Democracy, eh?

More than half of Britons say tackling immigration is more important than staying the single market, according to a survey.
A total of 56 per cent of those quizzed said they were more concerned about controlling UK borders than maintaining trade benefits with other countries.
Only 44 per cent believed staying in the single market was more important.

Such a pisser when you disagree with the electorate, eh?

83 thoughts on “Democracy, eh?”

  1. Brilliant: Britain now presents itself as a racist, fascist country; not the kind of place that the law-abiding, tax-paying part of the population would want to support.

  2. Immigrants is PC speak for 3rd world savages. No one is worried about French or Danish, its the iraqis and sudanese who are raping and terrorizing quiet streets that have people worried.

  3. “How is immigration control fascist, exactly?”

    Do keep up, if its not what the Left want, its fascist. Or neoliberal. Or most likely both. They are words that the Left use to describe ‘things I don’t like’.

    Ironically I can’t remember many socialist States with open borders though……………..particularly in the ‘letting people leave’ direction……………….

  4. Yes, funny how statist twats accuse other people of being statist twats as an insult.

    More evidence that leftism is an illness.

  5. Again the moral high horse Reedy.

    The gang of scum you endorse and support have murdered 150 million human beings and ruined the lives of hundreds of millions more.

    Just fuck off.

    Mr Black is correct. No one is worried about 1st world arrivals.

    Lets hope a lovely clot of 3rd world buddies move in next to you Reedy and you can have some first hand experience of “vibrancy”.

  6. So Much For Subtlety

    DBC Reed – “As a matter of pure fact it is first world arrivals that all the Referendum argument is about.”

    Wanting Britain to remain Britain is not racism, nor is it Fascism. And even if it was, liberalism is not a suicide pact.

    Deport everyone who arrived since 1950.

  7. Most people I meet think that the right to run our own affairs whether concerning immigration, trade arrangements, the acceptable shape of cucumbers or anything else is far more important than any particular issue on which me might have to decide.
    And as above, the various anti discrimination laws make it difficult to discuss differences between different immigrants- they are not clones of each other.

  8. @Mr Black
    “Immigrants is PC speak for 3rd world savages. No one is worried about French or Danish,”
    Sadly a lot of Danish and Dutch immigrants aren’t Danes or Dutch.

  9. As a matter of pure fact it is first world arrivals that all the Referendum argument is about.

    That’s certainly the Remoaning point of view. The Brexit points of view are
    1. benefits tourism from the new accession states.
    2. Merkel’s mob of (a small number of) jihadis, (an even smaller number of) doctors, engineers and women and children, and the mass riot of the culturally challenged.
    3. The despicable French attitude to refugees on their soil (which the imminent threat of Brexit may have finally solved. )

  10. “As a matter of pure fact it is first world arrivals that all the Referendum argument is about”

    Are you talking about the 750,000 Poles you numpty?

    Well 750K of anything in less than 10 years is a lot. Some of them are valuable assets to the UK and a lot of them are surly, insular, clannish ( all the things SJW scum say we aren’t allowed to be) low IQ agricultural workers who pitched up en masse in rural areas.

    Even so that would have been manageable so long as it is not repeated on a regular basis with East Europe’s flavour of the month.

    At the same time as a 3rd world influx it is NOT acceptable.

    ALL mass migration must stop. And all RoP/ Sub-Saharan inflow must be stopped for all time and reversed as far as possible.

  11. So, those folks in the Calais jungle are first worlder arrivals by your reckoning, DBC Reed?

    No? Then how can it be racist to limit immigration from Europe, given most Europeans are from the same race as most of the UK population?

    You’ve already proven you don’t have a clue what Fascism is; are you adding racism to that list too?

  12. Charlie Suet,

    “I thought classical liberals were opposed to majoritarianism and recognised the benefits of immigration.”

    Some immigrants are a benefit. German teachers, Raymond Blanc, Alfonso Cuaron. A Portugeuse woman working in Costa, most people who’ve come here claiming asylum and Abu Hamza, not so much.

  13. Exactly BiW.

    Think of a business: a good employee, doing something you need them to do, yes; anyone just walking off the street, no, they will just be a cost with little benefit.

    I really don’t understand how anyone mentally leaps from controlled, limited immigration to all or nothing.

    I fancy a snack. No, can’t have that! It’s a massive feast or starvation. You can’t have anything in between the two. You racist fascist.

  14. I think it is fair to say that a number of people mixed up the problem of Britain importing a few million worthless goatfuckers and EU immigration.

    However, bearing in mind the EU’s failure to keep goatfuckers out of the continent, it is just as well we will ditch freedom of movement.

    What worries me is that May failed to reduce the influx of goatfuckers when she was home secretary; why do we think she will do that now she’s PM?

  15. My position has long been that we need to control our borders so that we can choose how much immigration we have. If we want to increase immigration, we can; if we want to decrease it, we can. Control allows both, depending on conditions. Frankly, if a nation-state doesn’t control its border, its not really a nation-state.

