Debate on the Immigration Petition in the Commons (Part 1)

Part One

By Hogarth

Petitions 1On Monday 19 October 2015, a debate was held in the House of Commons on an immigration petition, which read as follows:

“The UK government need to prevent immigrants from entering the UK immediately! We MUST close all borders, and prevent more immigrants from entering Britain. Foreign citizens are taking all our benefits, costing the government millions! Many of them are trying to change UK into a Muslim country!”

Petitions which raise over 100,000 signatures must be debated in the Commons.

It appears that this petition, which collected nearly 200,000 signatures, was started by a concerned 17 year old, clearly worried about the effects of immigration, imposed upon the British people without any consultation or consent whatsoever.

Whilst the wording is somewhat sensationalist, it clearly expresses the legitimate concerns of many Britons, who feel their concerns have been ignored.

The debate makes interesting reading and some of the more telling quotes are repeated below, with a suitable commentary from this site.   The full debate can be found here:

Many of the MPs who spoke during the debate, either mistakenly or, more probably deliberately, distorted the meaning of the petition.   The only inaccuracy in its wording, given above, refers to the absorption of all benefits by foreign citizens, which is clearly an exaggeration.


Steve McCabe Labour

Steve McCabe
Steve McCabe Lab.

“Is it not reasonable to ask that we be given a bit more information about the person originating the petition? It is probably fair to know who they are, where they live, whether they are a registered British voter, for example, whether they have any party political association or any history in relation to a particular subject. It would not be unreasonable to know that. The idea of the e-petition system, of course, was to give a voice to the public and to ensure that we in this place did not ignore issues that matter.”

There is clearly a concern that the originators of petitions may then fall foul of politically-correct concepts.  It is important they are not bullied and pressurised, in consequence, by thuggish elements allied to the Labour Party and hounded out of their jobs.  There is no reason to provide the details of petitioners to the public.


Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)

Paul Scully
Paul Scully Con.

“I have employed a Polish plasterer, and I know colleagues who have used Romanian builders. Why do we do so? Because they are cheap. If their work is good and they can undercut the market, that represents open competition, which I absolutely subscribe to as a free-market Conservative.”

This so neatly encapsulates the thinking behind globalisation:  the import of cheap labour, to be employed by those who can afford it personally but also by multinational corporations, interested in exploiting cheap labour.

Open competition is, in itself, laudable and worthy of support.  It is entirely unacceptable when it is opened to the cheapest labour from Eastern Europe, leave alone the entire globe.    The ‘Conservative’ Party wants Turkey to join the EU;  cheap Turkish labour will then undermine cheap Eastern European labour.

Under these circumstances, how are Britons, with mortgage debts, families and responsibilities, to enjoy a living standard befitting of their birth-right?

The free market, of recent decades, has led to a grossly inequitable imbalance between labour and capital, at the expense of the former.  This is a primary factor behind stagnating living standards in the West, in recent years.   This imbalance has its origins both in the import of cheap labour and competition from cheap labour on a global basis, employed by international capital, ie multinational corporations.   A further consequence is the high budget deficits in the UK and elsewhere, as weak tax revenues reflect depressed earnings from employees.

Like the Conservative Party, the Labour Party has refused to safeguard the earnings and living standards of its traditional supporters.

Mrs Anne Main (Con)

Anne Main Con.
Anne Main Con.

“A former speechwriter for Labour, Mr Nether, wrote in 2009 that “mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.”

“He went on to say that he remembered “coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended—even if this wasn’t its main purpose—to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

“In an effort to row back from that situation, the points-based immigration system was introduced. Our Government, elected on a mandate of trying to control immigration, say the same. We have, however, to be honest, in this Chamber and in this Parliament: we can control only outside-EU immigration. We are unable to control EU migration, so other areas must be particularly hit, including former Commonwealth countries. The bar is set extremely high, and it has an unfair and disproportionate effect on certain communities and industries.”

