Nick Timothy, Theresa May’s Chief of Staff, exposes Boris’ real policy of increasing mass immigration!

 

Nick Timothy, Theresa May’s Chief of Staff, exposes Boris’ real policy of increasing mass immigration!

 

In the article below in the Telegraph, which is explosive, Nick Timothy explains just what Boris and his Government have been up to in trying to dramatically increase the amount of immigration into the country.

 

It seems that without any democratic mandate to do so and without any publicity or any honesty, Boris and his circle have been working on trying to undermine the real Will of the People, of not only of England, but also of the United Kingdom, to restrict mass immigration. 

 

Read the article.  Here is the link to the article >>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2022/04/24/brexit-supposed-take-back-control-immigration-hasnt/

 

And here is the full text (as it is behind a paywall):-

 

Brexit was supposed to take back control of immigration. It hasn’t

Britain's new points-based system is designed to keep numbers high. When the public realise, there will be trouble

NICK TIMOTHY24 April 2022 • 9:30pm

From the application of human rights laws to the analysis of statistics, immigration can be a complex subject, and the public debate about it can be deeply dishonest. But most of us ought to be able to agree some common-sense principles.

From bringing skills and enterprise to adding to the cultural capital of the country, immigration can bring great benefits, but in large numbers can also bring great challenges – so the flows must be controlled. This control needs clear laws, strong enforcement and tough but intelligent border security. Decisions ought to be made not in the interests of foreign nationals, immigration lawyers or supranational organisations, but the British people. And the decision-makers themselves must be politicians, directly accountable to those who elect them.

There is of course huge scope for disagreement in the practical implementation of these principles. We can differ over the extent of the need for foreign workers, for example, when there is a dire lack of technical and vocational education and training for people already living here. We can argue about the desirability of allowing colleges and universities the right to sell long-term immigration, not just education, to hundreds of thousands of foreign students.

Regardless of such differences, it is difficult to deny that our immigration system is failing, despite Brexit and the end of free-movement rules.

We are yet to see meaningful post-Brexit immigration statistics. In 2020, thanks to the pandemic, net migration fell by 88 per cent to just 34,000. In 2019, net migration was 271,000 – high, but not unusual for the past couple of decades, when the number has been known to exceed 300,000. We can already see from the number of visas issued that immigration is about to soar again, probably to record highs.

Comparing 2021 to 2019, work visas (239,987) are up 25 per cent, family visas (280,776) are up 49 per cent, and student visas (432,279) are up 52 per cent. More than a quarter of foreign students are Chinese, but the number of Nigerian students is up 415 per cent, Pakistani up 256 per cent and Indian up 164 per cent.

This enormous increase in immigration is not happening by chance. Even as the Government ended European free-movement rules after Brexit – a decision driven, pollsters agree, by concerns about sovereignty, democratic control and immigration – Boris Johnson demanded a more liberal policy.

Work permits were unlimited, and the definition of “skilled work” was watered down. The shortage-occupation list was extended to allow the recruitment of foreign workers in yet more trades. Employers were no longer compelled to seek workers from the resident population before recruiting from overseas. A salary threshold, supposedly set to ensure only high-skilled immigration, was set at £25,600 and for some workers only £20,400. Foreign students – whatever their qualification – were given the right to stay and work in Britain at the end of their courses.

And a new framework was established. The points-based system, the Government likes to point out, is inspired by the Australian model, which focus groups tell them is widely believed to be tough. But while Australia is uncompromising on illegal immigration, its policy on legal migrants has been liberal for decades, with its per capita immigration higher even than ours. Just as Australia’s points-based system was created to increase immigration, so is the British one. Our numbers will keep going up.

A points-based system surrenders the very principle of control. When migrants want to come to Britain, if they have the requisite number of points they simply win the right to come. And the principle of control – the very promise of Brexit, remember – will be further eroded by trade deals the Prime Minister is negotiating. In India last week, Johnson signalled his agreement with further liberalisation for Indian workers and claimed, despite probable record immigration this year, “we’re short to the tune of hundreds of thousands [of workers] in our economy”.

