Nick Griffin on Question Time..

[dannybcity]

At that time, there wasn't the numbers in the country which are now taking it over. If Nelson could see this country now, he would be spinning in his grave.

The most recent statistics i can find put ethnic minorities in this country at 7.9%...you're right, its an invasion.

Just how low would you like it to be? Just the few from ADUG who have ensured the growth of our Manchester City?

Coming over here, stealing the ownership of our football clubs!

 

[roaminblue]

Coming over here, stealing the ownership of our football clubs!

British jobs for british people! Mike Ashley for CEO!

 

[wrongun73]

i dont really want to get involved in a race argument, and i think on the whole this country is better for the diversity. it does tell a story though that the countries with the best economies and better standard of living, i.e canada, america, australia are all countries that have a very strict policy on foreign immigration. im not saying we should not let anyone in, just that we should only let people in who will benefit the country, either in a proffession we're short of , bringing finances or business etc. not just coming because its slightly better than where they came from.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

i dont really want to get involved in a race argument, and i think on the whole this country is better for the diversity. it does tell a story though that the countries with the best economies and better standard of living, i.e canada, america, australia...

...are all countries virtually wholly composed of people who were immigrants. And Canada's standard of living has actually been eroded since the 1980's compared to Western Europe.

 

[roaminblue]

i dont really want to get involved in a race argument, and i think on the whole this country is better for the diversity. it does tell a story though that the countries with the best economies and better standard of living, i.e canada, america, australia are all countries that have a very strict policy on foreign immigration. im not saying we should not let anyone in, just that we should only let people in who will benefit the country, either in a proffession we're short of , bringing finances or business etc. not just coming because its slightly better than where they came from.

I understand what you're saying, however i believe that historically our economy has been stronger or as strong as for a much longer time than all three of those countries. Also the United States was founded by immigrants, historically it has relied on an immigrant, cheap workforce to get where it is, and its probably no suprise that its relience on a multi-ethnic, and wide range of cultures has helped it to become one of the most scientifically advanced countries in the world -in fact the scientific director of the Manhattan project, Oppenheimer, (contributor to perhaps the one of the most important scientific discoveries in the 21st century) was a second generation jewish immigrant

I do agree that countries should focus more on allowing immigration that suits the countries needs, if we see a gap in the labour market we need to fill it for as much our sake as for those who wish to enter the country. But i do believe that as a successful country with a strong moral compass those who have no where else to go, on pain of death, cannot be refused absoloute entry. Its a moral thing for me, not just a nationalistic sentiment

 

[stonerblue]

i dont really want to get involved in a race argument, and i think on the whole this country is better for the diversity. it does tell a story though that the countries with the best economies and better standard of living, i.e canada, america, australia...

...are all countries virtually wholly composed of people who were immigrants. And Canada's standard of living has actually been eroded since the 1980's compared to Western Europe.

not too mention the massive workforce in the US made up of Illegal immigrants crossing the border with Mexico on a daily basis

 

[Balti]

You would be surprised at the latest DNA results on the British population, there is actually a lot more Celtic and genes from the race that proceeded them here than Saxon, Viking, Norman, Roman or any of the other population influxes, it has put paid to the myth that the British are a mongrel race. It turns out that in terms of DNA the British have stayed the same for 1000's of years.

So who would be considered native British people?

For Britain some think it was the Celts who migrated from central Europe but archeological eveidence proves that half a million years BC there were hunter gatherers here who had probably come from Africa.

DNA shows that people living in Cheddar today have almost identical DNA to some guy dug out from the gorge nearby who significantly predated Celts/ Romans/ Saxons/ Vikings/ Normans etc

What's your timeline? As we all apparently stem from the origin of the species in North Africa originally is it a case of whoever was the first in gets to be called the 'natives' like the aborigines and native americans? They weren't actually native either! They just got their first and got lucky that they were left alone for so long. Every other settler was used to being constantly kicked out and moved on if not annihilated completely over the intervening millenia.

