Welcome to Britain Watch

All the signs are that the governance of Britain is spiralling out of control: record trade and budget deficits; a swollen bureaucracy; an inadequate but costly education system; a government incapable of providing for our future energy needs; record emigration of native Britons, unprecedented levels of immigration; a mind-set putting the non-citizen ahead of the British citizen.

Britain Watch has been set up to highlight key examples of these trends and to promote practical reforms to reverse the incompetence and loss of national self belief they engender. All readers are invited to participate.

more about Britain Watch »

Short News

The Leaving Song
Anyone wanting to have copies of the words of “The Leaving Song” emailed to them, please click on the title of this post and then fill in the comment box at its foot when the page changes. Many thanks for your interest.

Single Market not so advantageous to Britain

Don’t miss the following letter published 27th January 2016 in the Daily Telegraph from Prof Stephen Bush

The letter from the Conservative MPs for Reform in Europe (23rdJanuary) implies that there is something uniquely special about UK access to a tariff-free “trading bloc of 500 million people”. But for the UK this so-called Single market is not really tariff-free at all. In 2014 we made a net payment of £11,442 Million to the EU to allow £147,928 Million worth of our goods to be imported by the EU from Britain. This makes an average effective tariff on our goods of 7.7%. This needs to be compared with the EU’s average tariff applied to goods imported from countries outside the EU, including our fellow Anglophone countries in North America and Australasia, of 5.3%. [more »]

Latest EU Referendum "Scare Story": Scotland
As the polls move towards the Leave-EU campaign, the Stay-put campaigns get ever more fanciful in their scares for the future of an independent Britain. The latest one, launched before Christmas is that if Britain were indeed to vote to leave the EU, then the SNP would “demand” another referendum on independence, and the Scots would vote to leave.  Besides the fact that constitutional matters, of which a referendum on breaking up the UK is manifestly one such, are exclusively matters for the United Kingdom Parliament, not Ms Sturgeon or David Cameron for that matter, why should the Scottish people vote to separate themselves from the UK, with ever-growing welfare bills and greatly diminishing income from oil, to pay for them.  In 1975, Scotland and Northern Ireland had the only constituencies that voted against Britain remaining in the then European Economic Community – now EU. [more »]

William Hague shows his true colours
The Daily Telegraph ran a feeble article (23rd December) by William Hague, the former holder of the part-time job known as the British Foreign Secretary. After months of agonising apparently, Lord Hague, former leader of the British Conservative Party and declared Eurosceptic, can’t decide whether leaving or staying would be in Britain’s interest or not, but as he is sure that Britain’s staying in the EU would be good for the EU, even necessary to hold it together, well he is going to vote to stay (he thinks). Hague also believes that if Britain votes to leave the EU, the ScotNats will be able to force the UK to hold another referendum about Scotland’s separation from the UK. Even with the oil price less than half what it was last time, this time they will win it according to Hague. So 92% of the UK which does not live in Scotland is to be held to ransom by half of the 8% who do. What terrible defeatism about Britain there is in high places. How apt it is that the Foreign Office is referred to in patriotic circles as the “Ministry for Foreigners”. Evidently Mr Hague went native while he was there!

How we are governed
Andrea Leadsom (Warwick University, Political Science) is now Minister of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), responsible for oil and gas policy, new nuclear building and renewables. She is responsible to Amber Rudd, the Secretary of State (DECC), who, as I pointed out on October 2nd, is one of four females occupying the most senior positions in Government and Opposition in the two most technical departments DECC and Business, Innovation and Skills, none of them recording a single science A level between them. [more »]

Top

More Dangerous Nonsense from the Immigration Tribunal

The Immigration Tribunals have long been an obstacle to Britain’s keeping control of its borders. Now they should be abolished and control returned to the Home Secretary, who is responsible to the British Parliament.  Unelected judges should not have the last word in matters which affect the British people as a whole.

The latest judge-facilitated immigration scandal (21st January) relates to a case brought by a group called the Refugee Council before two judges McCloskey and Ockleton.  This pair agreed that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) “Article 8 – right to family life” should apply to four relatives of Syrian migrants already living in Londonistan (as the French officials in Calais refer to the British capital city).  The four are currently living in the “Jungle” camp in Calais blithely refusing to seek asylum in France because they want “to go to England”.

Origin of the ECHR

When the ECHR was ratified by Britain in 1957, it had been specifically framed to protect people living under Communist rule in Eastern Europe (hence the qualifying term “European”). The United States, although the most powerful upholder of human rights in Europe since 1945, conspicuously did not sign up to a convention potentially open to the widest interpretation by unelected judges.  As themselves products mainly of the universities’ left-liberal mind-set in the 70s and 80s, British judges have unilaterally widened the scope of British “Human Rights” using legislation (notably the 2003 Act) to apply to virtually anyone in the world, i.e. 7,000 million people on the planet who are not British citizens.

Role of the Refugee Council

This organisation, originally set up uncontroversially to help people in far-off war-torn lands in Africa and Asia, has now morphed into an agency using its funding to facilitate entry into Britain of those with no legal entitlement to come. Although the present case was brought in respect of four specific individuals, the judges based their decision on Article 8 of the ECHR, which has no territorial or citizenship limits whatsoever.  So under their argument any migrant or asylum seeker already physically in Britain, not content with our generosity to him or her and not yet a British citizen or even resident, can claim some relative however distant in a camp somewhere in Europe, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Sudan, Eritrea, etc, and judges McLoskey and Ockleton will be prepared “to order” the Home Office to bring them to Britain at tax payers’ expense, no conditions applied[1]. …[more»]