Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Bruges Group meeting 23rd April 2013 – Immigration: Can we control it?
6 views
Skip to first unread message
RH
Apr 30, 2013, 3:11:47 PM4/30/13
to
Bruges Group meeting 23rd April 2013 – Immigration: Can we control it?
Posted on April 30, 2013 by Robert Henderson
Speakers: Sir Andrew Green (MigrationWatch UK)
Philip Holbone (Tory MP for Kettering)
Gerard Batten (UKIP MEP for London)
This was a meeting truly remarkable the vehemence and explicit nature
of the anti-immigrant feeling which was put forward not only by
members of the audience during questions but by the speakers. Some
made s show of a few token gestures towards fitting their complaints
within the pc envelope but most were explicit in their recognition
that what matters is the qualitative societal change mass immigration
brings.
Sir Andrew Green
Green performed as he usually does, sticking in the main to
statistics. Nonetheless he was more forthright than he used to be in
his language and statistics alone can be very telling. These quotes
will give a flavour of his talk:
“I would suggest to you that the present scale of immigration
represents the greatest threat to our social cohesion we have ever
faced and I would further suggest that the failure of the political
class to address this issue has undermined confidence in our entire
political system. “
“ The public are not in the least convinced by nonsense they are
told about this being a country of immigration. We are not and never
have been. The number of net migrants in 2010 exceeded the number
between 1066 and 1950. “
(Green’s assertion that more immigrants arrived in the UK in 2010
than came between 1066 and 1950 is very plausible even if the
figures have to be guesstimates because of the lack of adequate
records before the 19th century . We can be pretty sure that there was
little immigration because populations in Europe were very small by
modern standards at the beginning of the period and reduced
dramatically by the Black Death in the 14th Century. Moreover, there
was a lack of serious riots against foreigners or, what would now be
called ethnic minorities, between the expulsion of the Jews in 1290 by
Edward I and the arrival of Protestant Huguenots, who arrived from
Catholic France after the revocation of the Edict of Nante in 1684
removed the limited toleration they had been given by the French
monarchy. Their numbers were not great because they cannot have been
great because the population of France was still overwhelmingly
Catholic and was probably only 15-20 million during the period in
question. They were followed by relatively small numbers of Jews in
the 18th century and bursts of Jewish immigration in the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries as they fled first the pogroms of eastern
Europe and then Hitler. But the numbers involved were small compared
with the vast numbers who have arrived since 1945 and particularly in
the period since 1997.)
Green made these statistical points:
- Most of the immigration to the UK comes from outside the
EU. Therefore, the UK should be concentrating on reducing that while
we remain within the EU.
- If net immigration continued to run at 200,000 pa, the
figure which it has averaged for the past ten years, the UK
population would reach 70 million by 2027.
- The Coalition has managed to make significant progress
towards their target of reducing net immigration to tens of thousands
by 2015. However, the right to free movement granted to Romania and
Bulgaria from 1 January 2014 could easily undermine these efforts.
- The Coalition may fudge things by not including the 2014
Bulgarian/ Romanian figures in the immigration statistics before the
next general election.
- Very large numbers of Bulgarians are already in Spain and
Italy and may well move northwards to escape the difficult economic
circumstances in those countries. Green also mentioned that there are
1.5m Roma in these countries.
- The official immigration figures massively understate the
true level of EU immigration, perhaps by 2-3 times.
Green raised the question of leaving the EU but did not explore it,
although he stated . He suggested instead that when the proposed
renegotiation with the EU took place, access to benefits by EU
migrants should be one of the prime subjects for Britain to put on the
agenda.
Although Green did not wholeheartedly go for the policies which would
allow Britain to really control her borders such as leaving the EU
and repudiating any other treaty which restricts Britain’s ability to
control her borders, both he and MigrationWatch have come a long way
in the past ten years. There was a time when Green would have
disregarded the EU dimension and spoken only about restricting
immigration from outside the EU. Nor would you have heard him using
such blunt language and sentiments as those contained in the two
passages I have quoted above. The movement of Green and
MigrationWatch (most of it in the past five years) is emblematic of a
general movement in the rhetoric if not the action of the mainstream
British Parties and the British elite in general in recent years.
Philip Holbone
For a Tory MP, indeed for any MP, Holbone was startlingly frank. He
is a member of the “Better off Out” group and maintains that the
demands of EU membership is “not a price the British people wish to
pay”. This allowed him to embrace the idea that the UK could only
regain control of its borders by leaving the EU.
While the UK remained within the EU he advocated that the Government
should (1) challenge the EU by refusing to accept the lifting of the
transitional rules for Bulgarians and Romanians and (2) do what other
countries in the EU such as Spain and officially register foreign
workers and keep tabs on them.
Holbone also railed against the pressure immigrants brought on
infrastructure and the crime they committed, declared that the NHS
was “ the National Health Service not the World Health Service” and
stated that UK citizenship was granted far too easily and should
require 15 or 20 years of well behaved residence in the country
before someone was considered for citizenship.
All well and good, but sadly and pathetically Hollobone tried to
excuse himself and other politicians from not speaking out until
recently because it was only the advent of white immigration from the
EU which had “given permission” to the British to complain about
immigration. He needed to be “given permission” before speaking out?
That is the problem with mainstream British politicians in a nutshell:
they have not got an ounce of courage. When it comes to emotive and
serious subjects, what counts is speaking when it is dangerous not
when it is safe.
Gerard Batten
Batten was even franker than Hollobone. As a UKIP member, he is of
course in favour of leaving the UK, (which he stressed was the only
way to regain control over the UK’s borders), but he also favours
withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights, repealing
the Human Rights Act, making over-staying a visa a criminal offence
and only allowing visitors into Britain if they either have health
insurance or the UK have reciprocal medical arrangements with the
visitor’s country. Batten also suggested that immigrants whose
status could be illegal should be forced to register with the
government if they wanted their cases investigated. Failure to
register should, he said, result in expulsion from the UK without
any chance of appeal.
