Category Archives: Immigration

Article 50 is a poisoned chalice – Don’t drink from it

Robert Henderson

Those who think that British Europhile politicians   will  play fair if Britain votes to leave the EU in June will be horribly disappointed. The public may think that if the British people have voted to leave the EU and that is an end of it regardless of the wishes of the Government.   Sadly, there is every reason to expect that Brexit will be anything but a clean break from the EU.

To begin with there has been no commitment by Cameron to stand down as PM if the vote goes against him.  Quite the opposite for he  has publicly stated several  times that  he will stay on and many  Tory MPs, including some of those in favour of leaving like Chris Grayling ,  have said that he must remain in No 10 whatever the outcome of the referendum .

If Cameron stay on as PM after a vote to leave Britain would be in the absurd position of having a man in charge of  Britain’s withdrawal who has shown his all too eager  commitment to the EU by the feebleness of   the demands he made during  his “renegotiation” and his regularly repeated statement before the conclusion of the “renegotiation”  that he was sure he would get new terms which would allow him to campaign for Britain to remain within the EU.   

A post-referendum   Cameron  government entrusted with negotiating Britain’s departure from the EU would mean that not only the  PM  but  the majority of his  cabinet and ministers below  cabinet  level  will  be  drawn from the same pro-EU personnel as he has today.  In those circumstances Cameron and his fellow Europhiles would almost certainly try to stitch Britain back into the EU with a deal such as that granted to  Norway and Switzerland. If that happened Britain could end up with the most important issue in the British  public’s mind –  free movement  of not only labour but free movement of anyone with the right to permanent residence in the EU – untouched .

But if Cameron leaves  of his own accord soon after a vote to leave Britain could still end up with a Europhile  Prime Minister and Cabinet.  Why? By  far the most likely person to succeed him  is Boris Johnson. If he  does become  PM there is every reason to believe that he will also do his level best to enmesh Britain back into  the EU.  Ever since Johnson  became the Telegraph’s  Brussels correspondent in the 1990s he has been deriding the EU, but until coming out as a supporter of voting to leave in the past week he has never advocated Britain’s withdrawal.  Johnson also gave a very strong hint  in the  Daily Telegraph article in which he announced his support for leaving the EU that his support for Britain leaving the EU was no more than  a ploy to persuade the EU to offer  more significant concessions than those offered to Cameron. Johnson has also been a regular advocate of the value of immigration.

The scenario of Cameron or Johnson deliberately subverting the intention of a referendum vote  to leave are all too plausible. There has been no public discussion let alone  agreement by leading  politicians over what the British government may or may not negotiate in the event of a vote to leave.   Nor has there been any suggestion by any British politician or party  that whatever the terms offered by the EU the British public will have the right to vote on them in a referendum.  Britain could be left  with  an agreement decided by the British Government and the EU which might do nothing of what  the British public most wants and  has voted for, namely, the return of sovereignty and  the control of Britain’s borders.

Then  there is Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.  Both Cameron and Johnson are committed to doing so within the terms of the Lisbon Treaty of  2009.  Far from a vote to leave in the referendum putting Britain in the position of a  sovereign nation engaging in a negotiation for a treaty with the EU  it traps  Britain into an extended period of negotiation whose outcome is dependent on the agreement or non-agreement of  the 27 other EU member states and the  EU Parliament.  Let me quote  the Article in  full:

Article 50

  1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
  2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
  3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
  4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  1. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49. (

Article 50  means that Britain could spend two years negotiating and get no treaty because the Council of Ministers could veto it through Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) or the European Parliament reject it. Britain would then have the option of either asking for an extension (which could be indefinite because there is no limit mentioned in the Article) or leaving without a treaty.  There is also the further complication that if a treaty was agreed by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament it would still have to be agreed by 27 EU member states,  either through Parliamentary vote or  in the case of a few including France, a referendum.  Moreover,  even if a treaty is agreed and accepted by all EU member states, this would leave  Britain up in the air for what could be a considerable time as each of the 27 members goes through the process of getting  the agreement of their Parliament or electorate.

The OUT camp must make it clear that  it would be both damaging and unnecessary for the UK to abide by this Treaty requirement. It  would allow the EU to inflict considerable damage on the UK both during the period prior to formally  leaving and afterwards if  the price of leaving with the EU’s agreement was  for  UK to sign up to various obligations, for example, to continue paying a large annual sum to the EU for ten years . It would also give  the Europhile UK political elite  ample opportunity to keep the UK attached to the EU in the manner that Norway and Switzerland are attached by arguing that it is the best deal Britain  can get.  If there was no second  referendum on the  terms  negotiated for Britain leaving the government of the day could simply pass the matter into law without the British voters having a say.

The Gordian knot of Article 50 can be cut simply repealing the European Communities Act and asserting the sovereignty of Parliament.   No major UK party could  object to this on principle because all three have, at one time or another,  declared that Parliament remains supreme and can repudiate anything the EU does if it so chooses.

If the stay-in camp argue that would be illegal because of the  treaty obligation, the OUT camp should simply emphasise  (1) that international law is no law because there is never any means of enforcing it within its jurisdiction is a state rejects it and (2) that treaties which do not allow for contracting parties to simply withdraw are profoundly undemocratic because they bind future governments. There is also the fact that the EU and its predecessor the EEC has constantly breached its own rules, spectacularly so in the case of the Eurozone.  Hence, for the EU treaties are anything but sacrosanct.

Grassroots Out (GO) public meeting of 19th February 2016 at the QE II Convention Hall in Westminster

A recording of the meeting can be found here

Speakers: David Campbell Bannerman (Tory MEP),  Gerard Batton (Ukip  MEP)  Cllr Helen Harrison (Nation coordinator of GO), Bill Cash (Tory MP),  Ruth Lea (Economist ) John Boyd (Campaign against Euro-federalism – CAEF   ),  Tom Pursglove (Tory MP) , Kate Hoey (Labour MP), David Davis (Tory MP),  Nigel Farage (Ukip Leader) , George Galloway  (Respect)

The meeting was chaired by Peter Bone (Tory MP)

Report by Robert Henderson

The  meeting was  encouraging for those who hope for a vote to leave the EU.  2,000 odd people crammed themselves into an arena which could probably  only seat  1,500 so that hundreds were left standing. Despite this very few left during the  better part of two and a half hours of speeches.

