Who would be the best candidate to be the next leader of the Conservative Party? Ideally, I would have preferred either of [Lords] Nigel Lawson or the Chingford skinhead Norman Tebbit. Both played distinguished roles under Margaret Thatcher, the first as her chancellor, the second as her “bovver boy.” At ages 84 and 85, however, Lords Lawson and Tebbit are now too frail to bear the burdens of the premiership. Fortunately, there are two outstanding candidates who are fighting fit and at the peak of their powers: David Davis MP and former Defense Secretary Dr. Liam Fox MP. Both are consistent long-term, hard-core Brexiteers.
You will note that this list does not include the most-talked about candidate, Boris Johnson. Despite his jovial populist image and the entertaining clown act, Mr. Johnson did a poor job as London mayor, is often not on top of his brief and is unpopular among Conservative MPs. His Brexiteer credentials are also doubtful, notwithstanding the major role he played in the campaign. He sat on the fence for a long time before announcing which side he would support. In fact, it has just been revealed that before deciding which side to take, he wrote two letters to be published, one supporting Remain and one supporting Leave. He himself then admitted that he found the Remain letter more convincing, but opted to join the Leave campaign instead. There is a lingering suspicion that he had calculated that he had nothing to gain if Remain won, but if Leave won, Cameron would be out and he could swan in as the man who had saved the Brexit cause to become Cameron’s obvious replacement. Mr. Johnson is, thus, an opportunist.
Read the whole thing, as it contains some excellent analysis.
And why not Michael Gove?
Staff officer, not a General. I quite like the look of La Leadsom.
This onrushing history lesson is beyond fascinating. As a Yankee bystander, I jealously seek a non-Trump outlet for this anti-elite phenomenon, but cannot find an immediately viable alternative. Crazy Texans (gotta love ’em) fantasize about Texit, more broadly conservatives dream of UNexit and States Rights against Washington. The LP slate sure is sweet, in a cloying way, lacking the fire to tempt the disenfranchised. None of these polarize the electorate against the elite to any meaningful extent. Instead, we have opportunistic sociopolitical suicide, metaphysically led by the Breitbart Group latching to Trump and supporting protectionism. Where present chaotic events offer the possibility of unity against Leviathan, the strange attractor is a Wannabe Tyrant. I’m looking for a butterfly to move the storm.
Well, blonde bimbo Boris is screwed, because he did not want a leave win, he wanted a close result so he could challenge Cameron and become PM. Boris has no plan, no vision, as evidenced by his vacuous, pointless statements in recent days.
Article 50 should be implemented this week, but because our political elites are lazy, think their summer holidays (which are longer than school summer holidays) are more important than anything else, this will drag on for 4 months.
Also, any future PM will have to severely cut immigration, as that was very, very clearly a prime motive for many working class voters choosing leave. As such, foreigners should be encouraged to leave the country in large numbers to prevent civil unrest, as tensions are becoming very, very nasty.
Maybe Boris Johnson is an opportunist. Maybe not. It doesn’t matter.
The ONLY criteria that should be used in deciding who should be the next leader of the Tories is: will this person make sure that Article 50 is activated if he/she is elected Prime Minister. Nothing else matters.
End of story.
Sorry, I’ve got to disagree.
David Davis has the right credentials but has been fighting the leadership too long to make an effective leader, especially when a unifier is required. Don’t forget all that bullshit about forcing a by-election over nothing, pure political theatre which caused many to lose respect for him. I’d want David Davis in either the Home Office or at Justice.
Liam Fox has is still tainted by the Adam Werritty scandal that forced him to resign from his role as Secretary of State for Defence. Potentially another Peter Mandleson in the making.
As Lee Moore said, Michael Gove is “a staff officer, not a general”, but we need great staff officers. Ideologically very sound but not a unifier (as seen at Education), I’d like to see him in the Foreign Office during the BRExit negotiations ideally as Foreign Secretary.
After BRExit I would like Michael Gove to become Chancellor where we will need radical thinking and economic policy in the brave new world before.
I agree about BoJo, he is an opportunist who used Vote “Leave” as a launching platform for number 10, which may well have worked had we lost and Cameron not resigned. Too much disliked by the Tory party to be leader and too “dodgy” with respect to his personal relations, he should be in the cabinet, but not one of the top jobs. Very clever, possibly give him the role of getting rid of all the EU laws and regulations we no longer require (Lord Chancellor? maybe)
Ian Duncan Smith should be restored to the Treasury to continue welfare reforms.
George Osborne should be retained at the Treasury until Cameron departs and then should be dismissed by the new PM for his egregious actions during the EU Referendum campaign.
Bank of England governor Mark Carney should be sacked for the same reason.
In terms of Prime Minister, despite being a “Remainder”, I think it has to be Theresa May as a unifier. She is untainted by the EU Referendum Campaign having been seen to play it straight, has the clear head that is necessary for the BRExit negotiations that lie ahead and as a “Remainder” can convincingly say she will acting in the best interests of the country, not just the narrow interests of BRExit.
John Galt:I’m sorry but you must be joking.
She is an arrogant, authoritarian bitch who is also colossally STUPID.
This is the creature who stood up in the HoC and talked about there being 100,000 under-age Vietnamese prossies trafficked into this country and all being forced to work out of nail bars.
Since there are only 1500 or so nail bars in the UK that would mean 66 girls being forced to work in each of them.
Let’s have another “tory” PM who regurgitates Marxian feminist crap without the slightest thought. And all the rest of the cultural Marxist agenda.
Plus she is an EU-sucking remain supporter who will sabotage everything won.
Even Blojo would be a better choice. Hell a waxwork of Corbyn would be a better choice.
All discussion seems to assume exit by article 50, but not exit by repealing the european communities act 1972. Is this a viable alternative?
I have been following the Samizdata blog for a number of years now and have never commented (though found most of the discussions highly engaging) up till now.
My comment is only really to say that it’s getting very hard for me to continue reading this blog, as some of the recent comments here really pain me.
I am young(ish – 31), of asian heritage, I have always been Eurosceptic, believe in the power of business and trade/industry to make a positive impact on people’s lives, allowing them to take control of their own lives (rather than waiting for someone else, i.e. the government, to help them out). Libertariansim is needed now more than ever.
However, I can’t support a vision of Brexit that panders to the ideology behind UKIP and other similar movements that just want to replace one (European) statist form of government with another (English) statist form of government. The support that some Samizdata readers/contributors are showing to UKIP is depressing me no end. UKIP is essentially a movement that wants national borders, does not support the free movement of people, is inwards looking, wants more government spending and government interference – this time just for people of its ‘own kind’.
We need a vision of the UK (or England only, judging by the way things are going) that is open to trade and the world. Open meaning open to everyone as individuals. We need to be honest with ourselves and others in stating clearly that is what we want. We need to also need to be honest and say that a lot of people that voted Leave do not share our vision.
This is crunch time for us – there is never going to be such an opportunity to really influence the direction of our country and our lives. Please Samizdata readers – we cannot jump into the same bed as UKIP and those that think like UKIPers, it will destroy us. We need to get behind a person in the Conservative party that will stand up for open, free trade and open, free thinking. I do not know who exactly this person is within the Conservative party but this person is desperately needed now.
thanks
In terms of Prime Minister, despite being a “Remainder”, I think it has to be Theresa May as a unifier
As shlomo says, the only thing that really matters is that the next leader of the Tories activates Article 50, immediately. That means appointing a Cabinet with a clear Brexit majority, and deciding it at the first Cabinet meeting. I can’t conceive of anyone who wasn’t a committed Brexiter in the referendum doing that. It’d all be “can’t get it through the Commons, put it to the people at the next election, steady the markets” and suchlike delaying tactics. The Tory Party can worry about unifying itself after it’s activated Article 50. The Tory Party has had a clear anti-EU majority since Mrs T got booted out, and the grandees have run interference for 25 years. The majority have kowtowed to the minority in the name of “unity” for long enough.
