This blog initially set out to focus primarily on Islam and the Islamisation of the UK. However, since that time the subjects covered have broadened. They now include (amongst other things): IQ tests, Jean Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Marxism, Trotskyism, David Cameron, Foucault, Nazism, Ralph Miliband, economics, statistics and so on. - Paul Austin Murphy
I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here.)

Sunday, 20 August 2017

MP Sarah Champion speaks truth to power: anti-racist MPs devour her

A person who said – to the BBC - that many people are afraid to even raise cases of Muslim grooming for fear of being labelled racist has herself been labelled a racist. At least certain leftwingers and people in Jeremy Corbyn's (radical-socialist) Labour Party have done so.

Jeremy Corbyn himself said that the Labour Party wouldn't "demonise any particular group". Fellow Labour MP Naz Shah also said her words were "irresponsible" and "setting a dangerous precedent".

And so will the Muslim child-grooming show carry on just as before?

Sarah Champion (a Labour PM and member of the Shadow Cabinet – until now) made her comments after 18 people (17 of whom were Muslim) were convicted of offences in a series of trials related to Muslim gangs grooming white (non-Muslim) girls in Newcastle.

In an article for The Sun, Champion wrote:

Britain has a problem with British-Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls.”

Is that factually incorrect? No.

Is it politically incorrect? Yes; to many leftwingers and to some Labour MPs.

And so it goes on.

In that article, Champion continued:

There. I said it. Does that make me a racist? Or am I just prepared to call out this horrifying problem for what it is? These people are predators and the common denominator is their ethnic heritage.”

Again – all true! Except that socialist causes (or theories) are more important to the Labour Party than truth or young, white working-class girls. Truth (or fact) doesn't advance “progressive politics”.

The Labour Party and the Left generally are saying - yet again - that associating grooming gangs with Muslims - or with Pakistanis - is racist. It was precisely this crazy anti-racism which caused the problem in the first place. 

Here we go again!

Does the Labour Party - and the Left generally - want yet more white girls to become sacrificial lambs for its socialist theology?

The fact is that nearly all groomers are Muslim. A large proportion - of that large proportion - are Pakistanis. Now the Labour Party and the Left say that it's racist to point this out. This was precisely what happened in Rotherham in 2012/13.... and in Oldham, Keighley, Blackburn, etc. before that.

The Left has learned precisely nothing!

It can't learn anything. Socialist theology doesn't allow it. Thus if acknowledging the ethnic or religious identity of 98% of groomers is - by leftist definition - racist, then the Left – or Corbyn's Labour Party – will carry on fighting against the facts. Progressive theory and sacred causes come before the facts.

This is also true of the BBC! Take this highly-deceitful passage on Sarah Champion:

Ms Champion's article was written after 17 men were convicted of forcing girls in Newcastle to have sex. The men, who were mostly British-born, were from Iraqi, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Indian, Iranian and Turkish communities.”

Firstly, the BBC – of course - doesn't mention the fact that they were all Muslims - minus one. Secondly, it downplays the fact that most of them are Pakistanis. How does it do that? By mentioning that some groomers are also “Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Indian, Iranian and Turkish”. It's true that Muslims from other communities have been involved in grooming; as have a tiny number of whites. However, the BBC doesn't mention the fact that they're all Muslims. In addition, the fact that groomers include a very small number of Bangladeshi, Indian, Iranian and Turkish Muslims doesn't stop it from being a fact that most are Pakistanis. Indeed the BBC's deceit is so subtle that it attempts to fuse the words “were mostly British-born” with the latter fact that they weren't all Pakistanis. Thus the BBC is happy to stress the fact that they're “mostly British-born” (in order, perhaps, not to providesuccor to those against immigration): though it isn't happy with the parallel fact that they're all Muslims and mostly Pakistanis. In other words, one factual generalisation is okay (about being “British-born”) to the BBC; though the other isn't (about being Pakistani/Muslim).