It was a strong hand of speakers. The various speakers  gave the  audience a good spread of personality: David Davis, who was relaxed, witty and authoritative. Bill Cash unusually animated – for some reason he seemed to be in a rage – Ruth Lea calm, Nigel Farage forthright, Kate Hoey energetic   and  George Galloway booming.

They  pressed hard on the important issues which Cameron had left untouched during his “renegotiation” : national sovereignty, democracy and control of our borders, but several of the speakers  also raised issues which have  long been kept under wraps by the Left, namely, namely, the undercutting of wages by mass immigration from Europe, the pressure on public services , housing, and schools from immigration.

Perhaps the most interesting speech came from John Boyd of the  Campaign against Euro-federalism. Interesting because  CAEF was “ founded in 1992 to address the labour and trade union movement and win that movement back to the anti-EU position it held from the 1960’s until 1988.”   Labour against the EU will seem an oddity to many, especially the young, but until  the  Party threw down its traditional aims  in despair after  being out of office  for so long  after 1979, it was natural  for  Labour to object to the EU as being both undemocratic and a capitalist club. Long before Britain joined  what was then the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1972 the labour movement including the trade unions had been opposed to mass immigration because it undercut wages, embraced protectionism and saw the nationalisation of industries such as the public utilities, railways and coal mines as simple national common sense.   Nor was patriotism a dirty word for Labour then. Men such as Attlee and Ernie Bevan were deep-rooted and natural patriots.

All those ideas and ideals fit quite naturally into the psyche of the working man and woman. It would not be a massive emotional shift for the Labour Party and the unions to come out for Brexit on the grounds that whilst Britain is within the EU immigrants will compete for jobs and reduce wages in Britain (the free movement of labour), vital  industries cannot be preserved (the ban on state aid,  and  the single Market) and   pay and conditions be protected  by law (the free movement of labour and trade agreements made by the EU). In his speech Boyd pointed to the dangers of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Treaty (TTIP) currently being negotiated by the EU with the USA which bids fair to reduce the pay and conditions of workers and upend the NHS.  Boyd was also very firmly against the free movement of labour.

Galloway undoubtedly brings baggage with him, not least over financial matters  – there have been questions over various charities he has run  and recently   a limited company of his has liquidated owing HMRC a reported £100,000 in tax  –  but in a campaign such as this which is centred on a single  issue and one of the   of the greatest moment,  those who would be strange bedfellows in most circumstances  can sleep together without undue difficulty. He  is indubitably a  gifted public  speaker  who will appeal to not just Muslims  (as long as Galloway persuades them to vote OUT  it  doesn’t matter),  but to  working-class people  generally, a huge constituency which has been more or less ignored by mainstream politicians in the past  quarter century.  He might even sway a substantial number of  those in Scotland.

The important thing to fix firmly upon is that what matters here is beautifully simple: it is to win the referendum. How it is won is irrelevant in terms of why people vote to leave the EU.  It does not matter  a jot  if people seek different things from a Britain freed from  the EU.  There are free traders  and laissez faire disciples who see Britain’s departure from the EU as a freeing  of Britain from the bonds of EU regulation and restriction,  there are those who simply want to resurrect British sovereignty by leaving,   there are those on the Left who see the EU  as a capitalist club. More generally, a large majority of the British people want an end to unlimited immigration from the EU.  These varying ends can be fought over after a vote to leave is obtained.

Will GO play a large role in the referendum campaign? Can it persuade the Electoral Commission to designate it as  the lead organisation for the OUT campaign?  It has got three things going for it.

1.It can reasonably claim to have the broadest political range amongst its leading members of the various OUT organisations.

2. Nigel Farage committed Ukip, the oldest and largest anti-EU in Britain, wholeheartedly to Grassroots Out at the meeting.

3. As yet GO has not fallen prey to the type of internecine squabbling and argument which has afflicted the other groups advocating Brexit.

BRITAIN STRONGER IN EUROPE WITH MASS IMMIGRATION?

BRITAIN STRONGER IN EUROPE WITH MASS MIGRATION?


You have got to laugh at the pitch by Lord Stuart Rose of Monewden who was quoted at the launch of their campaign on the 12th October, claiming that voters should “welcome” mass migration from Europe and that current numbers of people coming to work in Britain are not too high, following on from a year when the best part of half a million migrants came to Britain. Here is the quote “Lord Rose say it is ‘patriotic’ to want remain in the EU

Click here to see the reporting on this >>>
Britain benefits from welcoming EU migrants, say In campaigners – Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11927867/Britain-benefits-from-welcoming-EU-migrants-say-In-campaigners.html

If he thinks that this is a winning line for his campaign to keep Britain in the EU then personally I think he is deluded but you can see how the multi-millionaire, former boss of Marks and Spencer might think that a flood of cheap labour into Britain might help him and his kind make yet more profit for people like him and enable him to hire cheaper servants and go to a greater diversity of interesting restaurants.

Here is what Wikipedia says about Lord Rose’s background which I think may also be significant in understanding his viewpoint:-

Rose’s grandparents were White Russian émigrés who fled to China after the 1917 revolution. Their son, Rose’s father, was unofficially adopted by an English Quaker spinster, who offered to take him to safety in England as war loomed. The original family name was Bryantzeff, which Rose’s father, ex-RAF and civil servant, changed. His mother’s side is English, Scottish and Greek. The young family lived in a caravan in Warwickshire until Rose senior obtained a posting with the Imperial Civil Service in Tanganyika (now Tanzania). Rose went to the Roman Catholic St Joseph’s Convent School in Dar es Salaam until he was 11. When he was 13 years old his family returned to England and his parents sent him to Bootham School, an independent Quaker boarding school in York. His first job was as an administration assistant at the BBC.

What do you think?

WHY IS VIKTOR ORBÁN SO POPULAR WITH HUNGARIANS?

WHY IS VIKTOR ORBÁN SO POPULAR WITH HUNGARIANS?
 
If you were to believe the BBC and most of the “mainstream media” you would think that most people in England are clamouring for an open door immigration policy and allowing in unlimited numbers of economic migrants and, in particular, so called refugees from Syria.

The few opinion polls that have been published relating to this show that the opposite is true. The vast majority of the People of England do not want to see more migrants from any part of the world flooding into our country.