Incidentally, since apparently the Brexiters were lying through their teeth throughout the campaign and this is a good reason for ignoring the vote, can anyone point me to the acres of newsprint excoriating Cameron for breaking his promise to activate Article 50 straight away if he lost ?
No, because that would cause immediate chaos and be in conflict with our other EU Treaty commitments. It could be used by those who oppose us (such as France) to block our goods from entering European markets.
The triggering of Article 50 is the only viable means of agreeing an orderly transition out of the European Union that would have to be honoured by those who would wish us harm (e.g. Francois Hollande, Jean-Claude Juncker, Martin Schultz et al)
Agree completely. She is a civil liberties nightmare. The next PM *must* have supported Brexit as a bare minimum and his name should ideally be David Davis, one of the few politicians I sort of respect as he has been consistently pro-civil liberties. He is sort of the anti-May in that respect.
All discussion seems to assume exit by article 50, but not exit by repealing the european communities act 1972. Is this a viable alternative?
Well, as a legal matter, repealing the European Communities Act (and subsequent related stuff) would end the relationship as far as domestic law was concerned, but that would clearly be in breach of international law which says that if treaties have provisions for how to end them, those provisions should be followed. In such a case domestic law would trump international law, within the UK, but it would be rather rude to our neighbours and there is no conceivable reason to stick two fingers up at them in this way.
Politically, activating Article 50 is much easier than repealing the EC Act, as there is a pro EU majority in the Commons which could decline to repeal the EC Act; while Article 50 can be activated by the Cabinet under the Royal Prerogative. Two years after Article 50 activation the EU treaties would cease to apply whatever Parliament did or didn’t do, and so if the EC Act had not been repealed it would raise interesting legal questions – eg the EC Act would say that the ECJ remained the supreme court in the UK; but the ECJ wouldn’t hear any UK cases because from the EU point of view, the UK would no longer be a member.
Consequently activating Article 50 guarantees exit. Parliament, even with a pro EU majority, would look pretty silly trying to prevent the domestic repeal of the EC Act, if membership was being canceled by operation of the treaty anyway. So Artilce 50 is the way to go both for domestic politics and international politeness.
Sorry jefferyA, but we do not get to choose who makes common cause with us or to the realities we have to work with. If we are serious about wanting out of the EU, there is simply no mileage in fighting with UKIP at this stage of the process. Indeed it may only be the threat of what UKIP will do to the Tories in the next election that will force the government to eventually invoke Article 50, rather than just hand waving it all away.
But once that happens, needing to make common cause with UKIP becomes a lot less important. However until then, I would rather not spend my time attacking anyone who supports LEAVE. One enemy at a time please. I have long been on record of favouring open borders + no welfare as the solution to the vexed political issue of attracting desirable immigration whilst not attracting and then subsidising free-riders, so I am hardly the poster boy for UKIP. But one cannot be serious about LEAVE if one spends time and effort sticking it to UKIP at this particular juncture.
jefferyA – I don’t think you need to despair.
I think the point is WE NEED TO ESCAPE. Only once we have escaped can we pursue all those nice libertarian things you like. Because we already know the EU is vehemently opposed to them. There’s no guarantee that an independent Britain will pursue libertarian policies. The only guarantee we have is that an EU member Britain will not pursue libertarian policies.
If the Tories actually do remove us from the EU, then I think UKIP will probably disappear, or else maybe replace Labour. But since it’s still very much touch and go as to whether the Tories will remove us, a mallet needs to be held above their head. The mallet is called UKIP.
Roy Hodgson is available.
NickM,
No way, his team will let too many in.
UKIP will not disappear, and they are only going to get more support, as the majority of Leave voters are going to be permanently disappointed. They will be hugely disappointed if full Brexit doesn’t happen and they will disappointed to the same extent if we are still have access to the free movement of people and the single market (which is what most reasonable people would want as an outcome of Brexit discussions).
As Pardone quite clearly states above:
This quotes disgusts me to the core but it’s entirely true. What underlies the Leave vote is immigration. Once those voters have been promised (i.e. lied to, on the part of Farage, Boris and Gove)that Leave = reduction in immigration, there is no way they will now accept the continuation of free movement as the outcome of any deal. Most Conservatives would press for free movement, Remainers will campaign for free movement and Libertarians want free movement.
Unhappy Leave voters will turn to UKIP, if they’re not doing so already, and they will become more and more vocal in expressing their disappointment. We can expect things to get pretty ugly.
I understand that tactical manoeuvring is necessary to get the desired outcome in politics, but being dishonest with oneself and to others makes it all pointless in my opinion.
Therefore, allying yourself with UKIP may be useful for you now but it’s going to cause many more serious problems further down the line. As a non-white British person, I worry about it a lot.
John Galt,
I cannot stress enough how inane this is. Do you even realize that you haven’t won yet?
The next PM will face unprecedented pressure to refrain from activating Article 50. 80%+ of this pressure will not even ever be made public. There will be a massive amount of blackmail and threats and intimidation of the UK and of the Prime Minister both politically and personally. I am not exaggerating.
Less than a week after Exit won by over 1 million votes most newspapers throughout the Western world are running stories about how the UK can, you know, not Exit the EU after all. Like this one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/world/europe/brexit-bregret-european-union-the-interpreter.html?_r=0
Notice the tone of that article.
How is it possible that someone in favor of Brexit supports a Remain Tory for PM when 52% of the UK and an even higher share (probably ~57%) of the Tories voted for Exit? Do you realize that this referendum was not legally binding?
If the next leader of the Tories is from the Remain camp then there’s no way the UK will Exit the EU unless Nigel Farage is elected Prime Minister (and good luck with that).
This is the moment for pro-Remain Tories to be utterly decimated. Show no mercy.
jefferyA, I understand, I really do. I even share some of your fears, but if LEAVE is the desired result, what are the alternative choices to actually get there?
John Galt,
I just want to emphasize yet again how absurd this statement is – this time from another angle.
To suggest that a politician can convincingly say she will be acting in the best interests of the country due to the fact that she was pro-Remain is to cede everything, literally everything to the pro-Remain side. In all seriousness are you pro-Exit?
Whether you are Pro-Remain or Pro-Exit, could you please explain to me how it is more convincing for a pro-Remain politician to claim she is acting in the best interests of the country than a pro-Exit politician to make the same claim after Exit won by over a million votes?
A democratic vote just determined that the best interests of the country are for pro-Remain politicians to kindly shut the fuck up.
In my view it’s looking more likely that the electorate is going to have to decide on the final proposals for post-EU Britain. I genuinely believe that if there is a sound proposal put forward that emphasises aspects of what most people (Remainers and certain Leavers) in the country respect about the EU, i.e. free movement of people, open trade, protecting the rights of current EU citizens in UK and vice versa, we can seriously hope that a government is elected on the basis of that proposal and that article 50 is triggered and we move forwards. This means discussion and engagement with those who wanted to remain, it means accepting the fact that we may still have to pay fees to access that single market. It means accepting the fact we need Conservative politicians that will work pragmatically and will appeal to Remainers, and who may not have come out explicitly for Leave, i.e. May. I may be stupidly optimistic but I don’t see any other options.
The alternative is that we do not offer an appealing proposal for post-EU Britain, and the electorate has nothing to get behind and the status quo looks more and more attractive.
And the moment Article 50 get trigged and makes Brexit irreversible, I agree Jeffrey. But until then…
jefferyA
To summarise – no, no, no, no and no.
The people have voted and they’ve voted for OUT. The details of how things are going to be when we are out are of course the stuff of politics. But the option of remaining IN has been rejected. So what we can’t have is IN as the default status quo. The default status quo has to be OUT.
Therefore Article 50 needs to be triggered so we go OUT. People can then bicker about what form of OUT we’re going to have. And if the politicians arrive at a conclusion that the people don’t like, then the people can vote in another lot of politicians to do something different. Which could even include applying to go back IN.
