Immigration and British Workers: The Past, the Present and the Future

0 Flares 0 Flares ×

by John Davies

The aim of this article is to explore the consequence of the political establishments’ tendency to favour an open borders immigration policy on the working class of this nation. The article will take a narrative approach to the subject in hand, looking briefly at a number of acts before the new millennium and how they’ve affected the numbers economic situation of those most economically vulnerable to labour market fluctuations – the proletariat. Along with some suggestions of how we may rectify the situation and set, in accordance with popular will, the means to stop a repeat of this betrayal by our ruling elite – the people who are given material luxury as a reward for providing the leadership caucus for governance.

The golden path to Britain for the worlds destitute was first opened with the passing of the 1948 British Nationality Act, it was this Act that set in mention a series of social and demographic changes that would , within half a century, turn vast parts of our Britain into areas unrecognisable and alien to us. It was this Act that signalled to the world’s poor and hungry that the, then embryonic welfare state was willing to support and maintain those unable to provide for themselves, regardless, of the fact that these newcomers had not paid into a system that had been built by the sweat and blood of centuries of British workers, tradesmen, soldiers, and mothers who built this nation into a pillar of European civilization.

The Act itself was not intended to be the revolutionary harbinger of mass social and demographic chaos: nor was it intended on turning significant parts of our towns and cities into enclaves for cultures and social norms alien to our own traditions and cultures. But rather, was a piece of legislation passed in order to standardise the legal standing Commonwealth citizens would have when wanting to migrate to the United Kingdom – but, symbolically lead to the opening of our borders to millions.

Further liberalisation of immigration rules came in the shape of the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act, which allowed for all Commonwealth citizens to enter and stay in the UK without restriction – this has echoes of the current policy that exists between EU member states, which has allowed hundreds of thousands of Eastern European workers to swamp the Labour markets: out-competing British labour due to the lower average wages rates paid to Eastern European workers. This is unfair on both the British worker, who now has to compete for against additional competitors in a jobs market, already shrinking due to the outsourcing of industry, some of which has been, ironically, to Eastern Europe.

Then, in 1968 came the River of Blood speech, given by the famous politician and orator, Enoch Powell. It was one of the most audacious and against the post-war political consensus speeches ever given by a frontbench politician, and brought the issue of immigration to the front of the political agenda. The speech was, at the time, popular and resonated with large swathes of the British population who shared Enoch Powell’s fear that immigration would lead to disorder and civil unrest. The popularity of the speech can be verified by the sending of over 110,000 letters to Powell, with only 2,300 disproving of his stance. The dismissal of Powell from Edward Heath’s shadow cabinet was met with acts of solidarity from 2000 London dockworkers – who initiated a strike in support – and 400 meat porters who handed in a 92-page long petition in support of Powell.

But, besides the ostracising of Powell as a mainstream political figure, the establishment was in no way interested in acting in accordance with the national will of the British people and bar the temporary reduction in immigration in immediate reaction to the speech, the long term effect was negligible, with Thatcher and Major still being in the hundreds of thousands, but masked by the large number emigrating due to destruction of Britain’s industrial base and the baby-steeps of economic globalisation being felt.

Upon Tony Blair coming to power, immigration, especially from outside of Europe rose rapidly, mostly due to the repeal of the primary purpose rule – this rapid rise in immigrant numbers, has been proven to have not been an error on the governments part. But was, in fact, a deliberate attempt to permanently change the ethnic makeup of the British Isles – this has been confirmed by the former government advisor, Daniel Neather, in order to “rub the rights nose in diversity”. This great betrayal of the working class by successive governments – both Conservative and Labour, with tacit support from a complacent Liberal bloc, has shown that the traditional party dynamic has failed the British people.

This graph shows the astronomic increase in the level of immigration between the years, 1997-2008.
Both sides of the political paradigm – the left and the right have reason to support mass immigration. For the left, mass immigration is an ideological issue; they do not believe in the nation-state, they believe in internationalism, and that the difference between the proletariats of the world are less than those between the different social-economic classes with a nation: so, a working-class person in Britain has more in common, and identifies more with a working class person in China, Brazil or India, than with someone with a bit more money in the UK; and that as soon as the nation becomes an inefficient means through which economic transition can occur, than the nation-state and the communities found therein, become redundant, surplus to requirements, against the Central Committees five year economic plan.