He slated the great increase in immigration from the Blair government
onwards , an increase which he attributed to a deliberate Labour
policy designed to change the ethnic make-up of the UK. (The grounds
for this belief is the Evening Standard article by Andrew Neather in
2009 in which he claimed that “mass immigration was the way that the
Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural” (http://
www.standard.co.uk/news/dont-listen-to-the-whingers–london-needs-immigrants-6786170.html).
Batten derided the British MEPs other than those from UKIP who had
recently voted in the EU Parliament for the adoption of a report
advocating the entry into the EU of Turkey, Croatia, Montenegro,
Serbia and Kosovo, countries with a combined population of 80 million.
The importance of breaking the liberal censorship
The vehemence of many of the audience was considerable. Not only were
very strong opinions against the politically correct status quo
expressed, the tones of voice and the body language was extremely
animated.
Although there was no effing and blinding or crude racist language,
the ideas being put forward by both the speakers and the audience
were far more inflammatory in their implications than many of those
who have been charged in recent times with being “racist” because of
what they have said or written in public. Take Green’s “the
greatest threat to our social cohesion we have ever faced” or Batten’s
belief that Blair had used immigration as an instrument of policy to
fracture the ethnic solidarity of the UK. Is that really different
in sentiment from the white working class Englishwoman Emma West who
is charged with a racially aggravated public order offence for saying
in a public place things like “‘You ain’t English. No, you ain’t
English either. You ain’t English. None of you’s ****ing English. Get
back to your own ****ing… do you know what sort out your own
countries, don’t come and do mine.”? (http://
englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/emma-west-immigration-and-the-
liberal-totalitarian-state/).
The audience questions were heartening because they were based mainly
on the social rather than the economic impact of immigration. The
competition for jobs, housing, medical treatment, education and
welfare is of course important, but the primary objection to mass
immigration is the general change it brings to society. Mass
immigration which results in numbers of particular nationalities,
races and ethnicities arriving which are sufficient to permit the
development of settlements with separate ways of living from the host
population is a covert from of conquest. Mass immigration of the
unassimilatable is an act of the most profound treason by those with
political power who permit it, and in the case of the Labour
governments of Blair and Brown, made doubly so by those who
positively encourage it as a matter of policy. It is treason because
the effect of such immigration is to effectively allow the
unassimilatable to colonise territory by settlement.
I attempted without success to be called to put a question. Had I been
called my question would have been “Before there can be proper public
debate about immigration and its consequences the restrictions on free
expression which result in people being charged with criminal
offences, losing their jobs or being the subject of a media hate
campaign when they speak honestly on the subject must be removed. What
will the speakers be doing to remove those restrictions?”
Unfortunately no one else asked the question so it went by default.
There is undoubtedly a changed and changing public rhetoric on race
and immigration, but it is still being controlled by those with power
and influence. To get the change on immigration policy which is
required – an end to mass immigration and the policy of
multiculturalism – the general public must be able to express their
views as they choose without fear of prosecution or other penalties
such as the loss of employment.
This question also has serious implications for those who wish to
leave the EU. Immigration is the prime driver of anti-EU sentiment in
the UK. If the present straitjacket of fear about expressing non-pc
views on immigration remains, the politically correct can stifle and
manipulate debate on not only immigration but also EU membership by
representing those who wish to leave the EU as xenophobes at best and
racists at worst.
Read more at http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/bruges-group-meeting-23rd-april-2013-immigration-can-we-control-it/
Posted on April 30, 2013 by Robert Henderson
Speakers: Sir Andrew Green (MigrationWatch UK)
Philip Holbone (Tory MP for Kettering)
Gerard Batten (UKIP MEP for London)
This was a meeting truly remarkable the vehemence and explicit nature
of the anti-immigrant feeling which was put forward not only by
members of the audience during questions but by the speakers. Some
made s show of a few token gestures towards fitting their complaints
within the pc envelope but most were explicit in their recognition
that what matters is the qualitative societal change mass immigration
brings.
Sir Andrew Green
Green performed as he usually does, sticking in the main to
statistics. Nonetheless he was more forthright than he used to be in
his language and statistics alone can be very telling. These quotes
will give a flavour of his talk:
“I would suggest to you that the present scale of immigration
represents the greatest threat to our social cohesion we have ever
faced and I would further suggest that the failure of the political
class to address this issue has undermined confidence in our entire
political system. “
“ The public are not in the least convinced by nonsense they are
told about this being a country of immigration. We are not and never
have been. The number of net migrants in 2010 exceeded the number
between 1066 and 1950. “
(Green’s assertion that more immigrants arrived in the UK in 2010
than came between 1066 and 1950 is very plausible even if the
figures have to be guesstimates because of the lack of adequate
records before the 19th century . We can be pretty sure that there was
little immigration because populations in Europe were very small by
modern standards at the beginning of the period and reduced
dramatically by the Black Death in the 14th Century. Moreover, there
was a lack of serious riots against foreigners or, what would now be
called ethnic minorities, between the expulsion of the Jews in 1290 by
Edward I and the arrival of Protestant Huguenots, who arrived from
Catholic France after the revocation of the Edict of Nante in 1684
removed the limited toleration they had been given by the French
monarchy. Their numbers were not great because they cannot have been
great because the population of France was still overwhelmingly
Catholic and was probably only 15-20 million during the period in
question. They were followed by relatively small numbers of Jews in
the 18th century and bursts of Jewish immigration in the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries as they fled first the pogroms of eastern
Europe and then Hitler. But the numbers involved were small compared
with the vast numbers who have arrived since 1945 and particularly in
the period since 1997.)
Green made these statistical points:
- Most of the immigration to the UK comes from outside the
EU. Therefore, the UK should be concentrating on reducing that while
we remain within the EU.
- If net immigration continued to run at 200,000 pa, the
figure which it has averaged for the past ten years, the UK
population would reach 70 million by 2027.
- The Coalition has managed to make significant progress
towards their target of reducing net immigration to tens of thousands
by 2015. However, the right to free movement granted to Romania and
Bulgaria from 1 January 2014 could easily undermine these efforts.
- The Coalition may fudge things by not including the 2014
Bulgarian/ Romanian figures in the immigration statistics before the
next general election.