But after going to the trouble of having a referendum and getting the answer OUT, if we do not get OUT sharpish, then there ceases to be any point in voting. We may as well move directly to tanks and rockets.
The left have been promising all sorts of awful consequences if Britain Leaves. Most of this is hogwash. What worries me is that when Britain does leave the next PM will look like a hero because none of the terrible things will happen. I don’t want Boris looking like a hero.
Huh?
52% of the UK just voted to Exit the EU. If a government is elected on the basis of a proposal that emphasizes what Remainers and some Leavers respect about the EU, then Article 50 is not going to be triggered.
The British people appear to want to control their own borders as a nation and have a cohesive culture without massive levels of immigration year after year after year. I have more than a little sympathy for that.
If it’s any consolation, I don’t think immigration into the UK will be substantially curtailed in the near-term or the long-term. But to me that is unfortunate – primarily because Islam is peacefully conquering the West via demographics. If you think things are rough for an Asian (or a Jew like me) now just wait until Islam starts seriously seizing political power in the West in a few decades. Political Islam makes rowdy & lightly racist Englishmen look like hippies. Frankly many who are now complaining about racism/harassment will probably be begging the English to be more xenophobic at that time, but it will then be too late.
Mr Ed,
You just know I’ll have to use that one! Back of the net!
Revision:
Political Islam makes rowdy & lightly racist Englishmen look like loving, tolerant, welcoming hippies.
It’s true.
John Galt and Lee Moore, thank you for your responses, I think you may be right.
The London MEP Gerard Battern in his book suggests that Article 50 is a Gordion Knot. The Brexiter Government therefore should be prepared to repeal the Act, as a backstop should his contention prove correct.
Whenever the 1972 Act is repealed, even after a sucessful Article 50 exit, the possible illegality, in British law, of the 1972 Act should be widely discussed.
This is the first time I have commented on the site after a long time reading the same.
From this end of the world [Australia] I may not be up to all the nuances of UK/English politics but it seems to me that you have just voted to leave the EU and that majority vote should be binding. No equivocation, no fluffing around the edges, no half measures, just leave. Regaining control over your borders, who enters and on what terms is part of that. The “free movement” of people advocated by jeffreyA is not control of your borders and shlomo maistre is correct about political Islam. It is a malignant, authoritarian concept which will spit on your idea of democracy and tolerance.
You now have the chance to reassert yourselves in the wider World as independent players. Don’t waste it.
David Roberts,
You know that parliament is sovereign yes? So be very difficult for a law to be illegal – we are not the US where there is a separate judicial branch (fortunately).
Also, if we repeal the 1972 Act we can do various things, but as our membership of the EU is by treaty not parliament, the most recent treaty (Lisbon) will still be valid and we will need to either abrogate it (a lovely verb, but does tend to cause issues of trust) or withdraw under Article 50.
In the meantime, my suggestion is that whoever is PM should phone up Mr Junker regularly claiming to have an important matter to discuss, and then never quite start the Article 50 process. Hours of happy entertainment…
Shlomo maistre,
Political Islam (or at least some versions of it) may be worse than racist Englishmen. But that is no reason to accept either of them – racism is a form of collective thought that reduces individual freedom (often more for the perpatrator than the victim) and should therefore be unacceptable to any of us if we are concerned about freedom of the individual. Race is a construct, like class, and it seems bloody stupid to allow people to create constructs to restrict freedom simply because they are not as powerful (they are equally evil) as others constructing constructs.
jeffreyA, the UK is not going to send loads of Asian computer programmers or whatever sent back home. At most, we’re looking more at an Australian-style point system for future immigrants. You will have noticed, I trust, that in Australia there are loads of Asian and other brown people who have come in in the last thirty years? In fact, in Australia they can’t even keep out quite a few loony Muslim radicals.
How does this fit in with libertarian viewpoints? I would imagine most libertarians do not support the idea of controlled borders. And what is a cohesive culture? Who defines it and who is controlling it? I am may be British but I see myself as non-conformist, am I excluded from this cohesive culture you talk about? I don’t want to be cohesive, thanks.
You don’t need to speak to me about Islam. I’m from a Sikh/Indian background. Sikhism is very lucky it still survives and wasn’t completely eradicated by the muslim Mughal empire. We’re proud of the fact that our history is full of brave men and women who became martyrs for not only their own religion but for religious freedom for all in what was an extremely oppressive time in Indian history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chh%C5%8Dt%C4%81_Ghall%C5%ABgh%C4%81r%C4%81
As Perry has mentioned previously, there are other ways to deal with political Islam, retreating into a neo-fascist English state is not the best way to do it.
I just want to tell you all that aligning yourself with a racist party is not going to do anything for the future of libertarianism.
Kevin Dowd again cements his reputation in my eyes as a smart cookie. The whole piece is excellent.
Re: JeffreyA.
I am constrained to give voice to my emotions re this individual by house rules on civility. So I will do my best to stay within those limits.
For Brevity’s sake I won’t repost his comment but will just say my piece.
JA is very probably –like “Admin” on a prior thread– a member of the London “NICE” bubble. He may not be, he may not live in London but he is still an honorary member of that community (likewise the Noo Yawker who engaged my ire on the same prior thread is an honorary NICE bubbler).
The London NICE bubble is composed of those whose wealth bring them a very nice life in the capital. Admin and the NY bloke have given glowing accounts of their very nice lifestyle in the lovely cosmopolitan city and how free movt–of their business buddies– is oh so important to them.
The nice bubble is indeed nice with lovely shops and restaurants where you can talk the night away with your nice , well-off, well-behaved, well-educated multi-culti chums.
Where things like this impinge on your consciousness:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LS8QFVixYo
Mr JA is worried about all those nasty people who might bring the boom down on his personal paradise.
We do not need to look very hard ( commenter Cal said the same thing in different terms yesterday? or the day before) to discover that there is also a London “NASTY” bubble. Where things are nothing like so pleasant as the “lifestyles of the comfortably off” NICE bubble. In fact large parts of London and most urban centres could be labelled shitholes without too much exaggeration. Migration plays a large part in giving them that “status”. Because –astonishingly if you are a well-off bubbler–not everyone from overseas is a nice, well-educated, well-behaved business person etc.
I won’t go into vast detail about life in the arse-end of urbanism. The papers are full of it -and more that doesn’t get printed,
The point I make is that dear Jeff very likely has little contact with the London NASTY bubble let alone knows or cares a damn about anything north of Watford. Some nut shouting on the Tube, crossing the street if he sees yahoo looking types ahead– that is likely his contact with NASTY. It is a remarkable feature of urban life how polar opposite worlds can exist within a few miles of each other yet not interact–much. Even something like the London riots only give the comfortable a tiny clue about life elsewhere.
As with the other two–all he cares about is his own nice little existence.
Let us consider migration. Do I object to nice, well-educated business types coming over here to work and live? No. Is that mass migration? No it isn’t. Of the teaming masses of migrants in London alone, JA will pass legions on the street but see and interact with only a tiny fraction and most of those will be his social peers or those who run nice little businesses catering to the tastes he can afford.
What of mass migration?
Let us imagine for a moment that migration has no dark side. That everybody who comes here is a nice person within their own mores. Would that make such migration acceptable to me any many of the millions of the “Great Unwashed” like me who may or may not support UKIP?
No.
This land is ours. I don’t mind if modest numbers of people from outside come here. Chinatowns, takeaways, restaurants , ethnic communities. In moderate numbers –fine.
But ethnic invasions and takeovers –NO.
Hundreds of thousands or indeed cumulatively millions–not forgetting the amounts of taxpayer cash that go to subsidise large families that native taxpayers would be very hard pressed to afford. Not even if these were all nice people.
Their ways are not ours. While some foreign input is ok–takeover is not.