    Yes, right now, after two decades of extremely high immigration, of course most people want it decreased. But Brexit is a long-term decision. Who knows what we might need or want in thirty years, or fifty? Maybe we’ll want to bring in loads of immigrants from the new world tech hub of Cameroon. Control gives us options.

    DBCR,

    > As a matter of pure fact it is first world arrivals that all the Referendum argument is about.

    This is a moronic statement. When tens of millions of people vote, they collectively have more than two reasons.

  16. Er, Tim, you can’t have it both ways. The people agree with you, we don’t need to be in the EU to have free trade. Therefore they are not in any way concerned about trade. They may be only the tiniest bit concerned by immigration and it would still be higher on the list.

    What we actually want to know is how many people were more concerned about remaining in the EU than about immigration.

  17. @ DBC Reed
    The referendum had nothing to do with immigration from the USA and white Commonwealth, a lot to do with immigration from former Warsaw Pact countries. So if you are using “first world” as meaning “the west” from when the categories were “the west”, the communbist bloc and “the Third World” you are, as usual, incorrect.

  18. @S2: “This is a moronic statement. When tens of millions of people vote, they collectively have more than two reasons.”

    Quite.

  19. Brilliant: Britain now presents itself as a racist, fascist country; not the kind of place that the law-abiding, tax-paying part of the population would want to support.

    So, Reedy, when are you fucking off to the socialist paradise of North Korea or any other third world shithole that considers itself a democratic republic?

  20. @MC

    “I think it is fair to say that a number of people mixed up the problem of Britain importing a few million worthless goatfuckers and EU immigration.”

    Too true. This, along with S2’s point about control being the goal for immigration, not simply ‘less’ (or indeed ‘more’) has gotten lost in the trample to declare folks as racist.

    ‘However, bearing in mind the EU’s failure to keep goatfuckers out of the continent, it is just as well we will ditch freedom of movement.’

    Quite- and I’m starting to get worried by the institutional blindness about the influx and its impact on values. More concerning (and covered over at Tim Newman’s excellent blog) is the way that the left in the media are so determined to never ever ever mention the religion, origin or immigration status of criminals from goatfuckistan.

    “What worries me is that May failed to reduce the influx of goatfuckers when she was home secretary; why do we think she will do that now she’s PM?”

    Perhaps she’ll wise up following the Brexit vote, which as everyone keeps saying was a sea change in politics for the UK.

  21. Bloke in North Dorset

    “I really don’t understand how anyone mentally leaps from controlled, limited immigration to all or nothing.”

    Its straight of lefty debating techniques 101. Always set up a false dichotomy whenever anyone disagrees with you:

    1. Complain about the way the NHS is set – you must want the American system

    2. Complain about regulation – you must want no regulation so that capitalists can run amok (add in won’t anyone think of the children for extra hand ringing effect)

    3. Mention race/immigration – you must racists/fascist.

    4. Suggest free markets are a better way to organise than the State – you’re a free market fundamentalist who would let the poor die in the streets

    5. Point out that most terrorist are from the RoP and we really need to look hard at what’s going on – you’re an Islamophobe

    usw

  22. BiND>

    The link is pretty simple. There is no rational basis for opposing immigration at the level we currently have, only prejudice and racism. Therefore, those who oppose immigration at the level we currently have are prejudiced and/or racist.

    The simple fact of the matter is that for over a century the mad racist nutjobs have said almost exactly the same things about every group of immigrants – and then a few decades later those immigrants become the ‘good’ ones, while a new lot are demonised.

    It’s not all that long since ‘the Jews’ were purportedly ‘anarchists’ bent on the destruction of our society, that they were ‘failing to assimilate’, ‘out-breeding us’ and so-on. Swap anarchist for radical Muslim, and you have what the racists currently try to say about Muslim immigrants.

    It’s simply absurd to make such claims in the face of the ample historical evidence of their falsity.

  23. @Dave
    The one thing you can learn from history is you can’t learn much from history. Situations & circumstances change. Trying to apply what happened then to what’s happening now is a recipe for disaster. Because now is usually different to then

  24. Dave – just over 4m since 1997. The size of Birmingham, Leeds, Glasgow,Sheffield, Bradford, Liverpool combined. Concern about those numbers is ignorance and racism is it? At what level would you be concerned with the UK’s ability to integrate them?

    Until after WW2, UK immigration was very low and 99% of immigrants were white European Christians.

    The fairly small number of immigrants from the Caribbean (who shared language and religion) integrated slowly and not without difficulty. And they did try to integrate.

    The South Asians who arrived in the 1970s to 1990s also came in small numbers and if they were Hindus and Sikhs integrated very well. In fact when there were a handful of Muslims they did a much better job of integrating*.

    Muslims from south Asia and Africa arrived in much greater numbers and – in common with every significant Muslim minority everywhere in the world – have refused to integrate once they had sufficient numbers to be a political force.

    *yes, it’s their job to integrate. Not ours to accommodate.

  25. @Dave

    Losing the debate? Shout racist!