- Very large numbers of Bulgarians are already in Spain and
Italy and may well move northwards to escape the difficult economic
circumstances in those countries. Green also mentioned that there are
1.5m Roma in these countries.
- The official immigration figures massively understate the
true level of EU immigration, perhaps by 2-3 times.
Green raised the question of leaving the EU but did not explore it,
although he stated . He suggested instead that when the proposed
renegotiation with the EU took place, access to benefits by EU
migrants should be one of the prime subjects for Britain to put on the
agenda.
Although Green did not wholeheartedly go for the policies which would
allow Britain to really control her borders such as leaving the EU
and repudiating any other treaty which restricts Britain’s ability to
control her borders, both he and MigrationWatch have come a long way
in the past ten years. There was a time when Green would have
disregarded the EU dimension and spoken only about restricting
immigration from outside the EU. Nor would you have heard him using
such blunt language and sentiments as those contained in the two
passages I have quoted above. The movement of Green and
MigrationWatch (most of it in the past five years) is emblematic of a
general movement in the rhetoric if not the action of the mainstream
British Parties and the British elite in general in recent years.
Philip Holbone
For a Tory MP, indeed for any MP, Holbone was startlingly frank. He
is a member of the “Better off Out” group and maintains that the
demands of EU membership is “not a price the British people wish to
pay”. This allowed him to embrace the idea that the UK could only
regain control of its borders by leaving the EU.
While the UK remained within the EU he advocated that the Government
should (1) challenge the EU by refusing to accept the lifting of the
transitional rules for Bulgarians and Romanians and (2) do what other
countries in the EU such as Spain and officially register foreign
workers and keep tabs on them.
Holbone also railed against the pressure immigrants brought on
infrastructure and the crime they committed, declared that the NHS
was “ the National Health Service not the World Health Service” and
stated that UK citizenship was granted far too easily and should
require 15 or 20 years of well behaved residence in the country
before someone was considered for citizenship.
All well and good, but sadly and pathetically Hollobone tried to
excuse himself and other politicians from not speaking out until
recently because it was only the advent of white immigration from the
EU which had “given permission” to the British to complain about
immigration. He needed to be “given permission” before speaking out?
That is the problem with mainstream British politicians in a nutshell:
they have not got an ounce of courage. When it comes to emotive and
serious subjects, what counts is speaking when it is dangerous not
when it is safe.
Gerard Batten
Batten was even franker than Hollobone. As a UKIP member, he is of
course in favour of leaving the UK, (which he stressed was the only
way to regain control over the UK’s borders), but he also favours
withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights, repealing
the Human Rights Act, making over-staying a visa a criminal offence
and only allowing visitors into Britain if they either have health
insurance or the UK have reciprocal medical arrangements with the
visitor’s country. Batten also suggested that immigrants whose
status could be illegal should be forced to register with the
government if they wanted their cases investigated. Failure to
register should, he said, result in expulsion from the UK without
any chance of appeal.
He slated the great increase in immigration from the Blair government
onwards , an increase which he attributed to a deliberate Labour
policy designed to change the ethnic make-up of the UK. (The grounds
for this belief is the Evening Standard article by Andrew Neather in
2009 in which he claimed that “mass immigration was the way that the
Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural” (http://
www.standard.co.uk/news/dont-listen-to-the-whingers–london-needs-immigrants-6786170.html).
Batten derided the British MEPs other than those from UKIP who had
recently voted in the EU Parliament for the adoption of a report
advocating the entry into the EU of Turkey, Croatia, Montenegro,
Serbia and Kosovo, countries with a combined population of 80 million.
The importance of breaking the liberal censorship
The vehemence of many of the audience was considerable. Not only were
very strong opinions against the politically correct status quo
expressed, the tones of voice and the body language was extremely
animated.
Although there was no effing and blinding or crude racist language,
the ideas being put forward by both the speakers and the audience
were far more inflammatory in their implications than many of those
who have been charged in recent times with being “racist” because of
what they have said or written in public. Take Green’s “the
greatest threat to our social cohesion we have ever faced” or Batten’s
belief that Blair had used immigration as an instrument of policy to
fracture the ethnic solidarity of the UK. Is that really different
in sentiment from the white working class Englishwoman Emma West who
is charged with a racially aggravated public order offence for saying
in a public place things like “‘You ain’t English. No, you ain’t
English either. You ain’t English. None of you’s ****ing English. Get
back to your own ****ing… do you know what sort out your own
countries, don’t come and do mine.”? (http://
englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/emma-west-immigration-and-the-
liberal-totalitarian-state/).
The audience questions were heartening because they were based mainly
on the social rather than the economic impact of immigration. The
competition for jobs, housing, medical treatment, education and
welfare is of course important, but the primary objection to mass
immigration is the general change it brings to society. Mass
immigration which results in numbers of particular nationalities,
races and ethnicities arriving which are sufficient to permit the
development of settlements with separate ways of living from the host
population is a covert from of conquest. Mass immigration of the
unassimilatable is an act of the most profound treason by those with
political power who permit it, and in the case of the Labour
governments of Blair and Brown, made doubly so by those who
positively encourage it as a matter of policy. It is treason because
the effect of such immigration is to effectively allow the
unassimilatable to colonise territory by settlement.
I attempted without success to be called to put a question. Had I been
called my question would have been “Before there can be proper public
debate about immigration and its consequences the restrictions on free
expression which result in people being charged with criminal
offences, losing their jobs or being the subject of a media hate
campaign when they speak honestly on the subject must be removed. What
will the speakers be doing to remove those restrictions?”
Unfortunately no one else asked the question so it went by default.
There is undoubtedly a changed and changing public rhetoric on race
and immigration, but it is still being controlled by those with power
and influence. To get the change on immigration policy which is
required – an end to mass immigration and the policy of
multiculturalism – the general public must be able to express their
views as they choose without fear of prosecution or other penalties
such as the loss of employment.