I want to live in England. If I fancied Bangladeshi ways I would go to Bangladesh. If I want to walk down the street hearing only Polish spoken I would fucking go to Poland. That way I would get what I want with out imposing it on everybody else. What I don’t want is these countries being brought here en masse by social-engineering, well-off white, middle-class cultural Marxist pricks. Esp as I know their desire is to have me and my white kin be reduced to nothing or exterminated altogether ( the fact these scum are white themselves is the joke—they imagine they and theirs will abide in the NICE bubble forever).
A commentator now banned on here over a dispute about an educational qualification (I won’t name him but I like to acknowledge if I quote) gives a nice example.
Say you have a village of vegan nudists–doing nicely. Then a group of black-clad, meat eating Calvinists arrive. They don’t like the nudity or the food but the climate, opportunities are great and they prosper. They send for their friends/relatives etc and soon word gets around and more and more Calvinists arrive and breed.
Very soon you no longer have a vegan village. You have a town of Calvinists who have no time for and get busy stamping out food-faddery and disgusting nude displays.
That is what they have been trying to do. And they are going to fail.
Now lets get back to reality. Migrants are not all sweetness and light. They cost us money. They are not all self-supporting business types.
Their ordinary beliefs and actions may be God-awful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlqXgXwzkPg
Beyond that:
Migrants are most certainly NOT all good people–and mass arrivals=mass import of trouble.
The great Doug Casey says it for me in his dictum that across all human beings 80% of people are ordinary–and thus OK. ( Although being “ordinary” means that in themselves they will do little harm–they will obey authority and do what their often psychopathic leaders tell them to).
20% of people are “dodgy”. You never quite know how you’ve got them. Something of the night, the shadow abides in them. You can’t quite trust them. Should you lose your wallet it wouldn’t be one of these who brings it back to you or hands it in.
20% of the 20% (4%) are outright criminals –thugs, thieves rapists etc.
20% of that 20% ( just under 1%) are real scum–ranging from gangsters, killers to monsters like Mao, Hitler and Uncle Joe.
Migrants arriving in mass numbers have created mass crime and mass problems.
Dear Jeffrey is unlikely to be having to try and get help from an entirely uninterested PC/Labour controlled police force because his daughter is being used as a sexual plaything by a gang of white Britons. Nor does he give a shit if any of the oiks north of Watford have to.
He simply cares not for that which affects him not. We appear to have successfully spread the “I’m Alright Jack” maxim if nothing else.
If Jeffery A, you think that I and millions more are going to stand by while mass migration–which affects US not you–is allowed to continue when stopping it was one of the planks of opposition to the tinpot tyranny of the EU–you have another think coming. Me and mine are not going to allow ourselves and our future to be as a despised 2nd or 3rd class minority in a country we helped build.
Now if some points system can be worked out whereby you and your well-off pals can come and go as you please fine—but there are not going to be any mass arrivals of the current batch of 18-30 yobs infesting Germany coming over here or mass arrivals of Turks ( a small number of Turkish business types for you to trade with-fine: altho we should make bloody sure no Kesar Soze types are amongst them-we have enough crims already). Any Turk who feels like wandering over here to settle–NO.
Those in this country who think like that number millions : we aren’t going away and we aren’t having our country taken off us and given to new arrivals.
Get used to it.
Pardone writes: As such, foreigners should be encouraged to leave the country in large numbers to prevent civil unrest, as tensions are becoming very, very nasty.
The kind of people who are hurling abuse at Polish builders, Czech waitresses, Bulgarian gardeners and French software engineers are the sort who should be deported, I would say.
It is going to be fascinating to watch as the real fault-lines open up in the UK, not between Brexit/Remain, but between those who have a broadly liberal, pro-enterprise, confident and optimistic view of life and its possibilities, and those who take a zero-sum view of the world, and who lash out at “foreigners”.
I wonder how many closeted Leavers there were amongst the Conservative MPs? According to the BBC there were 185 Remainers, and 138 Leavers. But as we know quite a few MPs were pressured to be Remainers, and they might really be (spineless) Leavers. There’ll be less pressure now for them to stay Remainers
But I suspect most of the MP vote will involve politics, personalities, tactics and personal advancement rather than principle.
Gove isn’t running, so it’s no use wishing for him. Neither is David Davis (at the moment, and even if he did he wouldn’t get anywhere).
Jeremy Hunt wants the new leader to call an early election or a new referendum before they ever invoke Article 50, creepy little Remainer that he is.
The Samzadatierie is probably more of a particular genetic structure than a cross section of UK political tissue.
Having been absent from the UK for so long now, I defer to the likelihood of better perspectives on the part of current residents.
As to the “staff officer,” “general” analogy one might consider that Michael Gove falls in the category of a Field Officer on the front lines with the public and the issues of its direct concerns; just as field staff officers are closer to the troops and the actualities in the field.
Field officers are closest to the determining factors and concentrate upon what must and can be done.
Generals are more closely associated with objectives formed by other factors; concentrating on what ought to be done.
Perhaps it is time, politically and socially, in the UK, as it is here in the US, for Colonels Not Generals.
It is not a collective thought, it is just an opinion, and in and of itself has no bearing on individual freedom. Unless it serves as basis for legislation and public policy – then it becomes a whole different ballgame.
It is a construct like any other, and as such is perfectly benign, and therefore people should in fact be allowed to create it (or any other construct). Plus, it is not created to restrict freedom, but is often used to do the same. Big difference.
Seriously, people should be allowed to think and say whatever they like, no matter how stupid (and racism is stupid, more than anything else) – as long as others are free to disagree or just ignore. And can’t we once and for all just accept that there will always be someone somewhere who does not like us for our skin color/sex/religion/sexual preference/any number of other stupid reasons? Big frigging deal.
I think this is a great opportunity to restore Britain, not only on the EU question. All the awful people were on the other side, and to the victor the spoils.
My fantasy Cabinet
For all his faults, Boris won his war. And we still need him. With Gove counting himself out, he is the only Brexiteer who can win; without Boris, we’ll be stuck with a Remainer to sabotage our exit. Boris for PM.
Gove is clearly the right-hand man, a top-class staff officer. He is also well-known to be both steely in his determination (in his fights with the blob at Education) and so unfailing polite and charming even die-hard opponents love him in person. Gove for Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for European Affairs.
The Chancellor must also be someone who is absolutely committed to Leave, and believes Britain has a bright future and a plan for how to bring it about. The Chair of Vote Leave has, ex officio, earnt a big promotion. He also sits on the Treasury Select Committee, which fellow MPs will concede shows relevant experience. And he’s as Sound as a gold-backed Pound. Steve Baker for Chancellor.
David Davis played little role in the campaign, but was on the right side and believes in restoring English liberties. Davis for Home Secretary.
Theresa Villiers has a legal background; Liam Fox is an actual doctor. Villiers for Justice and Fox for Health.
The Business Department will be much more important than it usually is, as we pick our way through the thicket of EU regulation and decide what to cut back, what must stay. This needs someone who has shown guts, as it will require facing down every special interest in the land. Leadsom for Business.
Chris Grayling was another “big” voice on the Leave side, and he has enough political clout to demand a job or else be a problem outside. Popular with the Tory right, he is a menace to civil liberties and mustn’t be allowed near anything like the Home Office. Give Grayling Defence.
Priti Patel has the personal characteristics and, we now know, the willingness and gumption to confound the Politically Correct blob, although she doesn’t seem smart or experienced enough for something truly critical. Patel for Communities and Local Government.
Liz Truss was on the wrong side, but has come out early to back Boris. Moreover, she was very close to Gove at Education and will be loyal as well as committed to completing Gove’s reforms. Truss for Education.