Sarah Champion MP

I'm not fan of Sarah Champion. She didn't speak out against massive Muslim grooming of white girls until the shit hit the fan in 2013/14. Sure, she only became an MP in Rotherham in 2012; though she'd lived and worked in Rotherham before that. In terms of detail, Champion ran the Rotherham Arts Centre from 1992 to 1994. From 2008 to 2012, she was also the Chief Executive of the Bluebell Wood Children's Hospice – ironically enough - in Rotherham.

Sarah Champion first spoke out in 2013 (or possibly as late as 2014) – and then only after an academic report on grooming went public. (She must trust academics more than she trusts the people of Rotherham.) That was one year after she'd become an MP in Rotherham (in 2012). Before that, Sarah Champion had lived and worked in Rotherham; as already stated. (See this piece about an MP who was sued by Sarah Champion for stating these truths about Muslim grooming gangs.)

One person who knew about the abuse wrote to Sarah Champion in 2012. Vicetells us:

"He [Mr Cole] wrote that she needed to get her hands dirty and speak out. Cole told Champion, 'I was warning about people in that gang in 2005 - RMBC ignored these concerns'. Champion assured him that she believed that 'we have a strong system in place'..."

In other words, Sarah Champion only spoke out – as I said - when the shit had hit the fan.

Sarah Champion also once said (to ITV News, in August 2014) that in the U.K. most abusers are white. In her own words:

"Of the 1,400 abusers, I don't know how many were of Asian descent. What I do know is...95%...are single white males."

That's simply because most people in the UK are white. It's proportionality that matters. Virtually every sex-groomer in Rotherham was a Muslim and virtually every victim was white (a non-Muslim). Apart from that, she used the words “1,400 abusers” - that's the figure for the victims, not the abusers.

Despite all that, Sarah Champion may well have seen the error of her ways. However, the fact that she's apologised for her comments showed that she's descended back into tribal leftwing anti-racism. Indeed she said that she apologised 

“for the offence caused by the extremely poor choice of words in The Sunarticle on Friday”.

What Champion said in The Sun is true. Why apologise for telling the truth? Why? Because she's a member of Corbyn's Labour Party: mentioning facts like this is racist. Full stop.

In 2011 (just before the Rotherham scandal), Sarah Champion would never have dared to say that the UK had a “‘problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls” because all hell would have been let loose had she done so. She would have been sacked by the Labour party. She wouldn't have needed to resign.

Yet what Champion is saying today is true. It was true in 2012 when the Rotherham scandal broke. Indeed it was also true in the year 2000 and even before that. Muslim gangs have been grooming white girls for well over twenty years. 

And yet the Labour Party is still fighting against fact/truth in order to advance – yet further – its eternal and fanatical war against (often fake) racism. The only racism I can see here is against white working-class girls: the sacrificial lambs of socialist theology.

Thursday, 17 August 2017

Daily Stormer's Nazis have more in common with socialists than with Trump

The National Socialist website, the Daily Stormer, has been dropped by its server (GoDaddy) because of what it said about the woman killed in Charlottesville. (The website, rather pathetically, said that Heather Heyer was a “fat, childless slut”.) Then the website briefly registered with Google, only to have its registration cancelled.

The Daily Stormer has almost exclusively been called a “white supremacist website” by the media. In actual fact, it's really a National Socialist website; which has white supremacism as a byproduct (as it were) of that ideology.

In parallel to all that, much – very much! - has been made of Donald Trump's “failure to condemn white supremacists” and the KKK; just as much – very much! - was made of Steven Bannon's links to the Alt-Right. 
The Daily Stormer's Andrew Anglin.