Mrs Main is correct in her reference to Andrew Nether.   Rubbing the right’s nose in diversity, aimed at rendering their arguments out of date tells us two things.   First, it confirms what so many of us already knew:  that immigration is designed to destroy British identity, culture and heritage such that the indigenous people of these islands are compromised and, ultimately, reduced to minority status.

Secondly, the purpose is to disenfranchise the right, which will occur as the foreign population overwhelms the indigenous population.    This has already occurred in parts of the UK, such as London, where the Cockney population has become virtually extinct in its ancestral homeland.

Finally, Mrs Main states that because EU immigration is uncontrollable whilst we are in the EU, immigration from non EU origins, especially Commonwealth countries, has been ‘particularly hit’.

This has been Ukip’s argument for years:  that Labour and Tory Governments are racist because they have discriminated against our ‘traditional immigrants’ from the West Indes, Africa and Asia.

Ukip’s policy is clear:  immigration from the EU is unacceptable but it is certainly acceptable if it comes from the Third World.  It appears that this view is shared, to varying degrees, by Euro-sceptics in the Tory Party.  The end result will be the displacement of the British population by the Third World and, eventually, its replacement by the Third World – which has occurred in East London.

Mrs Main later reflects:

“My hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam, for Northampton South (David Mackintosh) and for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and I returned two weeks ago from visiting a social action project in Bangladesh. Bangladesh is a very poor country and it will be enormously difficult for its people to jump the bar to get in and take up vacancies. Someone from the EU can walk in and, hopefully, get a job in any restaurant by virtue of their EU membership.

“In response to public concern, we have made it our mandate to cut immigration to tens of thousands, but my own concern is that certain countries are discriminated against. People from those countries have families here and other ties to the UK. We should not just tinker with the margins of the figures by hitting only non-EU countries. We need to look at immigration as a whole and ask ourselves what we can, and cannot, realistically control.”

This is similar to the view expressed by the multicultural collaborators in Ukip.   Whilst most British citizens would prefer that immigration from Europe was curtailed, if not halted, they would also prefer – if they had any choice – such immigration to that from, say, Africa or Bangladesh.

The logical extension of Mrs Main’s argument is the ultimate displacement and replacement of the European peoples within the UK by those who are of non-European ethnic origin.


The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Refugees (Richard Harrington) Con:

Richard Harrington Con.
Richard Harrington Con.

“In all seriousness, we are proud of the fact that the UK is, without any doubt, a multiracial democracy—I do not know what else it could be called. Most sensible people will be proud of that.”

Who voted for this?  When was there any consultation?  When was consent provided?  When were future generations asked their views?   When were the fallen, who provided us with their magnificent legacy, ever consulted?



11 thoughts on “Debate on the Immigration Petition in the Commons (Part 1)

  1. ( Party Member ) Superb British Democratic Party Article. Anyone with a reasonable attitude would be very worried about being replaced in THEIR OWN HOMELAND.

  2. An excellent article, many thanks for it. If I may venture an opinion, it’s not really difficult to understand the basic longer-term facts regarding our country’s present situation and predicament during the approximate period 1945 to (say) 2045. In essence, the Britain that won World War 2 (with much help from allies, of course) is going through an agonizing period of slow but enforced “racial suicide” which (if immigration figures and political evolution continue to gather pace at the same rate shown over the last 70 years) will in the next several generations render the1945 white British native an extinct species. I venture to suggest that the most deadly attack of all by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis on Great Britain is still going on, and that this attack is the resultant long-term propaganda defamation rigidly (one might almost say “religiously”) accorded to the essential concept of valuing and preserving a nation’s long-term racial heritage. Put simply, unless there is a very big swing-round in our national political position, we are this century witnessing the irrevocable extinction of the British Native People (as opposed to mere new-wave “British Citizens”). Hitler must be laughing in Hell – the British are finally being defeated and snuffed out because he made the concept of valuing our nation’s race, and its preservation, a verboten and politically incorrect issue which is now unfairly (and incorrectly) branded as “Fascist” and therefore “wicked”. When will our political classes realize that safeguarding racial purity is actually a vital necessity, not an extremist aberration?