The above are all dead-serious proposals. Now I would also really like to propose Dan Hannan for Foreign Secretary. Unfortunately, he’s not an MP, and one of the great offices of State simply isn’t going to go to someone outside Parliament. Make Hannan Minister of State for Trade (and, unofficially, the Anglosphere); at least until a safe seat comes free. Find someone else to be Minister of State for International Security and they’re essentially job-sharing the Foreign Secretary role anyway. Gove can add the title to his well-deserved list of honours.
That leaves plenty of more minor offices to be scattered around to buy off troublemakers and show a pretence of unifying outreach. But nothing important that they can screw up except Health, which is an inherent screw-up anyway.
Farage has no place in a Tory government, and plainly cannot work constructively with anyone. But nonetheless he deserves our nation’s thanks and its highest honours. The Dukedom of Kent is already taken, but the Earldom of Essex, previously held by Thomas Cromwell, is now vacant. Let’s make the first new hereditary peerage in living memory: if there is any backsliding, let him give them Hell from the Lords. Farage for Earl of Essex.
Ed, may I suggest rephrasing ethnic invasions to cultural ones?
I held my nose and went to ConservativeHome for a look. They say “Assuming the position is contested, this will be the first time in British history that a Prime Minister will be elected directly to office by the membership of a political party”.
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/06/the-1922-committee-rejects-any-changes-to-the-leadership-election-rules-and-seeks-a-swift-decision.html
Nominations close Thursday at noon.
New leader will be announced by Sep 2, apparently. (But as I remember the Conservative leadership rules, you can only eliminate two candidates a week if you start with more than 3, so if there are a lot of candidates they’ll have to get on with it soon.)
Sorry, my last comment should have been addressed to Mr. Ecks, not Mr. Ed :-/
Alisa–yes I accept that. I wrote the piece at speed.
Alisa,
I am not sure that constructs are benign if you wish to impose them on other people – that is the point they start to be harmful by limiting the actions of others. So a construct that means people are unwilling to engage with people who look different to them is essentially a construct that limits their freedom of interaction. If they choose not to interact with those people fine, but if they find themselves not interacting with them because of the imposition of a construct upon themselves then it is clearly harmful. Oh, and those that create racism, or religious differentation or whatever tend to actually be doing so to create harm, both to those excluded and those included who are kept from their own free will. So I do not accept all constructs are benign – indeed, I would be happier to argue all social constructs are inherently harmful as they limit interaction (a logical point of view which means I should end up opposing marriage I suppose, which is fine but my wife will not be happy…).
Incidentally, a corollary of this is that constructs such as self-defined ethnic identities or religions are not something that we can protect in any way, and are open to attack (not literally – that is harm to the individual…). So it is not racism to attack someone over them claiming to be black as this is simply them claiming an identity, which you can dispute (identity being both personal and public), but to do so because you assume they are black on the basis of appearance is clearly unacceptable.
I suspect the issue here is actually how I define racism, which is the act not the thought. It is fine for people to think, write or say whatever the hell they want about anyone. But to act on this in a way that causes harm is clearly outside what is acceptable. And racism, which by any sensible definition requires actual actions, is therefore not thought. If I had written my post with the idea of racism as thought (a progressive favourite it appears) in mind, then it would indeed be worth criticising on the grounds you used, so I apologise for lack of clarity. I suspect we might still disagree about the use of deliberately offensive language to an individual mind you…
Life Peers only came in in the 1960s, and in living memory there have been many hereditary peers, albeit iirc none of the first creation are alive today. Most recent that I recall, the Earl of Stockton, Viscounts Tonypandy and Whitelaw.
And we could then restore the custom of a significant peerage for a retiring Prime Minister for Mr Cameron, but give it, as an eternal tribute to him, a european twist, and make him not an Earl but a Count, and should there be an unfortunate typo in the gazetting of his title, so be it.
Thread winner.
Jeremy Hunt wants to both stay in the single market (EEA) but reject free movement of people (and then have an election).
Do you think he’s trying to mislead, or just generally ignorant of the rules of the EEA?
There is of course the Leichenstein option which Richard North has brought up, and which has been mentioned here, which may allow both, but Hunt says nothing about that, and it’s certainly not some automatic thing, so I’d say Hunt is not talking about that.
BTW I have doubts about whether the Leichenstein option is really viable for the UK. It’s one thing to restrict freedom of movement to a tiny nation which could easily have its native population outnumbered by immigrants. That doesn’t mean that the EU would grant it to a very large country. And I don’t think it would. For one thing, that would open up the door to loads of other countries wanting that, and then freedom of movement would virtually disappear. I think the EU would rather see Britain out altogether than give them that.
Watchman:
I am sure they are. It is not the construct that is harmful (no matter what that construct is), it is the imposition – and imposition is harmful even if the construct seems benign or even positively good on its own.
Sorry Watchman, but I have no idea what you mean by this…
What is wrong with limiting interaction? I rather prefer limiting my interaction to people I like, need, etc., for whatever reasons (which properly are entirely mine). I don’t find black/homosexuals yucky – but if others do, so what? I’m Jewish, some people don’t like Jews – well, so they will not interact with me, and I will reciprocate. Nothing wrong with that, as far as I can see.
True. If I dislike black people, I may take the action of avoiding them, and they should be free to reciprocate. Again, see no problem with that whatsoever.
Bottom line, Watchman, at least to me, is that as long as I’m left alone to live my life as I please, I really don’t care what people I don’t know think or feel about other people, including myself. I’d rather spend time and energy living my life, instead of worrying how others live theirs. As long as there is no imposition (by which I mean violence or threat thereof), it is none of my business. Let racists live in their white/black/brown communities, socialists in their Utopian communes, etc. It is their lives, and they should be free to feel, think, say and do whatever they want.
Watchman, I do understand now that part that I asked you about. I agree.
I was wrong, Lord Snowden.
ConservativeHome – where the thick air their opinions
jefferyA: I can fully understand why you hate current UKIP polices. But one thing that isn’t at all obvious is that a LOT (not all, perhaps not even half, but a lot) of us are libertarians (of various degrees of purity) who see exit from the EU as a first and vital step towards a more liberal and libertarian society. Many have been prepared to bite their tongues and go along with the recent “red UKIP” and populist policies as the only viable route to the outside. And once we’re truly out of the EU, either UKIP will change back to the libertarian-lite party it used to be, or it will lose many of its key people. If it were not for UKIP, and if not for the support and funding that many libertarians have given it, we’d have not had the referendum. Hence it gets a little less hate over here than might be expected.
Mr Ecks, you might want to learn about the merits of brevity. Why not simply say that with immigration, it is the numbers that make the difference? I also found your comments directed at JA to be extremely patronising. I am sure he is aware of the downsides of mass immigration.
Japan takes a Jus sanguinis position on nationality and as a result has a high quality of life
Jonathan Pearce, You may not like some of what Mr Ecks has said or the way in which he has said it but I rather feel that most readers will want to be associated with his comments. I certainly do!!!
Opinions vary on their quality of life to be honest. More to the point, correlation is not the same as causation.
Alisa,
I agree that we can let people do what they want – as if there was a choice (as governments repeatedly fail to learn) – but my issue here is with what we can accept. Remember my starting point was that racism was not preferable to Islamic fundamentalists, but was simply a currently less powerful version of the same sort of thought, and should be treated the same. And it may be a bit contrary to many people on here, but I feel that we have to fight for freedom against anything that threatens it, not just government. The individual is paramount, and anything that lessens their choice is harmful. So I tend to therefore object to portraying a constructed mindset which seeks to harm the ‘other’ (and therefore likely harms its adherents) as less of a threat, simply because at the moment none of its adherents are able to execute their desires. By all means let people get together and construct racist groups, but for the defence of freedom the appropriate action is to seek to undermine them rather than tolerate them (although in the same way as I defend the right of Muslims to associate with each other, I do have to defend the right of racists to do so).
