Brexit is not about ‘nativism’

EU free movement has undermined citizenship. This is bad for everyone.

Neil Davenport

Share
Topics Brexit Politics UK

Although the Remain camp was thoroughly defeated by the December General Election, the slurs against Leave voters continue. A desire for Britain to leave the European Union is, we are constantly told, an expression of nativism and anti-immigrant sentiment. Progressives around the Labour Party, commentators warn, should not travel in the direction of ‘nativist’ Brexit voters. These fears of a nativist public are not confined to politics. In secondary schools, safeguarding measures against extremism cite ‘nativism’ as an example of far-right ideology that teachers should look out for.

Nativism is the political policy of promoting the interests of ‘native’ inhabitants over those of immigrants, including support for immigration controls. Brexit is presented by Remainers as ‘nativist’ because leaving the EU would suspend automatic freedom of movement for EU citizens (although not all immigration into the UK entirely).

In the context of Brexit, nativism is a pejorative term, meaning xenophobic or racist. It is used to tarnish the progressive, democratic content behind the vote to leave the EU and the quest for national self-determination. It obscures fundamental issues related to citizenship, civic rights and democratic accountability. Because of these issues, the context of EU immigration in the 21st century is very different to the debates around immigration from the 1940s onwards.

During the postwar period, the majority of immigrants to the UK wanted to become (or were already eligible to become) British citizens. They identified with the British nation state and aspired to live, work and settle here as permanent citizens. The granting of British citizenship to migrants from the Caribbean, India and Pakistan meant that, in theory, they would formally be politically equal to anyone else in the UK. Of course, equality was not a reality for new citizens. A number of Nationality Acts from the late 1960s to the early 1980s placed restrictions on migration from predominantly non-white countries. This meant that British citizenship was legally enshrined to prefer white people over non-whites.

For non-whites already living in Britain, these policies also placed a question mark over their citizenship status. Racist immigration controls encouraged the unequal treatment of non-white citizens by the state – oppression, in other words. These policies had to be rigorously opposed because they were divisive and undemocratic.

EU freedom of movement within EU member states, by contrast, allows people to have ‘guest worker’ status and even settle here without necessarily becoming British citizens. EU economic migrants do not have formal legal equality with British citizens (for example, they are excluded from voting in General Elections).

Citizenship, or membership of a nation state, is the means through which government decision-making is held in check by ordinary people. Brexit has raised important questions about what it means to be a citizen and the relationship between citizenship and democratic accountability. This is why the narrative of ‘nativists’ Leave voters is reactionary rather than progressive in character.

Left-wing Remainers argue that notions of citizenship go against the spirit of ‘internationalism’ associated with the left by placing divisions between British citizens and EU migrants. But these claims of internationalism are misleading. Left-wing internationalism means taking sides with ordinary people in other countries when they are in conflict with your own domestic government. However, even when such conflicts do arise, this should not mean relinquishing citizenship and democratic accountability within a nation state. Left internationalism has historically been about strengthening the power of citizens over their domestic rulers.

Behind all the progressive-sounding wordplay, the Remainer appeals to internationalism obscure a globalist demand to render citizenship of nation states meaningless. Indeed, the EU Parliament’s Brexit negotiator, Guy Verhofstadt, argued at the Liberal Democrats conference in October that nation states are outdated political constructs. They are soon to be replaced by ‘empires’, he said. But if nation states become eroded within transnational political structures like the EU, the capacity for ordinary people to influence the decisions that affect their lives evaporates.

Anti-racist language of the 1970s has been similarly misappropriated for the EU migration debate. Activists challenged racist immigration policies 40 years ago to ensure the equal treatment of all British citizens. The debate today is the inverse of this. Now, the transient position of EU economic migrants, lacking in meaningful rights and status, is celebrated as a progressive model for all people. Migrants are increasingly valorised over citizens because they are living examples of ‘citizens of nowhere’. That is, they may live and work in a number of different countries, but they are an invisible presence when it comes to voting and popular pressure on government decision-making.

The obsession with ‘nativists’ and the calls to oppose and condemn them is not a progressive fight against xenophobia or racism. It is an attempt to undermine progressive arguments for citizenship, civic rights and democracy. It is a reactionary demand that we all become ‘citizens of nowhere’.

Neil Davenport is a freelance writer.

Picture by: Getty.

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Comments

Walter Copeland

7th January 2020 at 4:54 am

Do you need a convenient loan for your satisfaction? We offer an affordable 3% interest rate to local and international borrowers. We grant a long-term loan with a maximum term of 1 to 30 years.If so, please contact us by email: praxisfinancialservice@gmail.com with your credit request

R Cole

6th January 2020 at 6:53 pm

The idea of leaving Europe is progressive – as in the socialist or Marxist sense – strongly doubt this.

What happened in this election was interesting, it embodied why the economic Marxist model was viewed as a failure and the cultural Marxism began. They thought the Russian peasants would turn against the aristocracy, if there was ever a war, instead they put on a uniform and fought for Russia. Likewise, Labour laid out its best socialist policies, and the people behind the Red Wall chose, country over socialism – or international socialism or globalism.

But it is not only patriotism the socialist Left are trying to break down, it’s the family unit and religion – namely Christianity or Christian morals, which is personal self-determination, leading to forgoing national determination and ultimately any accountability over a self-anointed leadership.

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

6th January 2020 at 8:31 pm

Right wing Tories are as opposed to Christianity as the neo-Marxist Left. Do you seriously think that Johnson is a Christian? Rees Mogg thinks he is a Christian but seems more attached to the rituals and dogma of the Romanists than the plain teaching of the Bible. The Left may not be Christian but the right sure as hell have put money before God.

RICHARD JARMAN

6th January 2020 at 5:44 pm

The same criticism given to English nativism doesn’t seem to apply to the Scots, Welsh and Irish when it is presented as a noble state of being to strive for – why is it ‘progressive’ to be anti-English

James Knight

6th January 2020 at 5:43 pm

I belong to the “anywhere” class and I have worked inside and outside the EU. Still, I would never of dreamed or expected the right to vote in the countries I worked in. There is being a guest and taking the piss. I am not and never was a citizen of those countries. But that is what Labour suggested should be the case for EU nationals in the UK during the election. I cannot call them EU “citizens” because the EU is not a nation.

“Nativism” is the dog whistle politics of Remoan.

James Jackson

6th January 2020 at 3:35 pm

When the bath overflows you do two things

You pull the plug
You turn off the taps

Do only one and the bath issue is never cured

So build infrastructure and control inward migration until the crisis is over

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

6th January 2020 at 5:15 pm

What if I only have a shower?

Gerard Barry

6th January 2020 at 3:28 pm

Despite benefiting from freedom of movement (FoM) myself, I have always considered it to be a deeply flawed concept as it can result in huge movements of people in a short space of time (e.g. the Polish migration to the UK and Ireland from 2004 onwards). I’ve absolutely nothing against Poles (or any other nationality) but why should a Polish immigrant be able to migrate to the UK so easily while an English-speaking American or Canadian has to have a visa or work permit? It makes no sense. FoM’s advocates will say “those are the EU’s rules” but this is a weak defence. Bad rules can and should be changed. Alas, the EU was intransigent on the matter and now we have Brexit.

Simey Wimey

6th January 2020 at 3:28 pm

Given that the fertility rate among the natives has been sub-replacement for quite some time you either 1) encourage natives to have more children, 2) accept a shrinking, ageing population and figure out a way to pay for it, or 3) continue to embrace mass immigration.

To achieve 1) you’d need to reverse decades of feminism, reset the career aspirations of most of the young adults who have been conned into gaining a degree, and engineer the balance between income and living expenses such that a family can comfortably survive on the earnings of a single parent.

To achieve 2) would require huge increases in productivity and refocussing the economy away from servicing domestic need and towards producing high value products and services for the rest of the world. Unless you can get the balance of payments back into the black you’ll need to carry on building infrastructure for foreign investors to buy, and that only works against a background of increasing population. Chinese property speculators won’t want to buy penthouse apartments in London if the property market has tanked because there are suddenly more houses than people.

If we carry on with 3) without an overtly “culturalist” immigration policy then the UK of 2100 will far more closely resemble Africa or South Asia than the UK of 1900. You could easily replace the 45 million ethnic English in England with Africans or Indians and make no discernable impact on either Africa or India. The problem is that the ethnic English are a tiny minority of the global population. If our immigration policy doesn’t discriminate based on culture, religion or colour of skin, then we seal our own demise. Great Britain ceases to be the ancestral homeland of the English, Welsh and Scots, and becomes nothing more than a small spit of land off the coast of Northern Europe where people of all creeds and colours come to do business. How depressing.

Gerard Barry

6th January 2020 at 7:17 pm

It is indeed depressing but the situation is similar across Western Europe. I live in Germany and most people here seem either unaware of the great demographic changes taking place in their country or they throw their hands up in the air and say that it doesn’t bother them (while often accusing those who are concerned of being racist). I have a colleague at work who once said to me that she sees the recent mass migration into Germany as being “part of evolution” no less. She also said that the world is heading towards being a Tower of Babel anyway and we can’t do anything about it. With attitudes like these so prevalent here, the country really is fucked.

By the way, I’m not sure I quite understand what you mean when you suggest that a shrinking, aging population would cost the UK. How exactly? I know there’s pensions but a shrinking population would also mean fewer hospital beds required, fewer doctors and nurses to be paid, fewer school places needed, fewer teachers, etc. And don’t forget that 1) immigrants will get old themselves and subsequently become non-productive (economically speaking) and 2) many immigrants work in lower paid jobs where their net contribution to the state coffers (in terms of taxes paid vs state services and benefits received) isn’t necessary that large.

Linda Payne

6th January 2020 at 3:25 pm

I wouldn’t be unemployed if the NHS did not prioritise immigrants and ethnics over local whites, there I’ve said it and I’m past caring

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

6th January 2020 at 5:21 pm

Maybe the ‘local whites’ are absolutely f-ing useless. Immigrants tend to work harder than inbred indigenous types.

R Cole

6th January 2020 at 6:24 pm

That’s a short term view, as it is every successive government say the NHS doesn’t have enough medical staff, so they need immigrants.

Rather than taking a long term view, and preparing as the Germans would for shortfalls.

Cuba has no money, but the nation has the highest number of doctors per capita. The idea that the UK can’t plan to train medical staff to service the NHS is crazy.

Interesting also how Labour makes a big deal about the NHS but you almost never hear about the need for more investment in training facilities!

Instead, they’ll rather use doctors from African nations where there are about 10 doctors in total!!

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

6th January 2020 at 1:05 pm

Brexit will do nothing to reduce immigration. Who will the angry nativist mob blame then? Anybody but themselves… If the English natives had large families they wouldn’t need mass immigration to ensure their economic survival.

david rawson

6th January 2020 at 1:40 pm

To be fair to my British compatriots, welfare-dependent thick people tend to have quite large families

Ed Turnbull

6th January 2020 at 4:04 pm

Hello ZP, let’s address the errors in your comment shall we? Brexit *will* do something to reduce immigration, it’ll end free movement of people from EU countries. That will return a measure of control to the UK government. If the government then *chooses* to allow inward migration to continue at current levels they’ll be accountable to the electorate. As regards non-EU immigration, well the government already has control over that, though one could argue they’ve been too lax in the numbers they allow in. It’s within the government’s gift to be more robust in that regard, and it’s something most of the electorate seem to want.

You seem to hold the assumption that *mass* immigration is necessary for the economic survival of the UK. It’s not. Targeted, controlled immigration can be of economic benefit, but mass immigration, no. Not everyone coming in is a skilled Polish plumber, or talented Indian software developer – I work with many of the latter and I’ve no doubt they are of net benefit to the economy. But can we say the same for everyone? No. In my area I now very rarely see a Big Issue seller who’s not from Romania or Albania. Are these people of net benefit to the economy? No. (Were we so short of homeless we needed to import them from eastern Europe?)

Of course, I’m sure you know these things and you’re just up to your usual trolling. Though, if you really weren’t aware of the points I just made then I find I once again question the wisdom of universal suffrage. Or you could put my mind at rest and tell me you’re not on the electoral register. Chin chin.

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

6th January 2020 at 5:20 pm

‘Usual trolling’ lol. You just can’t stand any form of dissent on this forum, can you? It’s more of an echo chamber for Rightist ideologues than an honest and open debate between equals. You guys are no better than the Guardian!

Noggin The nog

6th January 2020 at 5:02 pm

ZENOBIA PALMYRA (aka Amelia Cantor) is an SJW Troll. Best to ignore its comments.

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

6th January 2020 at 5:13 pm

Yeah, ignore those pesky people who dare to offer an alternative opinion!

Ed Turnbull

6th January 2020 at 12:58 pm

I’ll wager that those condemning Brexiteers as ‘nativists’ would never dream of decrying the evident nativism in countries such as Zimbabwe or Pakistan. Nativism, it would appear, is only bad when white – and worse still *English* – people practice it. Double standards from the left, who’d have thought it, eh? 😉

Keith Lloyd

6th January 2020 at 11:43 am

I think that makes me a nativist leaver. I have seen the effect that relatively open borders have had on my home town and its longstanding population. No thank you.

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

6th January 2020 at 12:45 pm

You can blame the British government for that. The UK was not in Schengen and had every available expedient for controlling its own borders but refused to exercise the controls it had WITHIN the EU.

david rawson

6th January 2020 at 1:34 pm

You are correct. Successive British governments from 1990 onwards have welcomed mass immigration and mass economic migration.

they also lied about the scale of it, especially the B.Liar & Broone years

Gerard Barry

6th January 2020 at 3:30 pm

Freedom of movement means that every EU citizen is entitled to live and work in every other country of the EU. The UK had very little power over the numbers of immigrants from EU countries.

David Webb

6th January 2020 at 10:56 am

You’re trying to rescue globalism and create a form of Brexit that means WE WILL STILL BE IN A MINORITY IN OUR OWN COUNTRY BY 2060. This is absolutely not something the British people want. Yes – it was a form of nativism. Not a nativism that doesn’t interact with the world. Japan, South Korea etc are ethnostates – and the sort of state we once were and should once again become.

Jerry Owen

6th January 2020 at 10:51 am

I have always felt that if I emigrated to another country I shouldn’t get equal citizenship rights automatically with the host or indigenous populace. I do feel that I would have to ‘earn’ my citizenship.
As such I feel that those entering the UK should either have to pay for health service by having the means to support their health needs for several years till they have paid a certain amount of tax into the NHS which them entitles them to use it, which by default immediately makes them unequal to me. I also believe that an employer has the right to employ whoever they wish for a job and if that means someone who speaks perfect English that can be only good as it puts the onus on those that enter our country to learn to speak good English, which as we know many generations from the Indian sub continent refuse to do.
I also, having seen first hand how the Polish have decimated so many English tradesmens low skilled jobs in London, believe in a certain amount of ‘protectionism’, this is a tricky one to implement and one that would be immediately called racist by those on the left ( not that I care ), but of course many immigrants are of the same race us which is deliberately overlooked by so many.
The lefts heyday of the SWP WRP IMG Labour Party ideology is now defunct and they just don’t get it. Their obsession with identity politics is in an ever downward spiral going down the plug hole as can now be seen by the transgender nonsense, that has become quite frankly hilarious to watch. So much so that I don’t feel the need to comment on article about it on this site.
It should be expected that to have the right to migrate to another country requires much effort, money, and will by those that wish to do so.

Gareth Edward KING

6th January 2020 at 11:03 am

Jerry, The question of what defines ‘race’ has little to do with skin colour, you mention the Polish who were treated as ‘untermenschen’ by the Nazis. The immigration of the Irish into NW England from the 1850s onwards was met by outright hostility from the locals. ‘No blacks, no Irish, no dogs’ signs were common currency in England until relatively recently. In South Africa nowadays there are pogroms against fellow Africans which are egged on by the ruling elite. Anyway, none of this occurs in the UK now and as you can well appreciate, ‘islamophobia’ is a wokist invention.

Gareth Edward KING

6th January 2020 at 10:00 am

I have absolutely no problem with immigration from the EU or wherever as long as it goes hand-in-hand with real integration which would include full voting rights. But that’s the crux of the matter. ‘Integration’ is regarded by the wokists as akin to racism or ‘sameness’. Brexit has become the golden opportunity to express a desire as to what ‘Britishness’ means: ‘You want to be here you integrate to our values’. That’s not the same as ‘respect’. There are so many examples amongst British politicians: Priti Patel, Kahn, Abbot, even Lammy. They’re British and, whatever their views, they are integrated. I have worked in London comprehensives where practically the whole studentship has been BAME, but they don’t want to be ‘British’. Therein lies the problem. ‘Multiculturism’ doesn’t work. This has to end with ‘Brexit’.

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

6th January 2020 at 2:49 pm

‘Wokists’ lol. I sometimes think the people commenting on this website spend half their lives agonising over new epithets for the ‘Leftists’.

Bella Donna

6th January 2020 at 9:54 am

I’m white and proud of my heritage is that racist? I’m past caring if people think I am.

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

6th January 2020 at 12:55 pm

Better to be a Christian and proud of that. Being white is irrelevant.

Gareth Edward KING

6th January 2020 at 9:34 am

Absolutely! Another reason to leave Madrid and return to the UK. I am technically part of the process i.e. integrated, but my rights are still limited unless I take on Spanish nationality. But I can’t do it! A Brit can’t be a dual national so it means relinquishing my Britishness (though I doubt that my passport’d be taken off me!). On becoming ‘Spanish,’ I’d have to swear loyalty to Filipe VI! which as a republican to the core (along with many Spaniards) beggars belief. The Brexit debate has brought it all to the fore. Vox has become the third-most voted party since the November elections and after Unidos-Podemos’ craven policies towards both the EU and to the PSOE, I can see why the former are the more attractive option. Will there be a ‘Spaxit’? I think it depends both on the Emilia-Romagna election results in Italy at the end of the month, and the French elections next year.

steve moxon

6th January 2020 at 9:13 am

Well said Neil Davenport, but (1) as Jane here says, it’s an artificial distinction with non-EU migration; the main problem is scale; and (2) it would not be ‘racist’ to exercise freedom of association by preferencing non-EU migrants from Anglophone nations, with whom we clearly have far more in common culturally, than those from the Indian subcontinent and Africa. There is no democratic mandate — indeed, there would be the very opposite — for the importation of people who are culturally distant from us. Clearly, there are those from India and Africa who are as ‘British’ as we are, if not more so (like the Ugandan Asians who were settled here to escape Idi Amin), but there is no reason why a rough categorisation could not be used, notwithstanding that it would exclude some of these ‘good fits’, as it were. It’s of no issue if this is maliciously interpreted as ‘racist’ by those posing as ‘anti-racist’: they are just hate-mongering to the general UK population — it is the supposed ‘anti-racists’ who are the real ‘racists’.
The problem has never been of individuals of whatever culture coming to work and settle in the UK, even if they are not as desirable as, for example, Indian computer programmers. The problem is that people have come here as part of movements on vast scales to form migrant enclaves, whereby they may feel absolved from integrating. There are only downsides to this for the UK as a whole and for local UK populations who live by migrant enclaves. The only beneficiary is the Labour Party, to increase its vote share; this being the only rationale for Blair/Brown’s insanely damaging migration policy (they had zero understanding of what makes people and society tick). It is hated by pretty well everybody else.

Major Bonkers

6th January 2020 at 9:11 am

At the end of 1945, this country was still predominantly white, protestant, and British, in the sense of having generations of antecedents.

Since then, and ‘a number of Nationality Acts from the late 1960s to the early 1980s [that] placed restrictions on migration from predominantly non-white countries [… and] [r]acist immigration controls [that] were divisive and undemocratic’, this country has accepted huge numbers of foreign immigrants, many of whom were not from Commonwealth countries and who make varying efforts to integrate – at their worst making no effort to learn the language and some who actively engage in terrorism against their fellow subjects (vide. Mohammed Emwazi). All of this has been done in the face of public concern and without any democratic mandate.

If you consider this a racist and cruel immigration policy – one that has completely changed the make-up of this country – the mind boggles. The only alternative would be a Tony Blair-like free for all, which is, arguably, how we got into this mess in the first place.

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

6th January 2020 at 8:33 pm

Disingenuous comment given that the vast majority of white, indigenous British people have voluntarily abandoned the Protestant religion of their forefathers. The Right are as in thrall to moral relativism and multiculturalism as the Left, and are equally responsible for the rejection of the Christian religion. Thatcher thought she was a Christian but appeared not to understand that Christianity is about the salvation given to us in Christ, and not the imposition of Victorian morality and money-worship.

Melissa Jackson

6th January 2020 at 9:03 am

The use of “nativist” has always been pejorative, and deliberately so. Outside of overtly racist governments (Apartheid South Africa, for example) there is never much care about who was born where, only who votes for them.

A better term would be “citizenist” – The belief that a government’s first responsibility is to the citizens that elect them. All democratic governments should be “citizenist” in this regard. The suggestion that they should not be, and place the concerns of immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees above the concerns of the citizens who elect them is frankly sinister.

Willie Penwright

6th January 2020 at 10:26 am

The term ‘English’ might be better still.

Melissa Jackson

6th January 2020 at 1:30 pm

I think you mean “British”. The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish are allowed to vote too, you know?

So are the children of immigrants, and naturalized foreigners and so forth.

Just saying; it’s just as pejorative to say “English” as “nativist” when some of the most “Englishist” voters are British Indians.

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

6th January 2020 at 1:01 pm

Better an Afrikaner than some Anglo imperialist. The UK owned 70 percent of the South African economy and bankrolled Apartheid for 40 years, even while maintaining sanctions against the country! Don’t forget those concentration camps you set up either, only 60,000 non-combatants killed through disease…

Melissa Jackson

6th January 2020 at 1:27 pm

Don’t forget that I wasn’t alive during the Boer War, and wouldn’t have had a vote even if I had been.

My point was very much that Apartheid South Africa was distinctively ethnic in a disgusting and repellent manner. However, states that do not have such a divide, and where franchise is based on citizenship alone, are not nativist.

Given that I can vote in the UK, and that Tory landowners can vote, and that immigrants can vote; the UK is not apartheid and not nativist.

NEIL DATSON

6th January 2020 at 9:01 am

Am I right in recollecting that the last Labour Party Conference voted for policies that included an end to all immigration controls, immediate full citizenship rights for all immigrants (electoral register, social benefits, free healthcare at the point of use etc)? I admit that I may be confusing them with the Greens, or conflating the two, or just have it wrong altogether. But there surely has been some such Utopian virtue signalling by some ‘Progressives’ recently, and if to be opposed to such policies makes one a ‘Nativist’ I’ll just have to accept that I’m a ‘Nativist’.

steve moxon

6th January 2020 at 9:47 am

Yes, and people were not sceptical about them implementing it. It’s what Liebore has been about for a long time, and people well know it, and well know it’s an expression of the Left’s hatred towards them. It’s keep them (and any party of the Left) out of power for a long time if not forever.

Jerry Owen

6th January 2020 at 10:30 am

Neil
You are correct in that Labour did indeed call an end to all immigration controls, not surprisingly it got little mention on the BBC !!

Jane 70

6th January 2020 at 12:10 pm

So am I,and many others : #nativists

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

6th January 2020 at 12:56 pm

You don’t know anything about Europe or British history, do you?

steve moxon

6th January 2020 at 9:59 pm

Xenophobia evidently hasn’t read up on recent fine-scale genetic research of the British population. The genes of great majority of us are from prehistoric stock; mostly before the iron & bronze ages. The ‘nation of immigrants’ baloney is yet another false Left shibboleth.