For the right, the issue is purely economic, or rather purely driven by want for higher and higher profit margins. The right – or rather – the Confederation of British Industry, line, is that British workers are lazy, overpaid, and disobedient; the reality is the total opposite – British workers are productive and industrious, given the right motivation, but it’s hard to work for a boss for despises anyone who wants a decent wage. The employment rights that British workers have fought for, since the Tolpuddle Martyrs and the GNCTU (Grand National Consolidated Trade Union) founded by Robert Owen – this event and that organisation helped bring forward the eventual legalisation of trade union activity and the ability for workers to act with purpose and coordination against predatory bourgeois factory owners – this collective bargaining brought allowed for the workers to enjoy better pay and working conditions, something that is still reflected in today’s working environment. This is however, undermined by immigration, the big business rationale being: immigration will bring about a surplus of labour – a higher amount of workers than there are jobs – this then allows for a “race to the bottom” in terms of wage rates and workers are more likely to settle for substandard conditions, along with excessive, inflexible hours. This undermines all that has been striven for by workers for years, allowing for the sense of working security once held to be washed away, with little consideration for the human cost.

Something that has been noticed is that each doctrine is adversarial to either the idea of a cohesive, hierarchical, organic state, which is the position of the left. The position of the capitalist right, on the other hand, is in conflict with the interests of working people of the nation – both sides of this paradigm are intrinsically in favour of a class war mentality and anti-nation. The alternative, for this nation, is firstly to stop immigration: the social pathology is rather simple: immigration is destroying the cohesion of our local communities, it is causing ecological damage, it is leading to overpopulation; a strain on our health service, on our education system, and producing, both directly and indirectly, more and more welfare dependents. The second is national revival: the revival of our traditional culture, through the removal of alien credos, the removal of MTV bullshit and the removal of political correctness, which will lead to opening of the cultural space, allowing our people to be themselves without fear, or competition. This and, the replacement of our old elite, with a new leadership, that will act in accordance with British national interest and not in accordance with any ideological wank-dream of international proletarian revolution, or in accordance with the money power of the hedge fund managers. This will allow for the return of paternalist, naturalised leadership, that will be respected by the body politic and will respect and lead the body politic – with renewed glory, and fresh vigour, to a New British Century.

  • Mark Scarborough

    Something exceptionally important has been omitted from this piece. If you look at the graph above, immigration rises from 1992 onwards. Something big occurred in 1992 that had a great impact upon our borders: the signing of the Maastrict Treaty and the creation of the European Union (as we know it today, minus alterations of the Lisbon Treaties). The Maastrict Treaties created the Economic and Monetary Union, and with this came the Free Movement of Persons within the EU frontiers. The modern Coalition Government is struggling to lower net immigration due to not being able to control EU immigration. This all began in 1992 with the Maastrict Treaty. Blaming Labour completely for subsequent high level net migration is not fully true. EU migration was beyond their control (which makes up a large proportion of all migration).

    • http://nationalculturists.wordpress.com nationalculturists

      EU migration was not beyond their control – they could have acted in the interests of the British people and withdrawn from the European Union.

      • Mark Scarborough

        The economic benefits (namely not having to pay trade tariffs when we trade with other EU member states) far outweigh your xenophobic concerns.

        • http://nationalculturists.wordpress.com nationalculturists

          Our concerns are not xenophobic – you simply don’t grasp the concept of culturism. That’s your problem.

          The ‘economic benefits’ you talk about – do they include the British people being out of work?

          It’s fascist dictatorship, run by people we didn’t vote for.

          The minute we withdraw from the EU, we can rebuild our manufacturing industry and provide jobs for the British people.

      • Mark Scarborough

        Membership of the EU provides the UK with an extra 3 million jobs. Will you be happy telling those 3 million people they don’t have a job any more? We can rebuild our manufacturing industry while being within the EU, and we can trade our products (without tariffs) with the other EU member states. Any more poor economic arguments up your sleeve?

        We vote for the European Parliament, all member states have a power to veto policy, the Commission has appointed members (appointments made by our elected governments) and the Council of Ministers is made up of our elected politicians. Hardly not democratic.

        • http://nationalculturists.wordpress.com nationalculturists

          This is totally laughable.
          We vote for the EU? No, no we do not. We vote for MEPs and barely anyone turns out for that anyway, because the majority of the British people don’t give a shit.

          Our manufacturing industry evidently cannot be rebuilt whilst remaining in the EU – it hasn’t happened for a reason. We outsource everything and fuck over our own people. Semi-protectionism is necessary.

          Tell me, who voted for Van Rompuy?
          Oh yeah, nobody.

          Fascist dictatorship. That’s all the EU is.

      • Mark Scarborough

        Did I say we vote for the EU? No, no I did not. I explained how we voted for MEPs, and how the other positions were filled via appointment from national governments.

        Are you saying you’re going to ban out-sourcing? What about out-sourcing to the BRIC economies? Ban that too?

        Who votes directly for the British PM? Oh yeah, no body. His / her party selects them as leader, and depending upon how many MPs that party gets, they become PM. Van Rompuy is selected by national leaders to lead the European Council. He is not the President of the EU.