Ultimately I suppose I agree – people can be racists if they want. They can also be Islamic fundamentalists if they want. Their choice, but we cannot defend one without the other, which is where I started from. From my point of view, both seek to cause harm and should be challenged. Plus both types are composed of total morons who we should point at and laugh whenever possible…
“Farage for Earl of Essex.” Ooh, I like that (not that I have any say I the matter).
Quiet Kipper,
I was flirting with joining UKIP a while ago, when they suddenly decided to go for blatant populism by opposing gay marriage, which was the least libertarian thing possible to do in the circumstances. Since then I have developed a healthy dislike of a party which has also suggested nationalisation and seems opposed to free movement of people (although to be fair I would be delighted if they started seizing northern seats from Labour – not for the result, but because something smashed the Labour block vote). I am not inclined to believe they are at all libertarian, even if some members are, as the policies speak for themselves. Farage himself is a clear populist, and the fact some people seem to be seeing him as a hero for the leave vote strikes me as worrying – you might as well celebrate Dennis Skinner, who has been opposed to the EU even longer and is equally unattractive in his political leanings.
UKIP were necessary, but my worry is that UKIP will continue on their present road (and, although I am less worried about this, take over from Labour as the statist party). I am not sure the party is going away, and I am not sure that Mr Farage is going away either…
But Watchman, the assertion that the racist mindset seeks to harm the ‘other’ is entirely unsubstantiated, at least in the case of racism. Why do you suppose someone who does not like blacks/whites/Asians will necessarily want to harm them? I see no basis for such an assertion, and both my reason and experience* tell me that some racists will, while others won’t. And even if I was wrong, I am not going to deny people the right to their convictions on the mere possibility that they may act on them violently.
*I happen to know more than a couple of people who think that black Africans are mentally inferior. Some of these people are not very bright, others are just wrong. None of them are violent in any way – quite the contrary.
Islam, Communism, and other violent ideologies are a totally different matter, and I don’t see how they belong in this discussion at all.
Ahem, a poorly constructed sentence there – oh well…
Indeed. Bigotry, populism, socialism, etc., are not going away – all are parts of the human nature, and as such are to stay with us forever. So if UKIP continues down that path, voters who oppose that path will not vote for it. Still works better than no possibility of voting at all.
I don’t know, having UKIP replace Labour has some merit.
They might be nasty, but at least they wouldn’t be socialist in the traditional sense and I doubt they’d ever get enough MP’s to form a government.
Frankly anything which permanently excludes the socialists from government in this country has to be a good thing.
Don’t forget that UK Electoral Boundary Changes due in time for the 2020 election will make a Conservative victory much more likely.
So a good showing now will significantly improve chances of the Tory’s winning the 2020 election.
Anyone but Theresa May. David Davis preferably.
Interesting post.
Johnathon Pearce:”Mr Ecks, you might want to learn about the merits of brevity. Why not simply say that with immigration, it is the numbers that make the difference? I also found your comments directed at JA to be extremely patronising. I am sure he is aware of the downsides of mass immigration.”
If you don’t like it don’t read it.
As for “patronising” JeffreyA–I’m sure he understands the downside of mass migration –and from the “UKIP=NAZI” tone of his posts–tho’ he doesn’t quite have the nerve to say it straight–I am equally sure he couldn’t care less so long as he is not affected.
JeffreyA,
A culture is cohesive insofar as individuals in society can navigate their lives without experiencing friction with others. This tends to be true insofar as people in a society share similar values, speak the same language, hold similar outlooks on life, and believe the same false beliefs (whether that’s about democracy being a wonderful thing or Jesus Christ). It’s a good thing for people to be able to go about their lives without friction with other people.
You’re non-conformist. Congrats. As a secular Jew who views the Enlightenment with scorn, views democracy with disgust, favors of hereditary monarchy, and considers left-wing Progressivism to be a cancerous secular religion destroying the West’s social fabric and beneficial cultural traditions, I’m a non-conformist too.
I don’t vote and I try to avoid having preferences in democratic elections (Brexit was too beautiful to resist) but my sensibility is very much High Tory conservatism because I understand that most human beings do best when living with similar people. Don’t let your personal non-conformity get in the way of realizing this.
Racist Englishmen (mostly) don’t intend to do it, but their racism slows the social change that is decimating the cultural traditions and legal precedents that have rendered the Western world relatively tolerant, relatively prosperous, and (at certain times) a place of somewhat smaller government than other places.
JeffreyA,
A nation controlling its own borders is not neo-fascist. UKIP is not neo-fascist. Even racism is not neo-fascist. Relax.
But can you name one way to prevent political Islam from conquering the West besides keeping Muslims out of the country?
1. Are you going to write laws outlawing political Islam? These laws will be overturned or reinterpreted.
2. Are you going to convince moderate Muslims to oppose their extreme fellow Muslims? Every human needs religion and the track record of converting Muslims to Progressivism is pretty terrible. Plus, just FYI, the primary purpose of Islamic terrorist attacks in Western nations (regardless of what anyone says) is to alienate moderate Muslims from the broader Western societies in which they live. They are succeeding and the attacks will inevitably continue.
3. Are you going to eradicate the UK’s democratic institutions and eliminate its representative system of government? You have my moral support but not my financial support because I don’t invest in losing ventures.
Johnathan,
Charming. So let me get this straight.
People who want the government to take 80% of people’s income by force should be debated. People who want to make it illegal for parents to educate their own children instead of sending them to public school should be debated. And racists should be deported by force.
Furthermore, as I recall from a previous thread, you are in favor of open borders (assuming there’s no welfare) – except, it appears, for those with the wrong opinions.
Please, Johnathan, don’t mistake your prejudice for libertarianism.
If you think that the people who favor continued mass immigration into the UK entirely or even mostly “have a broadly liberal, pro-enterprise, confident and optimistic view of life” then you are in for a very, very rude awakening. And if you think that people who oppose mass immigration into the UK are necessarily racist or that racists necessarily have a zero-sum view of the world, then you are misguided.
Racist Englishmen (mostly) don’t intend to do it, but their racism slows the social change that is decimating the cultural traditions and legal precedents that have rendered the Western world relatively tolerant, relatively prosperous, and (at certain times) a place of somewhat smaller government than other places. Don’t worry, though. The social change is inevitable and as big as the UK’s government is now, it’s going to get a lot bigger particularly as mass immigration continues – as I expect it will.
Heard on the news today that the main candidates rarely make it to the final. How about Owen Paterson as the dark horse contender.
@shlomo maistre:
So all 17,410,742 of the people that voted “Leave” are racists?
Wow. Who’d have thought?
John Galt,
I’m the one who already said that it’s misguided to think that those who want less immigration are necessarily racists because most are not. It might be worthwhile to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.
I understand that you aren’t happy that your argument in favor of a pro-Remain Tory becoming Prime Minister was so thoroughly discredited, but tilting at windmills is not a great solution.
Shlomo, I made my comment after Pardone wrote this jaw-dropper: “As such, foreigners should be encouraged to leave the country in large numbers to prevent civil unrest, as tensions are becoming very, very nasty.”
That is incendiary stuff, of the sort that brings about the very unrest Pardone claims to want to avoid.
Pardone could, if he/she/it had wanted, been clearer about what “foreigners” were being discussed, and the context or how they came to be in the UK. If he/she/it meant convicted criminals, or supporters of violent jihad, etc, then that point would have had some force. But that isn’t what happened. This individual called for “very large numbers” of foreigners, with no clarification, to go. And one assumes that if the “encouragement” did not work, then more forceful methods would be used. So one has to assume that Pardone didn’t just mean jihadists and other certified troublemakers, but all manner of people from across Europe, as well.
Furthermore, as I recall from a previous thread, you are in favor of open borders (assuming there’s no welfare) – except, it appears, for those with the wrong opinions.
Like Perry de Havilland, I favour open borders minus welfare, yes. I am glad you remembered. As for “wrong opinions”, I don’t recall saying any such thing.
