Tag Archives: European Union

Total of 29.25 million EU migrants? Is this the number of immigrants who have come from the EU since UK Accession?


Total of 29.25 million EU migrants? Is this the number of immigrants who have come from the EU since UK Accession?


I ask this question because of the huge discrepancies in the official figures.

Let me explain. The official numbers of EU migrants is much lower than the true number. However the discrepancy between the official figures and the National Insurance numbers (which have only recently been revealed) is simply staggering. The National Insurance numbers are only the numbers of those who are actually signing up to work as employees or self-employed rather than children, and economically inactive dependents ie they are much less than the real total.

Over the last five years the Government has claimed that there have been “only” (sic!) one million EU migrants. The only figure available against which this claim can be checked against is the 2.25 million EU migrants who have registered for National Insurance in that period.

So on an over simplistic calculation: if in the last five years there would appear to have been more than 2.25 million EU immigrants (of whom the vast majority will no doubt be in England), it isn’t as completely fanciful as you might have thought that the total number of EU migrants over the 40 years since the UK joined the EU would amount to 29.25 million!

Here is an article about the true scale of EU migration:-

Ministers accused of hiding true scale of migration and real number may not emerge until eve of referendum

Britain’s official statistics body announces review into migrant figures amid concerns real figure could be significantly higher


The Office for National Statistics has announced an official review of migration figures amid concerns that hundreds and thousands more migrants have come to Britain than figures suggest.

According to official figures 1million EU migrants came to Britain over the past five years, but over that same period 2.25million registered for national insurance numbers.

Eurosceptic Cabinet ministers have called on David Cameron to publish figures revealing the number of active insurance numbers being used by migrants.

The ONS, which produces Britain’s national statistics, has said that it wants to use the figures as part of its review to ensure that the public have a more “complete picture”.

The review will be published alongside official net migration figures, which are expected to show that he number of migrants coming to Britain is at near record levels.

Jonathan Portes, Principal Research Fellow at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, said that the review is likely to be a “big moment” during the referendum campaign.

He has tried to use Freedom of Information laws to try to obtain the figures from the Government but has been repeatedly rejected.

He said: “The fact that the Office for National Statistics is going to look at these different sources and reconcile them is entirely welcome.

“This is an important issue, we know the current numbers are far from perfect and the Government has data which is highly relevant. They are doing their best to hide it from us.”

Official figures suggest that 257,000 EU migrants came to Britain last year, but over the same period 630,000 EU citizens registered for a national insurance number.

David Cameron has refused a request to release the figures, claiming that the difference is accounted for by short term migrants.

Official migration figures are based on a survey of more than 800,000 migrants as they enter and leave Britain, known as the International Passenger Survey.

The ONS said that “at times when migration patterns change significantly, there is a risk that the International Passenger Survey design may need to be changed to fit these”.

It said: “When available, DWP and HMRC data on national insurance number activity (those who have applied for a national insurance number and are still active in the UK) will be incorporated to provide additional information for the users of our statistics and a more complete picture.”

Earlier this month John Whittingdale, the Culture Secretary, told The Daily Telegraph: “There is already enormous concern on the basis of the numbers that that are published. The suggestion that they may understate the position is a cause for even greater concern.

“I have heard the reasons why national insurance numbers don’t necessarily reflect actual levels but at the very least that’s a debate which we need to have and I can see no reason why we can’t have the figures.

“The massive influx that has occurred as a result particularly of the expansion of the EU is putting pressure on all of the public services – housing, education, health.

“It is creaking at the seams. There is a very strong feeling that his is a small country and we simply cannot go on having an enormous influx over which we have no control.”

Here is the link to the original article>>> Ministers accused of hiding true scale of migration and real number may not emerge until eve of referendum – Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12191579/True-scale-of-EU-migration-could-emerge-on-eve-of-referendum.html

Sadiq Khan reveals the undemocratic gerrymandering at the heart of Labour’s vision of multi-culturalist London


Sadiq Khan reveals the undemocratic gerrymandering at the heart of Labour’s vision of multi-culturalist London

 

“Sadiq urges 500,000 EU voters to take revenge on Zac for backing Brexit”


The word democracy comes from the Ancient Greek, the Rule of the Demos or the People.

In Athens and the other ancient Greek democratic City States the Demos, the People, were clearly defined by law, so that only those that qualified legally could become citizens and could vote.

Even in the modern world only those States which have a defined citizen body can properly be called a democracy, since if the citizen body is not defined properly then anyone, whether they be citizen or not, can vote.

What could be a clearer illustration of the extent to which unchecked and uncontrolled mass immigration and the New Labour project to replace the English people with a new and no doubt more politically useful population than Sadiq Khan’s call as set out in the article below?

