We need clarity on precisely why immigration into our country needs to be reduced, and on the best ways of doing it. There is much concern that, even with the clean-break Brexit we all want, non-EU immigration is hardly being addressed. The Conservatives’ ‘down to tens of thousands’ has been a con from the start, yet still the Tory faithful go on voting in their usual way. Like their careerist politicians, what they care about most is keeping in with the biggest game in town and keeping Labour out, whilst Labour have done all they can to deny the problem. Brexit has brought them a dose of reality, but Labour will go on welcoming future voters from this source, and the changing face of Britain. Many of their more traditional supporters know better, but to get wide support our policies have to be robust, reasonable and properly thought-through.
Which is why an Australian points system is not the right one here. England is now the most crowded country in Europe, the UK is the third. We cannot even be sure the official UK population of 65 million is accurate; anecdotal evidence from a major supermarket indicates it might be as high as 80 million. According to the Oxford Migration Observatory, on these growth rates the native population will become a minority in the late 2060s. In four or five generations over one century the population of these islands will have been totally transformed, an extraordinary change which would have shocked and probably saddened our forebears and may well get the same verdict from our descendants. We just do not have room in our crowded country for any more people!
Apart from anything else, we are taking the most enormous risk with future food supplies. The globalists do not recognise the problem: the world will always go on feeding us. Our food self-sufficiency is now about 60% but declining by perhaps 0.5% a year, which is hardly surprising given all the pressures on our land. No doubt our farmers could become even more productive than they are now given an emergency, but only at enormous cost to the environment: our land is already drenched in chemicals, the very air some people have to breathe is injurious to health. The organic movement estimates we have a hundred years’ harvest left in our soil. How is the environment – that wonderful entity all good leftists are so keen on – going to cope with all the houses, the roads, the cars, the HS2s, the retail areas, the industrial estates, the power stations, the emissions, the waste that this population growth is generating now and will do for at least decades to come? What price nature and wildlife in this new liberal paradise? How do we think people in the future are going to live?
It is hard to credit that any rational country would want to import a security problem, but that is what we are still doing. The one area of expenditure governments agree on increasing has been internal security. Has anyone ever dared to cost all the additional measures that have had to be put in place to try and cope with it? Do liberals ever stop to think how all the limitations on our freedoms, either implemented or merely threatened for now, have been forced on us by the presence of people who are essentially alien to our way of life, whether in the security field, or, increasingly and perhaps worst of all, in the most vital freedom of all, freedom of speech?
As for the economy, cheap labour is an integral part of globalization and the free-market ideology with which it is associated. It has without doubt put downward pressure on wages, and is one of the main factors in our chronic low productivity, since it encourages organisations and businesses to avoid investment and training. It solves labour shortages in care homes, but who will look after the carers when they age? The model has no end.
Only drastic action can stop this madness. Many millions of people would come here if they could, and the only fair policy is that none of them come unless they have a very good reason indeed, since nobody has a right to come to our country: admission should be a great privilege. As has been suggested recently in these columns, we should adopt the reciprocity principle: the number admitted from any one country should not exceed the number of UK citizens leaving for it.
There should be some important caveats however. Family ties should not qualify unless the applicant or the host sponsor has a British grandparent. Economic migrants should not qualify, and nor should wealth or skills. We are never going to start training our own people until the door is closed; the only temporary exception should be for vital occupations with long training lead-times. Visas should be necessary for work visits, and temporary work and student permits allowed but properly policed. Asylum-seekers should be rigorously checked and returned home unless there was no reasonably safe part of their own country they could go to. Many are bogus, and most get here by non-enforcement of the UN Convention by transiting safe countries – and ‘safe’ would be defined by us.
We also have to be brave when it comes to defending our own heritage, culture and way of life, which all peoples everywhere have a right, indeed a duty to do. We have to ban alternative systems of justice, and those cultural practices which have no place in our country. We have to root out the outrage of modern slavery and all discrimination against women. We have to stop providing translation services, the public funding of multiculturalism, the ghettoisation of professional associations. Oaths to adhere to British values are meaningless: for so many people the differences between cultures are an unbridgeable void, and true British values bear little resemblance to what some think they are or have become.
Do we want to win – or not?