Here is an article about this >>> https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/06/no-increase-syrian-refugee-numbers/

It should not therefore really surprise anyone that the one democratically elected politician who has been full-throttle opposed to mass immigration into his country, in particular mass Muslim immigration, should have seen his popularity rise to unprecedented levels of support. For example, here is an article from an enemy confirming his support >>> http://qz.com/501666/take-it-from-a-hungarian-journalist-orban-is-playing-a-dangerous-game/

Our electoral system which clothes parties with the support of only about a quarter of the electorate with the illusion of majority of support, such as Cameron in the recent election with the votes of 26% of the electorate and Tony Blair in the 2005 election with the votes of only 21.6% of the electorate. 

One of the problems of our nation is therefore actually our “elected” leaders are not in fact representative of the majority of opinion in our country. I would suggest that, if they were, our country would be run in a very different and more democratic way. There would then be an immediate end to mass immigration.

What do you think?

Immigration  and the price of a liberal conscience

Robert Henderson

The  British media has been  excitedly  pointing what they describe  as the great generosity of the British public  or variations on that theme,  in offering to take  immigrants into their homes. The reality is rather different  for the  number of  people living in Britain who have offered a home to  immigrants is meagre,  a few thousand out of a British population  of approximately 64 million. Even this small number  is highly suspect  because  these are merely people who have offered to take refugees into their homes  without being tested  by the reality of having people in their home.   Moreover, many of those who have offered have not done so in an open ended fashion. Instead they have put their hands up for a few weeks or months or perhaps even a year, although the reality of assessing asylum claims is several years and conceivably much longer. Longer term

Much  of the enthusiasm for taking in immigrants has been  expressed not by  offering to lodge them in private homes but in lobbying councils to find accommodation for immigrants.  This is unlikely to cost those lobbying anything because such people will probably not be in need of  social housing or live in an area which will be flooded with immigrants.  Nor are they likely to  be sending their children to schools which boast “there are 93 languages spoken here” or be on the lists of GPs who  suddenly  have huge numbers of immigrants on their lists. It is also pretty unlikely that they or their children will lose their chance of a decent job to an immigrant or have their pay reduced because immigrants are willing to work for less.

The people who will  lose out are the poorer members of society.  They will find themselves competing with immigrants for housing, jobs, schools and NHS care.  The reality is those who advocate taking in immigrants, most of them from the Third and Second worlds, are stealing from the poorer of their own people.  Let me list what they steal:

  1. Employment, both by taking jobs and by reducing wages .
  2. Housing, both by  taking housing (including large amounts of social housing)  and by forcing up  house prices and private  rents.
  3. School opportunities by taking places and  by reducing the quality of the schooling  available to the British children through larger classes and   the  extra time and money   devoted to dealing with so many children who speak inadequate English.
  4. University opportunities, both by immigrants taking places (especially in subjects such as medicine) and by the reduction in the quality of the education offered through  immigrants having poor English and from inadequate students from  outside the EU being admitted simply because they are  cash cows for universities as they pay the full cost of their courses.  Students who cannot speak fluent English or who are simply intellectually inadequate  diminish the quality of the education for the British students.
  5. Healthcare. GPs surgeries are being swamped in many areas because of immigration and anyone who has visited a NHS hospital recently in places such as  London will have been astonished at the number of foreign patients there are  (I speak from personal experience).

More generally, when  immigrants arise in large numbers they invariably form ghettoes.  This means that Britons who live in areas anywhere such ghettoes formed rapidly find that the place with which they are familiar becomes somewhere alien .

If those who advocated mass immigration had to pay a price for their parading  of their conscience you may rest assured that their enthusiasm would vanish as quickly as the morning dew.  What should be the price?  Here are a couple of scenarios:

  1. If someone advocates taking in more immigrants they should have to take responsibility for that person permanently. By that I mean not only house them but meet all their reasonable needs such as food, clothing medical and educational costs.   They should have no choice about who they are allocated so there will be no choosing a westernised well educated  immigrant or two who speak good English.
  2. Another scenario could be the immigration advocate and their immediate family having their family home requisitioned and the advocate and his or her family moved to basic  accommodation in an area absolutely brimming over with the diversity such people always extol as being so desirable.  The income of the  adults involved would be reduced to the bare  minimum which the British state says is needed to live. Where there are children of school age , these would be sent to state funded schools which boast “93 languages spoken here”.

Would it be unfair to include the immediate family including children in the penalty? Well, consider this, all of the disadvantages which I suggest putting onto those who advocate Britain takes in huge numbers of immigrants have never had the slightest qualms in condemning the poor of their own nation to experience such conditions.  They would simply be experiencing that which they have not only placed on the white working class but that which they have claimed is positively beneficial to those unfortunate to experience the joy of diversity in its most invasive condition.

That should be the price of a liberal conscience. Sadly, at present the price is paid not by the eager propagandists for mass immigration but the poorer members of our society.

James Keir Hardie, Labour lovie or anti-immigration hard man?

James Keir Hardie, Labour lovie or anti-immigration hard man?


Gordon Brown recently did a BBC Radio 4 documentary with much fanfare about one of the principal founders of the Labour Party, James Keir Hardie. Gordon Brown says that fellow Scot Keir Hardie is his hero and inspiration but his narrative had a Soviet style airbrushing out of Keir Hardie’s views on immigration. Here is a link to the programme >>> ? BBC Radio 4 – Keir Hardie: Labour’s First Leader

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b068xnly

Here is an unexpurgated sample of some of Mr Keir Hardie’s views on immigrants:-


Speaking of the incoming Polish (actually Lithuanians) miners, he said “their habits are very filthy, six or seven males occupying a one-roomed house, and having women to cook for them”

As early as 1887 the Ayrshire Miners Union led by Keir Hardie demanded their removal on the grounds that “their presence is a menace to the health and morality of the place and is, besides, being used to reduce the already too low wages earned by the workmen”.

In his evidence to the 1899 House of Commons Select Committee on emigration and immigration, he argued that the Scots resented immigrants greatly and that they would want a total immigration ban. When it was pointed out to him that more people left Scotland than entered it, he replied:

“It would be much better for Scotland if those 1,500 (Scots emigrants) were compelled to remain there and let the foreigners be kept out… Dr Johnson said God made Scotland for Scotchmen, and I would keep it so”.