Yet the Daily Stormer (or its editor, Andrew Anglin) and other National Socialists despise the Republicans - and Donald Trump personally - in very many ways. Trump himself – throughout his life - has always been a capitalist, a believer in (American) “capitalist democracy”, the First Amendment and non-raced-based politics (unlike Nazis, Black Lives Matter, Al Sharpton, Diane Abbott, etc.). In no way whatsoever is Trump either a National Socialist or an International Socialist. In addition, there are very many anti-racists in the Republican Party, including many supporters of Trump himself. That, according to the Daily Stormer, makes all of them “race traitors”.

Sure, there are elements of Trump's Republican Party which “white nationalists” relate to; just as there are many elements of International Socialism and black supremacism which they also relate to. (The Daily Stormer's Andrew Anglinrecently praised the British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn for his fierce position against Israel and his hatred of Jews.) You can always find some common ground with a political leader. As I said, even though white Nazis hate the Republicans; they still see them as a better bet than the Democrats; just as Trotskyists and communists would rather support the Democrats or Corbyn's Labour Party than the Republican Party or the Conservative Party. 

Jeremy Corbyn image. Found in the Daily Stormer.

Thus it's not a surprise that Mr Anglin said that Trump had “outright refused to disavow” his fellow National Socialists.

The upshot here is that - yes, there's a continuum from the Republicans to National Socialists; just as there is a continuum from the Democrats and the British Labour Party to Trotskyists and communists. Logically speaking, there's even a continuum between “centrist parties” and the political extremes. That's what is meant by the word “continuum”.

In addition, my - and many other people's - claim that Daily Stormer readers - and other National Socialists - are socialists may seem ridiculous (or extreme) to... well,International Socialists. The clue, however, is in the name. Sure, it takes more than the name 'National Socialist' to make the Daily Stormer - or other National Socialists - socialist.

So here goes.

This is Andrew Anglian writing in 2013 in his other website Total Fascism (which is also now defunct):

We will initiate massive state-subsidized work programs in order to fulfill our goal of full employment at fair and just wage… the capitalist system has created a war between the classes. The losers of this war have been the working class… the modern class structure being based largely on one’s economic prowess… The spoils of this parasitical elite class will be seized and redistributed to the people.”

And here's the words of the guy who inspired Anglin's own words, Adolf Hitler:

We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” - May 1, 1927

International Socialism vs. National Socialism

What we have here is a tribal war between National Socialists and International Socialists (e.g., communists and Trotskyists). Indeed this endless war has become a little boring after all these decades.

International Socialists are parasitic on National Socialists; and vice versa.

However, much of the media is far more happy with Internationalist Socialists than it is with National Socialists. That's why we've had saturation coverage of what happened in Charlottesville. On the other hand, we had virtually no coverage (especially in the UK!) of all the International Socialist and anarchist violence in American universities - and on the streets - over the last year or so.

The leftwing/"progressive” and Liberal-Left parts of the media (as well as the Labour and Democrat parties) often class - or simply see - International Socialists as being part of their own “progressive broad church”. Republicans and Conservatives, on the other hand, don't class - or see - National Socialists (or fascists) as being part of their own broad church.

The British Labour Party has many links with numerous Trotskyists and communists. The British Conservative Party, on the other hand, has literally zero links with Nazis and fascists. As for Nazi links to the Republicans – they're almost all extremely tangential in nature (e.g., pro-Trump tweets on Twitter from Nazis). The British Labour Party, on the other hand, has a leader, Andrew Murray, who left the Communist Party of Britain in December 2016 to join Corbyn's Labour Party. He was immediately made the party's “election chief”.

To take another example. The Labour Party's own subgroup of agitators, Momentum, is full to the brim with Trotskyists and communists (often ex-Socialist Workers' Party/Alliance for Workers' Liberty) who – all of a sudden - decided to throw in their hats with Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party once it was clear that it had adopted full-blown “radical socialism” (one of Corbyn's own descriptions of his political position).

