  Few have headed for Bulgaria or Romania, despite the former’s proximity to Greece and none are heading to Poland. Ever the Eurosceptic, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, writing in the Torygraph, believes that Jean-Claude Junker’s attempt to force EU member-states to accept quotas of migrants, will cause an East – West split, as if those countries which benefit from billions of Euros worth of structural funds will bite the hand that feeds them.  For the Polish government to refuse to take any immigrants, should it be asked to, would be hypocritical to say the least.

Angela Merkel announced that eight hundred thousand of these migrants would be permitted entry to Germany.  That the German government was willing to do so without even verifying the backgrounds of them, meant that it took that risk and its incumbent population lives with the consequences.  Sweden, which has a history of eugenics, is also taking thousands as its government’s latest experiment in social engineering; it has a recent history of accepting ‘asylum seekers’ who have gone on to commit rape, something that Swedish feminists and their political representatives try to pretend hasn’t happened.  It is hardly surprising that the governments of Eastern European countries do not want to take the risk; they have seen the effects of multiculturalism in Western European countries and have decided that they don’t want the same, but they should accept that those Western European countries, notably the UK, have to right to refuse entry to their nationals or even to repatriate them.  David Cameron announced that, over the next five years, the UK would take twenty thousand Syrian migrants from refugee camps in the Middle East.  Critics may see this as a token gesture, overlooking the high rate of immigration that the UK has already experienced since 2004 and how much money the UK already gives in foreign aid.

To summarise all of the above, there is nothing wrong with economic migration per se, but it has to be at a level that is economically and environmentally sustainable for the host nation.  The immigration policies of the host nation should be discriminatory, allowing it to choose only immigrants with skills and experience in areas where the host nation has a shortfall.  A meritocratic points-based immigration system, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand have, which also requires that the prospective immigrant prove that he or she can be economically self-supporting, is the fairest method.  Equally, if the prospective immigrant has a criminal record and/or holds ideological views that are a threat to secular Western democracy then that person should be excluded.  All claims for ‘political asylum’ should be thoroughly scrutinised; those who just wish to use it as a fast-track to economic migration should have their claims rejected and be told to use the same due process that applies to everyone else.  British people have become justifiably weary and suspicious of ‘asylum seekers’ who are nothing of the sort.  Compassion is a virtue, but it should be applied to the deserving, not to those who have paid criminal gangs of human traffickers in order to get smuggled into the country.

Notes

For Fintan O’Toole’s figures on Irish emigration, see Meanwhile Back at the Ranch, Vantage Books, 1995, p18.

For Negative Nationalism, see Orwell’s Notes on Nationalism, written in 1945, published in Decline of the English Murder and Other Essays, Penguin Books, 1965, pp 155-179, with specific reference to p 173.

There is also within the hard left a strong strain of misogyny, which came to light following the attempted cover up of a rape allegation within the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).  Google ‘SWP rape’ and you’ll find several links which will provide further details.  The SWP’s alliance with the Muslim Association of Britain to form the ‘Respect’ coalition goes some way to explain why the SWP and the rest of the hard left have condoned by their silence the activities of the various ‘grooming’ gangs, which have raped hundreds of girls throughout England.

I originally published all of the above in September 2015, before the terrorist attacks in Paris and the numerous sexual assaults in Cologne and other German cities.  Angela Merkel’s grandstanding as self-appointed Leader of Europe, inviting anyone into the EU, is having disastrous consequences; all to fulfil the greed of European capitalists for an unlimited supply of cheap disposable migrant labour, greed supported by the ‘anti-capitalist’ hard left, who also attempt to make excuses for the rapists and terrorists.  Still, those young men are enjoying their rape and pillage of Europe and it would be ‘racist’ to stop them.

migrants selfies