He suggested that the employment of foreigners by British employers should be prohibited, unless they were political exiles or had fled from religious persecution or if they came from countries where the wage rates were the same as in Britain.

Writing in his paper the Miner, he stated that: “For this second time in their history, Messrs. Merry and Cunninghame have introduced a number of Russian Poles to Glengarnock Ironworks. What object they have in doing so is beyond human ken unless it is, as stated by a speaker at Irvine, to teach men how to live on garlic and oil, or introduce the Black Death, so as to get rid of the surplus labourers.

I wonder if Keir Hardie’s views would now qualify as “British Values” as redefined by this “Conservative” Government now that ‘Extremism’ is to be redefined as any opposition to the Establishment’s revisionist “British values” eg compulsory “respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11897355/Laws-against-extremism-risk-criminalising-us-all.html

What do you think?

MY SPEECH AT THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2015 ENGLISH DEMOCRATS’ CONFERENCE

MY SPEECH AT THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2015 ENGLISH DEMOCRATS’ CONFERENCE


Ladies and Gentlemen I am delighted to welcome you to our Annual General Meeting and Autumn Conference here in Leicester.

There has been a little dispute between me and Steve Uncles as to the numbering of this conference. We launched at a General Meeting of Members at Imperial College in August 2002, which I am counting as our first General Meeting. Whereas Steve wants to start our count with the next Annual General Meeting on September 2003. But whether you count this as our thirteenth or fourteenth Annual General Meeting and, of course, we have also had Spring meetings for almost all of those years, we are nevertheless a party which has been established long enough for even our slapdash and complacent British Establishment to have fully recognised our existence. For example when the issue of English Votes for English Laws was being debated in the House of Commons, before the Summer recess, we were mentioned as the principal campaigners for an English Parliament.

Not only have we established ourselves over these years and made an enormous contribution to keeping the English flag flying politically, having distributed well over 30 million leaflets and appeared on television, radio and in newspapers on innumerable occasions, with several Party Election Broadcasts, but also there are a number of us who were present at that first meeting who are still active in the Party.

Ladies and gentlemen over the course of the last year the scene for English nationalism has been in some ways improving. I think this is particularly so since we last met at the Spring conference in York, as since then we have seen the continuing surge of support for the Scottish National Party in Scotland which has been transformed politically with Scottish National Party MPs winning 56 out of 59 Scottish parliamentary seats with an unprecedented almost clean sweep, leaving the British Establishment and Unionist parties only clinging on with one seat each. It looks quite likely that a similar clear out may occur in the Scottish Parliament elections next May! This surge bodes well for a similar nationalist surge here in England.

Breaking off there, did you see the clash between UKIP’s Suzanne Evans and Alex Salmond on Newsnight a few weeks ago? Suzanne Evans used the expression ‘Regional Assembly Elections’ to describe the Scottish Parliament elections. This was a remark which had Alex Salmond literally gibbering and spluttering furiously that Scotland wasn’t a Region but a “Nation”. It was hilarious!

But Ladies and Gentlemen seriously let’s make sure that we are here to tell idiotic Unionists like Suzanne Evans that England isn’t a series of Regions – England is a Nation! What do you say Ladies and Gentlemen? Is England a series of Regions? Is England a Nation like Scotland? 

Ladies and Gentlemen you may be interested to know that a while before the Scottish referendum, at the time when Douglas Carswell was about to stand in Clacton, having left the Conservative Party to join UKIP, I had a meeting with the Conservative’s election guru, the so called Wizard of Oz, Lynton Crosby, and I briefed him about the English question.

Ladies and Gentlemen I make no apology for doing so as I think it is important for the English Democrats and for The English nationalist campaign to work with anyone who may help to further our Cause. I think that is a lesson that could usefully and forcibly be pointed to the Scottish National Party and to Plaid Cymru, neither of whom are willing to work with any English organisation, not just the English Democrats, but also, for example, the Campaign for an English Parliament because they are simply blinded by their hatred of the English. Despite this neither of them could hope to achieve what they say they want to achieve without support in England for independence.

Anyway Lynton Crosby, being Australian, wasn’t aware particularly of the distinction between English and British, nor was he aware of the rising support for English National Identity, as shown in the 2011 Census, in which, I am sure you need no reminding, over 32 million people, that is 60.4% of the entire population of England stated that they were English-only and not British. A fact which British Establishment spokesmen and politicians are very keen to play down, so much so there is even talk of pulling the rug from under the Office of National Statistics because they even dared to ask that question!

Anyway after our meeting, Lynton Crosby went away and did some opinion poll and focus group research which showed, he reported to me, that we would get great support if we could once marshall the resources to campaign on a more or less level playing field with the richer parties. He also confirmed rising support for English issues and of a rising English political demand for recognition, also a rising concern amongst English people that the Scottish National Party might go into coalition with Labour and so be able extract even more unfair advantages for Scotland from a Labour led coalition government to be paid for by us English.

I think my conversation with Lynton Crosby and his subsequent research was very important. He has recently confirmed this in a televised interview in Australia, in which he confirmed that their polling and focus group research was what I was expecting and that it therefore showed figures that Englishness was potentially an important factor.

It was for this reason that David Cameron, a man whom I would remind everyone, had never previously shown any interest in the English question and, indeed was on record as saying that he was going to ‘fight little Englanders wherever he found them’, suddenly came out on the morning after the Scottish Referendum with his suggestion of English Votes for English Laws!

EVEL was then put into the Conservative Election Manifesto and there was much public talk about what the English nation wanted in the way of a new constitutional settlement – much to the horror of Labour and Liberal Democrats and almost all the British nationalist media!

During the General Election campaign the English Question was often discussed and the Conservatives made big headway with the threat that the Scottish National Party might get undue influence in a coalition Labour Government.

Every time that was mentioned, not only was Labour’s vote undermined in Scotland with more people deciding to vote SNP in order to get such a result, but in England people were increasingly hesitant about voting for Labour with that as a possible outcome.

Indeed where I live, in a rock solid Conservative constituency, whose MP is Eric Pickles, Eric actually got a higher vote in terms of the numbers of people who voted for him than he had previously obtained because people, like my local sub-postmaster, Mick, voted for him. Mick told me that he had been getting increasingly worried about the SNP threat and when he actually got into the voting booth, despite the fact that he and his family had always been Labour and he had been a Trade Unionist, he just couldn’t bring himself to vote Labour and so he voted Conservative!