This question also has serious implications for those who wish to
leave the EU. Immigration is the prime driver of anti-EU sentiment in
the UK. If the present straitjacket of fear about expressing non-pc
views on immigration remains, the politically correct can stifle and
manipulate debate on not only immigration but also EU membership by
representing those who wish to leave the EU as xenophobes at best and
racists at worst.
Read more at http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/bruges-group-meeting-23rd-april-2013-immigration-can-we-control-it/
Andy Wainwright
Apr 30, 2013, 4:03:27 PM4/30/13
to
On 30/04/2013 20:11, RH wrote:
> Bruges Group meeting 23rd April 2013 � Immigration: Can we control it?
>
> � The public are not in the least convinced by nonsense they are
>
> (Green�s assertion that more immigrants arrived in the UK in 2010
> and repudiating any other treaty which restricts Britain�s ability to
> demands of EU membership is �not a price the British people wish to
> pay�. This allowed him to embrace the idea that the UK could only
> immigration. He needed to be �given permission� before speaking out?
> Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural� (http://
> www.standard.co.uk/news/dont-listen-to-the-whingers�london-needs-immigrants-6786170.html).
> what they have said or written in public. Take Green�s �the
> greatest threat to our social cohesion we have ever faced� or Batten�s
> English either. You ain�t English. None of you�s ****ing English. Get
> back to your own ****ing� do you know what sort out your own
> countries, don�t come and do mine.�? (http://
> multiculturalism � the general public must be able to express their
What is fair?
Firstly, immigration authorities should concentrate on preventing the
entry of and removal of unreformed criminals.
Secondly, in most cases, it would be reasonable to expect the migrant to
pay some tax before claiming welfare. Charity begins at home.
With the financing available for immigration control, why not spend that
limited money on the important things?
> Bruges Group meeting 23rd April 2013 � Immigration: Can we control it?
>
> Posted on April 30, 2013 by Robert Henderson
>
>
> Speakers: Sir Andrew Green (MigrationWatch UK)
>
> Philip Holbone (Tory MP for Kettering)
>
> Gerard Batten (UKIP MEP for London)
>
> This was a meeting truly remarkable the vehemence and explicit nature
> of the anti-immigrant feeling which was put forward not only by
> members of the audience during questions but by the speakers. Some
> made s show of a few token gestures towards fitting their complaints
> within the pc envelope but most were explicit in their recognition
> that what matters is the qualitative societal change mass immigration
> brings.
>
> Sir Andrew Green
>
> Green performed as he usually does, sticking in the main to
> statistics. Nonetheless he was more forthright than he used to be in
> his language and statistics alone can be very telling. These quotes
> will give a flavour of his talk:
>
> �I would suggest to you that the present scale of immigration
> Posted on April 30, 2013 by Robert Henderson
>
>
> Speakers: Sir Andrew Green (MigrationWatch UK)
>
> Philip Holbone (Tory MP for Kettering)
>
> Gerard Batten (UKIP MEP for London)
>
> This was a meeting truly remarkable the vehemence and explicit nature
> of the anti-immigrant feeling which was put forward not only by
> members of the audience during questions but by the speakers. Some
> made s show of a few token gestures towards fitting their complaints
> within the pc envelope but most were explicit in their recognition
> that what matters is the qualitative societal change mass immigration
> brings.
>
> Sir Andrew Green
>
> Green performed as he usually does, sticking in the main to
> statistics. Nonetheless he was more forthright than he used to be in
> his language and statistics alone can be very telling. These quotes
> will give a flavour of his talk:
>
> represents the greatest threat to our social cohesion we have ever
> faced and I would further suggest that the failure of the political
> class to address this issue has undermined confidence in our entire
> political system. �
> faced and I would further suggest that the failure of the political
> class to address this issue has undermined confidence in our entire
>
> � The public are not in the least convinced by nonsense they are
> told about this being a country of immigration. We are not and never
> have been. The number of net migrants in 2010 exceeded the number
> between 1066 and 1950. �
> have been. The number of net migrants in 2010 exceeded the number
>
> (Green�s assertion that more immigrants arrived in the UK in 2010
> control her borders, both he and MigrationWatch have come a long way
> in the past ten years. There was a time when Green would have
> disregarded the EU dimension and spoken only about restricting
> immigration from outside the EU. Nor would you have heard him using
> such blunt language and sentiments as those contained in the two
> passages I have quoted above. The movement of Green and
> MigrationWatch (most of it in the past five years) is emblematic of a
> general movement in the rhetoric if not the action of the mainstream
> British Parties and the British elite in general in recent years.
>
> Philip Holbone
>
> For a Tory MP, indeed for any MP, Holbone was startlingly frank. He
> is a member of the �Better off Out� group and maintains that the
> in the past ten years. There was a time when Green would have
> disregarded the EU dimension and spoken only about restricting
> immigration from outside the EU. Nor would you have heard him using
> such blunt language and sentiments as those contained in the two
> passages I have quoted above. The movement of Green and
> MigrationWatch (most of it in the past five years) is emblematic of a
> general movement in the rhetoric if not the action of the mainstream
> British Parties and the British elite in general in recent years.
>
> Philip Holbone
>
> For a Tory MP, indeed for any MP, Holbone was startlingly frank. He
> demands of EU membership is �not a price the British people wish to
> pay�. This allowed him to embrace the idea that the UK could only
> regain control of its borders by leaving the EU.
>
> While the UK remained within the EU he advocated that the Government
> should (1) challenge the EU by refusing to accept the lifting of the
> transitional rules for Bulgarians and Romanians and (2) do what other
> countries in the EU such as Spain and officially register foreign
> workers and keep tabs on them.
>
> Holbone also railed against the pressure immigrants brought on
> infrastructure and the crime they committed, declared that the NHS
> was � the National Health Service not the World Health Service� and
>
> While the UK remained within the EU he advocated that the Government
> should (1) challenge the EU by refusing to accept the lifting of the
> transitional rules for Bulgarians and Romanians and (2) do what other
> countries in the EU such as Spain and officially register foreign
> workers and keep tabs on them.
>
> Holbone also railed against the pressure immigrants brought on
> infrastructure and the crime they committed, declared that the NHS
> stated that UK citizenship was granted far too easily and should
> require 15 or 20 years of well behaved residence in the country
> before someone was considered for citizenship.
