Thursday, 14 November 2013


With membership of the EU comes the free movement of people. This is a fundamental principle of the EU. So when we see apparent regrets over immigration from former Labour Minister Jack Straw, who like many in Labour supports membership, we can only conclude his real regret was not to delay the influx for seven years which would have conveniently dumped the problem on Cameron’s lap:
"Other existing EU members, notably France and Germany, decided to stick to the general rule which prevented migrants from these new states from working until 2011. But we thought that it would be good for Britain if these folk could come and work here from 2004”.
This 'blame the Tories' mentality is illustrated neatly by David Blunkett:
[Blunkett] also accused the government of "burying their head in the sand" over the scale of Roma settlement in the UK.
It’s irrelevant whether they came here in 2004 or in 2011. It’s just a question of time, it doesn’t alter the fact we have lost control of our borders, which is completely in line with EU law. Losing control of borders is both Labour and Tory policy. (Incidentally one notes the more sympathetic treatment Blunkett gets over potentially inflammatory language in contrast with Farage on the issue of immigration).

Thus with the opening of our borders in a few weeks time to Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants (the EU seven year limit expires) we get small-minded Westminster squabbling trying desperately to hide the EU elephant in the room. But squabbling is all it is, nothing will be done, no action taken. Our impotency laid bare. Whether we as a country agree with mass immigration or multi-culturalism is not relevant, the crucial point is we weren’t asked.

But that politicians can get away with this is because our so-called fourth estate fails to scrutinise our Parliament properly. Nothing illustrates this better than Peter Oborne in the Telegraph who writes one of the most stupid bone-headed comments I've read in a long time. A man who has been privately educated, went to Cambridge and gloated over his “predictions” of the failure of the Euro in his "Guilty Men" pamphlet writes the following without any sense of irony: 
The decision will be enforced by anonymous officials and jurists. Without intending to, the European Union is turning into the enemy of democracy
Without intending to? How can such stupidity exist? From a paid journalist? One is inclined to bash the bloke over the head with a copy of the Treaty of Rome or better still batter him with a hardback copy of the Great Deception.

What the immigration question highlights though with great clarity is those at the coal face of everyday life have to suffer the consequences of decisions made by those with the money and means to make themselves immune from those very same consequences.

Our system is broken, it's in desperate need of repair.

1 comment:

  1. Oborne's manner is that of someone playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey.

    He sometimes 'gets it' with absolute clarity on limited occasions (like 'The Guilty Men' instance) but utterly fails so often elsewhere. He treats individual circumstances - whether it be a specific branch of Cameron's relative principles or - just as often - a branch of his considerable hypocrisy - as separate microcosm stories. He completely fails to link aspects of a current events with his observations of political figures, their characters and failures.

    If he could just one day take off his own voluntary blindfold and look at the big picture he'd arguably be as good as Booker at seeing the big picture. But it's exasperating as to why Oborne just can't piece the evidence together to bring himself to perceive the bleedin' obvious.