    Because of course, in the world of the right-on there’s no such thing as infrastructure. Trains can’t get full. Roads can’t get clogged. Water and electricity supplies don’t get stressed. Land for housing is unlimited, who needs crops and trees? Who doesn’t like standing in queues?

    Sorry, but I like a bit of space, myself. And my wife’s foreign. I’m such a bloody racist.

    Spare a thought for the highly-skilled immigrant: do you think they want to be living with the kinds of idiots they came here to get away from? ‘Cos I sure don’t want to live with the lefty pillocks I moved away from.

  26. @Dave

    I was rather harsh and sarcastic there.

    The thing is, I, and I imagine many other folks on the Leave side of the debate (among others), are fed up of rational discourse being derailed by the kind of twaddle you just wrote.

    It restored my faith in the English when Remain lost, because the “WAYCIST” shite lost with it.

  27. Cynic,

    > Spare a thought for the highly-skilled immigrant: do you think they want to be living with the kinds of idiots they came here to get away from?

    True, but it’s worse than that. I will never forget seeing an Algerian immigrant interviewed on TV. He’d quite rightly been granted asylum, because Algeria. He said he was very grateful to Britain for taking in him and others like him. But then he said that he was beginning to see the very people he’d been running for his life from wandering round Britain. He said he and other members of his community had approached the Home Office to let them know they were now giving asylum to the murderous extremists instead of their victims, and the Home Office didn’t want to know. This was at least a decade ago.

    Apparently, if I sympathise with that Algerian, I’m a racist.

    Dave,

    > There is no rational basis for opposing immigration at the level we currently have, only prejudice and racism.

    You’re misusing the word “rational” to mean “that I agree with”. It’s a popular conflation.

    Look, I’m an antisocial misanthrope, and even I reckon that about 1 in 10 humans are pretty good people. Most people would put the number higher, but let’s go with my low estimate. That’s about 800,000,000 good humans, the kind of people we’d like to live around. Can the UK hold 800,000,000 people? I very much doubt it. So immigration criteria cannot be based only on whether people are nice or how much we like them. Any sensible immigration policy will have to have other criteria, and will have to keep out some decent nice people who we’d like to live around.

  28. “I really don’t understand how anyone mentally leaps from controlled, limited immigration to all or nothing.”

    My current favourite is those who say if you want trade, you must also have immigration.

    Because obviously it is impossible to exchange goods and services AND have a border.

    Some of these people are intelligent, or at least credentialed. They appear completely unable to see even the most egregious flaws in their arguments. I bet they’ve never even tried.

  29. There is no rational basis for opposing immigration at the level we currently have, only prejudice and racism. Therefore, those who oppose immigration at the level we currently have are prejudiced and/or racist.

    Your first sentence is false and absurd, so your second doesn’t even remotely follow.

    It is perfectly rational to oppose immigration running at 300k a year (the real figure is probably higher), especially when many of them are completely useless to us and we have 1.5m locals unemployed.

    Attempting to shut down the debate with a pseudo-logical statement just doesn’t cut it anymore. Must try harder.

  30. “My current favourite is those who say if you want trade, you must also have immigration.”

    Well, in a way it is true… but only when public sector twats (ours or theirs) attempt to block trade if you don’t accept immigration to go with it.

    But get the public sector twats out of the way and off you trade. So it is a completely contrived situation.

    Hmmm… I think we can see where the problem really is, and it ain’t the people wanting to control immigration.

  31. My current favourite is those who say if you want trade, you must also have immigration.

    But this is, indeed, the intended (false) derivation from the EU stated position of no single market without free movement of labour.

    We can have trade, as Tim has explained here and elsewhere, without having access to the single market or being in the customs union. We can have immigration, as discussed above, without allowing any EU citizen to move here and immediately start claiming benefits.

    I’m personally in favour of very low restrictions on immigration (coupled with a return to contribution based benefits* and a robust kicking the few evil f**kers who get in out immediately and permanently.) But then Scotland is essentially empty.

    * The last two, unnecessary for so many, years of school or the first two years of an apprenticeship could be always counted for residents 🙂

  32. Bloke in North Dorset

    Dave,

    “The link is pretty simple. There is no rational basis for opposing immigration at the level we currently have, only prejudice and racism. Therefore, those who oppose immigration at the level we currently have are prejudiced and/or racist.”

    There are plenty of reasons to control immigration. But first lets be clear that immigration policy is not the fault of immigrants.

    1. We live in a welfare State where services are rationed. We need to be able to ensure that at least a minimum service can be delivered to the population that already lives there. If we can’t we can be pretty sure that riots will ensue and it will be immigrants that bear the brunt.

    2. Land is rationed. We’re already at the point where social order is close to breaking down because of the high cost of rents.

    3. We have youth unemployment close to 10%, in reality higher if you include those in non-jobs and training designed to massage the figures, its higher in areas with large immigrant populations. We need to sort those issues out instead of adding to the problem.

    4. We want the indigenous population to be supportive of letting in genuine asylum seekers.

    5. We need to make sure we don’t let in the sort of people who want to blow our brains out.

    In the past we have welcomed whole groups of people with open arms, even when they came in large numbers, the difference is in between these periods there were quieter periods during which those immigrants settled down and integrated.

