Latest from UKIP Daily

Be On Guard: “Open Borders” Neo-Liberals Are Taking Over UKIP

At the moment, we need to unite Brexiteers to put pressure on Theresa May. But we are concerned about the creeping influence of hyper-individualistic Tufton Swamp “think tanks”, who already dominate the Tories and are now sneaking into UKIP. In the name of liberty, they oppose an end to open borders.

In London, a stone’s throw from Parliament, on Tufton Street and a few roads running off, one finds the natural habitat of the Carswells. This is the location of those neo-liberal “think tanks”, such as the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Adam Smith Institute, and Civitas. It is here that researchers, funded by secretive sources of money, believed to be from tobacco magnates, banks, and aircraft production, formulate government policy in open cooperation with the EU.

The key foundation, the IEA, is led by Mark Littlewood, a former LibDem top strategist who was part of the leadership of the Pro-Euro Conservative Party – an unusual choice of ally for a number of UKIP leadership contenders, until recently the Party logo having been the pound symbol to commemorate our victory against pressure to adopt the Euro. Awkward!

I will acknowledge that the Tufton Swamp did certainly at times criticise the EU and promote Brexit. For this reason, many Brexiteers attended their events, as did I. ‘Vote Leave’ banners were enthusiastically waved from one end of Britain to the other. However, I found the think tanks themselves to be staffed by EU interns and researchers who made, even in the official Tufton publications, continual, absurd praise of mass migration.

I have previously criticised, more than once, the IEA’s repugnant Anglophobic (my opinion) paper “Free to Move”, written by Phillipe Legrain, a senior advisor to the EU president. In it, he asks for Brexit to occur but also to maintain open borders – the standard swampman “libertarian” position. Beware: that word too often is a cover for mass migration. They are not just out of touch with the people, but they oppose our will, they oppose democracy. In fact, the EU-born Director of the Adam Smith Institute (ASI) suggested that his “stupid” British neighbours should not even have the right to vote, because they would opt for lower migration.

Legrain claims incorrectly that the main reason Britons voted for Brexit is hatred of migrants; a shoddy attempt at playing the race card. In reality, we never called for an end to immigration, merely for a fair, reasonable, points-based system, just like Australia has. Moreover, while Britain has a 4.3% unemployment rate, there is no logic in more unskilled workers coming here.

Of course, exceptions should be made for those with skills the economy urgently demands, such as doctors, which is what the Australian-style points-based system enables. As for simply throwing open the borders, the motivation for such a policy is most clear: mass migration, the growth in the number of people seeking work results in there simply being more workers than there are jobs. The workers in desperation have to accept lower wages.

This globalistic IEA booklet calls for Britain to “establish a similar system to that of Sweden” – the rape capital of the world, the country where radical third-wave feminists say they would rather be raped by immigrants than helped by local authorities. The Tufton Swamp seems to be willfully ignorant to alternative media coverage of the horrific crimes that have occurred in Scandinavia due to laid-back border controls, which have allowed dangerous persons to move in unchecked.

Sweden now has the second highest level of rape in the world after South Africa, which at 53.2 per 100,000 is six times higher than the USA. Statistics now suggest that 1 out of every 4 Swedish women will be raped. (“Sweden: Summer Inferno of Sexual Assaults,” by Ingrid Carlqvist). Surely, if anything, the trouble our Nordic neighbours have faced shows the need, more than ever, to have sensible, reasonable control of our borders, to ensure our safety.

Another wake up call was the IEA media spokesperson Kate Andrews’s attack on Burkean conservative Trump, and opposition to Farage on the 3rd of December 2017 on the BBC Andrew Marr Show. Why does the RINO (Republican/Right-wing In Name Only) have such a seething dislike of the US President? Could it be because the Donald opposes the weak border with Mexico, and criticised employment of illegal immigrants? Or what about his comments on bringing jobs back from China? The IEA backed whacky open borders “libertarian” Gary Johnson.

Tufton Street absolutely hate economic protectionism, which basically means placing of tax on foreign imports, to encourage businesses to buy British. For example, China has dropped the price at which it sells steel to far below the profit margin, meaning Port Talbot in Wales can’t compete, and the whole community is at risk, with a loss of jobs. If Theresa May had the courage to imitate Trump, she’d tax Chinese steel, and protect British jobs.

In the hyper-individualistic, metropolitain world of the Ayn Rand-inspired Tufton Swamp pencil pushers, we are all merely objects and free trade is absolute. This provides a pseudo-intellectual basis, an attempt at moral justification for businessmen shipping British jobs off to China where they can dodge UK safety laws, fair working hours, and minimum wages. They argue that the business owner should be free to trade with whom he wants, and that to favour the British worker is “nativist”: yes, the race card.