>
> All well and good, but sadly and pathetically Hollobone tried to
> excuse himself and other politicians from not speaking out until
> recently because it was only the advent of white immigration from the
> EU which had �given permission� to the British to complain about
> require 15 or 20 years of well behaved residence in the country
> before someone was considered for citizenship.
>
> All well and good, but sadly and pathetically Hollobone tried to
> excuse himself and other politicians from not speaking out until
> recently because it was only the advent of white immigration from the
> immigration. He needed to be �given permission� before speaking out?
> That is the problem with mainstream British politicians in a nutshell:
> they have not got an ounce of courage. When it comes to emotive and
> serious subjects, what counts is speaking when it is dangerous not
> when it is safe.
>
> Gerard Batten
>
> Batten was even franker than Hollobone. As a UKIP member, he is of
> course in favour of leaving the UK, (which he stressed was the only
> way to regain control over the UK�s borders), but he also favours
> they have not got an ounce of courage. When it comes to emotive and
> serious subjects, what counts is speaking when it is dangerous not
> when it is safe.
>
> Gerard Batten
>
> Batten was even franker than Hollobone. As a UKIP member, he is of
> course in favour of leaving the UK, (which he stressed was the only
> withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights, repealing
> the Human Rights Act, making over-staying a visa a criminal offence
> and only allowing visitors into Britain if they either have health
> insurance or the UK have reciprocal medical arrangements with the
> visitor�s country. Batten also suggested that immigrants whose
> the Human Rights Act, making over-staying a visa a criminal offence
> and only allowing visitors into Britain if they either have health
> insurance or the UK have reciprocal medical arrangements with the
> status could be illegal should be forced to register with the
> government if they wanted their cases investigated. Failure to
> register should, he said, result in expulsion from the UK without
> any chance of appeal.
>
> He slated the great increase in immigration from the Blair government
> onwards , an increase which he attributed to a deliberate Labour
> policy designed to change the ethnic make-up of the UK. (The grounds
> for this belief is the Evening Standard article by Andrew Neather in
> 2009 in which he claimed that �mass immigration was the way that the
> government if they wanted their cases investigated. Failure to
> register should, he said, result in expulsion from the UK without
> any chance of appeal.
>
> He slated the great increase in immigration from the Blair government
> onwards , an increase which he attributed to a deliberate Labour
> policy designed to change the ethnic make-up of the UK. (The grounds
> for this belief is the Evening Standard article by Andrew Neather in
> Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural� (http://
> www.standard.co.uk/news/dont-listen-to-the-whingers�london-needs-immigrants-6786170.html).
>
> Batten derided the British MEPs other than those from UKIP who had
> recently voted in the EU Parliament for the adoption of a report
> advocating the entry into the EU of Turkey, Croatia, Montenegro,
> Serbia and Kosovo, countries with a combined population of 80 million.
>
> The importance of breaking the liberal censorship
>
> The vehemence of many of the audience was considerable. Not only were
> very strong opinions against the politically correct status quo
> expressed, the tones of voice and the body language was extremely
> animated.
>
> Although there was no effing and blinding or crude racist language,
> the ideas being put forward by both the speakers and the audience
> were far more inflammatory in their implications than many of those
> who have been charged in recent times with being �racist� because of
> Batten derided the British MEPs other than those from UKIP who had
> recently voted in the EU Parliament for the adoption of a report
> advocating the entry into the EU of Turkey, Croatia, Montenegro,
> Serbia and Kosovo, countries with a combined population of 80 million.
>
> The importance of breaking the liberal censorship
>
> The vehemence of many of the audience was considerable. Not only were
> very strong opinions against the politically correct status quo
> expressed, the tones of voice and the body language was extremely
> animated.
>
> Although there was no effing and blinding or crude racist language,
> the ideas being put forward by both the speakers and the audience
> were far more inflammatory in their implications than many of those
> what they have said or written in public. Take Green�s �the
> greatest threat to our social cohesion we have ever faced� or Batten�s
> belief that Blair had used immigration as an instrument of policy to
> fracture the ethnic solidarity of the UK. Is that really different
> in sentiment from the white working class Englishwoman Emma West who
> is charged with a racially aggravated public order offence for saying
> in a public place things like ��You ain�t English. No, you ain�t
> fracture the ethnic solidarity of the UK. Is that really different
> in sentiment from the white working class Englishwoman Emma West who
> is charged with a racially aggravated public order offence for saying
> English either. You ain�t English. None of you�s ****ing English. Get
> back to your own ****ing� do you know what sort out your own
> countries, don�t come and do mine.�? (http://
> englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/emma-west-immigration-and-the-
> liberal-totalitarian-state/).
>
> The audience questions were heartening because they were based mainly
> on the social rather than the economic impact of immigration. The
> competition for jobs, housing, medical treatment, education and
> welfare is of course important, but the primary objection to mass
> immigration is the general change it brings to society. Mass
> immigration which results in numbers of particular nationalities,
> races and ethnicities arriving which are sufficient to permit the
> development of settlements with separate ways of living from the host
> population is a covert from of conquest. Mass immigration of the
> unassimilatable is an act of the most profound treason by those with
> political power who permit it, and in the case of the Labour
> governments of Blair and Brown, made doubly so by those who
> positively encourage it as a matter of policy. It is treason because
> the effect of such immigration is to effectively allow the
> unassimilatable to colonise territory by settlement.
>
> I attempted without success to be called to put a question. Had I been
> called my question would have been �Before there can be proper public
> liberal-totalitarian-state/).
>
> The audience questions were heartening because they were based mainly
> on the social rather than the economic impact of immigration. The
> competition for jobs, housing, medical treatment, education and
> welfare is of course important, but the primary objection to mass
> immigration is the general change it brings to society. Mass
> immigration which results in numbers of particular nationalities,
> races and ethnicities arriving which are sufficient to permit the
> development of settlements with separate ways of living from the host
> population is a covert from of conquest. Mass immigration of the
> unassimilatable is an act of the most profound treason by those with
> political power who permit it, and in the case of the Labour
> governments of Blair and Brown, made doubly so by those who
> positively encourage it as a matter of policy. It is treason because
> the effect of such immigration is to effectively allow the
> unassimilatable to colonise territory by settlement.