Can anyone think of an example of a more self-interested and anti-patriotic stance by a British Establishment politician, or, indeed, a living example of the best possible reason to vote to Leave the EU whilst the possibility of us still being able to do so still exists by the use of the ballot box rather than (in Irish Republican terms) the Armalite?

Zac Goldsmith and Sadiq Khan go to war over Brexit

Europe moved to the heart of London’s mayoral battle today as it emerged that the votes of a record half a million citizens from other EU states could be critical to the contest.

Labour’s Sadiq Khan launched an unprecedented campaign to persuade them to take revenge against Tory rival Zac Goldsmith for backing a British exit from the European Union.

Mr Khan said the Brexit campaign was putting at risk the rights of around a million EU citizens in London to live and work here. If Britain left the EU they could end up “having to leave London”, he said. The army of Europeans in London could become a significant political force as they make up around 10 per cent of the capital’s electorate.

A record 559,543 people from European countries outside the UK are registered to vote in the capital, according to figures released to Parliament.

Although they are not entitled to vote in the EU referendum or in Westminster elections, they all have the right to vote for a new Mayor on May 5 and for members of the London Assembly. Only 62,538 votes separated Boris Johnson from rival Ken Livingstone at the 2012 mayoral election.

The most recent mayoral poll suggested the gap between Mr Khan and Mr Goldsmith was about 140,000 votes.

A spokesman for Mr Goldsmith accused Mr Khan of “divisive scaremongering” and claimed the Labour candidate’s policies were a bigger risk to all Londoners. “This divisive scaremongering shows Khan doesn’t want to talk about the issues at stake in this Mayoral election — more homes, better transport, safer streets and cleaner air,” he said. “Zac’s job, if he is elected, will be to bring London together and make sure it flourishes. The real risk to London’s families is a four year Khan–Corbyn experiment in City Hall, with a £1.9 billion budget black hole, and the threat it presents to all our futures.”

Conservative MEP for London, Charles Tannock, said it could be the first major election where EU citizens are a major factor. “Generally EU citizens don’t turn out in large numbers for local elections and have been traditionally ignored by mainstream parties and candidates for that reason,” he told the Evening Standard.

“Things could change on May 5. There is no indication of that at present but the EU Referendum happening the following month may raise awareness of UK elections.” The number of EU citizens has risen since the last mayoral race in 2012 because of the arrival of young workers from countries such as Bulgaria and Hungary, whose citizens gained full freedom of movement in 2014.

London boroughs with the largest number of European citizens are Ealing (31,339), Lambeth (28,035) and Newham (25,562).

Mr Khan said that Euro-voters could become a significant factor because of the In-Out referendum. “Britain’s role in Europe is absolutely critical for all Londoners — supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs, and helping us keep Londoners safe,” he told the Standard.

“But our relationship with Europe is of even greater concern for the half a million European citizens in London. If Zac Goldsmith has his way and drags London out of Europe, they face massive uncertainty and even the prospect of having to leave London altogether.

“EU citizens in London won’t get a vote in the referendum, but they can still have their say by backing a Mayoral candidate who will campaign for Britain to remain in Europe. It’s clearly in all Londoners’ interests for Britain to remain in Europe.”

What do you think?


Here is a link to the original article >>> Zac Goldsmith and Sadiq Khan go to war over Brexit | Mayor | News | London Evening Standard

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/zac-goldsmith-and-sadiq-khan-go-to-war-over-brexit-a3187961.html

17 WEEKS TO 23RD JUNE – UK’S INDEPENDENCE DAY?


17 WEEKS TO 23RD JUNE – UK’S INDEPENDENCE DAY?


Some people have pointed out that the day after the EU Referendum vote on the 23rd June, when hopefully the result will be announced, is the day on which the blockbuster film sequel “Independence Day 2” is being launched. Let’s hope that is a prophetic coincidence!

Now that the referendum campaign has in effect started inevitably we have had the Remain camp talking up “Project Fear” to try and start frightening people to stay within the EU.

Their argument is that leaving the EU is a jump into the unknown by the country and that those in favour of Leave will be unable to say what exactly the deal will be. This is of course true and it is no use denying it, although arguments can be put forward to show that the risk is not really as serious as is being suggested.

Nevertheless since it is true that those in favour of Leave cannot be precise as to what the arrangements will be it is, in my view, necessary for those arguing for Leave to talk about the uncertainties of remaining within the EU

Whilst the BBC etc. have been keen to publicise the uncertainties of Leave what hasn’t been so well publicised is the uncertainties of Remain.

