Yes, yes, very good

Britain must be given the power to limit the number of migrants it admits as the price for staying in the European Union, Iain Duncan Smith says.

The Work and Pensions Secretary warns that unchecked migration fuels tensions within communities that have to cope with large numbers of non-English speakers and can lead to “resentment” and “civil unrest”.

In an interview with The Telegraph, he calls for individual EU countries to be able to impose “general limitations, so you could fix the number of people you want to come in”.

And there is absolutely no way at all that the EU would ever agree to that. It’s baked into the essential idea of the entire organisation: that it’s on the way to becoming one country and who, outside the more disgusting totalitarian states, has a system of controls upon internal migration within one country?

Do not that what you think about migration here is entirely irrelevant. Doesn’t matter whether you support it or not. The point being that there is no way at all that the EU would ever agree to controls. If it really is the goal, to be able to control such migration, then the only way is out.

23 comments on “Yes, yes, very good

  1. I was standing, earlier in the year, outside the town post office waiting for my Apartado de Correos to be filled. (Post office box. Common feature in Spanish life where remote houses don’t benefit from mail deliveries.) There were a couple of lads & a girl sitting on the steps, presumably awaiting the same thing. Didn’t take hearing them speak to know they were Romanian. An observation seemed to be shared by a couple of the Police Nationale driving past who pulled over & started on papers checks & lengthy interrogation. I’ve seen similar things in France.
    In the absence of borders, the authorities will do their checks on an individual basis.
    Expect a lot more intrusiveness into your daily lives, people. No doubt we’ll even be requesting it, won’t we?. Open interior borders suit our masters, just fine.

  2. “If it really is the goal, to be able to control such migration, then the only way is out.”

    Ah! Light at the end of the tunnel. Let’s hope it’s not an onrushing train.

  3. who, outside the more disgusting totalitarian states, has a system of controls upon internal migration within one country?

    Unless my memory is playing tricks on me: France, Italy and Germany all disallowed immigration from the Eastern European countries until long after their accession to the EU.

  4. that it’s on the way to becoming one country and who, outside the more disgusting totalitarian states, has a system of controls upon internal migration within one country?

    Australia has Aboriginee Reservations which were closed to pretty much everyone. You can’t visit without the locals’ permission much less live there.

    And South Africa was not totalitarian.

  5. As I have said before, states and supra-national bodies will do all sorts of things that are against their ‘rules’ and ‘the law’ if doing those things are in their immediate or even longer term interest. Thus if the EU really wants to keep the UK in the club (I have no idea whether this is the case or not) and we demand to leave unless we get X, then we will get X, because they will throw the baby of their principles under the bus of expediency, just like they always do.

    All we have to do is decide if a) we are prepared to leave if we don’t get X, b) if so, Demand X, c) either get it or leave. The law and principles don’t come into it.

  6. The only quote you ever need to read about the pernicious and fascist intent of the European Union, our occupying power.

    “Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”
    Jean Monnet

  7. Except, of course, davidseven, Jean Monnet never actually spoke those words. As a Europhobe myself, I’d be happy if he had, but he didn’t.

  8. The fundamentals of a Single Market are freedom of movement of: goods and services; capital and finance; labour (aka immigration).

    The EU is predicated on the Single Market.

    How can anyone be both for a Single Market, and against one of its fundamental conditions without which there can be no Single Market?

    If it is desirable to limit freedom of movement of labour ‘to protect jobs’ in the home market, then the same argument applies to the other core conditions of a Single Market.

    Indeed perhaps there should be a cap on the number of people from Northumberland and Cumbria migrating South to take jobs: Southern jobs for southerners!

    The political claque have picked up on their antennae that ‘immigration’ is s big turn off for the British Masses against the EU, so it is rope-a-dope time and they speak with forked tongue being both for the Single Market in principle, but against it in practice…. until the election is over of course.

    The Great Unwashed are as lambs to the slaughter.

    Of course the elephant in the room is not EU internal immigration, but that which comes from Stone Age societies… but nobody is allowed to say.

  9. It’s only window dressing anyway. Presumably old bumhole mouth is taking a day off from his Mother Theresa impression.

    The Tories have zero intention of actually reducing the number of immigrants. They are as entirely morally committed to immigrationism as the Labours and the Liberdems. They just want to say they have “won” the right to do it, to try to pacify their voters who live in various parts of Anglostan and pretend they have got a tidge of sovereignty back from the EU.

    It’s all lies. All of it.

  10. So we’re (mostly) agreed: we have to leave the EU to close its open door to 450 million, only allow immigration that meets specific and limited national needs, chuck out all illegals, tailor the welfare system to greatly reduce its pull, force our stone-agers to integrate 100%, and stop any more coming.
    What’s so hard about that?

  11. I’d impose a total immigration moratorium, myself. Nobody new in, not one single soul from anywhere. And no work permits, either. But that’s just me.

