Andrew Cadman: Control of immigration is the key to Brexit’s success

The Devil makes work for idle hands to do. It’s holiday time, Parliament is in recess and the air is thicker than a pea soup fog with talk of Tory Brexit betrayals. “Broad agreement on a transition period”, says Hammond. “No there isn’t”, says Liam Fox. “Boris to resign as Foreign Secretary” says Cable. “No I won’t!”, says Boris. Can it be long before a Tory Brutus turns up in some form, announcing: “I come to praise Theresa not to bury her”? Perhaps Jacob Rees-Mogg will say it in the original Latin.

Whatever the technicalities, the truth is that the spirit of Brexit was betrayed as soon as the Theresa May was crowned as Tory leader. You could not have picked a worse person for the job: visionless and cautious, she had the exact opposite of the qualities needed in the situation. As we all know, her failure immediately to trigger Article 50 left stunned Remainers time to regroup and mount a ferocious rearguard action.

However, a far more serious problem than the incessant public whining of embittered Remoaners is that delay has allowed the Brussels-centred deep web of lobbying networks, representing the globalist transnational corporations, bureaucracies and third sector charities, to reorientate themselves to London. We shall never know the extent of the conversations, the subtle threats and arm-twisting these have and will continue to exert on the British government. However, we can guess, and Hammond’s mooted transitionary arrangements are surely an early product of it.

A failure to strike when the iron was hot is Britain’s tragedy. As Gisela Stuart puts it, this is an “unfrozen moment” in British history: the state of flux Brexit represents and the revolutionary passions it has unleashed can be channeled to transform our society’s many ills. Sadly, there is no sign that the elites have genuinely embraced Brexit – like the Bourbons they have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing – and are plainly unwilling to change course unless forced. On social policy they are content not just to follow but reinforce the politically correct fashions that have landed us in this mess in the first place.

Thus, control of immigration becomes even more key to Brexit’s success: turning off the immigration tap would force government to confront the deep social problems in our society caused by the denudation of its social capital, now clearly damaging long term economic growth. If the immigration tide goes out, then the politically correct emperor will be standing stark naked on the beach for all to see. A betrayal on immigration is a betrayal of Brexit. We cannot allow either to succeed.

(Image: Marcus Meissner)

Andrew Cadman

  • Bik Byro

    My biggest fear is the image that Britain is giving to the rest of the EU is one of a nation of risible half hearted ditherers being continually stabbed and contradicted by our own population.

    Not exactly the strongest image to project when you are trying to conduct a negotiation!

    • Yeah, but you know the EU looks even worse, at least from over here. They seem very intent on cutting of their overlong nose to spite their face.

      • Bik Byro

        Well, that’s encouraging at least. I’m worried that Britain just looks like a bunch of indecisive pushovers.

        • Eventually the Germans will tell the EU to sit down and be quiet. I saw on Guido today that Deutsches Bank has made a 25 year commitment for 469,000 sq ft of new office space – don’t think they’re overly worried. You’re having trade talks with us (not official, of course, since you’re still in the EU) that are going very well, and we are, after all, each others biggest investors, and your manufacturing is up quite a lot as well. There’ll be problems, of course, but you’ll handle them, as always.

    • Reborn

      I agree that we are presented like that by the British media, which is largely
      remoan.
      Even more objective journals, like the Spectator, allow remoaners to spread their
      negativity. I’d guess the Tory party is split about 70/30 in favour of the UK
      regaining its independence.
      But look at the EU & its problems.
      Belgium is essentially a failed state where the police & security forces barely
      co operate due to linguistic/cultural conflicts. Small wonder the Germans chose
      Brussels as the EU’s nominal power base.
      The poorer States depend on UK handouts, second only to Germany, also as
      a useful dumping ground for their less productive classes.
      The Eu sells more to us that we do to them.
      Over 3 million EU citizens in the small, overcrowded UK
      A million or so UK citizens spread over the much larger EU.
      I’d say we have a strong bargaining hand & should play it to the full.
      I want decent EU citizens to stay here & become assimilated.
      The undesirables, lncluding beggars & those who work below the minimum wage
      should be sent packing. Pronto.

  • Colkitto03

    The biggest lie perpetrated by the BBC and Remainers is that immigrants are of net value somehow. This claim can only dubiously be made, if you lump all immigrants together. Throw all the mega rich and high earners in with all the minimum wage earners.

    This country should only let in likely net contributors or people with critical skills that society agrees are worth paying for (i.e nursing etc). People who contribute more in tax than they take in benefits. We don’t barristas, nannies, gardeners and chauffeurs etc,

    • Bik Byro

      Exactly. There is little if any discrimination on quality, so a Swedish brain surgeon and a Romanian gypsy both count as “one unit”

      • Colkitto03

        Yes, and if the combined value of both together is £1 to the benefit of the UK then that is used to justify the Romanian gypsy. Nonsensical

    • I need a gardener!

    • Or at least people who understand that for a period (ours is theoretically 7 years) even attempting to receive (or applying for) benefits is cause for immediate deportation. Now if only we enforced it. But that is a different article.

      • Colkitto03

        Yes, from watching US television I get the impression that the country already has perfectly good laws all around enforcement of immigration, illegal immigration and claiming of benefits. I looks like much is not enforced.

        • Pretty much covers our situation, although it is getting a bit better.

    • Reborn

      You’ll find this hard to believe, but about two years ago BBC Radio Four’s excellent
      statistics programme More or Less looked into immigration on a cost benefit analysis.
      The conclusion was that immigration was a net cost to our economy.
      Repeat Net Cost.
      The programme specifically ignored cultural enrichment, and so excluded the costs
      of policing & punishing immigrant criminals.
      The benefits were summed up perfectly by some woman on Radio Four in another show
      who stated “You’ll not believe the trouble I’ve had getting my Polish parlour maid an
      abortion on the NHS”
      You could write a thesis on that sentence.

      • Colkitto03

        That brilliant!

  • ButcombeMan

    “As we all know, her failure immediately to trigger Article 50 left stunned Remainers time to regroup and mount a ferocious rearguard action.”

    Blame where it s due for that, David Cameron apparently refused to allow even modest preparation for a “Yes” Brexit vote. This was almost criminally negligent behaviour.

    Worse, is the behaviour of the Cabinet Secretary, on a point of principle he should have insisted on making some preparations, or threatened resignation and the public humiliation of the guilty Cameron.

    We were very badly served by both.

  • Tethys

    We already have the option to expel that EU migrants coming from the EU after a period if they have no employment or prospect of any.

    • JabbaPapa

      Only theoretically — in practise, EU Law requires that such expulsions must be motivated by specific (usually criminal) causes.

  • Australia has restrictions on migrants giving priority to those with skills or knowledge that the country most needs. Although these rules have been relaxed somewhat over recent years giving problems with some immigrants, they largely remain in place and clearly have done the country no great harm.
    A pensioner ex-work colleague of mine wanted to join his children in Australia. He has a good pension and would be self-supporting, but even so was subject to lengthy enquiries as to his ability to afford or rent a home and demonstrate the he would not be a drain on the taxpayers. They also checked that he didn’t have a criminal record and he had to put up a substantial bond to cover possible healthcare costs for himself and his wife.
    In the case of this country, anyone who can get here can promptly bring in their parents and various relations, based on our crazy human rights laws, all of whom promptly claim benefits.
    The sooner we stop virtually unlimited immigration and availability of benefits, so much the better. What’s wrong with adopting the Australian approach?