When one dismisses the nation as some artificial, collectivist, backwater construct for the plebs, with no place in the modern world, one forgets the very reason free trade was adopted: comparative advantage. For example, if France produces the finest wine, while Britain the greatest wool, and each nation focussed on their speciality, we receive high quality products, and also efficiencies, reducing product costs. Simply put, a higher standard for the Nation.

However, while trade between Britain and France, of similar GDP, was a two-way street, can we say that of China? In the spirit of Disraeli, I ask, for the many jobs that have gone there, as steelworks and factories closed, what did Beijing buy from us in return? There is no comparative advantage; the beneficiaries feature not Britain but merely Chinese factory owners, and the wealthy internationalist elite swanning about the Caribbean. This is pure self-interest. Greed.

While UKIP and some factions of the Tories have a long tradition of pursuing liberty, we must be on guard against this hyper-individualism. In fact, I do not believe the likes of the IEA or the ASI serve any purpose to us now the referendum itself has been won. The people clearly voted for an end to “free movement of peoples”, and in the spirit of democracy, that demand must be realised.

The slogan of UKIP is “For the Nation”, and in that sense it ought certainly to be collectivist, and proudly so. Be warned: if any Tufton Street affiliates seek again to stand for UKIP leadership, we will not hesitate to call them out.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About Luke Nash-Jones (2 Articles)
I am the Editor-in-Chief of MBGA News

13 Comments on Be On Guard: “Open Borders” Neo-Liberals Are Taking Over UKIP

  1. Mark Littlewood is pretty sound on Brexit as this article shows (link below). However, he doesn’t mention immigration as liberals (in the old sense) like him and me are conflicted by freedom of movement. In a pure sense, people should be allowed to move about to whatever country they fancy and “the market” will regulate pay and conditions and everything else – in theory over the long term raising all boats. However, I’ve long since got past my problem with this as freedom of movement will inevitably lead to the destruction of national governments and Nations and thus, in due course, lead to one world government. This would become the Daddy of big government and what’s worse have no other governments in the world to which they could be compared. A dystopian future for all.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12193147/I-used-to-love-the-EU.-Now-I-want-Britain-to-Leave.html

  2. Adam Smith would roll in his grave if he knew what the Institute are saying in his name. He was an entrepreneurial capitalist not a corporatist.

  3. Luke thank you for alerting us to this.

    With the NHS already struggling and our huge national debt it does not take much imagination to realise that if they keep shipping them in a point will be reached where the NHS and our benefits system will collapse.

    However, a small but important point. I believe we need a system of QUALIFIED Immigration designed specifically for Britain.

    I think we should avoid referring to an Australian style system. I’ve already read comments/propaganda along the lines that an Australian style system won’t work here because it’s designed for Australia which is a big country with large unpopulated areas. (Yes, I know that’s specious because most of it is largely uninhabitable but propagandists never let facts get in the way of a good, from their point of view, argument).

    • We have to work from where we are, where we actually ARE, as opposed to where we wish we might be.

      Where we ARE is that after twenty years of unlimited MUI the country is utterly overcrowded, such that in a market based economy where demand for housing of any kind vastly outstrips supply, then housing has become unaffordable for people on average salaries, even much more than average in the London commute areas.
      This could be remedied, or at least alleviated, if we had a programme of postwar style construction of new housing ~flats as well as houses ~ but only if that is combined with a total ( or as near as dammit ) moratorium on all new immigration for at least five years.
      Even then, we simply do not have now the land available for new housing which we had in the forties and fifties. Everywhere the supposed green belt is being encroached upon.
      Reference to Australia is completely misplaced because yes, yes indeed, it is a fact that where the ARE is that they have a huge, largely unpopulated , country, with a population some half that of the UK.
      And no, it is not largely uninhabitable : human ingenuity could make a lot more of it inhabitable – getting fresh water from the sea for example.
      But that would involve a reduction in quality of life, just as our overcrowded situation has resulted in a reduction in the UK ( or at least English ) quality of life : schools / hospital access / roads ~ our experience of them all is that we are worse off as a result of the 20 years 8 and more ) MUI – no amount of ludicrous Ipods and Ipads and cheap skiing holidays compensates for this ( though there’s a lot on the BrexitInNameOnly side of things who like to pretend it does. )

      But even Australia has long had far greater restrictions ( and, equally important, enforcement of existing restrictions ~ something the UK has never ever done and still does not do ~) on new immigration.
      It would be something if we did indeed have an Oz type system, including its enforcement : but sadly it would not itself be enough.

      Sometimes a problem is so dire and extreme that you need a radical answer for it, and show that you mean business by actually enforcing the new policy.
      Sadly there is not even a tiny sliver of members of Parliament who are prepared to go against the Islingtonian metropolitan wisdom of MUI and how wonderful it is for the economy and cultural enrichment bla bla.
      But where is UKIP and its Leader in this ?
      Allied with Mrs May as far as I can see.
      Utter weakness of mind, let alone resolve.

