AFTER STAYING ON MESSAGE WITH the Foreign Office (FO) when in Turkey by accusing the Israelis of overseeing and even maintaining a ‘prison camp’, in reference to Gaza; he suddenly strays off message whilst visiting India where he is supposed to be hawking up business. His visit however, was dominated by insulting India’s neighbour, Pakistan.
This time he accused Pakistan of exporting terror, which, in the murky politics of that part of the world may indeed be true; but I doubt if Hillary Clinton will see it that way after she promised $500 million in aid to Pakistan barely a week ago.
I also doubt whether the Foreign Office would have wanted him to speak so bluntly. After all, the chaps and chapesess at the FO will no doubt complain to each other that they now have to pick up the pieces.
Criticising the Israelis is one thing as far as the FO are concerned, after all, historically speaking, their pro-Arabist stance is almost part of their culture. I do not know whether it is as strong today, but no doubt, the latest influx of young civil servants were bound to have come through an academic process that was overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian in its sympathies.
IN INDIA CAMERON has been criticised for his immigration policy of restricting the numbers of immigrants to some 50,000 per year. He has also been brought to book by Vince Cable who it seems shares the view of India that such restriction will have a detrimental effect on our trade. Cable will not say bluntly what he means; so I will do it for him: what he advocates is unrestricted immigration into this country. Which Cameron knows, (and Cable also knows, but could not care less) is that the British people will not tolerate such a policy.
All of those businessmen who think human labour should be allowed free entry to fulfil their commercial needs, as well as what they see as in the interests of the country’s economic survival, have not taken cognisance of the social implications of their laissez-faire attitude to the trade in foreign human labour.
First of all they will be entering a multicultural environment where they will be encouraged to view the culture from which they emerged as equal to the indigenous culture they have entered into.
The indigenous people of this country resent such an egalitarian tag put on what is after all the host culture. Multiculturalism says that all cultures are equal, but they are not. When or if I ever choose to live in India, the culture I come from is not equal to that of the Indian people – I have to adapt. It would have been my choice to live in India, and as such I would expected to live by the rules of Indian culture and in time may have been won over to the government’s position on any particular position.
But my own 2,000 year old British culture has, it seems, to play the part of just another culture no better or worse than whatever the culture of whomsoever chooses to live among us from abroad. This is what the people of this island nation resents. They are not racist; they will welcome anyone into their hearts who fairly integrate into and accept British culture. For British culture is the dominant culture and it is equal to no other who chooses to live among us – and this is as it should be. It is not racist to defend your culture. If so all cultures from all over the world are racists.
That wretched ideology known as Multiculturalism has obfuscated the relationship between different peoples - just as Marxism obfuscated the relationship between classes in the 19th century.
IF DAVID CAMERON OR VINCE CABLE; or for that matter, the businessmen they have taken with them to India, wish to open this country up to ever greater immigration, then the first thing they must do is get rid of the ideology of Multiculturalism, which has allowed the BNP to play so successfully upon the prejudices of the British people caused by its devaluation of the host culture.
But even if we allow further immigration into this country we must take account of the sheer weight of their numbers, which has nothing to do with racism, but more to do with demography.
If I were given the choice, I would welcome more Indian immigrants into the country at the expense of Muslims or East Europeans. I would do so because India produces many ambitious and successful people. They have entrepreneurialism written into their DNA. They may be snobs, as the British were and still continue to be, but at a far lesser extent today than 50 years ago.
I believe that David Cameron is right in restricting yearly immigration to 50,000 per year. I believe the vast majority of those people should come from India or the far East. Others claiming entry from outside the EU should be given short shrift.
As far as the EU is concerned it appears everything is out of our hands because of the various agreements our trusted politicians signed us up to, in particular the Schengen Agreement which this country signed up to some two years before the rest of Europe. Under the agreement we allowed East Europeans to enter this country long before they had access to the rest of Europe.
We should be able to choose the restricted numbers of people allowed to enter our country without the European Union demanding that the continents citizens should be given open access to the United Kingdom. If we need to attract people from abroad to invigorate our economy then we, as a nation, should be the sole arbitrators of such an influx.
No comments:
Post a Comment