Ladies and gentlemen the significance is that for the first time in his life that man voted not according to his family tribal political tradition and custom, but he voted as an English patriot and in what he saw as the interests of England.

Of course those like Mick that voted Conservative in such a way are going to find that the Conservatives let them down and that English Votes for English Laws is a completely inadequate and frankly bogus proposal which does very little to settle the English Question. Also of course, it doesn’t even touch the Executive side of the English Question and is only a bit of tinkering with the Representational side.

In discussing matters with Lynton Crosby I also pointed out to him that UKIP had a weakness on the English Question. Although UKIP depends for much of its support upon people who are basically English nationalists, according to the research that has been done by the Institute for Public Policy and Research. The IPPR, in their papers on the rising sense of English political identity, had clearly identified that many of UKIPs supporters were English nationalists.

Nevertheless UKIP’s leaders, especially Nigel Farage, are old style British nationalists (with many of their funders being City Brit/Scots) and consequently were almost certain not to satisfy the English nationalist calls for an English Parliament and for proper representation for England and were not even likely to have a separate manifesto for England! Lynton Crosby was very surprised about this and went and did his research which confirmed it.

In the event, as many of you will know, UKIP lived up to my prediction exactly. They produced a British manifesto which barely mentioned England or the English. They then went on to produce specific Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish manifestos, but nothing specifically for England.

This was despite the Campaign for an English Parliament specifically lobbying them and directly lobbying Suzanne Evans. She point blank refused to have any English manifesto.

Having been forewarned, the Conservatives were then ready to triangulate UKIP by launching a specifically English manifesto, which although it was a thin document, confirmed peoples’ views that the Conservatives were the big party that was most interested in English nationalist questions in the General Election.

In the event, as Lynton Crosby indicated in his televised interview, the English Question may well have been the issue which tipped the Conservatives into an outright majority in the House of Commons (albeit on the back of course of only 26% of the electorates’ votes!). It may also have been the issue which halved UKIP’s representation in Parliament. If they had gone full throttle for English nationalism I think they would have won quite a few of those seats where they came second.

Instead UKIP were over confident that they were going to win many seats, so much so that Nigel Farage had not even prepared a speech to give at his count in Thanet in the event that he failed to win the seat.

It is also why, with his usual weakness for ill-thought-out grandstanding, that he announced that he was standing down with immediate effect as Leader of UKIP and appointing Suzanne Evans, as the temporary Leader, who wasn’t, he misguidedly thought, as dangerous to his position as Paul Nuttall would have been, who as their Deputy Leader ought to have been the person to lead in the interim.

It was only when Nigel Farage spoke to Suzanne Evans and she refused to confirm that she would stand down, so that he could be re-elected at their conference next weekend, that he started the whole ridiculous scenario of trying to un-resign.

I don’t think of Belgium politicians as being usually particularly funny but the Belgium ex-Prime Minister and MEP, Guy Verhofstadt, got it absolutely right when he said:- “He is a man of his word. Nigel Farage has sent a letter to Nigel Farage saying “I resign”, and Nigel Farage has responded to Nigel Farage saying “I refuse” … That’s the way it works there”. Ladies and Gentlemen what about that?

In fact I gather that at UKIP’s next NEC meeting, Nigel Farage told them that they must refuse to accept his resignation and he then refused to leave the room whilst they discussed it.

I am afraid that UKIP’s leadership has been left with its credibility badly damaged. With the Conservatives becoming ever more clearly committed to an In/Out Leave or Remain referendum on EU membership by the end of 2017 UKIP’s purpose is coming to an end. Ladies and Gentlemen I predict that, when we have had that EU referendum, whether we are in or we are out, UKIP will be finished as its one and only purpose will have ended.

We on the other hand, whilst we are of course strongly interested in England coming out of the EU, nevertheless we have an overriding objective and indeed mind-set of being English Nationalists seeking what is in the best interests of the English Nation in respect of any given problem.

It is for this reason that we are today launching our own English nationalist referendum group to leave both of the Unions. We offer two bites of the cherry, not only the referendum on the EU, but also dissolution of the UK which automatically puts us outside the EU.

There is also what has happened to Labour. For those of what they refer to as the “white working class”, but who mostly think of themselves as “English”, who were already concerned that Labour cares about everybody more than they have found it by electing the anti-English Jeremy Corbyn. We have also seen the whole strength of the Far-Left throughout the UK turn out and vote for him. The number is 251,417. That isn’t such a big number, less than the number who voted for us in the 2009 EU election when we got 279,801!

Ladies and Gentlemen whilst there are therefore various reasons for English nationalists to feel optimistic about the future, there are of course various reasons to be concerned and issues to campaign against. One of which is the flood of immigration that we are being subjected to in England.

An extraordinary amount of sentimental nonsense is written and spoken about what “Britain” should do about these problems. Whilst it is true that David Cameron and William Hague have made the situation worse by causing the collapse of the Libyan State. The dramatic scenes that we have seen of migrants in unseaworthy vessels on the Mediterranean have often set out from the anarchic civil war zone that was Libya. In the main however the crisis has little or nothing to do with the United Kingdom.

As a small country on the periphery of the European continent with a living standard which is already quite low down the pecking order of “the developed world” (and sliding!) there isn’t realistically anything that this country could do to completely sort out what is likely to be an ever growing problem; as the population of the world spirals well out of the ability of the earth’s natural resources to provide adequate lifestyles, let alone comfortable lifestyles for its ever vaster human population.

Within the UK the vast majority of migrants (and a disproportionate proportion) prefer to stay in England and are both not willing to be dispersed into Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but also are made very unwelcome by local people. It is the English who have been peculiarly tolerant towards immigrants over the last 50 years in which more migrants (and a larger proportion of population) have come here than in the entire previous history of England.

Last year alone the official statistics said that we took in 330,000 migrants. Given the inadequate collection of statistics of those coming in and going out of the country these figures should be viewed with extreme scepticism. The true figure may well be more than double the official one!

It is in the interests of the Government and the State generally to down play the size of immigration as the people of England become ever more concerned that this whole issue is being grossly mishandled by our so-called leaders.