      • Money would be better spent on repatriation grants with strong measures to prevent their return.

      • The situation regarding housing in the UK is ridiculous. The first house that I bought in 1968 was a 3 bedroom, middle-of-terrace new build near Hampton Court for £7,700. Today such an ordinary house would be unaffordable to almost all new, working class families. This bothers not the elite who have their nests on gated estates. Indeed, in this neck of the woods they are lauding the provision of ‘homes’ fashioned from old shipping containers. This will be the UK norm in 5 years time – and the plebs should be jolly well pleased that these innovative dwellings will be available to them.

        • You are giving a good example of what I am saying regarding the diminution of quality of life ~for everyone in fact but especially for the poorest ~people on average and below average incomes.

          Another is overcrowding on trains, even up north: A month ago I was on a train from Manchester to Durham – this journey began around 5pm ish, so over the going home time for commuters. The train was SO crowded, with people crammed into the aisles as well as the spaces between carriages : it made me think of buses I have been on in Africa ( the sort which crash every now and then with huge loss of life ) and the pictures of the Tokyo underground where they employ people to force humans into the carriages.
          We are not just heading to that destination ~we are half way there…………
          Yet still the Great British Establishment lauds the beneficial effects to our economy and our cultural enrichment of yet more and more and more and more MUI.
          What is this madness which has them firmly in its grip ?
          YES ! People will be grateful for a shipping container to live in – lets hope some of them can be parked in Blair’s and Soubry’s and Sir Nick’s back gardens.
          rhys burriss

  4. We could do with a stratigist of any kind in ukip.
    Also we could do with a good salesman/marketer.
    Perhaps ( happy thought ) we could swap one for a half a dozen ( Is dozen allowed now? ) lawyers.

  5. “For example, China has dropped the price at which it sells steel to far below the profit margin, meaning Port Talbot in Wales can’t compete, and the whole community is at risk, with a loss of jobs. If Theresa May had the courage to imitate Trump, she’d tax Chinese steel, and protect British jobs.”
    And this is a brilliant example of why we must leave the EU customs union and be free to negotiate our own arrangements through the WTO.
    The UK was unable to do anything, as the EU would have had to increase tariffs on Chinese steel imports on our behalf, which they failed to do.
    Free trade in principle is good, but there still needs to be a level of ‘protectionism’ when it comes to safeguarding local jobs and industries.

  6. There is a vacancy for Leadership of UKIP arising imminently ( I believe ).

    Are you willing to stand for same ? ( I do not know if you are a member in fact ).

    Certainly I believe that the continued insanity of Open Borders and MUI is the main issue / political decision made by the Establishment which is in short order destroying what is left of our country – as a country, a social construct, that is, as opposed to as a load of economic units selling products and labour to one another ( which is all that Blair / Heseltine / Clarke [ ex tobacco mogul ] / Hammond and all the rest have in their heads as being what matters ).
    650 Members of Parliament, of supposedly different political persuasions ~all of them concerned about the dire housing crisis ~ but not one of them, not ONE, prepared to point out that just as two plus two equals four we can never ever solve the housing crisis whilst we maintain Open Borders and MUI.

    A UKIP Leader arguing the case strongly and unapologetically for a Complete Moratorium on all New Immigration for five years in the first instance is desperately needed…….
    rhys burriss

    • I am a member of UKIP. Branch committee member.

      A variant of the Aussie skills-based immigration system would effectively cause a moratorium on unskilled labour, allowing in only those in urgent demand such as doctors. With 4.3% unemployment, we simply do not need unskilled labourers – British people should get those jobs. The IEA types push migration because they are backed by big business and they know that when there are more workers than jobs, people “fight” for work, and the working class must in desperation take lower wages.

      I believe British passports should only be granted to those who marry a Briton, or who are born on British soil, grew up here, and passed a proper English language and citizenship exam. Anyone else should be on a guest worker visa, which is up for renewal every year, with consideration of skills in demand by the economy, and the unemployment rate. There should be no such thing as “permanent residency” – it stops cultural integration – either a passport holder, or a guest worker.

      Only UK passport holders should have the right to vote, or to claim NHS – anyone here on a visa should have to get medical cover (similar to holiday insurance) before they enter the country.

      Not one asylum seeker should be allowed onto British soil until we have zero unemployment, and all our war veterans are up off the street. As for homeless veterans, establish a homeguard.

      Anyone who is an illegal immigrant should be arrested by the police, and unless they can present evidence of citizenship/visa, taken to the airport.

  7. Paul Nuttall also backed wacky Gary Johnson instead of Trump…. sigh….

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*