In particular do we want England broken up into the EU “Regions”? Do we want the UK to become twelve EU “Regions” within a Federal EU? Do we want an EU army? Do we want an EU police force? Do we want an EU judicial system? That is if the progress to “ever closer union” continues.

In the alternative there may be a messy breakdown as further problems with the Greek bailout becomes critical again and with the imminence of financial collapse in the Italian banks. Quite apart from those other parts of the EU which look more likely to want to leave, such as France if Marie Le Pen wins the Presidential election next year? What do you think?

I have also been thinking of what slogan would appeal to English nationalists that has people thinking about this kind of issue and I suggest:-

‘Stop the EU breaking up England. Vote to Leave

What do you think?

For English nationalists there is also the very interesting prospect that many of the likely scenarios in the EU Referendum will undermine the UK. Here is an extremely useful and interesting article by Professor Rose of Strathclyde University which sets this out and in which he has crunched the numbers for us:-

Will the EU referendum trigger the break-up of the United Kingdom?


If England drags Scotland out of the EU, there will be trouble. But if Scotland keeps England inside, it could be double.

On the night of the EU referendum, there will be three counts that matter. The first will show whether there is an overall British majority for staying in or leaving the EU. The second will show whether English voters are on the winning or the losing side. The third will show how likely it is that the United Kingdom will stay together.

That might sound drastic to some readers. But large differences in support for the EU among different nations of the UK mean that many potential results are bad for the Union. Unless England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all agree in their answers to the referendum question, factions in each will be able to reject the result as illegitimate.

England contributes five sixths of the British electorate. To produce a UK majority for leaving the EU, regardless of the preference of other Britons, would therefore require 61 percent of English voters to endorse Brexit.

Opinion polls, however, show English voters tend to be evenly divided, and often in favour of Brexit. Even if a British poll reported 51 per cent in favour of remaining in the EU, a majority of English respondents would be in favour of Brexit. This is because other UK nations are much more pro-European.

The National Centre for Social Research calculates that 55 per cent of Welsh, 64 per cent of Scots and 75 per cent of Ulster voters endorse the European Union on the basis of more than a dozen polls taken in the past year.

These numbers are also more stable than the equivalent figures in England.

So collectively, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish voters will contribute about 11 per cent of the pro-EU vote. English voters would only have to add another 40 per cent to the UK total to create an absolute majority keeping the UK in Europe. But that would mean most English voters had endorsed leaving the European Union – only to have their wishes overriden by the other UK nations.

On the other hand, if 53 per cent of English voters voted to leave the EU, this would be enough to take the UK out of Europe against the preference of a majority of Scots, Welsh and Ulster voters.

The only result which would keep the UK united would be a narrow English majority in favour of remaining in the EU. In that scenario, all four parts of the United Kingdom were of one mind. For this to be true we would expect to see a UK-wide majority of more than 53 per cent.

On the basis of current polling, that is unlikely. Of 30 major British polls I have analysed, only ten reported a pro-EU majority so large that most English respondents agreed with their fellow Britons. An additional 13 polls showed majorities of up to 53 percent in favour of remaining in the EU, but such a narrow lead implies that most English people would be held in Europe against their will. And seven of the 30 polls actually showed enough English opposition to the EU to overpower the other nations’ leads.

A conflict between Britain’s nations on future relations with the EU would be a huge headache to the Prime Minister. Part of the argument for Scottish independence in 2014 was that England would no longer be able to “impose” decisions on Scotland. An English-led withdrawal of the UK from the European Union could trigger another referendum in Scotland on the linked issues of leaving the UK and joining Europe. That would confront the Westminster government with simultaneously negotiating the UK’s withdrawal from Europe and Scotland’s withdrawal from the UK.

Yet the opposite outcome – a UK majority to remain in the EU, and an English majority to leave – would also be a nightmare for Downing Street. Conservative Eurosceptics could denounce the result as illegitimate, but it would be politically impossible for the Eurosceptics to win a referendum on the issue of England withdrawing from the United Kingdom.

Even if a narrow English majority went along with other Britons and voted to stay in the EU, there could still be an absolute majority of Conservatives voting to leave. Determined Eurosceptics could then adopt Jeremy Corbyn’s doctrine that the party leader should represent his party’s members. This argument could be used as a weapon to extract promises of further anti-EU actions from Cabinet ministers wanting to succeed David Cameron as the next Conservative prime minister.

Whatever the feelings of English voters on the emotive issue of Europe, there is no escaping the fact that the outcome of the forthcoming EU referendum will be decided by the total vote of the United Kingdom. That is the price England pays for being British.