Thus - with Trump, Charlottesville, Leftist violence in the universities and Trotskyists and communists in the British Labour Party - there's an extreme, omnipresent and longstanding double-standard at work in much of the media and elsewhere. And that's why, to take just one more example, Metro (a British newspaper) didn't just have one article today (15.8.2017) on what happened in Charlottesville - it had four separate ones! Yet this British newspaper virtually never mentioned the frequent and very violent leftwing violence that has occurred in the United States over the last year or so.

Finally, all this means that we should start treating International Socialists (Trotskyists, communists, etc.) in the same way we treat National Socialists (Nazis, fascists, white supremacists, etc.). Only then can we take the media seriously when it sternly and piously comments on Donald Trump's reactions (or lack thereof) to what happened in Charlottesville.

Wednesday, 9 August 2017

Saint Jeremy of Islington

It's often said that Jeremy Corbyn is a “different kind of politician”. (This was also said about Tony Blair, Barack Obama, Margaret Thatcher, Bernie Sanders, Arnold Schwarzenegger... ad infinitum.) That he's been “unblemished from any scandal”. And it's also said that Corbyn's a “genuine politician who has never compromised or changed his political ideas in his life” (more of which later).

There are many replies to all the above.

Until Jeremy Corbyn became the leader of the Labour Party in September 2015, he'd never been a leader within a political party. He was indeed leader  of the Trotskyist/communist Stop the War Coalition from 2011 to 2015. (Not every member/supporter of the StWC is a Trotskyist/communist.) He'd never even been in a Shadow Cabinet. Thus it's unlikely that he'd be “blemished” by any scandal. Sure, some humble MPs are sometimes blemished without actually being leaders. Though, as everyone knows, most media attention is focused on leaders or high-profile MPs.

Take the example of Tony Blair. He was often called “Teflon Tony” by the media. However, that name was only applied to Blair when he was Prime Minister. (He wasn't seen as Teflon Tony before he became PM.) Indeed he didn't really acquire that image until the Iraq War in 2003 – seven or so years after he was elected PM.

And is it the case that Jeremy Corbyn is unblemished anyway?

He's unblemished by any financial scandal. So what about political scandals – such as his support from the IRA, Trotsky, Lenin, the Soviet union, Hamas, Hezbollah, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and his he desire to abolish the army? Why only focus on financial scandals or sexual infidelities? (It can be argued that personal financial scandals don't affect as many people as political scandals do.) Yes, Corbyn's supporters can easily select instances in which Corbyn is clean and ignore those cases in which he isn't clean. One can do the same with Tory MPs or politicians who've been involved in financial scandals.

As for the fact that Corbyn is a “genuine politician who had never compromised or changed his political ideas in his life”.

Read that back and think about it. Corbyn has never compromised or changed his political ideas in his life. Is the fact that Corbyn adopted his socialist views at sixteen - and that he still believes them at 68 - meant to be a good thing?

If someone changes their views in order to gain political office (though there are signs that Corbyn is doing that) or for reasons of pragmatics, that's a bad thing. However, to never grow or learn politically, that must surely be a bad thing. Hitler, David Cameron, Gary Lineker might also have first believed what now believe at 16. So what? Again, why is that automatically – if at all - a good thing?

Chameleon Corbyn”?

Even though this piece is critical of Corbyn's politics, it's still the case that we shouldn't class him as “Chameleon Corbyn”. That's because he's now doing what all/most politicians do when they gain positions of power or influence. Rather, I think that the problem with Corbyn is the opposite: he's an extremely rigid ideologue. Everything he believes his filtered through radical-socialist ideology and theory. Nothing remains untouched by the ideology he's held since he was sixteen years old. In that sense, he's certainly not a chameleon. He may be forced (as it were) to be a chameleon now that he's Leader of the Opposition; though, as I said, that's true of all politicians.

The fact that there's a clash between Corbyn's ideological rigidity and the fact that he's also the leader of a political party (attempting to become the government) can be seen with various examples.