    If the left had allowed discussions on immigration and made the case better, especially in poor working class areas, its likely that there would have been more tolerance and we may even have remained in the EU.

    Shouting people down for raising legitimate concerns and calling them racist bigots really isn’t the way to win an argument.

    The left in particular should ask itself why, say, Pakistanis in London seem to be doing OK but that Bradford is becoming a basket case that has dragged its internecine warfare with it, for example because that is what is playing in to the hands of racists.

  33. A (completely understandable) blind spot shared by many of our continental cousins is border control. If you have a land border, it’s essentially impossible – unless you’re prepared to build a full-scale Berlin/Israel wall and shoot any fucker that gets too close, and most countries are no longer prepared to do that. Even at the height of the troubles, with half the British army stationed in N Ireland, we couldn’t completely control the (relatively short) border with Eire. Which is why Schengen makes a lot of sense for nations with shared land borders.

    We in Britain are fortunate to live on an island – which doesn’t mean that our borders are impermeable, just that we can do a lot more (and a lot more easily) than most other European states.

  34. Thank you all for demonstrating my point. There are no rational reasons to object to immigration at current levels, only prejudices being trotted out.

    1. Culture/assimilation – this is just bollocks, you lot have said the same thing about every group of immigrants, and when you’re proven wrong on them, you switch to the next lot.

    2. Infrastructure – it’s not hard to build more. If the government isn’t capable of it, time to get a better government.

    3. Space – the UK is almost entirely empty. We’re like a carriage-load of commuters crammed into the space by one set of doors while the rest of the carriage is empty, saying the train is too full.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096

    Ignore the spurious 2% figure that article comes up with at the end. 10% of England is urban/built-on. Double it (and the population, not that anyone’s suggesting such a thing), and the amount of rural land drops from 90% to 80%. Looking at the whole UK, the built-on area (including roads, etc) is around 7%. Double that, and the rural land would drop from 93% to 86% – again, hardly significant.

    Or, put another way, we could increase England’s population by 5%, stick them all in Lincolnshire, and it would still have a lower population density than the Home Counties. Add a city, and you could make that 10% without noticing.

    4. Jobs – immigrants add to the jobs available, they simply don’t ‘take our jobs’.

    Any more easily dismissed points, or is it time for you lot to stick your heads in the sand and pretend you’re not just being racist/xenophobic/prejudiced.

  35. P.S.

    “If the left had allowed discussions on immigration and made the case better”

    There is nothing lefty about being pro-immigration. It’s if anything a right-wing view, a matter of personal liberty and a good thing economically. The far left and far right are united in their hatred of any form of migration (except when they go off to live somewhere else, natch).

  36. As the Herr Doktor Professor said, the point of knowing history is so you don’t repeat it.
    And then we bring in a bunch of folk, many of whom really do want to repeat it.

  37. Dave:

    1. Culture/Assimilation: This depends on the rate of new arrivals. If the rate is low, then those arriving disperse and integrate. If the flow becomes too large a critical mass is reached and the arrivals have a viable community of fellow immigrants and congregate together. In recent years the flow has been high.

    2. Infrastructure: But more isn’t being built. Local councils budgets are being based off the 10 yr census. So yes, people get annoyed at the incumbents who won’t talk about it, and UKIP get 15% of the vote.

    3. Number of new builds has run below number of new household formations for many years. There is no issue with space, the issue is with the number of permits issued to build on the space, as Tim has written about on numerous occasions.

    4. Jobs: It’s not proportional. Simple model – ratio of blue collar workers to white collar workers is greater in the immigrating population than in local population. Therefore increasing supply competition on white collar workers whose wages are held down at minimum wage levels. But let’s just call them racist for complaining about it.

  38. @Dave

    We’ve tried engaging with you constructively, but you are quite simply a bigot.

    According to you I’m a xenophobe with a foreign wife.

  39. @Manc

    Good points.

    Infrastructure: to be fair, it isn’t easy to build either. People quite reasonably don’t want their beloved homes to be bulldozed for a train line, road or runway, and are quite right to fight back. Never mind the planning, the CAPEX and the OPEX.

    Space: I’m not yet convinced that we aren’t short of housing space. As countries go, isn’t the UK (and particularly England, the bit I care about) relatively built up? And how much land is left that really is suitable for housing, with a decent local source of water, that isn’t already being used for something better?

    For me, when the local trains are packed, classes are full, the doctors and dentists have stopped taking new registrations, or you’ve got hosepipe bans, those are signals that a town is already full for practical purposes – rather than waiting until you’ve crammed another housing estate onto that last little pocket of soggy land.

    Perhaps if new housing developments had to factor in the full cost of adding and maintaining the new infrastructure, the pricing system would help sort this out.

  40. Dave,
    There is no rational basis for opposing immigration at the level we currently have

    Is there a level at which there IS a rational basis for opposition?

    If yes, what it is?