  3. Spot on. Mr Nether is now editorial chief for London’s main media outlet. Which from my angle, appears to be far more Leftist than Right.

    There have always been those who have pushed for immigration with the purpose of corroding British identity, it is the sole reason the Left want more of it.

    Europeans have formed structured and civilised societies, this is another reason why half the world and his brother have arrived, They don’t want to go to other third world lands.

    The liberals tell us ”we’re all the same” , and yet reveal they don’t genuinely believe this by having a whole different set of rules for whitey… we have to give our country away to uncivilised cultures. Such hypocrisy is their hallmark.

  4. Well, no surprises there. If these imbeciles keep getting elected by the other group of imbeciles ( the voting public ) then we are doomed.
    right now I see no way out of this quagmire. 4,000,000 UKIP votes couldn’t create a dent, even though we know they are not our saviour they profess to be. The imbecile voting public voted because they thought they were.
    And of course debate with these visionaries in parliament is to all intents like a primary school play area, Yes we can , No we cannot, yah boo.. My best friend is black , although he lives in Brixton and I live somewhere nice.

    1. ( Party Member ) At least two million very disgruntled ( because of Immigration and Europe ) Conservative voters were going to vote Ukip. When Miliband caught up to level in the false opinion polls these people could not risk it and voted Tory again. So who were these four million ukip voters. The answer defies logic but the clue is this. Ukip came second to Labour in over 100 of their winning seats !

      1. ( Party Official ) Further to my previous comment regarding ‘ who voted Ukip ‘ ? and saying the answer ‘ defied logic ‘ , well the answer is this ! Working class people , particularly in the North of England ! Just the people we want to turn to Nationalism. If we ‘ learn from the mistakes of the past ‘ and maintain our good name and protect our image , then they will ! With many other types as well we will be on our way !

        1. Unfortunately we have four castes in Britain now . the upper class, the working class. the benefit class, and foreigners who vote tribally.
          In other words, vote for their man regardless of which party he is in .
          So the working man is squeezed at both ends. And trumped at every election. by the first past the post system.
          So the word democracy mean nothing . Cameron with a clear majority with just 24% of the country voting for him . 36% of those that voted. Which ever way one tries. Maths always shows the truth.

  5. Mr Harrington is a Zionist of a certain ethnicity. An ethnicity in its homeland of Israel that takes great care to make sure that country remains as the national homeland of the Jewish people (as is their right) I am in no way ‘anti-semitic’ but I do wonder why my right as a Briton will be upheld by these sort of people to have the same tough immigration/asylum policies as the Zionist state of Israel is allowed to have and which the world’s media is never critical of Israel’s government for following?

  6. Very good and valid point regarding Israel. For the last three years there has been a repatriation enforcement taking place of 60,000 Africans. There is plenty about this online. However, their government have stated that ”Israel’s identity is under threat” because of these immigrants…and hence the repatriation policy. They have also stated the social impact caused by the these newcomers.

    Yet over here in dear old Blighty the British board of Jews have, in an open letter to David Cameron, labelled his handling of the migrant crisis and his use of the word swarm as ”appalling” …and have called for more migrants to be given a safe haven in Britain. Every country should be able protect their borders and preserve their cultural identity. And that should include us !

    1. ( Party Official ) Decent Jewish people , enjoying life here , would not dream of interfering in Britain’s internal affairs by calling for more Immigration. Anyway , when many of these people are on record as saying they want to ‘ destroy Jews ‘ , it would be stupid. In fact as the saying goes ‘ a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas ‘ !

      1. ( Party Official ) In the past our Party has advocated Britain adopt Israel’s policy regarding Immigration and preserving it’ people and culture , to the DISMAY of our political enemies who have no answer ! ( See older articles on Foreign affairs , they are superb ! )

Leave a Reply