If you think that the people who favor continued mass immigration into the UK entirely or even mostly “have a broadly liberal, pro-enterprise, confident and optimistic view of life” then you are in for a very, very rude awakening.
Rubbish. It may be that some advocates of mass immigration with no conditions + access to welfare want to destroy Western civilisation, but I am talking about free movement within the EU, with some controls in place, and with the welfare caveat and importance of integration made very clear as part of the package. There is no doubt in my mind that most of those Leavers I know favour immigration and free movement for the reasons stated, and not as part of some desire to cause trouble. I suppose that some might harbour dark desires, but they hide it well.
Does the end really justify the means?
Depends what the ends and means are. You will need to explain what your point is. The post is talking about the next Tory leader. Or are you responding to a comment?
Emob : Does the end really justify the means?
P de H : Depends what the ends and means are.
This really can’t be repeated often enough, or in big enough type. The objection to ends justifying means is to Bolshevik-style morality by which any means may be used to achieve the end. Each dead Kulak (means) on the road to communism (end) weighs nothing at all in the moral balance.
For people with moral compasses, particular ends may justify particular means, and moral calculation is required to discover whether there is justification or not, in each case.
In this case, the means- using UKIP, which may include some people with rather old fashioned views on brown people – as a stick to beat the backsliding mendacious Tories with is not a very terrible means. They’re not fascists. Even the voters they pull from Labour are mainstream Labour voters from 1970, and way way more liberal on social issues than most Britons who fought in the war…against the fascist powers. Chill.
The idea that a politician paying attention to the will of the People is now a fault is interesting.
I don’t know why a lot of the non-British people who have been working as professionals here for years and who now claim to be worried about being kicked out haven’t previously applied for permenent residency (those who eligible, at least). You can get that in most cases if you’ve been here for 5 years. There are a few other restrictions — I think they changed the law about 4 years ago so you had to be earning over 35k, that change was to take place this year sometime. But anyone who could have done so before now should have done so. It was never guaranteed that you would be able to stay in the country indefinitely — there was always the chance they’d change the rules. It wasn’t like you had to take out citizenship and give up your existing citizenship. You just got the right to stay indefinitely. If you were eligible it was a no-brainer to apply.
I predict a flood of applications for permanent residency now.
Johnathan,
Well, you suggested deporting those who “hurl abuse at Polish builders, Czech waitresses, Bulgarian gardeners and French software engineers”. So I guess holding the opinions is fine but if you voice it then that’s ground for deportation in your book. I realize Pardone’s remark was quite incendiary but I don’t really see how that justifies wanting to deport those who voice impolite or even offensive views.
I’m sure that most of the people in your social circle who favor continued mass immigration into the UK can be quite fairly categorized as having “a broadly liberal, pro-enterprise, confident and optimistic view of life” – but your social circle is not too representative of the UK in general.
Most British people who favor continued mass immigration into the UK are Progressives, establishment elites, immigrants themselves, and ethnic/religious minorities. All of these groups comprise the core voter bases of political parties (primarily Labour and Lib Dems and also to some extent SNP and Green) that are explicitely anti-enterprise and illiberal (both objectively and even relative to most other political parties). So it’s quite clear that being in favor of continued mass immigration into the UK is strongly correlated with favoring policies that are intrinsically illiberal and harmful to free enterprise. This outlook is not confident of the future but genuinely indicative of the zero-sum perspective on economics you are opposed to.
Yes, there are libertarians and assorted others who are exceptions to this pattern; they are I suspect vastly over-represented in your world. Libertarians comprise perhaps 3% of the UK population. They are a minuscule exception to an otherwise consistent trend: favoring continued mass immigration into the UK is generally correlated with supporting illiberal and anti-enterprise policies.
Watchman,
Racism is not collective thought; it is an opinion about other people. We all generalize all the time, which is handy because life would suck if we had to relearn that fire is hot every time we see a flame. Although maybe you Marxists do that to avoid prejudice, it wouldn’t surprise me.
More seriously, I don’t accept racist Englishmen any more or less than I accept racist Japanese, racist Russians, racist Persians, the sun rising in the East, the sun falling in the West, or the rain – on occasion – falling. You see, racism is unfortunately inevitable; every group has its dickheads; it is a consequence of an intrinsic aspect of the human psyche: preference for similarity.
I can look at most people on earth and guess with quite high precision what race they are. I can do this because each person’s innate physical appearance is almost entirely a consequence of his/her genetic makeup. A person’s genes do what they do partly because of how that person’s ancestors’ genes evolved – and for most of the preceding millennia most peoples of the world evolved in relative isolation. That’s how it came to be that Asian people broadly look different than European people, etc.
This isn’t a construct anymore than our classification of different breeds of dogs is a construct. Please kindly purge yourself of Marxist bullshit. Thanks.
Shlomo, now you are being a twerp. “Well, you suggested deporting those who “hurl abuse at Polish builders, Czech waitresses, Bulgarian gardeners and French software engineers”; I was forcing Pardone to accept that calling for the mass deportation of “foreigners” was an incendiary act, a call for illegality and for the persecution of potentially hundreds of thousands, millions, of people. And in a sort of hard-edged jest I suggested it would be better if Pardone could be shown the door. Of course in reality he/she is free to express an opinion, however hateful, incendiary or stupid so long as he does not make very specific threats.
I’m sure that most of the people in your social circle who favor continued mass immigration into the UK can be quite fairly categorized as having “a broadly liberal, pro-enterprise, confident and optimistic view of life” – but your social circle is not too representative of the UK in general.
Well it may be true that a more “representative” section of the UK population is hateful, racist, depressed, pessimistic, irrational, and so on. But I think the opposite is the case. I think even most of those who are concerned about mass immigration can understand, and do understand, that it is mass immigration + Welfare State and minus any requirement to integrate that is the problem. Many of those who voted Leave last week weren’t motivated by a “kick the foreigners out” sort of sentiment, although significant numbers are.
The idea that supporting mass immigration correlates with socialism/protectionism is also unproven, unless you are able and willing to provide some data to back up that assertion. The UK economy is relatively free versus that of continental Europe, and the UK has been a place seeing lots of immigration. People tend to emigrate to countries that are growing; growing countries tend also to be more liberal than stagnant ones. I admit that is a very broad statement, but no less precise than your very sweeping assertions.
Johnathan Pearce,
Okay. Fair enough. But I wasn’t being a twerp; I was sperging…. lol 🙂
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sperg
Because people who aren’t “broadly liberal, pro-enterprise, [and have a] confident, and optimistic view of life” are certainly “hateful, racist, depressed, pessimistic, irrational”. Makes sense.
Old age, being native born, and being white are all correlated with less support for immigration AND more support for more liberal and pro-enterprise political parties in the UK. Ethnic minorities, immigrants and young people are all more likely to want more immigration and vote for Lib Dem, Labor, and Green over Tory/UKIP.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3575/How-Britain-voted-in-2015.aspx?view=wide
This link shows that old people & whites were more likely to vote for less illiberal & more pro-enterprise parties.
http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/files/publications/Migrant_Voters_2015_paper.pdf
This link shows that of the 20 constituencies outside London with the highest share of migrant voters – in 2010 17 of these 20 elected Labour MPs, 1 Respect, 1 Lib Dem, and 1 Conservative.
On page 15 you can see that among migrants the net approval of immigration’s cultural and economic impact are 36% and 31% respectively. In contrast, among native born the net disapproval of immigration’s cultural and economic impact -21% and -26%.
http://www.oecd.org/els/mig/48328734.pdf
This link shows that old people, whites, and recent immigrants are more likely to support more immigration and less restrictive immigration policy.
And one day, the young will be old, and the scales of the Left will fall from the eyes of some of them.
Welfare is not the only problem within the context of immigration as it exists today. Other problems that make mass immigration, especially from countries where cultures are materially different from that of the target country, are anti-discrimination laws, anti-gun laws, labor laws, and probably other laws that elude me at the moment.