  41. Bloke in Costa Rica

    I generally like Eastern Europeans and Balts, but the numbers are crazy. Both population P and dP/dt are out of hand. Currently 6% of the population of Lithuania lives in the UK. Polish is the second-most spoken language. That’s mental. But—but—there is at least a huge overlap in terms of acculturation between Britons and other Europeans, even the ones who were ruled by Communists thirty years ago. Some shoeless jackanapes from Eritrea or Yemen might as well be from Mars. At least the Lithuanians don’t riot if they don’t get fed potato dumplings.

    The real point of Brexit, as Squander Two points out, is not that the UK government will necessarily make better choices than hitherto, but at least it will be able to do so without being peremptorily overruled by the likes of Jean-Claude fucking Juncker.

  42. S2

    “I will never forget seeing an Algerian immigrant interviewed on TV. He’d quite rightly been granted asylum, because Algeria.”

    Why, quite rightly? The UK isn’t the nearest safe country to Algeria.

  43. Manc

    “There is no issue with space, the issue is with the number of permits issued to build on the space,…”

    Space where people want to live is very limited and England is one of the most densely populated places in the world. Abolish the permit system and the south-east of England would become one vast shanty town with a low quality of life. Few people want to live in the Cheviots, the Yorkshire Moorside or the Dales….

  44. Cynic>

    You do realise that’s just a version of the hoary old ‘I can’t be anti-X, some of my best friends are X’, right?

    Do I also need to point out that I’m calling your view irrational, so the fact that you’re demonstrating irrationality isn’t a counter-argument. (Nor is it an argument for what I’m saying.)

    Manc>

    1 – Except the rates aren’t historically high. Can we stick to the facts, please?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-born_population_of_the_United_Kingdom

    Total immigration is quite high compared to historic figures, but no one group dominates any more than any other historic group that is now assimilated.

    2 – That’s a problem with government, not immigration.

    3 – Again, that’s not a problem with immigration. It’s a problem with fucking stupid politicians being in charge. They won’t even allow us to build enough homes for migrants from within the UK.

    4 – That’s not what the economics say – and in deference to our host, I’d say we should stick to the mainstream economic view.

    In any case this:

    “ratio of blue collar workers to white collar workers is greater in the immigrating population than in local population. Therefore increasing supply competition on white collar workers ”

    Doesn’t even make sense.

    Cynic>

    “Infrastructure: to be fair, it isn’t easy to build either.”

    Well, we’ve managed it for the 60-odd million already here. Why not for a few million more? Dare I suggest that if we – the nation, that is – were talking about needing to build infrastructure rather than immigration, there’d be more chance of getting the troughers in Westminster to do what we want?

    “As countries go, isn’t the UK (and particularly England, the bit I care about) relatively built up?”

    No, not notably. The UK is fairly low on the list, England quite a bit higher – but England minus the SE&E regions is low. I advocate building more homes in London anyway, but here I’m suggesting spreading out, not clustering even more, so the empty bits of Wales and Scotland come into play. Places like Merthyr Tydfil and the Clyde are half-empty, loads of empty houses and so-on.

    “And how much land is left that really is suitable for housing, with a decent local source of water, that isn’t already being used for something better?”

    Loads and loads and loads. We could have a proper city up north, we could have a proper city in Wales. SE is pretty full, hence my analogy to train commuters stuffed into one end of the carriage debating whether the train is too full to allow more passengers on.

    “For me, when the local trains are packed, classes are full, the doctors and dentists have stopped taking new registrations, or you’ve got hosepipe bans, those are signals that a town is already full for practical purposes ”

    I agree. That is not the case in the vast majority of the country. For every e.g. St Albans, there are several e.g. Merthyr Tydfils.

  45. Jack C>

    Good question. I’d say it’s open to experiment, but when we can’t practically handle the rate, or the country is actually full, that would be too much. Neither of those are the case at the moment.

  46. Dave–get it clear .

    They aren’t coming here because they will run this country into a 3rd world shithole.

    If it means civil war so be it. Stuff your calculations as to how we can bend ourselves out of shape to accommodate them.

    Whatever your talk of “right-wing” you are a stooge who is run by CM. Lord Charles, Tich and Quackers had more intellectual freedom than do “waycist” -fearing pricks like you. Your motivation is hatred of white people in general and this nation in particular.

  47. EU policies drive immigration to the UK. The headline example is farm subsidies. Most of the Warsaw pact countries had agricultural labour forces of 20%+ before accession, but this is now down below 8% for most. This was always going to happen, but has happened far faster than it would have done if left to the free market.
    Similar effects occur due to cohesion/convergence/structural funds which go to pre-existing owners of capital ( i.r. rich people in poor countries ) who then whip out the Muller or VDF catalogue, place an order and mechanise – the result is higher productivity and fewer workers. The displaced workers go looking for jobs in the countries which ironically provide the highest subsidies.
    Thankfully, due to Brexit, the UK subsidies to this above natural labour immigration will end in 2019. And from April 2017 new child tax credits claims are capped at two children ( or now if you’re shagging to make an additional child, and already have a welfare claim for 2+ children )

  48. @Dave – did you get to the end of the article?

