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.

 

 

 

The real fight is between patriots against globalists!

The real fight is between patriots against globalists!

 

You can’t really understand what has been happening to our politics unless you understand that the real fight is between patriots against globalists.  Once you understand that you need to choose which side you are on!

The English Democrats are a genuine patriotic party of people that love England and the English Nation. 

We are also true democrats that support genuine popular democratic majority votes of our People, such as we had in the EU referendum. 

Please support us in the fight against the Internationalist/Globalist “British” Establishment which is hell bent on betraying our country and our People. 

Make England Great Again! MEGA!

The famous English historian, Professor David Starkey, has recently said:-

“The old word is ‘treason’.  When engaged in a highly contentious negotiation with a strong, united and determined opponent.  A large part of the British political Elite have deliberately gone and negotiated with them against their own country.  This is another aspect of the Elite that I find is disgusting.  Most of them hate their own country and they regard their own people with absolute contempt.” 

Will you side with the British political Elite or with the English People?

So if you are a patriot don’t support any candidate standing for parties that are trying to undermine the EU referendum result, by openly saying that they would overturn the result or making a mealy-mouthed calls for a second Referendum.

Also if you are a patriot don’t support any candidate standing for a Party that is trying to force through a “Deal” with the EU, as that Deal is in many ways worse than the “Deal” that was forced on Germany in the Versailles Treaty after it had lost the First World War! 

Even Germany was not then forced to handover 'Command and Control' of its Armed Forces and Security Forces and Defence Procurement Budget to a foreign power, like Theresa May and Boris Johnson’s “Deal” does!  

 If you don’t believe me, believe General Riley whose speech explaining this you can find at >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkPNfR3Z5Yo&feature=youtu.be

IS BORIS SERIOUSLY FOCUSED ON DELIVERING BREXIT?

 

IS BORIS SERIOUSLY FOCUSED ON DELIVERING BREXIT?

For those of us that want to see Brexit delivered and, in particular, are hopeful of a ‘No Deal’ Brexit, Boris Johnson has made various remarks that his friend and campaign advisor, Sir Lynton Crosby would call ‘Dog Whistles’, that is remarks which call us back to heel like well-trained dogs! 

Of course these remarks might be genuine expressions of Boris’ personal determination and ideological commitment to Brexit “Do or die!” 

Alternatively these remarks might well be being said by Boris Johnson purely for reasons of expediency.  It would therefore be worth reminding ourselves of Boris’ history.

The first thing I should say is that I do personally like Boris’ style.  He is clearly an absolute star and a magnetic personality and performer with tremendous charisma.  He has genuine leadership ability which makes a fantastic change from the dispiriting lack of it of Theresa May and her inner circle.  That said let’s consider his position.

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson was born in the United States and when he attended Oxford University his former tutor at Balliol confirmed that he did so as an American citizen.

More recently as MP for Henley and Editor of the Spectator and then as Mayor of London, Boris had seemed enthusiastically Europhile. 

I remember in a TV programme which he did enthusing on the topic that the EU was the new Roman Empire.  He suggested that what we now needed was a new Caesar Augustus! 

He also at one stage enthusiastically endorsed the idea of Turkey, the land of his Great Grandfather, Ali Kamal (one of the last Sultan’s ministers), joining the EU. 

We then have the occasion when he decided to come out as supporting Leave once David Cameron had called the EU referendum in 2016.  During that campaign he made all sorts of remarks which pleased us Leave supporters. 

However it should be borne in mind that he had done two draft speeches.  One supporting Remain and David Cameron, the other coming out for Leave.  David Cameron has also apparently confirmed that he thought Boris did not believe in Brexit.

I would therefore say it is not clear that Boris coming out for Leave was about commitment and principle, rather than about career and opportunity.

There is also Boris’ family background which is very Europhile, globalist, multi-racial, multi-cultural and metropolitan elitist.  Perhaps not the typical seed bed of patriotism and nationalism!

Now we turn to what is going on at the moment.  Boris has obviously got the leadership of the Conservative Party, partly on the basis of his personality but also partly on the basis of promising to deliver Brexit “Do or die”.  Brexit has therefore been very useful to his career ambitions.

When Boris became Prime Minister, Stephen Barclay became the New Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.  The two of them still could have agreed by Consent that our case “Defend Brexit” would win and agreed that there be a Declaration that we were out on the 29^th.  

Indeed, we could have agreed some other date where we would be out if the Government thought there was any reason for having a different date. 

Instead of doing this, despite the fact that Boris, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Stephen Barclay and many Conservative MPs had been lobbied about it, the Government’s lawyers wrote to me and to the Court of Appeal saying that they had received instructions to reiterate the Government’s pleaded Defence.  Although I have asked for confirmation of who ordered it but I think it highly unlikely that that would have been written if the new Prime Minister and Secretary of State had not ordered it. 

A lot of the noise and froth which we read in the media or hear from Boris’ supporters is that he is being almost martyred for the issue of Brexit by the parliamentary Remainers, it is nevertheless worth pausing and considering that Boris had several opportunities to prevent the then Bill becoming law.  The Conservative Peers had lined up many amendments which would have filibustered the Bill so that it could not pass through the House of Lords before Parliament was prorogued and would therefore have been lost.  It has been reported that Boris personally stood the Conservative Peers down and enabled the Bill to pass without objection. 

He also could have refused or delayed Royal Assent to the Bill. There would then have been a further row about whether that was proper to do, but the time would have ticked away and we would have been closer to achieving Brexit with ‘No Deal’. 

He has now signalled that he would consider a ‘No Deal’ Brexit to be a failure. It is also  worth remembering that on the third occasion he did actually vote for Theresa May’s Withdrawal Deal, which, of course, is really more of an abject and almost unconditional surrender document.  From this we can draw the certain conclusion that Boris is not ideologically committed to opposing Theresa May’s deal.  The question of the deal is purely a matter of expediency for him.

We will see over the coming weeks whether he does take any decisions which advance the chances of a ‘No Deal’ Brexit, or whether he in fact prevents that from happening behind a cloak of ‘Dog Whistle’ remarks to Leavers. 

So you might ask me what I think Boris is actually trying to achieve if it is not a clean break Brexit? 

My answer would be that I think what he is trying to achieve is a General Election with him having a good chance of using the Brexit issue to enable him to destroy the Brexit Party and to get a large majority as a result of the election. 

If that election takes place before the 31^st October I wouldn’t then be at all surprised if Boris quickly signs us up to what to all intent and purposes is Theresa May’s deal. 

The amusing commentator Rod Liddall suggested that what Boris would sign us up to was “Theresa May’s pig of a deal which Boris had put lipstick and rouge on”!

What do you think?