This is not true. But then, of course, the debate about immigration has never been honest. Advocates of mass immigration pretend we have always been “a country of immigrants” and engage in countless forms of evasion and sophistry. Some say the numbers are irrelevant and all that matters is control. Others insist that the public simply want the system to work, even as they oppose every reform to make it work. Most common, however, is those who pay lip service to the notion of overall control, while opposing control in every visa route going. In practice, they claim that each application is of vital national interest.

It is easy to make it sound reassuring. Who could reasonably oppose skilled workers coming here to contribute? But under the points-based system, skilled workers are not only astrophysicists: they might also be bricklayers. Who could oppose the brightest and the best coming to use their talents here? But the majority of foreign students attend institutions outside the Russell Group of top universities. Three quarters of the increase in student visas from 2019 comes from applicants to lower quality universities. All have the right to work here afterwards, whatever their qualification and whatever their job.

Supporters of mass immigration might not care. Every day that these policies continue, they get what they want and conclude that they will win in the end. But nobody has ever made the argument for such rapid population change and won an election. And this includes the Prime Minister, who has no mandate for the policies he is pursuing. His manifesto promised “overall numbers will come down … we will ensure that the British people are always in control”.

The British people have good reasons for wishing to remain in control. They know, from bitter experience, the costs of mass immigration. They know the problems caused by rapid social change, stark cultural divides, pressure on infrastructure and public services, housing shortages and high rents, job displacement and the suppression of wages.

When they realise, having voted to take back control, that the PM has given it away, the Tories will find there will be hell to pay.

 

 

 

"We are in danger of getting virtually nothing, while the EU walks away with everything it asked for"! Professor DAVID BLAKE

This is an article that every patriot should read:-

The EU has outsmarted the UK at every turn

We are in danger of getting virtually nothing, while the EU walks away with everything it asked for

by Professor DAVID BLAKE

The standard mantra in EU trade negotiations is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Everyone knows this, except apparently British trade negotiators who have accepted the very opposite by acceding to the EU’s sequencing of negotiations.

First was the divorce bill. The UK agreed to pay a £40bn settlement when under international law there was no legal obligation to pay any bill to leave the EU club. But we made this an act of good will. However, there was supposed to be a quid pro quo. In exchange, we would be offered a comprehensive free trade agreement, like the one offered to Canada. It would be even better and include a comprehensive deal on services as well as goods.  It would be Canada Plus Plus Plus.

But the moment we agreed to pay the divorce bill, the EU withdrew the offer of any such deal. It suddenly remembered that the UK is much closer geographically to the EU than Canada and so could not possibly be offered the same terms as Canada. Any excuse will do.

Second was the Withdrawal Agreement’s Irish Protocol.  The EU’s major concern was the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, leaving open the possibility that goods could illegally flood the EU’s precious Single Market from across the border. Only a tiny proportion of EU trade with the UK crosses this border, and Irish and UK customs officers were quietly working on a solution to stop illegal cross-border trade just as they had done with other illegal transactions, like red diesel. But the Irish premier, Leo Varadkar, under instructions from the EU, stopped these talks.

Instead, the EU saw an opportunity to turn its greatest weakness into its greatest strength by weaponising Northern Ireland's troubled history. Preserving ‘peace’ on the island of Ireland became the EU’s most important public objective and so the Northern Irish Protocol was dreamt up. But the real aim was to trap one part of the UK in the EU’s regulatory orbit. And this, in due course, could be used to ensnare the rest of the UK. Martin Selmayr, then secretary-general of the European Commission, freely admitted that the loss of Northern Ireland would be the price of Brexit.

The EU is not interested in peace, it is interested in power:  it thinks nothing about locking up nine Catalan rebel leaders. Theresa May and Olly Robbins went along with all this – in fact they suggested the Protocol ‒ since it was part of a secret agreement they had with Angela Merkel that would make the reality of Brexit so harsh that the UK would be begging to rejoin the EU in due course.