    It’s worth noting that this doesn’t go on to mean that unrestricted immigration is therefore the answer. We must consider Milton Friedman’s point that you can have open immigration or a welfare system but not both. And there are cultural and other societal reasons why you might not be happy about entirely unrestricted immigration. Do recall that economics isn’t everything about society, even if economics is everything about the economy.

    It’s often said that the UK isn’t that densely populated, but that’s to ignore the (obvious) fact that the bulk of the population live in the bottom right-hand quarter of the country (say a quadrilateral with corners at Liverpool, York, Dover and Bristol). Inside this area the population density is easily the highest of any European country (ignoring the odd fly-speck like Malta or Monaco) – about 50% higher than the Netherlands. There are large countries in the world with higher population density – Bangladesh comes to mind – but they’re not models I would wish to emulate.

    It’s true there are large areas of northern Scotland with only a few people per sq km, but that isn’t where new immigrants are heading. So unless we want to establish internment camps for them up there (I’m sure the SNP would welcome the move), we have to recognise that we’re already close to the limit of the number of people the country can support without drastically changing its character – which may not be what the majority want.

  49. Dave,

    I rather resent being told that I’m part of “you lot” who have complained that every wave of immigrants have been unassimilable, violent, criminal, etc. I was going to explain how you’re wrong, then realised that the onus is not on me to prove to you that I’m not a West-Indian-hating old-school racist, so instead I’ll just tell you to apologise or fuck off.

    Anyway, if all our immigrants are assimilating so damn well, why do so many of them keep going on jaunts to Syria to learn how to crucify Christians and rape children? That’s a traditional British thing, is it?

  50. And I don’t know where you’ve got your bizarre definition of “not historically high”. Proportionally, the recent migration of Poles to Britain was the largest mass migration since the Huguenots.

  51. Britain was racist enough to keep out the Spaniards, napoleon and Hitler.
    Then limited free speech , mass abortion , Blair and Brown arrived
    Now look at you all. One large human parking lot.

  52. @ Dave
    We can’t handle the rate because town planners won’t let us build enough houses. So immigrants are sleeping in garden sheds. I don’t think that is a good idea. Do you?

  53. “The real point of Brexit, as Squander Two points out, is not that the UK government will necessarily make better choices than hitherto, but at least it will be able to do so without being peremptorily overruled by the likes of Jean-Claude fucking Junker”

    A good point, but I must admit, I never knew his middle name was that.

  54. @ Dave:

    You write regarding the rate of new arrivals “Except the rates aren’t historically high. Can we stick to the facts, please?” and then the links you give all show the rates to be historically high, e.g., % of foreign born population is given as:
    1991 = 6.7%
    2001 = 8.3%
    2011 = 12.7%

    I think immigration is excellent – to a point. It selects for the people with some get up and go about them who want a better life and will work hard for it. But you need the government to orchestrate the infrastructure to go with it. I’ve lived abroad, and now live back in the UK with a non-EU partner.

    @Theophrastus
    I don’t think England is very densely populated, but London is (though you go on to concentrate on that area, so fair enough).

    @Cynic, all points I agree with 🙂

    Slightly off topic, but rather than going for HS1 and a new LHR runway I’d rather my Government concentrate on making this country the one where the legislation and systems are in place for driverless cars to be introduced and take off. That would help in the medium term with the transport aspect of increasing population.

  55. So Much For Subtlety

    Dave – “Total immigration is quite high compared to historic figures, but no one group dominates any more than any other historic group that is now assimilated.”

    The only historic group that has assimilated are the Hugenots. No one else has done so. Quite high? Or more accurately more people arrived in 2016 so far than arrived in the years 1066-1950 put together. That is not “quite” high. That is treason-trial-worthy high.

    “Well, we’ve managed it for the 60-odd million already here. Why not for a few million more?”

    Because people like living near parks and trees. They do not want to see Britain become a larger Hong Kong. Because your “few million more” is a lie. If it is racist to oppose mass immigration at current levels, why is it not racist to oppose immigration at any level? You mean a few billion more. Ultimately we take none or we take everyone.

  56. So Much For Subtlety

    Dave – “Thank you all for demonstrating my point. There are no rational reasons to object to immigration at current levels, only prejudices being trotted out.”

    That fact that you are not smart enough to understand them does not mean they are not there. The rapes of White girls across the country is a cost even if you want to pretend otherwise.

    “1. Culture/assimilation – this is just bollocks, you lot have said the same thing about every group of immigrants, and when you’re proven wrong on them, you switch to the next lot.”

    No one has been proven wrong on a single group of immigrants to this country since the Hugenots. They do not assimilate. Black people in this country are not becoming brain surgeons. They have made London more dangerous than New York. Asians aren’t doing much better. Muslims even worse. You can deny the evidence but it doesn’t go away.

    “2. Infrastructure – it’s not hard to build more. If the government isn’t capable of it, time to get a better government.”

