Brexit must mean the RETURN of our border controls, blasts LEO MCKINSTRY
THE DETERMINATION to regain control of immigration was central to the triumph of Brexit in the June referendum.
While the metropolitan progressives extolled the EU’s open-door policy, a clear majority of voters felt only despair at the loss of our national identity, the growing pressure on our public services and the erosion of our social solidarity.
The electorate’s disillusionment was recognised by Theresa May in her brave speech to the Tory Party conference last week, when she denounced those arrogant, self-righteous elitists who find “patriotism distasteful” and “concerns about immigration parochial”.
Government might as well announce that foreign workers will be tattooed with numbers on the forearms
Yet the anti-Brexit brigade still clings to the belief that Britain must accept freedom of movement. Even after the referendum their instincts are to collude with Brussels. That attitude shines through their attempts to smear any tougher line on immigration as a form of bigotry and intolerance.
A particular target for concocted outrage was the plan, announced by the Home Secretary Amber Rudd, for companies to disclose the proportion of foreign workers they employ.
In a melodramatic outburst over the weekend, David Cameron’s former aide Steve Hilton not only described the scheme as “repugnant” but claimed that it was like something from 1930s Germany.
“The Government might as well announce that foreign workers will be tattooed with numbers on the forearms,” he said.
Such language reveals that open border maniacs have lost all sense of proportion. They are now so brainwashed by their globalisation dogma that they cannot even grasp the basic concept of citizenship. Despite talk of watering down the plans from Defence Secretary Michael Fallon yesterday, there is nothing remotely oppressive about a possible requirement to report foreign staff.
LBC host compares Amber Rudd's speech to Mein Kampf
Indeed, it is standard practice throughout most of the world, including in France and Germany. Those who now shriek hysterically atshould consider that in 2012 the former Labour leader Ed Miliband advocated a very similar initiative, whereby firms would be surveyed to find out the numbers of foreign staff they have.
Any employers “with more than 25 per cent migrant workers”, declared Miliband, would be reported to the Department of Work and Pensions to identify any recruitment problems and ensure that British workers have “a fair crack of the whip”. The undemocratic bullying and anti-British cowardice can be found on every turn.
The Cabinet is said to be badly split over Brexit, with Chancellor Philip Hammond – a former Remain campaigner – giving more priority to continued membership of the single market than the restoration of immigration controls. Similarly a cross-party alliance is developing at Westminster to demand a Parliamentary vote over the terms of any Brexit deal.
But this is just an excuse to thwart the will of the British people.
Given that the overwhelming majority of MPs and peers backed Remain, there is no Brexit agreement that they will ever support. Big business representatives like the CBI are just as bad, wailing that Britain must not be allowed to leave the EU’s single market, even if free movement is the price we have to pay for continued membership.
But what was the point of the referendum if we are still under Brussels’s authority?
Underlying the stance in favour of free movement is the defeatist belief that we still must obey Brussels. In the mindset of the Remoaners, acceptance of uncontrolled immigration is a key part of the appeasement process. Such self-abasement plays right into the hands of the Eurocrats, who want to show that Brexit will be a catastrophe for our country.
“We cannot make separation look like a success,” says one EU official. But this kind of menacing rhetoric could hardly be more hollow.
Most British people understand that free movement is the problem, not the solution. The CBI might welcome cheap labour but the reality is that many EU arrivals are a significant drain on the state, with more than 40 per cent of them claiming some sort of welfare benefits.
In 2013-14, British taxpayers forked out more than £2.5billion in tax credits and child benefits for low-paid EU migrants working here, plus £900million in payments for jobless EU citizens, none of which includes the NHS and education costs.
This burden, combined with the contributions we would still have to pay to Brussels if we stay in the single market, far outweighs the costs of any tariffs that the EU could impose once we become a free nation.
Moreover, national control of immigration will also mean far greater security, giving us back the ability to deport extremists, criminals and illegal migrants without reference to alien judges or bureaucrats.
A country without borders is not a country at all, which is why the EU is so in favour of mass immigration. Free movement is not about economics at all, it is a weapon to smash traditional national identities, creating in their place a new European citizenship as part of the federal superstate.
By voting for Brexit, the British people committed an act of apostasy against the EU creed. Like religious zealots, they want to punish us for daring to challenge their theocracy. But their threats are empty. We will ultimately be far better off without Brussels.