Corbyn (as radical socialist) would like to abolish the army and dismantle Trident. This man was also a leader of the Stop the [Western Capitalist] War Coalition until he became leader of the Labour Party. He's still a member of CND. Yet, as leader of the Labour Party, he and his party have focused on the Tory Party down-funding the army; as well as down-funding the police.

What about Brexit?

Corbyn is so obviously against the EU that it's quite silly to deny it. Yet he's part of a party which includes many Europhiles/anti-Brexiteers. The radical-socialist ideologue within him, then, clashes with the demands of realpolitik. Of course I could of course be wrong about Corbyn and the EU. However, all radical socialists since the 1970s have been radically against the EU. Even most moderate (or “democratic”) socialists have been anti-EU. Corbyn himself has repeatedly spoken out against it. So is it unfair of me to mention Corbyn's anti-EU/pro-EU schizophrenia?

If Corbyn is truly anti-EU (as I believe he obviously is), then many Labour voters may well get a shock when - or if - he's elected. A profound shock in the sense that being pro-EU is of vital importance to a number of Labour voters; though this is far more true of Labour MPs.

And then there's “student debt”...

Monday, 7 August 2017

Sir Vince Cable's vicious outburst against old Brexiteers

Perhaps the Lib Dem leader, Sir Vince Cable, thought that he could get away with his nasty tirade (as written in the Daily Mail) against old people simply because he's old himself. (Cable is 74 years old.) Wouldn't that be like a black man making racist jokes against blacks? Yes, it's certainly the case that Cable can still be a bigot against old people even if he is 74; just as a black man can still be racist even if black.

It's very odd that Cable should use the word “fanatical Brexiteers” in his very ownfanatical outburst against old Brexiteers. It's also strange that Cable talked about “an undercurrent of violence in the language [of Brexiteers] which is troubling”. Again, that could perfectly sum up Cable's own words! He should look in the mirror.

The other strange thing is that Cable made himself the honourable exception to all those old people who don't care about the young today (or about future generations). Yet if he cares so deeply about the young (at the same time as being old), then so too may many other old people. Of course if Cable arrogantly assumes that only by embracing his own Europhilia can old people care about the young, then that - as a matter of definition – automatically rules out any other ways of caring about the young. That means that old Brexiteers can't care for the young simply because they don't hold the same views as Sir Vince Cable. How arrogant is that of Vince Cable?

Almost everything Vince Cable said to the Mail (on Sunday) is full of bigotry, arrogance and smugness. Firstly, he said that Brexiteers would be happy to see the economy fail if it meant leaving the EU. No; that doesn't make Brexiteers happy. They don't believe that the economy will fail after Brexit. And even if it does fail (which is something Cable is hoping for), that doesn't mean that they would be happy about it. It simply means that old Brexiteers don't believe that this is going to happen.

It's certainly true that a YouGov poll “suggested” that 61% of Leave voters thought a damaged economy was a price worth paying for leaving the EU. That was probably a direct and honest answer to a very biased and loaded question. What Brexiteers want is an end to the “democratic deficit” that's been brought about by the EU. People – not only the old - don't want the bureaucratic elite in Brussels imposing its political will and laws on the British public.

I too believe that a certain degree of “damage to the economy” is a price worth paying for democracy. Indeed Brexiteers have never said that there will be no economic cons to leaving the EU. There will, however, also be many economicpros; as well as end to the democratic deficit.

So why does Sir Cable see all this in purely economic terms? Is he a Marxist or a “market fundamentalist”? The economy is important, sure; though let's not get reductionist about its importance. There is more to life than the economy. And there's more to politics than economics. 

Cable also said that the “old have comprehensively shafted the young”. What? Allold people? Every single one of them? And what does he mean by “shafted” anyway? Have the old shafted the young simply because they don't believe what he believes?

Cable also wrote the following:

And the old have had the last word about Brexit, imposing a world view coloured by nostalgia for an imperial past on a younger generation much more comfortable with modern Europe.”