    This has proven to be difficult and since when do we want to build over half the country to house African immigrants in high rise monstrosities?

    “Or, put another way, we could increase England’s population by 5%, stick them all in Lincolnshire, and it would still have a lower population density than the Home Counties.”

    Except they are not all going to live in Lincolnshire are they? They are going to live in London and not many other places. This is a strawman.

    “4. Jobs – immigrants add to the jobs available, they simply don’t ‘take our jobs’.”

    No they do not. They come and they go on the dole. It varies from community to community but study after study has shown that immigration is not a net economic benefit.

    “Any more easily dismissed points, or is it time for you lot to stick your heads in the sand and pretend you’re not just being racist/xenophobic/prejudiced.”

    I am happy to be considered racist/xenophobic/prejudiced. It is better than being a traitor. Britain ought to be run for the benefit of the British. Immigration does not benefit Britain in any way at all and should be stopped. Mass deportations should follow.

  57. Telecoms and remote working might help with the SE population concentration, if we can get office workers to spend less time physically in the office.

    I’m still seeing a lot of resistance to it at management level though, and I wonder if that attitude is common in a lot of companies.

    For a lot of what goes on where I work, we could have staff living just about anywhere and still do their jobs fine. Without the cost of London-area living and ever-increasing trains fares, they could probably be employed for less cost too.

    Makes more sense to me than building up in the most crowded, resource-stressed part of the country, and spunking huge sums on trying to sort the trains out (I get the feeling no matter what happens, the rail service will always be shit).

    Only kicks the can a bit further down the road though.

  58. Cynic,

    > I’m still seeing a lot of resistance to it at management level

    Yes, no matter how modern the economy becomes, we still have a management class devoted to presenteeism. Bizarre.

    To be fair, my current manager is not one of them. The attitude’s pretty good in banking. But one of my friends is working in a bank that has a working-from-home policy and encourages it, but her manager doesn’t like it so denies it to her team. Although not fully: the manager works from home. Morale in that team is not good. Funny, that.

    HSBC force their staff to work from home at least two days a week so they can save money on office space. Very sensible.

    Friend of mine was part of a very successful team who all worked from home (not in banking). The firm had built a team of brilliant motivated sales people, knowing they could be trusted to get stuff done, and incentivised them by letting them stay at home. Hired a new manager, who didn’t like not being able to look over people’s shoulders and starting cracking down on it. They were all looking for other work within months; team destroyed inside a year. Yay manager!

  59. Since Dave has somehow decided from reading these comments that we can all be classed as “you lot” who all believe the same things, I’ll just take this opportunity to disassociate myself from SMFS’s obnoxious views.

    > Black people in this country are not becoming brain surgeons. They have made London more dangerous than New York.

    New York used to be much more dangerous than London. What turned it around from one of the US’s most dangerous cities to one of their safest was not some sort of purge of black people but a radical change in policing policy by Rudy Giuliani. It simply did not become safer by becoming whiter. What makes London dangerous is a combination of the police’s attitude to crime and the authorities’ attitude to self-defence.

    And why the “in this country” qualifier, from somebody who has repeatedly insisted that the problem with black people is genetic? Could it be because one of the world’s most famous brain surgeons is a black American, which is a tad inconvenient to your theories?

    I just typed “neurosurgeon” into LinkedIn. Loads of Indians, a few black people. Not surprisingly.

    I will now return to never reading SMFS’s comments. Life is a little happier that way.

  60. This country is doomed ! We made an agreement to join a huge single market on condition of maintaining certain freedoms including freedom of movement for other EU nationals (which directly benefits our private sector with low wages) .Rather than continue to honour this agreement, we would rather be thrown out with well-deserved derision.
    We have to suffer God knows what self inflicted injuries contrived by borderline racists as our political elites go into bunker mode to protect themselves, their class and their comedy institutions.

  61. I don’t have a problem with SMFS’s views, myself. I’d rather people were honest about how they really feel, and I don’t get the sense he is trolling.

    I have a lot of foreign-born friends, that’s just how my social circle has worked out, but I cannot honestly look at the loss of freedom of speech, terror threats, the EU, the money and effort wasted on diversity propaganda and say it is all okay. It isn’t. I can understand where he is coming from even if I don’t agree.

    (Hi SMFS)

  62. Squander Two

    I’ve also noticed that the more WFH that goes on, the less vanity project work seems to result. People don’t seem as inclined to fill their time up with “work”, which inevitably causes work downstream (I’m in IT, so every pointless “work” project involves work for us).

    ‘Cos let’s face it, business doing something pointless is worse than it doing nothing.

  63. > I’d rather people were honest about how they really feel, and I don’t get the sense he is trolling.

    I absolutely agree. Doesn’t mean I have to read Obama’s autobiography.

  64. We made an agreement to join a huge single market on condition of maintaining certain freedoms including freedom of movement for other EU nationals

    Free movement of EU nationals made a degree of sense with a smaller, Western European EU, most of whose economies were roughly on a par (except perhaps Iberia and S Italy, but they were kept happy by huge dollops of EU funding). But admitting former Soviet bloc countries (a decision of which I approved) unbalanced the idea – it would have been sensible to have done something at the time, but the ‘four freedoms’ were increasingly seen as holy writ, rather than an advertising strapline.

