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.