  12. Given that we are in the EU our betters have three options: Trim the welfare state to dissuade native and EU migrant claimants in equal measure, leave the EU so we can set migration and welfare policies with fewer distractions or, do bugger all while public resentment builds. The first seems to be viewed as political suicide (presumably because it points voters in the direction of option 2), the second is utterly beyond the pale to them and the third is what they have consistently chosen.

  13. We’ve had unrestricted immigration from Ireland since about 1920. No obvious drawbacks, despite it being a poorer country.

  14. “Do not that what you think about migration here is entirely irrelevant. Doesn’t matter whether you support it or not. The point being that there is no way at all that the EU would ever agree to controls. If it really is the goal, to be able to control such migration, then the only way is out.”

    As a supposedly free market bod, are you against that?

  15. Ireland isn’t the source of a billion muslims, Luke, which is what makes it somewhat different from “the whole of the rest of the world” as an immigrant source. FFS.

  16. EUland isn’t the source of a billion muslims either. That’s the misguided policy of the putrifying remnants of the “commonwealth”. Worst case scenario for muzzies from EUland is that Bosnia, Albania, and Turkey get in. The former two will happen eventually, the latter not any time soon.

    I am bemused by the supposed libertarians of UKIP who want global free movement of goods, services, and capital, (and freedom of movement of wealthy Brits to the Algarve or Czech) but not labour. It doesn’t sound that libertarian to me, actually.

    Insert usual federast rant about the EU actually working better than everything we tried before it, despite its faults and tendency to over-regulation.

    Must head off to the town hall tomorrow to put in my citizenship application, before UKIP take my rights as a European off me.

  17. UKIP isn’t a libertarian party, they’ve officially said so.

    My opinions are just my own; I interpret libertarianism as a relationship between a collective and its individuals. Nothing in that requires that the collective arbitrarily admit any applicant for membership.

    But if that isn’t officially libertarian, then I’m not libertarian then. I’m not much bothered with labels.

    Anyway, the key point is that you can’t move “labour”. You can move people, but not labour. You can’t put labour in a shipping container and move it from place to place. People and labour are different things. If you move a person, you get much more than their labour; you get their personhood, their culture, their children, their social requirements, their desire for a global caliphate etc etc. It simply isn’t the same as making a kettle in China, sticking it in a shipping container, then unloading it in England. People are different to that.

  18. Bloke in Germany – “EUland isn’t the source of a billion muslims either.”

    It is an intermediary step. Given the Italians have stopped enforcing their border laws all together and replaced it with a helpful suggestion that Germany and London is to the north, the EU is now a problem.

    “That’s the misguided policy of the putrifying remnants of the “commonwealth”.”

    That is also partly true. But not very. We did not rule much of Somalia but we get a lot of Somalis. Over a hundred thousand I believe.

    “Insert usual federast rant about the EU actually working better than everything we tried before it, despite its faults and tendency to over-regulation.”

    I am not sure that the EU works in any way whatsoever. Certainly Empire worked better.

    “Must head off to the town hall tomorrow to put in my citizenship application, before UKIP take my rights as a European off me.”

    Well, that is up to the Germans. If they want to commit suicide, that would be a shame but it is their choice. We should choose otherwise.

  19. JeremyT – “force our stone-agers to integrate 100%, and stop any more coming. What’s so hard about that?”

    How can we force them to integrate 100%? We have tried this and it has not worked. For instance, we used to have three islands with either no or few indigenous populations. In one, we took people from Africa, shipped them there, and stripped them of pretty much their entire culture, replacing it with a dumbed down version of southern English culture. In another, we took a bunch of people from India, left them to their own devices, to the point that French patois, not English, is the common language. In a third we shipped a bunch of White people from Britain and left them to create their own society.

    As it turns out, Jamaica is very different from Mauritius which is very different from New Zealand. We, or at least those in control of our immigration, have decided we don’t want to be like New Zealand any more. We would rather be vibrant. Like Mauritius or Jamaica. But without the beaches.

  20. The UK has no place to comment on Italy’s border policy since it isn’t in Schengen. I’d actually argue (along with the Italians) that freedom of movement makes illegal immigration an EU problem, and not just an indebted and overstretched Italy’s problem to patrol the med. I’d completely support my German tax euros going to coastguard vessels, with instructions to tow the boats back to North Africa, and land them on Europe only if unseaworthy.

    Given that it’s practically impossible to prevent people moving from one country to another, that’s where the fortress needs its guards, isn’t it? Not causing tailbacks on every cross-border motorway within Europe.

  21. The problem is “free movement” of people, goods and services is the only thing I regard worthwhile about the whole damn project, and the only bit I’d not want to lose. UKIP will take free movement of people as the only thing they want to get rid of. Yet again UKIP demonstrate why I think they’re a risible bunch of tosspots at best, and bigoted scum the rest of the time.

    Really, Tim, why can’t you accept UKIP’s gone bad?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.