Gravedigger

The Gravedigger in "Hamlet" says that Hamlet is mad but no one will notice it in England because everyone there is mad. Scotland's King James VI became also King of England in 1603 and wanted the countries to unite politically. But neither the London nor Edinburgh Parliaments wanted it. The King did, however, unite the flag which we call the Union Jack (Jacobus being the Latin for James). So if Scotland has another Referendum and votes to leave the UK we will presumably still keep the same flag. 19th century Scots writer Thomas Carlyle said the British Empire will go some day, but we will always have our Shakespeare.

Madhouse

Immigration caused the Madhouse by the Thames (please see 28 November 2018). But it is wrong to call Europeans who came to the UK "immigrants". Because many (most?) came to suss it out and would have gone home if they didn't like it. It is similar to the 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act when many Afro-Caribbeans and Asians intended to go home, but didn't because they knew that if they did they wouldn't be able to live in the UK again. Another aspect of the Act was that it caused a rush of young men to get here before it came into force. There has always been freedom of movement in Western Europe. In 2004 Poland and other East European countries (not yet Romania & Bulgaria) joined the EU. For them freedom of movement was a main reason for joining. But existing EU countries (France, Germany, etc.) closed their borders to them. Tony Blair did the decent thing and didn't close UK borders, so naturally they all came here. The irony of that being a major reason for the UK now poised to leave the EU shouldn't be lost on anyone. There's more immigration to the UK from outside the EU than from within. Apart from asylum and illegals the main reason is chain migration (i.e. relatives). In 1979 the Conservatives promised to stop foreign men using marriage to live in the UK. But Mrs Thatcher's Government didn't keep its promise. 10,000 men a year were using marriage. This, I was told, isn't many. But that now comes to around 400,000. And they have children. Who marry.

Cause for Celebration?

Today is Coming-of-Age Day in Japan, when 20-year-olds become adults. Every year there are more young men than young women. This year there are 640,000 men and 610,000 women. It is not good news for Japan that there is consistent disparity. Also, foreign men use marriage so they can live in Japan. And that exacerbates the shortage of young women. Not all Japanese men will be able to find wives or, worse, some men will marry someone they don't really want to. That must make for unhappiness all round, including men's mothers. Foreign men have been able to live and work in Japan through marriage since 1985, when the European Court of Human Rights determined in favour of 3 women whose husbands weren't allowed to live in the UK.

Lethal Fiasco

Some Iranians claiming asylum in the UK have already been refused it in France, BBC News (8 January). 50% are granted asylum here and another 25% get it on appeal. We weren't told if the remaining 25% were deported. Nor why the French hadn't deported failed asylum seekers. For the authorities, it's easy to do nothing. Presumably the TV Reporter assumed as much and didn't ask. While that News was being broadcast yet another teenager was being stabbed to death in London. Immigration has caused lawlessness (clearly condoned by authorities) as well as the Brexit fiasco. 40 years ago Mrs Thatcher promised to curb immigration. But she didn't keep her 1979 promise to stop foreign men using marriage to live in the UK. With the result that some 400,000 men and their children live here. Also, within weeks of being elected in May 1979 Mrs Thatcher allowed Vietnamese and Iranians to take up permanent settlement here. So they know that if they can't get away with living in France they can here. Which is strange, since the law is supposed to be international. And not applied differently in different countries.