Richard Rose is a professor of public policy at University of Strathclyde Glasgow and a commissioning fund awardee of The UK in a Changing Europe

Click here for the original article>>> Will the EU referendum trigger the break-up of the United Kingdom? – Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12114578/Will-the-EU-referendum-trigger-the-break-up-the-United-Kingdom.html

The new "PROJECT FEAR": – the EU!

 The New “PROJECT FEAR”: – the EU!

Those who want Brexit must campaign to make voters FEAR the EU. 

It is now orthodoxy that the way to people to vote No to any proposition on a referendum ballot paper is to make them fear the risk of change to something different. That has worked on the AV referendum and most notably in the Scottish Independence Referendum. The Scottish nationalists called this “Project Fear”.

As we can see almost daily in the newspapers it is clear that those that are going to campaign to Remain in the EU are going to use the fear of change to persuade the wavering centre-ground of opinion to vote to remain.

It is not enough for Eurosceptic MPs and MEPs to preach about the need for us to get control back of “our country” because of course this subliminally plays into the fear that the people that are getting control back of “our country” are “them” rather than “us” i.e. the People!

Even for those people that can understand the concept of sovereignty, it is not a sufficiently emotive basis for enough people to be willing to stand up and be counted. I think that the danger to a Brexit vote is the presentation of the risks that will be portrayed of voting to come out of the EU. 

For those who wish to achieve practical things in politics, it is not enough to wring their hands and say it is not fair or the ‘Remain Campaign’ are telling lies, the point is to be realistic and do what it takes to get a majority vote to Leave.

It is in this context that I have been turning over in my mind what kind of slogans and images need to be projected by the ‘Out Campaign’ to achieve an Leave Vote.

The newspaper report below gives a strong hint for those who have “eyes to see” and “ears to hear”! Because even in general elections “Project Fear” works well. 

It is no accident that the most successful image that the Conservatives deployed in the General Election was the above  “Project Fear” image of Miliband in the pocket of Salmond.

£40m Spent On General Election Campaign, But Winning Tory Attack Ad Was Put Together For Just £950


The Huffington Post | By Graeme Demianyk


The Tories spent more than £15.5 million on winning May’s general election – but was a canny investment of £950 the best investment they made?

A Conservative attack advert featuring a mini-Labour leader Ed Miliband literally in the pocket of Alex Salmond, the former leader of the Scottish National Party, was hailed by some Tory MPs as its most effective weapon in the battle.

Used on billboards, social media and leaflets, the ad writ large a centrepiece of the Tory campaign: a vote for Labour was a vote for a coalition with the SNP, and Scotland’s interests being put before the rest of the UK’s.

However far-fetched the claim, many felt it played well on the doorstep – especially in the South West where the Tories demolished the Lib Dems.

Electoral Commission records published today featuring a breakdown of how almost £40 million was spent by all parties in the campaign includes one where the Conservative Party paid £900 for the use of an image of Mr Salmond on a billboard.

Another shows how just £43 was lavished on an unflattering picture of Mr Miliband.

While possibly not the exact images featured in the final cut, they suggest how such a brutally simple advert could have been put together on a shoestring amid increasingly sophisticated campaigning techniques.

The Mirror calculated how the Tory election supremo, Lynton Crosby, pocketed £24 million for his work.

BuzzFeed News figured out the Tories spent £1.2 million on targeted Facebook advertising, compared to less than £16,500 by Labour.

In another attempt to have an iron-grip on the media presentation, the Conservatives spent more than £40,000 on a photographer to trail David Cameron and senior Tories during the election campaign.

The Tory general election campaign was tightly choreographed – such as “rallies” featuring supporters and made to look more impressive than they actually were

Mr Cameron received flak in 2010 for putting a personal photographer on the public payroll, but denied it was “vanity”.

The records show how I-Images were paid £40,119.39 over a series of 10 invoices. Accompanying receipts detail travel between Glasgow, Darlington, Crewe, London and Cornwall in March alone.

The move may well have been a sound one given unfortunate pictures of Ed Miliband, notably eating a bacon sandwich, which haunted the Labour leader.

The records do not say how much Labour paid for the infamous “Edstone”, and a party spokeswoman admitted the data was incomplete.

She said: “Due to an administrative error these invoices were not included with other items of campaign spend. We have informed the Electoral Commission and will seek to rectify this error as soon as possible.”

Almost £40 million was spent on the 2015 general election, with the Conservatives digging deepest at £15,587,956.

Labour spent £12,087,340, the Liberal Democrats’ £3,529,106 and Ukip’s £2,851,465, said the Electoral Commission.

But 2015 was still cheaper than the record-breaking 2005 campaign when £42 million was lavished on wooing voters.
 