I think that is a gross generalisation about what motivates Brexiteers – young and old. The great “imperial past” of Great Britain came before the early 1950s. How many adults of that period are still voters today? That begs the question: What does Cable mean by “old”? Is he referring to those born before and just after the war? Or is he referring to everyone over 40? In other words, is Cable hoping for the Yoof Vote – just like Corbyn?

To top his indulgent and aggressive rhetoric, Cable brought up “Brexit jihadis”. I mean... that really is taking the biscuit! He's beginning to sound like a Lib Dem Dave Spart.

Sunday, 30 July 2017

A Lesson from Cambridge University: “All white people are racist.”

A black student at Cambridge University has just said that “all white people are racist”. (This was in response to the riots in Dalston, east London.) His name is Jason Osamede Okundaye. He's also the President of the Black and Minority Ethnic society at the University.

Okundaye wrote:

All white people are racist. White middle class, white working class, white men, white women, white gays, white children they can ALL geddit.”

The other fantastically ironic thing is that he also claimed that “middle-class white people” have “colonised” Dalston. In full:

Watching these middle-class white people despair over black people protesting in their colonised Dalton is absolutely delicious.”

Of course when white people claimed that Dalston was formerly colonised by black people, they'd have been classed as racist by Diane Abbott and many other anti-racists. Though since blacks can't be racist (they don't “have the power”), then this statement can't be racist either. Nothing a black person says or does can be racist. That's according to the standards of the various and many anti-racist theorists and academics who exist today; some of whom will teach at Okundaye's Cambridge University. 

Predictably, once the news spread beyond the Students' Union and the University itself, a spokesperson from the University said: “The College is looking into this matter and will respond appropriately.”

However, if blacks can be racist, then what can Cambridge University do about this? Jason Osamede Okundaye has done nothing wrong. That is, according to many theorists and academics at Cambridge University, he's done nothing wrong. He's black and therefore he can't be a racist. He's only a victim. Not a suspect or even a free agent. He's a black man. A man infantilised by anti-racist theory and activists.


According to Trinity College [Cambridge] Students' Unionwebsite:

BME, Black and Minority Ethnic, is a term used in the UK to describe people of non-white descent.”

Thus the Black and Minority Ethnic society seems to think that all people who aren't white have something in common. That's from middle-class African blacks (likeJason Osamede Okundaye?) to deprived Indians who've been given a scholarship. Thus this institution is racist for the simple reason that it places an absolute emphasis on race and colour. What better definition of racism can there be? After all, racism can be both positive and negative. Presumably, the BME sees itself as practicing and promoting positive racism; though it won't use the word “racism” about itself.

Indeed at Cambridge University there are academic courses which teach that “all white people are racist”. They won't, of course, use the same inflammatory “discourse” which Jason Osamede Okundaye uses. Nonetheless, he's the logical and political conclusion of such theoretical and academic anti-white racism.

For example, there has been a series of seminars on Critical Race Theory in July this year at Cambridge University. The University also featured “research” under the headline: 'Racism in the US runs far deeper than Trump's white supremacist fanbase'. (It was written by Nicholas Guyatt, a Cambridge University lecturer.) More relevantly, the University of Cambridge published a piece which states that it's wrong to single out or “demonize” the “white working class for racism”; when, as a matter of fact, all white people are racist. (This, I presume, is class prejudice.)

So I wonder if Jason Osamede Okundaye will win one of the award categories Cambridge University Students' Union (CUSU) has announced as part of its “anti-racism campaign”. After all, what better way is there of being anti-racist than being racist against all whites?


Jason Osamede Okundaye is digging his own grave anyway; even if he is a student at Cambridge University. If “all white people are racist”, then that must be some kind of racial fact. A fact about white DNA, perhaps. And if that's the case, there's nothing white people can do about it. Therefore condemning white racism is pointless. It's racial. It's genetic. It's a given. So why the political and moral outrage? Changing white racism would be like changing the colour of one's skin or how many fingers one has.