Hellbent

There's a surge of illegal aliens coming to Britain caused by Brexit. (BBC News, 27 Nov.) That Britain leaving the European Union might result in an increase of immigration, instead of the decrease that was intended, was predicted at this blog on 10 June 2016. Illegal aliens who cross the English Channel are entitled to claim asylum in the UK. But since they could have, but didn't, claim asylum in France they are clearly not genuine refugees and their claims should be instantly rejected. They should be promptly deported, before they can establish relationships. That is what other countries (e.g., Japan) do. But instead Britain allows them several appeals. Once the last appeal fails they can then easily vanish into society, as described in "Welcome to the Asylum", published by Centre for Policy Studies way back in 2001. The person responsible for immigration since 2010 is now Prime Minister. (!) Mrs May could have and should have, but didn't, reform the system. (Reportedly, she reduced the number of appeals from 17 (!) to 4.) Mrs May is now hellbent on touring the country to encourage people to approve of her Brexit deal which even her own supporters don't like. Immigration caused this Brexit fiasco. Britain's Parliament is now sadly regarded as the "Madhouse by the Thames" - headline in a German newspaper - a singularly appropriate nomenclature for the domain of those running the asylum.

Roots

BBC Radio 4 "The Moral Maze" discussed (25 July 2018) promoting diversity and "positive action". It was said of the BBC "It doesn't get the money if it doesn't have the mix." The heated debate ignored immigration. That's strange because immigration is at the root of this. The Race Relations Act includes the word "nationality". This means foreigners are entitled to deprive native Brits of work and promotion. Other countries would regard treating its own citizens in this way as barmy. Since we in Britain have passively acquiesced to being second-class citizens in our own country for so long it is hardly surprising the Government has taken it a step further by legitimising "positive action" which gives preference to everyone over native British men.

Is there any point in having Armed Forces?

On 1 July 1916, in addition to the wounded, 19,240 British soldiers were killed. They achieved nothing. Only the French achieved their objectives in the southern sector of the Somme. And in contrast with the British experience, French women weren't engaged in a bitter power struggle with the men. In 1914 and 1939 Britain declared war on Germany. On both occasions the Germans didn't want it. German diplomats tried to prevent it. Britain killed thousands of Germans. We regard our "killers" as heroes. Rightly so, in my opinion, because they were doing their duty. War is described as politics by other means; immigration control can be said to be war by peaceful means. Immigration control is genuinely about preventing these islands being occupied by other peoples, while, as pointed out above, in 1914 and 1939 the Germans didn't want to occupy the UK. These days we have a formidable arsenal of weapons. The occupation of other people's territory is mainly driven by men. And the obvious main loophole open to foreigners who want to get around the usual visa constraints is marriage. Mrs Thatcher promised to close this loophole when she was first elected Prime Minister back in 1979, but she didn't. The contrast between British servicemen risking their lives while foreign men occupy the UK was starkly revealed on 12 May 1982 when the European Commission of Human Rights determined in favour of three women whose husbands weren't allowed to live in the UK. The Falklands Conflict was at its height; and those three women weren't even British. They had British residency, which meant they could live in their own countries (Malawi, Egypt, The Philippines) and the UK, and - if their husbands were of different nationality - their husband's country. So, with a possibility they could live in three different countries, what gave those women the "right" to complain? And surely, since the European Convention on Human Rights was set up in response to the atrocious treatment of minorities during the Second World War, the European Commission of Human Rights was wrong to support them to live in the UK. Meanwhile 255 British servicemen were killed on and near the Falklands, and a similar number, we are told, subsequently committed suicide. Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights says "Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law." (!) So, no armed forces, then? A present-day recruitment ad. for the Royal Navy shows it helping ferry Africans across the Mediterranean. If they were returned to Africa that would be all well and good. But they aren't. Bringing them to Europe, where they are welcomed by an army of lawyers, makes a nonsense of having armed forces. When conscription ended in the early 1960s it seemed good for young British men, but an unforeseen outcome is that young foreign men see Britain as a desirable destination in which to live in order to avoid conscription in their own countries. While they are doing that, young patriotic British men join our armed forces... This is a lunatic scenario which supposedly protects our shores. Amend (or just end) asylum laws! Patricia Hewitt, Tony Blair's Equality Minister, campaigned successfully against Mrs Thatcher's 1979 policy. In her 1982 book "The Abuse of Power" she compared it with women's struggle for the vote. This was called a war. Therefore the roughly 400,000 foreign men who have used marriage to live in these islands since 1979 are here as a result of a war.