For original article click here >>> £40m Spent On General Election Campaign, But Winning Tory Attack Ad Was Put Together For Just £950

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01/20/election-spending-tory-salmond-miliband-ad_n_9030348.html?1453315724

Our first effort in this endeavour was the image below of Cameron in Merkel’s Nazi pocket which ticks some of the boxes but does not fully hit the bullseye of getting Remainers to HATE it and Leavers to LOVE it. That is the test which we have to apply to any image or slogan.

As that was not quite on target I wondered if this might do better?

What do you think? An idea for a caption is:-

 “Come to Mutti little man!”

The direction of travel of the European Union ought to be easy to attack since remaining in the EU is a vote to change along with the way that the EU will be changing over the next generation. The sort of things that we can see happening are more determined efforts to eradicate traditional European cultures and traditional ethnic groups in a multi-culturalist mix; the eradication of all traditional European values, especially Christianity and most especially Protestantism; the creation of a EU Super State with its own undemocratic governmental structure and central bank; the creation of an EU world-wide diplomatic presence and armed forces, the current focus being on an EU army; EU-wide police force; and an EU legal system; and elimination of any democratic impediments to the project, including an authoritarian crackdown on any activists opposed to it.

Each of those threats to our People’s way of life ought to be the focus of our “Project Fear” to wake people up to the fact that by voting to remain in the EU they are voting for change and change which will be at least as radical as any change that will occur if they vote to Leave!

What do you think? Have you any good ideas?

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?

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!

Steve Uncles from the English Democrats on The Victoria Derbyshire program

 
BBC iPlayer – Victoria Derbyshire – 03/09/2015
Click here to watch >>>
 
Steve Uncles from the English Democrats on The Victoria Derbyshire program today talking about the Migrant Crisis. Watch from the start.
 
What do you think?

Leadership of the No to EU Campaign

Leadership of the No to EU Campaign


In the coming months the Electoral Commission will be deciding who to “designate” as “Leader” of the “No” Campaign in the EU referendum. The Leader of the campaign will also get the public funding for the Campaign of about £1,000,000!

Below is what the Electoral Commission say are the rules. I expect that the Electoral Commission will however be looking to appoint a Leader who they think is credible enough to pass muster but not credible enough to win! That is what John Prescott tried to do in his North East Assembly Referendum. The Electoral Commission no doubt now forgets that it is the Minister who appoints them!

“There is a statutory test in PPERA that the Commission must apply when assessing applications for designation:

* If there is more than one applicant for an outcome, the Commission shall designate whichever of the applicants appears to the Commission to represent to the greatest extent those campaigning for that outcome.

When we assessed applications for the Referendum on Independence for Scotland, we used a decision making process to apply a test, based on the criteria set out below. Based on the legislation for the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union as it is currently drafted, we expect the Commission to take similar consideration into account during the designation process for the EU referendum.

* How the applicant’s objectives fit with the referendum outcome it supports

* The level and type of support for the application

* How the applicant intends to engage with other campaigners

* The applicant’s organizational capacity to represent those campaigning for the outcome, and

* The applicant’s capacity to deliver their campaign (including its financial probity)”

More evidence of England paying the piper (but not calling the tune)!


More evidence of England paying the piper (but not calling the tune)!

 

Even MPs who represent English seats but who are not English like the Welsh Mrs Cheryl Gillan sometimes stick up for their constituents.  What do you think?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150609/debtext/150609-0002.htm
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1081
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con):
“I hope that the Government will resist the call for the triple lock, quadruple lock—or whatever we are going to call it now. I asked the House of Commons Library to look at the disaggregation by UK constituent nation of the EU budget contributions and receipts. My right hon. Friend the Minister will be interested to know that it clearly shows that although the average cost across the UK in the last year for which figures were available was £48 per head, when that is disaggregated, we see that the real burden falls on England. The cost of membership is £72 per capita in England, whereas in Scotland, it is a mere £2; in Wales minus £74; and in Northern Ireland minus £160. So the devolved nations, which are effectively feather-bedded against the real cost of membership, should not be allowed to slant the results of any referendum by demanding an individual country lock on any result.”
The actual debate can be viewed here, with Mrs Gillan speaking about 14 minutes 37 seconds in:

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/035a053e-b29e-4a3a-a1d9-3916a6a5cce7?in=12:40:21
Alex Salmond misrepresented opposition to a Referendum on continued EU membership being determined by the vote in each nation as meaning, by extension, “that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should not get a vote at all.” The analogy with the USA is absurd.

This ‘disaggregation’ sets in context the positions of rUK in respect of EU Membership.