So I don't believe there is such a thing as a native tribe anywhere. Just early settlers is all.

Native can hardly be a term used in conjunction with the national term 'British' in any case as being 'British' wasn't an option until the Act of Union with Scotland in 1707. Those of us from South of the border will have been English till then and both English and British afterwards. New Labour has done its best to remove that feeling of being British from the collective consciousness preferring the more parochial national mindsets. Divide and rule?

This isn't about historical roots. It's about nationhood which covers a far shorter timespan. It's about (what should be) shared values, and this debate is really about what we want the UK to look like in future generations. Immigration policy will have a profound impact on that outcome as we have already seen, both positive and negative.

There is nothing wrong with us debating and determining what 'shape' our country should have in the future rather than just letting uncontrolled change determine the outcome.

It's our country. It's our decision who we do and don't let in. (That's everyone who holds a passport before anyone starts).

That's if you believe in the nation state of course. Clearly we now have a segment of our society that puts religion first above nationhood. They are entitled to their views of course but if we want the nation state to remain pre-eminent then our immigration policy must be adapted to approve applications from people who want to be British citizens; share our common values; speak the language; work; pay their taxes etc.

None of this should be remotely contentious. It is merely sensible management of the nation and intrinsically wrapped up with the success of the economy. The fact that successive governments have ignored it for so long is not a reason to continue the non/ mis-management any longer.

So lets get on with accepting where we currently are and planning the future of the UK without letting extremists like the BNP or the Sharia Law nutters influence our thoughts.

It is time we ended this two-party state nonsense. The system is corrupt in any case as we have seen. It is a time for radical electoral reform. The electorate should be consulted regularly by referendum on the big issues like this which affect us all. The technology is there. The minor differences between Labour and the Tories make a mockery of democracy. No wonder so many people don't vote. It's meaningless. Brown or Cameron. What friggin difference really ?! We cannot trust MP's to make these decisions for us.

We need massive political reform urgently or we need a new party with a new approach for the new era. Clearly the BNP is not it and they wouldn't even exist if we could vote on these issues as part of the mainstream political process.

Rant over.

 

[alabaster]

Surely the point is that native Australians and Americans were living in their respective 'countries' and minding their own business. Then a bunch of European people turned up with vastly superior weapons and forced them off their land. I don't see that happening in Britain.

You cannot really compare the history of Britain with the histories of Australia and America. It's just not the same thing at all. We have always had influxes of people from all over the world and interbreeding has occurred to such an extent that it is now impossible to tell who the 'native' people of Britain are.

were you off schoo' when they did the Romans ?

No. The Roman invasion of Britain happened over 2000 years ago. There has been no invasion of this country since the Normans. Also, I don't think the Romans' had superior weapons. They had superior tactics and a proper, organised army. Anyway, I said I don't see that happening in Britain, not that it's never happened in Britain. I was saying if we had an indigenous population, it wasn't being displaced through invasion. Perhaps you should learn to read.

 

[scowy68]

What's the point in discussing Celts and Romans?it's people coming to the country now that's the real issue that affects our lives.Baroness Warsi told Jack Straw that the labour party had failed on immigration and that it needed sorted now.Jack Straws answer.We've always had immigrants coming to Britain.

 

[stonerblue]

were you off schoo' when they did the Romans ?

No. The Roman invasion of Britain happened over 2000 years ago. There has been no invasion of this country since the Normans. Also, I don't think the Romans' had superior weapons. They had superior tactics and a proper, organised army. Anyway, I said I don't see that happening in Britain, not that it's never happened in Britain. I was saying if we had an indigenous population, it wasn't being displaced through invasion. Perhaps you should learn to read.

well i've read your post 4 times and i'm still not sure what you're trying to say. And,. i think an iron sword is far superior than a rock lashed to a bit of tree when it comes to a scrap.