Boris Johnson’s changes to the Withdrawal Agreement did not negate this. Gavin Barwell, May’s chief of staff, has boasted that the PM's Withdrawal Agreement was 95 per cent May’s; the most significant change being the removal of articles keeping Great Britain in the EU Single Market, but at the cost of a border in the Irish Sea between GB and Northern Ireland – thereby threatening the integrity of the UK’s own Single Market.

Having laid the trap that UK negotiators at the time willingly fell into, the EU was all set up for the third stage of the negotiations, the future trading arrangements. What the EU wanted were three things. First, to protect its £100bn trade surplus in goods with the UK. It would allow tariff- and quota-free trade in goods, but only if we agreed to follow all EU rules and any changes in those rules in perpetuity. Again, this was to ‘protect the integrity’ of the EU Single Market from unfair competition. In fact, from any competition, something the protectionist EU does not like - hence, the ‘level playing field’ requirements.  But these are anything but level.

We would have to report any state aid to the EU, but there is no full requirement to reciprocate.  It proposes to impose lightning tariffs on us if it decides we have broken the rules, but we cannot reciprocate. We are EU’s biggest external customer and it has a huge trade surplus with us, but as the EU constantly reminds us – and the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation faithfully reports ‒ it is the UK which is being offered ‘privileged access’ to the EU Single Market. Not once has our side used the evidence that the EU’s huge trade surplus is due to a structurally undervalued euro which allows it to treat us as its dumping ground.

Second, the EU wants to keep its existing access to our fishing waters, something that Edward Heath disgracefully gave away for nothing in the final stages of the negotiations to enter the EU in 1973. The EU has been taking us for a ride for 48 years so why should it stop now. It has spent most of the last year discussing issues that matter only to it ‒ continuing free access to a captive goods market and retaining the bulk of the fish caught in the UK sovereign waters.

The third issue is services where we have a £20bn trade surplus with the EU. It is offering absolutely no deal on services. In particular, it wants to make it very difficult for the UK to sell financial services in the EU. This is part of a French plan to take Europe’s financial services from London to Paris. To achieve this, the EU is refusing to offer either mutual recognition or even equivalence to our financial services. This is in addition to the threat from the European Parliament to stop British planes and lorries entering the EU after 31 December unless the UK agrees to follow EU competition rules.

This then is the trade deal that our negotiators are about to sign up to. Everything is agreed until nothing is agreed. We are in danger of getting virtually nothing, while the EU walks away with everything it asked for. This is what Boris Johnson will try to sell as ‘getting Brexit done’.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/22/eu-has-outsmarted-uk-every-turn/

David Blake, Professor of Economics, City University of London, and a member of Economists for Free Trade

 

WHAT 2020 HAS SHOWN US ABOUT THE BRITISH STATE

 

 

WHAT 2020 HAS SHOWN US ABOUT THE BRITISH STATE

 

It is worth reminding ourselves that 2020 started off with a newly elected Boris Johnson Government enthusiastically making noises that they were a patriotic, libertarian, pro-Brexit Government, that had thrown off the years of Brexit betrayal under the lacklustre (Conservative) Theresa May. 

 

What a difference a year makes!

 

2020 has revealed Boris Johnson’s Government as a Government that has planned Lockdown whilst misleading people that they were going to show common-sense.  Instead of following our Constitution and our Parliamentary traditions they have used deceitful tactics to roll out a raft of highly authoritarian, ministerial diktats which have, without any proper parliamentary debate or democratic mandate, stripped away our rights as citizens.  This has all been done under the traditional tyrant’s cry of “Necessity”!

 

Even Brexit has not been properly honoured.  Instead we have what is little more than Brexit In Name Only (BRINO!).

 

Also far from controlling mass immigration Boris’ Government has been actively persecuting those who have highlighted illegal immigration on boats coming over from France.  The British Government has then housed 10,000 or more of them, in 3 and 4 star hotels across England!  Far from making any serious attempt to deport them!  The Government has also quietly made it easier for migrants to come here who will inevitably immediately claim our Welfare Benefits.  They have done this by dropping the minimum income requirement on bringing over a spouse. 