    It’s interesting that, of the four freedoms (movements of people, goods, capital and services), the latter two are conveniently ignored whenever it suits. Try buying a prominent French company or trying to sell British insurance policies in Germany and see how far you get.

  65. Squander>

    But you _are_ associating with those views. Maybe that’ll make you reconsider your own very much weaker prejudices, since you recognise SMFS is just a mad racist nutjob.

    “I rather resent being told that I’m part of “you lot” who have complained that every wave of immigrants have been unassimilable, violent, criminal, etc.”

    Well then, try not being the latest generation of that lot.

    “Anyway, if all our immigrants are assimilating so damn well, why do so many of them keep going on jaunts to Syria to learn how to crucify Christians and rape children? That’s a traditional British thing, is it?”

    And there you go. Assimilation does not happen overnight, and you’re tarring an entire immigrant population with the sins of a tiny minority – you’re just repeating the kind of nonsense SMFS believes.

    “And I don’t know where you’ve got your bizarre definition of “not historically high”. Proportionally, the recent migration of Poles to Britain was the largest mass migration since the Huguenots.”

    Whut? No it isn’t. It’s on a par with the Commonwealth migration that followed the end of the Empire.

  66. > But you _are_ associating with those views.

    Define “associating”.

    > Maybe that’ll make you reconsider your own very much weaker prejudices

    I have no racial prejudice but I do believe some cultures are better than others. I’ve already reconsidered that, many times. My conclusion: some cultures are better than others. Some people claim they don’t believe that. Those people are always lying, sometimes to themselves.

    > try not being the latest generation of that lot.

    I don’t need to try. I already amn’t. Oh, and fuck you.

    > Assimilation does not happen overnight

    On the subject of Islamists, we send more native-born British with immigrant grandparents to Syria than we do new immigrants. So it appears that you’re wrong, and also that, even if you were right, it’d be irrelevant. The problem is not the amount of time since they arrived. It’s which culture they ally themselves with.

    I also don’t care whether immigrant assimilate. Half the Chinese in Soho don’t assimilate, and that’s fine. But they do integrate.

    > you’re tarring an entire immigrant population with the sins of a tiny minority

    No I’m not. Where did I do that? I merely mentioned that we have a lot of people going over to fight with ISIS. Which we do. And which is a problem. Your position is that anyone who mentions that is claiming that every single immigrant is fighting for ISIS — what else can “tarring an entire immigrant population” possibly mean?

    As for tiny minority, though, Britain apparently has more Muslim subjects fighting jihad in the Middle East than in the army, and more subjects of any religion joining Middle-Eastern jihadi groups every year than the British armed forces — about twice as many, according to Khalid Mahmood. Go tell him he’s racist for worrying about it.

    The example of ISIS also rather destroys your claim that objecting to immigration from the Middle East is exactly the same as objecting to every previous wave of immigration from other places. How many of the Windrush generation crucified people and enslaved their women? How many Indian Hindus? How many Nigerians?

    My point is not that we need to stop all immigration or deport Muslims or anything of the sort. My point is simply a rebuttal of your specious claim that there are no rational reasons for opposing immigration. There are plenty. There are lots of rational reasons that I disagree with. I’m just not arrogant enough to assume that anything I disagree with is by definition irrational.

    And, as I said above, the whole point of controlling our borders isn’t even to decrease immigration. Since that’s my stated position, I don’t think I have much in common with the NF, thanks.

  67. Reedy you are an incorrigible twat.

    Back on the fucking moral high horse again but not word one about the blood that your socialist gang sits in up to their bottom lip.

    “Keeping agreements” ??? From scum who promised Utopia and delivered Hell.

    Go piss up your leg and play with the steam.

    What a pity Dave, that very few share your Marxian views and more and more people are waking up to how CM scum like you–tho’ no one would pay a burned out case like you to be a part of the treason–are trying to ruin their country.

    But keep pushing it. More and more I think civil war is the wave of the future. The kind of land I want and the shithole of tyranny and CM evil you want can’t both exist in the same location. So a straight on fight may be the best way to settle it.

  68. Rather than continue to honour this agreement, we would rather be thrown out with well-deserved derision.

    We’re not being thrown out. We’re leaving. Of our own volition. Because that agreement has been surrounded with lots of ever-more-integration bollocks, a whole load of the euro-CM shite Ecks continually and correctly derides, and the most destructive currency since the Wiemar mark (the Zim dollar had less to destroy. Even though it managed to excessively wreck what it could.)

    But the EU is perfect and why would any sane person even consider that our lives wouldn’t be all (Dutch) roses and champagne (which we won’t, of course, be able to buy after Brexit, cause the French would never want to sell anything to us ever again) if we just reconsidered and stayed in?

  69. As for Hindus and bonfired widows–we stopped them from doing that. And roadside stranglings–we stopped them as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *