For Labour to support Nigel Mills's amendment would be to do nothing more than support the continuation of the arrangements that Labour had put and left in place. It would be the most consistent thing in the world, and either victory or defeat for the Coalition against such a vote would be political gold for Labour.
Mills stands no chance of holding in 2015 the Amber Valley seat that he won in 2010. As with his vote on Syria, he has clearly decided to enjoy the five-year interlude when he was an MP, between the ages of 36 and 41 so as to allow plenty of time for other things. Good luck to him, say I.
But a population, as much the Catholic as the ancestrally Protestant half of it, which is determined not to reproduce itself can only expect to be replaced. If that population really is so concerned about Islamic conquest, then there is no one to whom it could more dearly wish to hand over these Islands than the Eastern Europeans. Equalled only by the Christians of West Africa and of the belt across the horizontal middle of that continent.
Yes, the arrangements they "put and left in place" for 4 million people to move here in 10 years?
ReplyDeleteThe arrangements they left in place were to get rid of all transitional controls in 2004 (even the rest of the EU didn't go that far).
Of course Labour won't support the amendment. Don't be so silly.
There are only 46 patriots in Parliament.
As we're about to see again.
We are about to see something, all right.
ReplyDeleteYour line about East Europeans was hilarious.
ReplyDeleteAnd proved, in one sentence, that you haven't the faintest clue why conservatives might oppose mass immigration.
Not the slightest clue.
Opposition to mass immigration has absolutely nothing to do with opposition to "Islamism"-any number of European cultures are as alien to ours as Islam is.
ReplyDeleteIslamism wasn't even a conscious issue here when Enoch Powell spoke about the dangers of multiculturalism.
Your beloved Peter Hitchens agrees with it.
ReplyDeleteWhatever vision of Britain you have that would not be best defended against Islamisation by Eastern Europeans is by definition a wholly liberal one.
It probably including tiny liberal birthrates as a good in themselves, with no demographic challenge to them.
You are a neocon. A textbook neocon.
That wasn't what Enoch Powell said. On what he did say, Peter Hitchens maintains to this day that he was wrong.
ReplyDeleteany number of European cultures are as alien to ours as Islam is
There isn't even a word for what you are politically.
The black church and the "white ethnics" as pillars of a permanent Democratic/Labour majority. And socially conservative, non-Marxist, community based anchors of its economic populism. Sorry about the mixed metaphor, I know pillars can't be anchors. But I like it.
ReplyDeleteYou could certainly use a pillar as an anchor. If you had to. And if the vessel were appropriate.
ReplyDeleteFunny that you should mention all of this. A post is coming.
Sadly the presence of lots of Irish, Italian, East European and even Arab Catholics and Orthodox, Mediterranean Arabs at least being classified as white ethnics in the US, has not affected US Mid-East policy in any way.
ReplyDeleteIreland policy a bit, less than most British people think. Eastern Europe policy a bit more than that, in the immediate post Cold War years anyhow. But the Mid-East, not at all.
The UK has longer ties to the region, so bringing them in to replace your dying population might do more good, they already have lines of communication with politics and the media. It has done no good at all here because their existence is incomprehensible to most Americans.
Is Anon. 00:35 and 00:38 the same Anon. who has been telling us over the last few days that the Church of England was a great force for traditional moral values until the 1960s? He needs to look up the Lambeth Conferences of 1930 and 1958.
ReplyDeleteThe first one, as long ago as 1930 and presided over by the supposed uber-trad Cosmo Gordon Lang who later forced out Edward VIII, was the first ever commendation of contraception by any church in the world.
The second one, in the supposed halcyon days of the 1950s and presided over by the Anglo-Tory icon Geoffrey Fisher, pushed that commendation even further.
If England now needs mass immigration just to function economically, and it does, that is because the English took the advice of their National Church in 1930 and 1958, under Cosmo Gordon Lang and Geoffrey Fisher.
The whole Sexual Revolution in Britain began with the teaching of the Church of England, as long ago as 1930 and more strongly in that direction in 1958.
David Aaronovitch and Oliver Kamm have been having kittens on Twitter over Labour's "move to the Populist Right" on immigration. They should get what they wish for.
ReplyDelete