Two things:
1. “This link shows that old people, whites, and recent immigrants are more likely to support more immigration and less restrictive immigration policy.”
Should have said:
This link shows that young people, ethnic minorities, and recent immigrants are more likely to support more immigration and less restrictive immigration policy.
2. Obviously I mean ‘liberal’ in the way its used in the UK (small government/Manchester liberalism/laissez faire) not how it’s used in the USA (Progressivism/Keynesianism/big government)
Alisa : probably other laws that elude me at the moment
Threats to liberty do not all come from law. If it is common for young ladies in Littleendia to go out dancing and drinking of an evening, and the Littleendian culture is quite happy with them doing so, then Littleendian young ladies can enjoy their liberty to party unmolested.
Bigendia has a different culture. Young ladies are expected to stay home and knit, and definitely not go out unless they’re all burqa’d up. If they don’t they can expect to be raped, beaten up, slashed with knives and so on by passing strangers. Their families though, will treat them differently. They’ll kill ’em if they go out on the razzle.
Sadly a tidal wave strikes Bigendia and many Bigendian refugees flee to Littleendia. Mostly men as it turns out.
For three marks, predict the effect on the liberties of Littleendian party girls. You may assume Littleendian laws remain unchanged. Write on both sides of the paper.
Indeed Lee Moore.
Bravo.
To rephrase:
I am able to walk through Harlem/Compton/Detroit at 2 AM carrying $1 million cash in a clear briefcase without facing any coercion from poor people according to the law.
But I’m not so free to do so according to reality.
An extreme example, but the point stands: at the end of the day it’s human behavior that primarily defines reality and it’s reality that permits individuals to enjoy their legal rights freely.
Of course not. But in a free societies, young ladies, as well as their friends and families, can carry guns to defend themselves, their communities are free to ostracize men who behave in ungentlemanly manner – to the point of refusing their custom in local businesses, they can speak up publicly against certain groups perceived as unfriendly to their way of life, etc. Things like that, combined with the absence of government “welfare” tend to keep out people who do not fit well into the local culture.
True, and reality (of which government-made laws and other forms of coercion and violence are an integral part) defines human behavior, and vice versa, ad infinitum. It is a feedback loop.
Welfare is not the only problem within the context of immigration as it exists today. Other problems that make mass immigration, especially from countries where cultures are materially different from that of the target country, are anti-discrimination laws, anti-gun laws, labor laws, and probably other laws that elude me at the moment.
Agreed. A problem with when someone like me defends migration is that it is tiresome to have to put in all these qualifiers, etc, so as to calm the fevered brows of those who see immigrants as invaders. I kind of assume that it should not be necessary to keep spelling it out on this blog, but then I forget that some commentators here haven’t been following the site all that long.
Indeed 🙂
Anyway, we are way off topic from the original posting. I guess I should not rise to the bait from someone fantasising about mass deportations of “foreigners”. Hopefully whoever becomes leader of the Tory Party will treat such desires with the contempt they merit.
>I guess I should not rise to the bait from someone fantasising about mass deportations of “foreigners”.
Not going to happen even if Farage himself becomes PM. Even if he wanted to do it.
Theresa May as PM? Saints preserve us.
I remember her standing in her tiger skin shoes with kitten heels before the tory conference following the 1997 election, telling the gathered faithful that many viewed the Tories as the nasty party, and that therefore they had to change. She, in that speech, instead of defending the party and policies the membership supported, conceded that they should henceforth allow their enemies to choose the issues and grounds on which they fought. I have loathed her as an appeaser ever since that day, and I see no reason to see her any different now.
She, on that day, initiated the ‘modernisation’ project which has done so much to alienate the core supporters.
Kick her out.
Lee Moore (June 29, 2016 at 9:39 am) ” … Sadly a tidal wave strikes Bigendia and many Bigendian refugees flee to Littleendia. Mostly men as it turns out. …”
The ‘mostly men’ would mean that, while the tidal wave doubtless did harm and cause some genuine refugees, significant numbers have used it as an opportunity for unforced, economic migration. In a refugee event, young men are underrepresented. In an economic migration, young men are overrepresented.
Talk of being simply “anti-foreigner” is pretty silly. Is Switzerland anti- or pro- ? Well, they are very pro for some – 20% if Switzerland’s population is foreign – and very anti for others. Their ‘department of strangers’ use many means (including bureaucratic ineptitude and obstructionism) to ensure that those who they let in made their case for being a benefit. One could regard their bureaucratic absurdities as a clever check. When an official tells a 23-years-married woman that it’s unacceptable that her husband’s name be Rick on her wedding certificate but Richard on his passport, and order her to ensure the long-dead priest who conducted the service corrects this disgraceful error, maybe her ability to control herself instead of screaming with rage and strangling him signifies her passing an important test. (No it doesn’t, alas – but I can testify from my own lesser experiences with them that if you can endure them then you are a law-abiding self-controlled person.)
The difference is precisely the one articulated in the referendum: do we have control or do we have no control?
It should have been “those whom they let in” above. Maybe we should test immigrants for grammar; it would keep the numbers down, but of the aim were to preserve our native British culture then British natives would need to be exempt from the test. 🙂
Whether the Bigendians are economic migrants or refugees isn’t really relevant to the minor disagreement I have with Alisa. Alisa’s well armed natives can deal with badly behaved economic migrants just as well as they can deal with badly behaved refugees. The question is, in both cases, how well ?
My problem is an inability to reconcile my theoretical approval for maximum liberty, with my belief that the world is a grubby messy place with lots of actors who are only marginally rational, and even more marginally tolerant of other people being free to do their thang. It’s not obvious to me that party going German girls arming themselves, is an ideal answer to the problem of marauding groups of young men, hundreds strong, recently arrived from outside Germany, who think molesting young women in public squares is a good thing. Isn’t it possible that the large groups of young men might also arm themselves ? And in the real world, the people with white hats don’t necessarily shoot straighter than the people with black hats.
So I think some shared cultural assumptions are required for people to rub along OK. Which is perfectly consistent with immigration. So long as the immigration proceeds at a pace that is consistent with cultural assimilation.
I shouldn’t worry about grammar, Niall. I think it was Henry Higgins who pointed out that the English are not instructed in their native language and anyone who keeps on getting it grammatically right is bound to be a foreigner.
My well-armed natives? Who would be those?
More to the point, Lee, you will note that my original comment was about immigration, not mass migration – which in fact does make the distinction between economic migrants and refugees material to this discussion, as far as the sheer numbers of people moving from one country to another are concerned.
Of course, numbers are not the only issue here, not to mention the fact that the connection between numbers and reasons for migration is not always straightforward. As pointed out earlier, it’s not just how many people are migrating and for what reason, but what kind of people (characteristics such as sex and age do matter). All these factors are interconnected, often quite complexly.
But that said, numbers are still the issue when it comes to the question who will control migration – free individuals and civil society (as I suggested in my original comment), or the government. If we are to have a State then we are to have national borders controlled by government. And in that case, there will be a more or less clear line between immigration (where people would be largely free to enter, possibly following some kind of cursory check), and mass migration following natural or political disasters (mostly the latter, I would guess), such as the one we are witnessing in Syria.
The mass-migration situations were the ones you were describing, and I agree that those are the ones where individuals (even armed ones) and civil society will probably be overwhelmed to the point of being left powerless. That is why we have national borders in the first place: to prevent invasions.
Cal, agreed that such a mass deportation isn’t likely, but you never know; it bothers me to see the idea of it being raised at all. That’s how bad shit happens. People like Pardone can’t be just written off as trolls.
(Editor: Comment deleted. Er, this was not even vaguely on-topic! This is a thread under an article about UK politics.)
Folks, please keep comments at least vaguely on topic with the article.
Deleted…
[Is that sufficiently on topic, Perry?]
… No, it was not. Stop trolling.