        • http://nationalculturists.wordpress.com nationalculturists

          Apologies if I misunderstood your poorly-worded argument, Mr powerful Councillor man.

          I have told you that I believe in semi-protectionism. If you knew what I was on about, you wouldn’t be asking such daft questions.

          As for electing our PM – that’s entirely different and entirely democratic.
          Nobody elected Van Rompuy and nobody voted to be involved with the EU.

          Simple as.

      • Mark Scarborough

        It was worded perfectly fine. Is English your second language, Jack? Struggling to read simple sentences, Jack?

        I have economics qualifications, so I know what semi-protectionism is about, cheers. Do outline these semi-protectionist policies please, Jack.

        Nobody directly selects the PM and nobody directly selects Van Rompuy, but it’s totally different. Ok Jack.

        We didn’t vote for the EU? Shame about the 1975 national referendum where 67% of voters voted to remain in the then EEC. Any treaty updates since have been signed by the democratically elected British Government (i.e. the representatives of the British people).

        • http://nationalculturists.wordpress.com nationalculturists

          I’m a writer by profession. I’m perfectly capable, thanks.

          As for you understanding semi-protectionism – you asking previous questions was pretty redundant then, wasn’t it?

          As for PM/Van Rompuy – as you should know, in a general election we vote for an MP who represents the party that the potential PM represents. We vote indirectly.

          In terms of Van Rompuy, we didn’t vote for him in any way, shape or form.

          The 1975 referendum was to stay in the EEC. Since then, ***37*** years have passed, many of the people that voted in the referendum have died, and the EEC has become something TOTALLY different.

          It is NOT democratic and you CANNOT defend it.

  • Mark Scarborough

    Writer by profession? Why are there numerous grammatical errors on this webpage, then? Poor show.

    Asking you what your policies are is not redundant. Do please outline your semi-protectionist policies.

    So because Witney constituency voted for him, that makes it all dandy? I didn’t get a vote on if David Cameron became an MP, did you Jack? I didn’t get a vote on if he became leader of the Conservatives, and so PM, did you Jack? A small group of people chose those things, not the nation Jack.

    Due to time passing, that makes a referendum result redundant? Really? Where’s that written in law or the in the various constitutional documents? Does this mean we have to have fresh referendums on everything we’ve ever had a referendum on after a certain amount of time has passed?

    Do the actions of the UK Governments signing various new European treaties not mean anything in a representative democracy, Jack? I thought that was what representative democracy was all about! Representatives making decisions and in this case signing treaties.

    We had a referendum (democratic) and we’ve had various updating treaties negotiated and signed by our democratically elected representatives (democratic). Any problems here Jack?

    • http://nationalculturists.wordpress.com nationalculturists

      First of all, this conversation is over after this comment – I am not engaging is petty discussion on behalf of the whole movement with some pathetic excuse of a councillor who seems to think he can push his career beyond his boring day job by attacking a new movement that doesn’t agree with his political ideologies.

      Second of all, the referendum is 37 years old and many of the people that voted are dead. On top of this, the EEC has become something totally different – so yes indeed, in this case another referendum would be entirely appropriate. It’s only fair. That’s like holding a referendum on banning cheese, and then later changing the definition of cheese and claiming it’s democratic because the people voted for it. You’re totally twisted.

      The minute we have a referendum, it will become evident that the people do not want to be controlled by fascist dictators. You are wrong, end of story.

      No more comments of yours will be accepted on this website.

      • Mark Scarborough

        I thought you believed in free speech Jack? Banning me, again?

        Boring day job? I’m doing a Masters degree (which has been brilliant) and aim to start training to be a criminal solicitor. Nothing boring here Jack!

        You are a pathetic individual Jack. You are out of your depth. Last night and today have proved that. You are arrogant and ignorant (the worst two traits anyone could have). I look forward to ensuring that your fascist movement falls flat in Universities around the country as the Labour societies will be well informed and will expose you and your islamophobic movement. In fact, I will be notifying all Student Unions too to ensure that you do not even get any kind of society up and running. Student Unions will not accept far-right, anti-islamic societies.

        Don’t try sending me sob stories like “Culturist students need somewhere to go too”. Fascists and BNP sympathisers will be opposed strongly on our multicultural campuses by the Labour Party and I’m sure the Lib Dems and Conservatives too.

  • http://reidivinsmedia.wordpress.com ReidIvinsMedia

    Re: The EEC/EU points. I was old enough to vote for the EEC. It was promoted as a purely economic agreement to facilitate trade. Political union or alignment of laws were never mentioned by any party so I wold like a referendum on continued membership. If you’re interested you can read my (short) blog about it here http://reidivinsmedia.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/europe-should-we-stay-or-should-we-go/

0 Flares Twitter 0 Facebook 0 Google+ 0 Pin It Share 0 0 Flares ×