Discussion of the number of Eastern Europeans that have come has been framed by a figure of 600,000 Poles being regularly touted. In fact this figure only represents those Poles that have signed up for employed status with an employee national insurance number. The Polish Government does keep statistics of whose going in and going out of their country and where they are going to and they think that we have over 1.5 million Poles here.

It is worth bearing in mind that the Government of the day claimed, when they opened our borders to Eastern European immigration, that only 13,000 Eastern Europeans would come. Now officials talk disingenuously as if the claimed 600,000 Poles was the equivalent to the 13,000. Actually if the official figures are out to the extent which seems to be the case with Poles, then you can probably add another one million other Eastern Europeans here!

Some years ago one of the main supermarket chains published their estimate of the total population on the basis of the amount of food eaten. They estimated that there was at least another 10 million people in the United Kingdom over and above those officially thought to be here. A similar discrepancy emerges if the amount of effluent produced by the population is considered.

If all the calls for “Britain” to do something were answered, then the county’s infrastructure would simply be unable to cope. I think it is no exaggeration to say that it is already creaking at the seams. There is also the question of our peoples’ living standards, their access to jobs and their facilities and our culture and our countryside.

Just as a reality check, 330,000 people coming in in a year requires a building programme equivalent to building nearly two Colchesters just to house one year’s migration. It is also more than a new Doncaster or a new Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Then there is the 8 million migrants that the Government has now admitted are here. This means that a new Greater London must be built and, given the migrants’ preference for England, that is going to be built in England. Such levels of migration are totally “unsustainable”.

So when British politicians say that we should take more migrants, whether they be refugees or economic migrants or EU citizens, bear in mind that they are asking us all to treat the UK State as if it were in fact a private charity rather than an organisation the purpose of which is to look after the interests of our Nation and our People.

My answer to those who would like to see something done for migrants, is that those people should do it themselves out of their own money and using their own time and effort.

The English are already by far the most charitable people on Earth so go and do it yourselves but don’t expect to use the State, the taxpayer and our fellow citizens’ futures to subsidise your consciences!

Ladies and Gentlemen also there is the question of Regionalisation which has again reared its ugly head with George Osborne’s proposals to try to produce different levels of Regionalisation in different parts of England. Although this is clearly a threat, as it is part of the British Establishment’s agenda to try and break up England, which is, of course, the very threat that is one of the reasons why English Democrats think that the only way in which England can be properly looked after in the future, and protected, is by Independence. Nevertheless this has been done very much on a very top-down basis, rather than as a result of a democratic mandate.

This can be seen most clearly in Manchester, which only recently voted in a referendum not to have a Metro Mayor, but it is now in the process of having to create one in readiness for elections in perhaps two year’s time.

It is for that reason, the lack of democratic mandate for the break-up of England, that I am not as worried about this wave of attempted Regionalisation, as I must say I was ten years ago now with Labour’s proposals for referenda and regional assemblies. That would have been much more difficult to reverse once people had voted in a referendum for Regionalisation.

Interestingly the IPPR research shows that there is virtually no support for any form of Regionalisation in England outside, of course, the British political class. Regionalisation is however a threat that we need to constantly bear in mind and fight against. The main point to make however is that any local government reorganisation is not “Devolution” like what has happened in Scotland and Wales, instead it is merely “Decentralisation”.

Ladies and Gentlemen I am pleased therefore not only to welcome you to this 13th or 14th Conference or Annual General Meeting, but also to say that I think our Cause is making good progress. Over the coming year we have some interesting challenges, not only, of course, probably the EU referendum, but also some significant elections. In particular the Police Commissioner elections on the 5th May 2016.

I would remind everyone that these are elections that we have previously done quite well in, having spent next to nothing on it. Our total spend across all five county forces that we previously stood in was less than £1,000 on campaigning, but we still saved every deposit, getting over 5% of the vote and we also came second in South Yorkshire. Ladies and Gentlemen make no mistake these are important elections that give a position of actual power and decision making to the Police Commissioner. I think it is an opportunity for us to focus on something where we could make a real difference if we got our people elected and could change the way that the Police in England behave.

This is perhaps particularly important when the Government is starting to turn its anti-terrorism strategy, known as CONTEST, against those of us that they consider to be “extremists” because the word “extremist” is now to be used against anyone who opposes the status quo. Those of you who are nurses, doctors, teachers, social workers and police will know that this is a new target for the Government.

To show how far they are prepared to go, consider the fact that recently a “Conservative” MP, the unmarried Mark Spencer. The MP for Sherwood surprised many of those who had not been paying attention to direction of travel of British politics by enthusiastically endorsing the idea that “Extremist Disruption Orders” should be used against any teacher (and shortly, no doubt, any public speaker) that dares to teach traditional Christian morality by indicating disapproval of “gay marriage”. In my view such a comment could never have been made by anybody who had any belief in civil liberty, whatever their views on gay marriage.

So Ladies and Gentlemen I hope that we English Democrats will all leave here re-enforced and with a new determination and resolve to fight for England and the English Nation and against our enemies, whether they be Islamist, EU’ish, Regionalist, Scottish or British!

As part of that process we have got important resolutions for you to decide today whether to adopt for our Party and also some interesting speakers and presentations for you this afternoon.

Thank you very much Ladies and Gentlemen.

The EU migration and refugee crisis

The EU migration and refugee crisis

An extraordinary amount of sentimental nonsense is written and spoken about what “Britain” should do about these problems. Whilst it is true that David Cameron and William Hague have made the situation worse by causing the collapse of the Libyan State. The dramatic scenes that we have seen of migrants in unseaworthy vessels on the Mediterranean have usually set out from the anarchic civil war zone that was Libya. In the main however the crisis has little or nothing to do with the United Kingdom.

As a small country on the periphery of the European continent with a living standard which is already quite low down the pecking order of “the developed world” (and sliding) there isn’t realistically anything that this country could do to completely sort out what is likely to be an ever growing problem; as the population of the world spirals well out of the ability of the earth’s natural resources to provide adequate lifestyles, let alone comfortable lifestyles for its ever vaster human population.

Within the UK the vast majority of migrants (and a disproportionate proportion) prefer to stay in England and are both not willing to be dispersed into Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and also are made very unwelcome by local people. It is the English who have been peculiarly tolerant towards immigrants over the last 50 years in which more migrants (and a larger proportion of population) have come here than in the entire previous history of England.

