Debate on the Immigration Petition in the Commons (Part 1)

Part One

By Hogarth

On Monday 19 October 2015, a debate was held in the House of Commons on an immigration petition, which read as follows:

“The UK government need to prevent immigrants from entering the UK immediately! We MUST close all borders, and prevent more immigrants from entering Britain. Foreign citizens are taking all our benefits, costing the government millions! Many of them are trying to change UK into a Muslim country!”

Petitions which raise over 100,000 signatures must be debated in the Commons.

It appears that this petition, which collected nearly 200,000 signatures, was started by a concerned 17 year old, clearly worried about the effects of immigration, imposed upon the British people without any consultation or consent whatsoever.

Whilst the wording is somewhat sensationalist, it clearly expresses the legitimate concerns of many Britons, who feel their concerns have been ignored.

The debate makes interesting reading and some of the more telling quotes are repeated below, with a suitable commentary from this site.   The full debate can be found here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm151019/halltext/151019h0001.htm#15101914000002

Many of the MPs who spoke during the debate, either mistakenly or, more probably deliberately, distorted the meaning of the petition.   The only inaccuracy in its wording, given above, refers to the absorption of all benefits by foreign citizens, which is clearly an exaggeration.

 

Steve McCabe Labour

“Is it not reasonable to ask that we be given a bit more information about the person originating the petition? It is probably fair to know who they are, where they live, whether they are a registered British voter, for example, whether they have any party political association or any history in relation to a particular subject. It would not be unreasonable to know that. The idea of the e-petition system, of course, was to give a voice to the public and to ensure that we in this place did not ignore issues that matter.”

There is clearly a concern that the originators of petitions may then fall foul of politically-correct concepts.  It is important they are not bullied and pressurised, in consequence, by thuggish elements allied to the Labour Party and hounded out of their jobs.  There is no reason to provide the details of petitioners to the public.

 

Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)

“I have employed a Polish plasterer, and I know colleagues who have used Romanian builders. Why do we do so? Because they are cheap. If their work is good and they can undercut the market, that represents open competition, which I absolutely subscribe to as a free-market Conservative.”

This so neatly encapsulates the thinking behind globalisation:  the import of cheap labour, to be employed by those who can afford it personally but also by multinational corporations, interested in exploiting cheap labour.

Open competition is, in itself, laudable and worthy of support.  It is entirely unacceptable when it is opened to the cheapest labour from Eastern Europe, leave alone the entire globe.    The ‘Conservative’ Party wants Turkey to join the EU;  cheap Turkish labour will then undermine cheap Eastern European labour.

Under these circumstances, how are Britons, with mortgage debts, families and responsibilities, to enjoy a living standard befitting of their birth-right?

The free market, of recent decades, has led to a grossly inequitable imbalance between labour and capital, at the expense of the former.  This is a primary factor behind stagnating living standards in the West, in recent years.   This imbalance has its origins both in the import of cheap labour and competition from cheap labour on a global basis, employed by international capital, ie multinational corporations.   A further consequence is the high budget deficits in the UK and elsewhere, as weak tax revenues reflect depressed earnings from employees.

Like the Conservative Party, the Labour Party has refused to safeguard the earnings and living standards of its traditional supporters.

Mrs Anne Main (Con)

“A former speechwriter for Labour, Mr Nether, wrote in 2009 that “mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.”

“He went on to say that he remembered “coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended—even if this wasn’t its main purpose—to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

“In an effort to row back from that situation, the points-based immigration system was introduced. Our Government, elected on a mandate of trying to control immigration, say the same. We have, however, to be honest, in this Chamber and in this Parliament: we can control only outside-EU immigration. We are unable to control EU migration, so other areas must be particularly hit, including former Commonwealth countries. The bar is set extremely high, and it has an unfair and disproportionate effect on certain communities and industries.”

Mrs Main is correct in her reference to Andrew Nether.   Rubbing the right’s nose in diversity, aimed at rendering their arguments out of date tells us two things.   First, it confirms what so many of us already knew:  that immigration is designed to destroy British identity, culture and heritage such that the indigenous people of these islands are compromised and, ultimately, reduced to minority status.

Secondly, the purpose is to disenfranchise the right, which will occur as the foreign population overwhelms the indigenous population.    This has already occurred in parts of the UK, such as London, where the Cockney population has become virtually extinct in its ancestral homeland.

Finally, Mrs Main states that because EU immigration is uncontrollable whilst we are in the EU, immigration from non EU origins, especially Commonwealth countries, has been ‘particularly hit’.

This has been Ukip’s argument for years:  that Labour and Tory Governments are racist because they have discriminated against our ‘traditional immigrants’ from the West Indes, Africa and Asia.

Ukip’s policy is clear:  immigration from the EU is unacceptable but it is certainly acceptable if it comes from the Third World.  It appears that this view is shared, to varying degrees, by Euro-sceptics in the Tory Party.  The end result will be the displacement of the British population by the Third World and, eventually, its replacement by the Third World – which has occurred in East London.

Mrs Main later reflects:

“My hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam, for Northampton South (David Mackintosh) and for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and I returned two weeks ago from visiting a social action project in Bangladesh. Bangladesh is a very poor country and it will be enormously difficult for its people to jump the bar to get in and take up vacancies. Someone from the EU can walk in and, hopefully, get a job in any restaurant by virtue of their EU membership.

“In response to public concern, we have made it our mandate to cut immigration to tens of thousands, but my own concern is that certain countries are discriminated against. People from those countries have families here and other ties to the UK. We should not just tinker with the margins of the figures by hitting only non-EU countries. We need to look at immigration as a whole and ask ourselves what we can, and cannot, realistically control.”

This is similar to the view expressed by the multicultural collaborators in Ukip.   Whilst most British citizens would prefer that immigration from Europe was curtailed, if not halted, they would also prefer – if they had any choice – such immigration to that from, say, Africa or Bangladesh.

The logical extension of Mrs Main’s argument is the ultimate displacement and replacement of the European peoples within the UK by those who are of non-European ethnic origin.

 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Refugees (Richard Harrington) Con:

“In all seriousness, we are proud of the fact that the UK is, without any doubt, a multiracial democracy—I do not know what else it could be called. Most sensible people will be proud of that.”

Who voted for this?  When was there any consultation?  When was consent provided?  When were future generations asked their views?   When were the fallen, who provided us with their magnificent legacy, ever consulted?