>
> I attempted without success to be called to put a question. Had I been
> debate about immigration and its consequences the restrictions on free
> expression which result in people being charged with criminal
> offences, losing their jobs or being the subject of a media hate
> campaign when they speak honestly on the subject must be removed. What
> will the speakers be doing to remove those restrictions?�
> expression which result in people being charged with criminal
> offences, losing their jobs or being the subject of a media hate
> campaign when they speak honestly on the subject must be removed. What
> Unfortunately no one else asked the question so it went by default.
>
> There is undoubtedly a changed and changing public rhetoric on race
> and immigration, but it is still being controlled by those with power
> and influence. To get the change on immigration policy which is
> required � an end to mass immigration and the policy of
>
> There is undoubtedly a changed and changing public rhetoric on race
> and immigration, but it is still being controlled by those with power
> and influence. To get the change on immigration policy which is
> multiculturalism � the general public must be able to express their
> views as they choose without fear of prosecution or other penalties
> such as the loss of employment.
>
> This question also has serious implications for those who wish to
> leave the EU. Immigration is the prime driver of anti-EU sentiment in
> the UK. If the present straitjacket of fear about expressing non-pc
> views on immigration remains, the politically correct can stifle and
> manipulate debate on not only immigration but also EU membership by
> representing those who wish to leave the EU as xenophobes at best and
> racists at worst.
>
> Read more at http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/bruges-group-meeting-23rd-april-2013-immigration-can-we-control-it/
>
What is actually possible?
> such as the loss of employment.
>
> This question also has serious implications for those who wish to
> leave the EU. Immigration is the prime driver of anti-EU sentiment in
> the UK. If the present straitjacket of fear about expressing non-pc
> views on immigration remains, the politically correct can stifle and
> manipulate debate on not only immigration but also EU membership by
> representing those who wish to leave the EU as xenophobes at best and
> racists at worst.
>
> Read more at http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/bruges-group-meeting-23rd-april-2013-immigration-can-we-control-it/
>
What is fair?
Firstly, immigration authorities should concentrate on preventing the
entry of and removal of unreformed criminals.
Secondly, in most cases, it would be reasonable to expect the migrant to
pay some tax before claiming welfare. Charity begins at home.
With the financing available for immigration control, why not spend that
limited money on the important things?
Bill
Apr 30, 2013, 5:14:31 PM4/30/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:03:27 +0100, Andy Wainwright
<andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Firstly, immigration authorities should concentrate on preventing the
>entry of and removal of unreformed criminals.
Well yes.
<andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Firstly, immigration authorities should concentrate on preventing the
>entry of and removal of unreformed criminals.
This is already the case.
However the Borders Agency have proved utterly incapable of enforcing
the regulations.
>Secondly, in most cases, it would be reasonable to expect the migrant to
>pay some tax before claiming welfare. Charity begins at home.
EC migrants must establish residency in the UK before any claim can be
made, which takes at least a year.
Migrants from outside the UK must have the 'right to reside' in the
UK, a right which now takes some five years to acquire.
Andy Wainwright
Apr 30, 2013, 5:29:19 PM4/30/13
to
seem to bother about properly enforcing existing ones.
It's about distinguishing between those who want to be British- fair
enough- from those who want to totally take the piss out of us.
Bill
Apr 30, 2013, 5:35:43 PM4/30/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:11:47 -0700 (PDT), RH <anywh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>- Most of the immigration to the UK comes from outside the
>EU. Therefore, the UK should be concentrating on reducing that while
>we remain within the EU.
>
Only if you count students as migrants.
From next year students will be excluded from the numbers of
migrants...
>- If net immigration continued to run at 200,000 pa, the
>figure which it has averaged for the past ten years, the UK
>population would reach 70 million by 2027.
Net migration is currently well under 200,000 a year
>- The Coalition has managed to make significant progress
>towards their target of reducing net immigration to tens of thousands
>by 2015. However, the right to free movement granted to Romania and
>Bulgaria from 1 January 2014 could easily undermine these efforts.
Scare mongering.
>- The official immigration figures massively understate the
>true level of EU immigration, perhaps by 2-3 times.
No proof of that anywhere here.
>Philip Holbone
It's actually
'Hollobone'
He's the stone bonker who introduced that bill to ban the burka...
> Gerard Batten
Is the head case who said that Romano Prodi was a KGB agent and
involved in protecting the people who tried to kill Pope John Paul II
because they were KGB agents...
He also something of a conspiracy nut.
He's the man who told the European Parliament:
"It merely confirms the belief of many that the hidden agenda and
purpose of the Bilderberg Group is to bring about undemocratic world
government. It�s a disgrace that the European Commission is colluding
in that."
The
>competition for jobs, housing, medical treatment, education and
>welfare is of course important, but the primary objection to mass
>immigration is the general change it brings to society.
Like, erm, better food...
Mass
>immigration which results in numbers of particular nationalities,
>races and ethnicities arriving which are sufficient to permit the
>development of settlements with separate ways of living from the host
>population is a covert from of conquest. Mass immigration of the
>unassimilatable is an act of the most profound treason by those with
>political power who permit it, and in the case of the Labour
>governments of Blair and Brown, made doubly so by those who
>positively encourage it as a matter of policy. It is treason because
>the effect of such immigration is to effectively allow the
>unassimilatable to colonise territory by settlement.
'Unassimilatable'?
Which minority is unassimilatable?
>I attempted without success to be called to put a question.
Looks like they spotted you then...
Had I been
>called my question would have been �Before there can be proper public
>debate about immigration and its consequences the restrictions on free
>expression which result in people being charged with criminal
>offences, losing their jobs or being the subject of a media hate
>campaign when they speak honestly on the subject must be removed. What
>will the speakers be doing to remove those restrictions?�
Translation: "When can I start calling people by nasty insulting
names again?'
>There is undoubtedly a changed and changing public rhetoric on race
>and immigration, but it is still being controlled by those with power
>and influence. To get the change on immigration policy which is
>required � an end to mass immigration and the policy of
>multiculturalism � the general public must be able to express their
>views as they choose without fear of prosecution or other penalties
>such as the loss of employment.
Multiculturalism is already dead.
> the politically correct can stifle and
>manipulate debate on not only immigration but also EU membership by
>representing those who wish to leave the EU as xenophobes at best and
>racists at worst.
That's because you and your mates are, at best, xenophobes, and at
worst, racists...
wrote:
>- Most of the immigration to the UK comes from outside the
>EU. Therefore, the UK should be concentrating on reducing that while
>we remain within the EU.
>
From next year students will be excluded from the numbers of
migrants...
>- If net immigration continued to run at 200,000 pa, the
>figure which it has averaged for the past ten years, the UK
>population would reach 70 million by 2027.
>- The Coalition has managed to make significant progress
>towards their target of reducing net immigration to tens of thousands
>by 2015. However, the right to free movement granted to Romania and
>Bulgaria from 1 January 2014 could easily undermine these efforts.
>- The official immigration figures massively understate the
>true level of EU immigration, perhaps by 2-3 times.
>Philip Holbone
It's actually
'Hollobone'
He's the stone bonker who introduced that bill to ban the burka...
> Gerard Batten
Is the head case who said that Romano Prodi was a KGB agent and
involved in protecting the people who tried to kill Pope John Paul II
because they were KGB agents...
He also something of a conspiracy nut.
He's the man who told the European Parliament:
"It merely confirms the belief of many that the hidden agenda and
purpose of the Bilderberg Group is to bring about undemocratic world
government. It�s a disgrace that the European Commission is colluding
in that."
The
>competition for jobs, housing, medical treatment, education and
>welfare is of course important, but the primary objection to mass
>immigration is the general change it brings to society.
Mass
>immigration which results in numbers of particular nationalities,
>races and ethnicities arriving which are sufficient to permit the
>development of settlements with separate ways of living from the host
>population is a covert from of conquest. Mass immigration of the
>unassimilatable is an act of the most profound treason by those with
>political power who permit it, and in the case of the Labour
>governments of Blair and Brown, made doubly so by those who
>positively encourage it as a matter of policy. It is treason because
>the effect of such immigration is to effectively allow the
>unassimilatable to colonise territory by settlement.
Which minority is unassimilatable?
>I attempted without success to be called to put a question.
Had I been
>called my question would have been �Before there can be proper public
>debate about immigration and its consequences the restrictions on free
>expression which result in people being charged with criminal
>offences, losing their jobs or being the subject of a media hate
>campaign when they speak honestly on the subject must be removed. What
Translation: "When can I start calling people by nasty insulting
names again?'
>There is undoubtedly a changed and changing public rhetoric on race
>and immigration, but it is still being controlled by those with power
>and influence. To get the change on immigration policy which is
>required � an end to mass immigration and the policy of
>multiculturalism � the general public must be able to express their
>views as they choose without fear of prosecution or other penalties
>such as the loss of employment.
> the politically correct can stifle and
>manipulate debate on not only immigration but also EU membership by
>representing those who wish to leave the EU as xenophobes at best and
>racists at worst.
worst, racists...
Bill
Apr 30, 2013, 5:50:40 PM4/30/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:29:19 +0100, Andy Wainwright
time saying the Borders Agency are 'unfit for purpose' without
actually saying what's wrong with it.
So Teresa May has abolished its agency status and absorbed it within
the Home Office, the daytime TV shows are full of film of Borders
Agency staff breaking down doors and dragging people away because
their papers aren't in order, but in reality that does little good.
What actually needs doing to stop illegals working is to really
penalise the employers and set up a system where people show that
they're entitled to work.
Or you could just do what I think we should do and what they do in the
USA and just quietly look the other way and let people work and pay
taxes...
>It's about distinguishing between those who want to be British- fair
>enough- from those who want to totally take the piss out of us.
If they wanted to take the piss they wouldn't be here.
Nobody ever migrated to live on bugger all a week in a leaky house in
a freezing cold Northern Europe. Everyone wants a better life.
<andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>On 30/04/2013 22:14, Bill wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:03:27 +0100, Andy Wainwright
>> <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Firstly, immigration authorities should concentrate on preventing the
>>> entry of and removal of unreformed criminals.
>>
>> Well yes.
>>
>> This is already the case.
>>
>> However the Borders Agency have proved utterly incapable of enforcing
>> the regulations.
>>
>>> Secondly, in most cases, it would be reasonable to expect the migrant to
>>> pay some tax before claiming welfare. Charity begins at home.
>>
>> This is also the case.
>>
>> EC migrants must establish residency in the UK before any claim can be
>> made, which takes at least a year.
>>
>> Migrants from outside the UK must have the 'right to reside' in the
>> UK, a right which now takes some five years to acquire.
>>
>
>Shame the politicians keep talking about "tough new rules" and don't
>seem to bother about properly enforcing existing ones.
Well they claim to care, but then they also seem to spend a lot of
>On 30/04/2013 22:14, Bill wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:03:27 +0100, Andy Wainwright
>> <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Firstly, immigration authorities should concentrate on preventing the
>>> entry of and removal of unreformed criminals.
>>
>> Well yes.
>>
>> This is already the case.
>>
>> However the Borders Agency have proved utterly incapable of enforcing
>> the regulations.
>>
>>> Secondly, in most cases, it would be reasonable to expect the migrant to
>>> pay some tax before claiming welfare. Charity begins at home.
>>
>> This is also the case.
>>
>> EC migrants must establish residency in the UK before any claim can be
>> made, which takes at least a year.
>>
>> Migrants from outside the UK must have the 'right to reside' in the
>> UK, a right which now takes some five years to acquire.
>>
>
>Shame the politicians keep talking about "tough new rules" and don't
>seem to bother about properly enforcing existing ones.
time saying the Borders Agency are 'unfit for purpose' without
actually saying what's wrong with it.
