Sense, not prejudice

As one who has been involved with the movement to break with the European project for many decades I know that the reasons sensible and educated people oppose it is because of its undemocratic nature, its economic illiteracy and the threat it poses to our freedoms, not least by its intention of replacing our Common Law system of justice with the Napoleonic code. However, from the very first, those who disagree with us have refused to engage with the actual arguments but constantly accuse us of being motivated by xenophobia or racism, or both, something which asĀ  a Christian and a democrat I find exceedingly offensive.

They only do this because they know their own position will not stand examination so they seek instead to smear Eurorealists as ignorant and prejudiced. Of course we are not helped by those who, while claiming to support our cause, then make statements which any reasonable person would recognize as indeed prejudiced but the media never seems to realise that such people may be agent provocateurs who are seeking to undermine our position in the interests of the Europhiles. Even though such people are immediately rejected by the Eurorealist movement we are still criticised as supposedly harbouring racists when in fact every political party suffers from such stupidity, or perhaps deliberate malice.

However it is clear that our position on immigration, and in particular the absence of British control over our own borders, has resonated with the electorate and it is necessary to explain how this is not based on any animus directed towards other nations but is rather an expression of plain common sense.

One argument used by the Europhiles is that a nation with an ageing population must encourage immigration in order that the pensions of the older generation will be paid by the income derived from the incomers. This is an example of the well known Red Queen's race that appears in Lewis Carroll's "Though the Looking Glass" involving the Red Queen and Alice constantly running but remaining in the same spot. Is it not obvious that the immigrants will themselves age and will then require a further influx of newcomers to sustain their standard of living and that this must then continue until the population of the country runs to the hundreds of millions? Rather than ride this tiger a different solution must be found which perhaps will allow the older generation to work for longer and better provision to be made to support them when they do finally retire.

Another claim is that the immigrants are doing jobs that the British people themselves are unwilling to do. This is nonsense and would only be believed by prosperous metropolitan liberals, the same sort who used to say during the depression of the thirties that the unemployed were lazy and wouldn't work. Many people would be quite happy to take such jobs but of course the impact of large numbers of unskilled immigrants upon the labour market is such that unscrupulous employers offer such dire wages, and poor working conditions, that one could not maintain a decent standard of living for one's family if one accepted such employment.

A different argument is that the importation of large numbers of people from other countries is a net economic benefit in that they generate more wealth than they consume. This contention is at best questionable and many reports show that it is not true. However, even if there was some validity in the idea, it ignores the fact that a nation is not merely an economic unit. Taken to its logical conclusion one might allow fifty million hardworking and law abiding Chinese to move to the UK on the basis that they would thereby increase GDP and make the country more successful but, even if this were true, the resulting nation would no longer be recognisable as the UK.

It is doubtful that the self satisfied and arrogant Europhiles who advocate open borders have ever known what it was like to live in a depressed area of the country such as parts of the industrial North, where the old industries have gone, thanks to the incompetence of those who have directed our nation's affairs for decades, and a person might never find employment, however hard they tried. It is hardly surprising the the latter resent seeing those with no ties to this country working here when they themselves have not been able to find employment. This is not to say that they are in any way racist or xenophobic as there is a solidarity between working people of various nations which transcends such concepts but rather that they recognize that the much lower standard of living in the poorer sections of the EU make it possible for employers to use such differences to depress employment conditions in this country.

One thing that is certain is that none of these concerns are directed against the immigrants themselves, as one would be foolish indeed to treat a person on the basis of skin colour or country of origin, rather than as an individual. Those coming here are often only trying to better themselves and provide a good life for their families, something any decent person understands. It is the politicians who refuse to recognize the immense problems arising from unrestricted access from the EU that are to blame and against whom anger should be directed.

Even ignoring the absurdity of accusing British people of holding racist views directed against those of exactly the same Caucasian race as themselves our opponents ignore the fact that Eurorealists are not actually objecting as much to immigration as to the fact that the right to decide on what level it should be allowed has been transferred to the Brussels bureaucrats. Should the British people wish that the number of immigrants continue at the current rate then that is their decision and should be respected. If, however they do not, then the arrogant dictators of the EU should not be permitted to overrule them. This is yet another reason why control of our country should be returned to our elected representatives in Westminster and requires that we leave the EU now.