Last year alone the official statistics said that we took in 330,000 migrants. Given the inadequate collection of statistics of those coming in and going out of the country these figures should be viewed with extreme scepticism. The true figure may well be double the official one!

It is in the interests of the Government and the State generally to down play the state of immigration as the people of England become ever more concerned that this whole issue is being grossly mishandled by our so-called leaders.

Discussion of the number of Eastern Europeans that have come has been phrased by a figure of 600,000 Poles being regularly touted. In fact this figure only represents those Poles that have signed up for employed status with an employee national insurance number. The Polish Government does keep statistics of whose going in and going out of their country and where they are going to and they think that we have over 1.5 million Poles here.

It is worth bearing in mind that the Government of the day claimed, when they opened our borders to Eastern European immigration, that only 13,000 Eastern Europeans would come. Now officials talk disingenuously as if the claimed 600,000 Poles was the equivalent to the 13,000. If the official figures are out to the extent which seems to be the case with Poles, then you can probably add another one million other Eastern Europeans here!

Some years ago one of the main supermarket chains published their estimate of the total population on the basis of the amount of food eaten. They estimated that there was at least another 10 million people in the United Kingdom over and above those thought to be here. A similar discrepancy emerges if the amount of effluent produced by the population is considered.

If all the calls for Britain to do something were answered, then the county’s infrastructure would simply be unable to cope. I think it is no exaggeration to say that it is already creaking at the seams. There is also the question of our peoples’ living standards, their access to jobs and the facilities and our culture and our countryside. Just as a reality check, 330,000 people coming in in a year requires a building programme equivalent to nearly two Colchesters to be built just to house one year’s migration. It is also more than a new Doncaster or a new Newcastle.

The 8 million migrants that the Government has now admitted are here means that a new London must be built and, given the migrants preference for England, that is going to be built in England. Such levels of migration are totally “unsustainable”.

So when politicians say that we should take more migrants whether they be refugees or economic migrants or EU citizens, bear in mind that they are asking us all to treat the UK State as if it were in fact a private charity rather than an organisation the purpose of which is to look after the interests of our Nation and our People.

My answer to those who would like to see something done for migrants, is that those people should do it themselves out of their own money or using their own time and effort. The English are already by far the most charitable people on Earth so go and do it yourselves but don’t expect to use the State, the taxpayer and our fellow citizens’ futures to subsidise your conscience!

Defend your national territory  or lose it

Robert Henderson

The present attempts of migrants from around the Mediterranean and  beyond to effectively invade Europe have brought the long simmering immigration threat to a head.  First World   politicians can no longer pretend it is under any sort of control. The question those in the First World have to answer is  gruesomely simple: are they willing  to defend the their own territory as they  would if faced with an armed invader  and by doing so preserve their way of life and safety , or will they allow a fatal sentimentality  to paralyse the entirely natural wish to stop invaders until the native populations of the First World are at best a tolerated minority in their own ancestral lands and at worst the subject of acts of genocide.

The Prime Minister of Hungary Victor Orlan  has had the courage to point out  something which is obvious but anathema to the politically correct elites of Europe, namely, that  immigration on the current scale will result in Europeans becoming a minority in  their own continent with a consequent loss of European values.  Anyone who thinks that Europe (and the rest of the First World) is not in danger should think on these facts:

  • The population of the world is approximately 7 billion. At the most generous estimate only one billion live in the First World.
  • The population of the world is estimated to grow by another two billion by 2050 with all the growth being in the Third World.
  • The white population of the world is projected to be in a minority in Europe and North America by 2050.
  • The First World already has large minorities of those from racial and ethnic groups whose antecedents are in the Third World and who have had their sense of victimhood at the hands of whites  fed assiduously by white liberals for over 50 years. Once established in a First World  country they agitate for the right to bri9ng relatives over and to relax immigration control generally. A  recent report by the think tank Policy Exchange estimates that one third of the UK population with be from an ethnic minority by 2050.
  • Political power in most of the First World is in the hands of politicians who arequislings in the service of internationalism   in its modern guise of globalism.
  • Those working in the mass media of the First World share the ideology of First World politicians with bells on, missing no chance to propagandise in favour of mass immigration.
  • The First World is funding its  own destruction by feeding the Third World with huge amounts of Aid . This promotes war throughout the Third World (providing a driver for Third World  immigrants to the First World) and, most importantly, increases the  populations of the Third World which rapidly outstrip the  economic carrying capacity of their societies.

At present the mainstream media in countries such as Britain and the  USA are voraciously feeding the public what amounts to unashamed propaganda  to persuade them to accept not merely huge numbers of Third World immigrants now,  but an ongoing and ever increasing stream in the not too distant future as the invading hordes gather around the Mediterranean waiting for their chance to entered the promised land of the rich European states of the north.

It is easy to be swayed by photos of  a  young child who has died or   boatloads crammed to the gunnels with miserable looking people  to the point where the resolution to defend your native territory is overridden, but look at the aggression and sense of entitlement the invaders, for  that is what they are, as they battle to leave Hungary. They are in the position of supplicants but far from begging for help they demand as a right that they be let into the richer countries of Europe.

There are very few if any places outside of Europe and  the Anglosphere countries of the United Kingdom,  North America, Australia and New Zealand  which have any serious history of freedom and the rule of law and even amongst that group only the Anglosphere has  enjoyed  both an uninterrupted political system of representative government and been free of civil war for a century or more.  These are countries which have the very rare and valuable attribute of having worked out a social and political system which creates peace and tolerance. That seriously at risk because of mass immigration. Does anyone believe  for example, a that Britain in which there was a Muslim majority would remain a Parliamentary democracy or have any regard for free expression?

Those amongst the native populations of the  First World who propagandise in favour of mass immigration do so in the belief that they will be untouched by the immigration because they live in affluent areas where immigrants cannot generally settle. Not for these people state schools which “boast” that “there are 100 languages here”; not for these people a need for increasingly scarce affordable (social)  housing  in places such as London; not for these people having to use grossly over subscribed medical services in their area.  These people think they are safe  from the effects of mass immigration,  but if it continues their children and grandchildren will not be so lucky. There needs to be a penalty for those who promote and facilitate mass immigration, for example,  forcing them to take immigrants  into their homes and be responsible for their upkeep .