So Teresa May has abolished its agency status and absorbed it within
the Home Office, the daytime TV shows are full of film of Borders
Agency staff breaking down doors and dragging people away because
their papers aren't in order, but in reality that does little good.
What actually needs doing to stop illegals working is to really
penalise the employers and set up a system where people show that
they're entitled to work.
Or you could just do what I think we should do and what they do in the
USA and just quietly look the other way and let people work and pay
taxes...
>It's about distinguishing between those who want to be British- fair
>enough- from those who want to totally take the piss out of us.
Nobody ever migrated to live on bugger all a week in a leaky house in
a freezing cold Northern Europe. Everyone wants a better life.
True Blue
May 1, 2013, 7:29:13 AM5/1/13
to
On Apr 30, 5:35 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:11:47 -0700 (PDT), RH <anywhere...@gmail.com>
LOL it always amuses me how you people hang on to that one, lone fact,
to excuse the tsunami of ills the brown tide has wrought upon this
country. Desperate, desperate stuff.
>
> That's because you and your mates are, at best, xenophobes, and at
> worst, racists...
No arguments, just base emoting. Archetypal liberal.
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:11:47 -0700 (PDT), RH <anywhere...@gmail.com>
to excuse the tsunami of ills the brown tide has wrought upon this
country. Desperate, desperate stuff.
>
> That's because you and your mates are, at best, xenophobes, and at
> worst, racists...
Bill
May 1, 2013, 9:31:34 AM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 1 May 2013 04:29:13 -0700 (PDT), True Blue
<garyb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 30, 5:35�pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> �The
<garyb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 30, 5:35�pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> >competition for jobs, housing, medical treatment, education and
>> >welfare is of course important, �but the primary objection to mass
>> >immigration is the general change it brings to society.
>>
>> Like, �erm, better food...
>
>LOL it always amuses me how you people
'You people'? Who exactly are 'you people'?
>> >competition for jobs, housing, medical treatment, education and
>> >welfare is of course important, �but the primary objection to mass
>> >immigration is the general change it brings to society.
>>
>> Like, �erm, better food...
>
>LOL it always amuses me how you people
plainolamerican
May 1, 2013, 10:49:23 AM5/1/13
to
On Apr 30, 4:35 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:11:47 -0700 (PDT), RH <anywhere...@gmail.com>
---
those who call people xenophobes and racists are usually jewish,
black, hispanic or some other minority.
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:11:47 -0700 (PDT), RH <anywhere...@gmail.com>
those who call people xenophobes and racists are usually jewish,
black, hispanic or some other minority.
Bill
May 1, 2013, 11:42:13 AM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 1 May 2013 07:49:23 -0700 (PDT), plainolamerican
<plainol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>That's because you and your mates are, at best, xenophobes, and at
>worst, racists...
>---
>those who call people xenophobes and racists are usually jewish,
>black, hispanic or some other minority.
Well yes, can you guess why?
<plainol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>That's because you and your mates are, at best, xenophobes, and at
>worst, racists...
>---
>those who call people xenophobes and racists are usually jewish,
>black, hispanic or some other minority.
plainolamerican
May 1, 2013, 2:32:38 PM5/1/13
to
On May 1, 10:42 am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2013 07:49:23 -0700 (PDT), plainolamerican
>
> On Wed, 1 May 2013 07:49:23 -0700 (PDT), plainolamerican
>
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >That's because you and your mates are, at best, xenophobes, and at
> >worst, racists...
> >---
> >those who call people xenophobes and racists are usually jewish,
> >black, hispanic or some other minority.
>
> Well yes, can you guess why?
no guesses needed ... it's because minorities use race as an excuse
> >That's because you and your mates are, at best, xenophobes, and at
> >worst, racists...
> >---
> >those who call people xenophobes and racists are usually jewish,
> >black, hispanic or some other minority.
>
> Well yes, can you guess why?
for an advantage. Affirmative action is a racist policy to give
minorities an advantage. the jews have taught other minorities how to
scream racism for their wants.
one more time ... welcome to America ... check your race, religion ,
color, ethnicity and any other physical attribute you would use for an
advantage at the door.
Espanuelo
May 1, 2013, 4:36:46 PM5/1/13
to
Andy Wainwright wrote:
> On 30/04/2013 20:11, RH wrote:
>> Bruges Group meeting 23rd April 2013 � Immigration: Can we control it?
>>
>> Posted on April 30, 2013 by Robert Henderson
>>
>>
>> Speakers: Sir Andrew Green (MigrationWatch UK)
>>
>> Philip Holbone (Tory MP for Kettering)
>>
>> Gerard Batten (UKIP MEP for London)
>>
>>
> On 30/04/2013 20:11, RH wrote:
>> Bruges Group meeting 23rd April 2013 � Immigration: Can we control it?
>>
>> Posted on April 30, 2013 by Robert Henderson
>>
>>
>> Speakers: Sir Andrew Green (MigrationWatch UK)
>>
>> Philip Holbone (Tory MP for Kettering)
>>
>> Gerard Batten (UKIP MEP for London)
>>
>>
>> Read more at
>> http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/bruges-group-meeting-23rd-april-2013-immigration-can-we-control-it/
>>
>>
>
> What is actually possible?
> What is fair?
>
> Firstly, immigration authorities should concentrate on preventing the
> entry of and removal of unreformed criminals.
> Secondly, in most cases, it would be reasonable to expect the migrant to
> pay some tax before claiming welfare. Charity begins at home.
A tax of � 16,000 for each non-EU immigrant and every year.
>> http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/bruges-group-meeting-23rd-april-2013-immigration-can-we-control-it/
>>
>>
>
> What is actually possible?
> What is fair?
>
> Firstly, immigration authorities should concentrate on preventing the
> entry of and removal of unreformed criminals.
> Secondly, in most cases, it would be reasonable to expect the migrant to
> pay some tax before claiming welfare. Charity begins at home.
Bill
May 1, 2013, 5:50:11 PM5/1/13
to
Neither am I in a country where 'affirmative action' is legal, indeed,
it is specifically illegal here.
0 new messages