It's also ironic that this black racist is a member of a Cambridge University “equality group”. Although only black and brown people can be members, many white middle-class Trotskyists, communists and progressives will support it to the hilt. And these are the very people aiming Jason Osamede Okundaye is aiming his racist words at.

This is a variation on the more polite and theoretical anti-white racism of people like Diane Abbott; who, rather predictably, has also stuck her own nose into the Dalston riots. From her previous statements, she believes more or less the same things as Jason Osamede Okundaye. For example, in 2012 she wrote:

"White people love playing 'divide and rule' We should not play their game."

In 1988, when, at a black studies conference in Philadelphia, she claimed that "the British invented racism”. She also made a racist comment about Finnish nurses.

Jason Osamede Okundaye is the logical/political conclusion of academic “anti-racism”. So reap the harvest!

Friday, 28 July 2017

Baby “shambles” over Brexit!

'Shambles' = A state of total disorder.

First things first. The Government, after Brexit, will not stop the entry off all EU “nationals” into the United Kingdom. What it will (or should) do is stop the automatic right of entry of all EU nationals into the United Kingdom. That means that if EU nationals have something to offer the United Kingdom, then the government will (or should) allow them in. If they have nothing to offer, then they shouldn't be allowed in.

Thus it's not a surprise that a Labour MP, Pat McFadden (a Blairite Europhile member of Open Britain), has accused the government of making a “shambles” of Brexit. Labour is itself in a shambles over Europe. (“Shambles” is McFadden's word.)

Many Labour MPs are very strongly in favour of EU. Many other Labour MPs (mainly radical-socialist Corbynites) are strongly against it.

In any case, the movement of skilled workers won't end after Brexit. What hopefully will end, according to Immigration Minister Brandon Lewis, is the “[f]ree movement of labour”.

And because Brexit doesn't mean that EU workers will stop coming to the UK (it'll be their automatic right to come that will stop), Amber Rudd (to the Financial Times) said:

I want to reassure businesses and EU nationals that we will ensure there is no 'cliff edge' once we leave the bloc.”

Rudd went on to tell us that

what we’ll need is a new system and we’ve said that that new system will have a proposal whereby new EU workers coming here will need to register”.

If the government will allow skilled EU immigrants in, then it's a surprise that Michael Gove has said that a “pragmatic” approach to Brexit would mean that the “freedom of movement” may continue until 2023.

So there is indeed a (baby) shambles here. That's to be expected. This is a big and complicated issue. That hasn't stopped, however, the Pat McFadden from milking this issue.

Nonetheless, pro-Brexit Labour MPs also have a problem. Frank Field, for one, has called the change “alarming”. And, not surprisingly, the CBI also wants “clarity” on this issue.


The main thing is that because various newspapers, activists and politicians are fanatically against Brexit (as well as the fact that Brexit is indeed a big and complicated thing), then we're bound to have almost daily reports about the shambles that is Brexit. Take most – or all - of them with a pinch of salt. These shambles are probably neither epic nor disastrous. However, there will indeed be teething problems for Brexit. Of course there will!

Scaremongering about “skill shortages” and the rest is exactly that: scare-mongering. If there are hordes of European brains surgeons, doctors or quantum physicists wanting to come in - and we need every single one of them, then let them in. No problem. If a EU “citizen” wants to come here to sell drugs or live off the dole, then we shouldn't let him in. (Providing, of course, the government can find out these things beforehand.)

Finally, one of the main motivations for “free movement of labour” (as far as the EU leadership is concerned) is that this will help bring about a EU super-state. It's not, therefore, primarily about “open borders” or “free movement”. This is an attempt to substitute small nations (or states) with a single very-large state. The free movement of European peoples is but a means to help bring that about.