 

The Government is also now demanding the building of 12m houses over English countryside to house all those migrants who have already come here! 

 

All this at a time when the Government’s incompetent handling of Lockdown has crashed our economy and driven the national debt up far beyond what it was after the Second World War!

 

Turning from politics to the Law, here the transformation of the British State from an ostensible Liberal Democracy into an openly Police State has been as dramatic as what has happened at the political level, but with even less acknowledgement in our dishonest and deceitful Mainstream Media!

 

The 23^rd March came and went with Boris’ dishonest claim that he was locking down the country when he had no power to do so.  This was superseded by a raft of Regulations brought under the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 after Parliament had been brow-beated into passing the Coronavirus Act 2020 on the basis that it was an emergency (although at nearly 370 pages it is obvious that it had been months in the preparation) but without declaring a “State of Emergency”.

 

The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 was also side-lined, as that would have meant that Parliament had some supervisory role over what Ministers were up to. 

 

Instead the wholly undemocratic and, on all traditional principles, unlawful approach has been of using a 1984 Act which was primarily about controlling diseased goods and individuals coming in through the docks, instead to Lockdown the whole of England (N.B. the British Government does not have direct authority over Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) and thus avoid parliamentary scrutiny.

 

In England slowly some Judicial Review challenges started to come forward, the most high profile of which is the Simon Dolan case, which has raised over £400,000 as a fighting fund on their Crowd Justice Appeal.  The English Democrats also issued a Judicial Review. 

 

Unfortunately the Simon Dolan case only argued that the Regulations were beyond the powers granted in the Act (ultra vires) and that the Regulations were in breach of the rights protected under the European Convention of Human Rights.  In the end the Human Rights Act claims failed entirely.  This was partly because Simon Dolan is a multi-millionaire who lives in Monaco and therefore wasn’t personally affected by the removal of Human Rights in England.

 

Also it was because the Government has adopted the tactic of regularly changing the Regulations, so that by the time any case gets to court, the Regulations that are being challenged have long since been overtaken by other newer Regulations.  Many of these newer Regulations are remarkably similar to the previous Regulations but not quite identical!  They are thus avoiding judicial scrutiny too!

 

The Simon Dolan case was allowed to be heard by the Court of Appeal. It failed on the ultra vires point which, on the traditional legal analysis, should not have failed, but the Court of Appeal has produced a Judgment which has endorsed the power of Ministers to make fundamental alterations to citizens’ rights without the need to go to Parliament, based entirely on ministerial diktat. 

 

This is a Judgment that would not have been out of place in mid-1930’s Germany, at which time German Judges were confirming that the powers granted to the Reich Chancellor under the Enabling Act meant that he could re-write any law and that it was lawful for him to do so. 

 

It is therefore not inaccurate to say that the Court of Appeal has endorsed a wholly new constitutional understanding of the nature of the British State.  It no longer a Parliamentary Liberal Democracy, but instead a Police State, in the traditional definition of a Police State.

 

This is particularly true when you couple the Dolan Judgment with the way that the police have actually been behaving on the streets. 

 

The police have regularly made clear, when they are dealing with any protest that challenges the new order, that they do not care whether what they are doing is legal or illegal.  They say that they are focussed on doing is enforcing the orders that they have been given.  Police Officers have thus shown themselves to no longer be that traditional English idea of the police as Officers of the Law, but instead they are now merely paramilitary state enforcers, as is vividly reflected by the transformation of their uniforms!

 

Where does that leave those of us who are not happy with the Globalist, International, Multi-culturalist, Europhile, Authoritarian (but fundamentally incompetent) British Political Establishment? 

 

Well firstly there are still legal challenges going on.  The English Democrats’ Judicial Review challenge was over the original Lockdown Regulations and as the Dolan case was proceeding to hearing in the Court of Appeal, the High Court didn’t give us permission to proceed even though we did have the good additional points of pointing out that what was being done was unconstitutional, which had been missed by Simon Dolan’s lawyers.