Mass immigration  is conquest not by armed force but by those who are come equipped only with their victimhood and misery and, most potently, the  mentality of the elites in the First World who subscribe to the idea of white guilt and the white populations of the First World who have been browbeaten  into believing that they cannot have any world other than a globalist world which includes huge movements of peoples. We are seeing the scenario described by Jean Raspail begin to play out.

Homo sapiens is the social animal par excellence. All social animals need boundaries to their group because trust has to exist between the members of the group. Human beings can tolerate very large numbers in their group, but there is a limit. To be a member of a functioning human group,  whether that be tribe,  clan or nation,  the members or the group must share sufficient distinguishing behaviours and  attributes to create the necessary trust. Putting huge numbers of people with very disparate background together cannot create that trust. Anyone who doubts that should try to find any society where territory is shared by different racial or ethnic groups  that does not have inter-group discord,. They will not find one in history or the present.

If you wish to save your country ignore the  misery now being waved in your face and concentrate not on the immediate present but the future.  Say no to further mass immigration by voting to leave the EU because while Britain is in it nothing can be done to stop massive numbers of immigrants continuing to come to Britain.  Leaving the EU will  remove from our political elite any excuse for not stopping the casual destruction of our country.

Defend your national territory  or lose it

Robert Henderson

The present attempts of migrants from around the Mediterranean and  beyond to effectively invade Europe have brought the long simmering immigration threat to a head.  First World   politicians can no longer pretend it is under any sort of control. The question those in the First World have to answer is  gruesomely simple: are they willing  to defend the their own territory as they  would if faced with an armed invader  and by doing so preserve their way of life and safety , or will they allow a fatal sentimentality  to paralyse the entirely natural wish to stop invaders until the native populations of the First World are at best a tolerated minority in their own ancestral lands and at worst the subject of acts of genocide.

The Prime Minister of Hungary Victor Orlan  has had the courage to point out  something which is obvious but anathema to the politically correct elites of Europe, namely, that  immigration on the current scale will result in Europeans becoming a minority in  their own continent with a consequent loss of European values.  Anyone who thinks that Europe (and the rest of the First World) is not in danger should think on these facts:

  • The population of the world is approximately 7 billion. At the most generous estimate only one billion live in the First World.
  • The population of the world is estimated to grow by another two billion by 2050 with all the growth being in the Third World.
  • The white population of the world is projected to be in a minority in Europe and North America by 2050.
  • The First World already has large minorities of those from racial and ethnic groups whose antecedents are in the Third World and who have had their sense of victimhood at the hands of whites  fed assiduously by white liberals for over 50 years. Once established in a First World  country they agitate for the right to bri9ng relatives over and to relax immigration control generally. A  recent report by the think tank Policy Exchange estimates that one third of the UK population with be from an ethnic minority by 2050.
  • Political power in most of the First World is in the hands of politicians who arequislings in the service of internationalism   in its modern guise of globalism.
  • Those working in the mass media of the First World share the ideology of First World politicians with bells on, missing no chance to propagandise in favour of mass immigration.
  • The First World is funding its  own destruction by feeding the Third World with huge amounts of Aid . This promotes war throughout the Third World (providing a driver for Third World  immigrants to the First World) and, most importantly, increases the  populations of the Third World which rapidly outstrip the  economic carrying capacity of their societies.

At present the mainstream media in countries such as Britain and the  USA are voraciously feeding the public what amounts to unashamed propaganda  to persuade them to accept not merely huge numbers of Third World immigrants now,  but an ongoing and ever increasing stream in the not too distant future as the invading hordes gather around the Mediterranean waiting for their chance to entered the promised land of the rich European states of the north.

It is easy to be swayed by photos of  a  young child who has died or   boatloads crammed to the gunnels with miserable looking people  to the point where the resolution to defend your native territory is overridden, but look at the aggression and sense of entitlement the invaders, for  that is what they are, as they battle to leave Hungary. They are in the position of supplicants but far from begging for help they demand as a right that they be let into the richer countries of Europe.

There are very few if any places outside of Europe and  the Anglosphere countries of the United Kingdom,  North America, Australia and New Zealand  which have any serious history of freedom and the rule of law and even amongst that group only the Anglosphere has  enjoyed  both an uninterrupted political system of representative government and been free of civil war for a century or more.  These are countries which have the very rare and valuable attribute of having worked out a social and political system which creates peace and tolerance. That seriously at risk because of mass immigration. Does anyone believe  for example, a that Britain in which there was a Muslim majority would remain a Parliamentary democracy or have any regard for free expression?

Those amongst the native populations of the  First World who propagandise in favour of mass immigration do so in the belief that they will be untouched by the immigration because they live in affluent areas where immigrants cannot generally settle. Not for these people state schools which “boast” that “there are 100 languages here”; not for these people a need for increasingly scarce affordable (social)  housing  in places such as London; not for these people having to use grossly over subscribed medical services in their area.  These people think they are safe  from the effects of mass immigration,  but if it continues their children and grandchildren will not be so lucky. There needs to be a penalty for those who promote and facilitate mass immigration, for example,  forcing them to take immigrants  into their homes and be responsible for their upkeep .

Mass immigration  is conquest not by armed force but by those who are come equipped only with their victimhood and misery and, most potently, the  mentality of the elites in the First World who subscribe to the idea of white guilt and the white populations of the First World who have been browbeaten  into believing that they cannot have any world other than a globalist world which includes huge movements of peoples. We are seeing the scenario described by Jean Raspail begin to play out.

Homo sapiens is the social animal par excellence. All social animals need boundaries to their group because trust has to exist between the members of the group. Human beings can tolerate very large numbers in their group, but there is a limit. To be a member of a functioning human group,  whether that be tribe,  clan or nation,  the members or the group must share sufficient distinguishing behaviours and  attributes to create the necessary trust. Putting huge numbers of people with very disparate background together cannot create that trust. Anyone who doubts that should try to find any society where territory is shared by different racial or ethnic groups  that does not have inter-group discord,. They will not find one in history or the present.

If you wish to save your country ignore the  misery now being waved in your face and concentrate not on the immediate present but the future.  Say no to further mass immigration by voting to leave the EU because while Britain is in it nothing can be done to stop massive numbers of immigrants continuing to come to Britain.  Leaving the EU will  remove from our political elite any excuse for not stopping the casual destruction of our country.