Steve Roberts

6th January 2020 at 8:54 am

Superb article making it an easy read of complex issues.Scything reposte to the regressive “left” and a clinical defence of citizenship and democracy within the nation state and the primacy of the people nationally and internationally. A reference article for sure.

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

6th January 2020 at 12:52 pm

The UK is not a ‘nation state’. It is closer in character to an Early Modern ‘composite state’. The Celtic countries were subsumed within the English Empire through military conquest and political manipulation. England, with its history of imperialism and unelected head of state and upper chamber, should put its own house in order before lecturing others.

steve moxon

6th January 2020 at 11:37 pm

Huh?! England IS a ‘Celtic’ country!
I research ancient British mythologies, placenames and vernacular language: where I live in Pennine South Yorkshire, all our placenames, minor and major, and its framework vernacular language and much of out lexicon is actually from GAELIC, in common with Western Britain generally, from the north of Scotland to the Dorset coast. That’s far older even than the Britonnic tongues (Cumbric, as there would h been, closely related to Welsh).
In eastern Britain there was a proto-English spoken thousands of years before the small, population-wise insignificant settlement by Angles /Saxons. Neither did Danes settle in supplanting numbers. The influx of Normans was minuscule.
The British Isles has a very ancient population, where there is more difference east-west across the Pennines than there is between the top of Scotland and the bottom of England.

Jane 70

6th January 2020 at 7:00 am

This article, while appropriate in some respects, is disingenuous in its concentration on inward flows of EU nationals: immigration from the rest of the world continues to rise.

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/what-is-the-problem

The Remain/ Left lobby’s virtue signalling and disparagement of rising public concern as backward ‘nativism’ does not stand up to informed scrutiny and nor does their lauding of the SNP’s ‘progressive’ nationalism as the way forward.

Open borders, if taken to their logical conclusion, would entail a human mix without any fixed identity,with consequent risks for stability, community cohesion, democracy,legality,citizenship and consent, let alone the maintenance of viable infrastructure and resource usage and allocation.

The right on advocates of a borderless Utopian future should be careful what they wish for.

jessica christon

6th January 2020 at 8:10 am

“Open borders, if taken to their logical conclusion, would entail a human mix without any fixed identity,… ”

Jane, I agree that this is how it would begin, but not necessarily how it would end. My guess is that a dominant identity group would emerge and eventually end the immigration rights of anyone they didn’t like for whatever reason they chose, alongside the Amin style expulsion (or worse) of such people who already reside in the country. As you said, progressives should be careful what they wish for in case they get it.

Jane 70

6th January 2020 at 8:58 am

An interesting conclusion Jessica; we might both be right, in that essential anarchy would result, as you rightly say, in the emergence of a dominant group.

The Roman Empire and the Nazi era showed examples of this.

Jim Lawrie

6th January 2020 at 11:29 am

One advantage of unfettered EU migration is EU nationals setting up fly by night companies who deliver goods and services much more cheaply by evading corporation and income tax, VAT, and National Insurance. Individuals and businesses who use these people are doing well. The law abiding indigenous population fare badly and foot the bill. The response of successive governments has been to cut the budget for revenue protection services, and continue in work benefits for these people, showing us how comfortable they and their supporters are with it.

Jim Lawrie

6th January 2020 at 11:34 am

We see that RESULT still playing out in the wake of the collapse of The Ottoman Empire. At its most vicious in The Balkans, the Middle East and the Black Sea area.

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

6th January 2020 at 12:47 pm

Utter bilge and a complete misrepresentation of the Remainer position. Still, if it makes you feel better…

jessica christon

6th January 2020 at 6:03 pm

Whatever Z. I just hope you realise you wouldn’t last 5 minutes in your own utopia.

Emily Harper

6th January 2020 at 6:06 am

I am now making over $15k every month just by doing an easy job online from home using my laptop. Everybody can now get this and start making extra dollars online by just follow instructions on this website.. https://www.workbaar.com

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.