 

Our Party’s National Secretary and Greater Manchester Mayoral Candidate, Stephen Morris, together with other Lockdown sceptic activists have continued the challenge by issuing a further Judicial Review dealing both with the more up to date Regulations and also raising the constitutional arguments.  We need to bring all these arguments to court to give the courts the final chance to redeem themselves and to uphold our constitution.

 

Given that, since Tony Blair’s Government, you cannot become a judge without having to “demonstrate a life time’s commitment to Equality and Diversity”, it maybe that this will not succeed, but it would be wrong of us not to try to use purely legal means to challenge the authoritarianism of this Government. 

 

Many people ask me what other options are available for us.  One of the ways in which the Government has been trying to enforce Lockdown is by way of fixed penalties by the police.

 

If you are not fully observing whatever the current Rules are regarding Lockdown in your area, then they can demand your name and address.  You are required to do so and, if you do not, they can then arrest you. 

 

I have noticed that there are some people who are falsely claiming that the “Common Law” allows them to refuse to give their name and address.  This is simply nonsense.  What in fact you are triggering is Section 25 of the Police Criminal Evidence Act which gives the police the right to arrest you.  Instead what should be used is Option 2 of the fixed penalty notice, which is to take it to court. 

 

In 1942 the Kent miners, of the Betteshauger Colliery used this tactic very effectively.

 

Here is what the Dover Museum website has to say about this:-

 

“Betteshanger was the only pit to strike during the Second World War. The colliers reason for striking was over allowances for working a difficult seam because the conditions changed from week to week. This resulted in three union officials being imprisoned and over 1000 men being given the option of a fine or hard labour. The authorities were keen to suppress the strike: there was a danger that it could spread to other mines and the Government could not afford such a strike in the middle of a war. All but nine of the miners refused to pay. In the face of having to find prison spaces for 1000 men, the government decided to take no action and released the three imprisoned officials”

 

Here is a link to their website>>>

https://www.dovermuseum.co.uk/Exhibitions/Coal-Mining-in-Kent/History/Betteshanger-Colliery.aspx

 

It is also worth reminding ourselves about what Ghandi’s tactics on civil disobedience which were outstandingly successful at undermining the greatest Empire that ever existed!  Here is some interesting comments about that:-

 

“How to Fight Back, the Gandhi Way

 

Wondering what we can do, now that we’re facing the prospect of being in lockdown in all but name until Easter? Professor Ramesh Thakur, a former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations and a long-standing sceptic who’s written numerous articles attacking lockdowns, has a suggestion: take a leaf out of Gandhi’s book. As Professor Thakur points out, there is a considerable body of scholarship that shows nonviolent protest – civil disobedience – is more politically effective than violent protest, with the road to Indian independence being a case in point.

But Professor Thakur has a particular form of civil disobedience in mind, one perfected by Gandhi and still used in India to this day. Here’s the gist of it:

‘Jail Bharo Andolan’ is one technique of civil disobedience. It literally means ‘Fill the prisons movement/agitation’. It’s a deliberate, coordinated campaign to subvert a law or regime by courting arrest and imprisonment in numbers that physically clog the courts and overwhelm the prisons. The fact that those imprisoned are normally law-abiding citizens adds greatly to the authorities’ embarrassment…

So to those looking for what you can do: protest peacefully in large numbers, have several rungs of leaders to take the place of any who are arrested, be unfailingly polite and charmingly courteous to police officers and judges, refuse to pay fines in favour of court appearance and trial, and after the court has delivered its verdict go to prison rather than pay fines to overwhelm the prison system until the justice system breaks down.

It requires sacrifice, courage and steadfastness to refuse obedience to the dictates of a discredited and despised government. The dissenters must be prepared to accept the legal consequences, including imprisonment. But if you don’t fight for freedom, get ready to lose it.”

 

So although the British State may have given itself undemocratic, authoritarian powers over the People of England, but I would say to Boris “who do you think you are kidding Mr Johnson, if you think that old England’s done?” - and we don’t even need a Dad’s Army to fight off this attempt! 

 

We do however need keen supporters and activists to help us fight in the coming elections in May 2021!