Citizenship as cheap as chips: UK Government’s stick to beat Britons is a rod for its own back
As much as the British Government, fronted these days by Boris Johnson and a “Get Brexit Done” Tory executive branch, is convincing the Leave-voting British public (which is, generally, the part of the plebeian masses that yet has power of the purse [while such a thing is still possible]) that Brexit is indeed Getting Done, and as much as the man on the street is being told that the nation’s Brexit trauma is over, things have changed irrevocably to the extent that we might say that we are living in the age that will see the end of Victorian “aristocratic” government by Masonic-City/Military-Intelligence (there is a good reason why these terms are used – it’s not just rhetoric). Britain’s Brexit trauma has created deep dissatisfaction that will not be assuaged by platitudes; it has, in fact, inaugurated the Fake Brexit epoch where a dim realisation, that is being had now at “exit day”, will clarify into a grim sense of disappointment, as people begin to live amongst the new situation, that the verdict on the 2016 referendum on EU membership has not been delivered. This will take place as the country essentially becomes a vassal of the EU – to the fullest extent in the short term during the so-called “implementation period” (however long that will ultimately last), and then after that to a degree as yet unknown, although the least that is appreciable is that the nation will continue along lines of parallel development with the EU, with EU legislation having been auto-translated (wholesale) onto British statute books on exit day [see the Withdrawal Agreement Bill, 2018], with it being impossible that there will ever be a manifestation of a future executive branch with the inclination to repeal it. And then even so, this dodgy form of Brexit, it must be understood, will not be the ultimate source of dissatisfaction. The problem was written of hereabouts before: “there is a festering wound in the British body politic that the Government has no interest in applying salve to”. It is to do with the failure of Government to deal with the root cause of Brexit.
It is more or less an official fact that Britons voted to leave the EU because of the unprecedented levels of immigration, and the perceived threat to national sovereignty; in spite of all the effort to muddle the issue with “British-as-racists” talking points, it has seemingly never been lost on a good number of people that immigration undermines sovereignty. The link is clear in the collective consciousness, even if many don’t overtly comprehend that “cosmopoliticalism” (explained here) is all part of a deliberately prosecuted scheme for the creation of a Globalist world order. Fundamentally, the result of the EU referendum represented an implicit instruction as well as an explicit one. While the explicit instruction has been and is being fudged, the implicit one has not only been disregarded, but treated with scorn by the British Government.
The British Government has handed out between 2 and 3 million indefinite leave to remain permissions to EU citizens through its Settlement Scheme. A further explanation of this programme is due in a moment; essentially, it means millions of EU citizens allowed to live, work, and most of all, draw from the welfare state in the UK, forever. “Settled status” – which is the outcome for an applicant to the scheme – is something other than the standard leave to remain in the UK where there is no recourse to public funds. It is a pseudo-citizenship on a track to full citizenship. Therefore, the British Government has quite provocatively fortified that which was the very fount of the anti-EU complaint against it, and has snubbed its nose against the complainants. Moreover, given that there is but one duty for government to perform, which is to provide security against powers ranged against the freedom of the Briton, and although in modern history the British Government has routinely failed in this way, this Settlement Scheme might just be an unequalled case of Government failing to do the one thing it has to do.
The magnitude of the problem that British Government has created for itself cannot be understated, and it cannot be veneered over with equality and diversity happy-clappiness, accompanied with choruses of “I’d like to teach the world to sing”, and ultimately with sinister threats of criminalisation and accusations of racism. Right at the root of the issue is the question of whether Britain is a capitalist country, or whether it is a socialist one – and at this philosophical bedrock there is no environment that can sustain appeals to the emotions or conditioned responses.
The crisis is this: with the Settlement Scheme comes the risk of at least 2.5 million EU citizens becoming British citizens. Whether or not this happens all in one obvious foul (or fell) swoop, or it happens during a generation, either way it will surely be unprecedented in terms of so much bestowed on so many for so little in return: British citizenship handed out en masse like candy. It means that scrutiny of the nature, and indeed the worth of British citizenship is now unavoidable and completely necessary, and it will be this activity that will bring about recognition that the British Government has created a bogus form of citizenship suited to socialism where the cheapening of Britishness as a valuable commodity is part and parcel of systemic assault on the Briton and his historical rights.
It is now absolutely clear that citizenship is not about belonging to a land, but being economically available for exploitation by the few who now own the land: being serfs on grand estates (the return to Medievalism that the Victorian ruling class desired). What it as stake is the survival of the concept that Britons are citizens because of capital ownership, if not now, then in the past so that belonging to the land is a legacy handed down to us from ancestors. We can ever refer to our Commonwealth, which is the right to own capital (land, and natural resources that generate wealth). For a people with this background, it should be intolerable that Government would have them belong to the State – but the fact that Government can hand out citizenship so much without scruple in respect of ancestral precedence shows that we have moved fully into that model.
So, the rod that British Government has forged for its own back is a formidable one. There is no doubt that it could open a can of worms in terms of creating tensions along ethnic lines – which is something that Government is mendacious enough to perform itself. In fact, Government would have to mount a major psychological operation so that upset with its conduct could be characterised as being politically incorrect and subject to marginalisation and criminalisation. But in the end, whatever the Government does will merely be another layer of synthetic reality to shore up its synthetic colour of law rule. Underneath the façade it will have a critical problem with regards the fundamental relationship between it and the legacy-citizen Briton – and it won’t survive the collapse in trust.
For the benefit of the reader who doesn’t know what the Government’s Settlement Scheme involves, there follows a brief explanation. People who successfully applied to the scheme who lived in the UK since at least 31st December, 2015, have what is called settled status. This means they have indefinite leave to remain in the country, with all the rights preserved as if the UK remained in the EU. Incidentally, this should be indication enough that European Court of Justice jurisdiction will be preserved; the EU-citizen’s right to be in the UK is derived from EU legislation. People on the settlement scheme who lived in the UK for less than 5 years at 31st December, 2020, will have pre-settled status. This means they merely have to wait the required duration so that they have accumulated the qualifying 5 years, then they can apply for the full version.
While the pre-settled status may be a bit more precarious (but not much) the only way to lose the full pseudo-citizenship (settled status) is if a person is resident outside the UK for more than five years. Meanwhile, relatives of the people on the scheme will be able to come to the UK after December, 2020. These would be “close” relatives: anything from husbands and wives to dependent grandchildren or grandparents. In short, the scheme allows for chain migration that, even being conservative, could create numbers double the initial nearly 3 million take up – especially because of how children not yet born to settled status holders are counted as close relatives eligible for the scheme themselves.
To cap it all, the Settlement Scheme has created a mechanism whereby British citizenship can be obtained by people one year after being awarded leave to remain: anyone holding settled status can apply for British citizenship after one year.
British citizenship, then, is as cheap as chips. And here would be the ultimate source of chagrin for people who voted to leave the EU (because, we are authoritatively told, of immigration that its free movement created): citizenship handed out like candy. In a moment we are going to investigate why there is now an inevitable requirement for re-evaluating the meaning and worth of British citizenship as Government defines it. Firstly, however, we are going to look at confirmation from the other side, as it were, that Government has made a catastrophic blunder: the Settlement Scheme, as it happens, looks to be fuelling feelings of alienation in EU immigrants. We could speculate that there is a heightened appreciation of the resentment caused by being a preferred government client class, and being recipients of things that are not deserved and with no right to them. And while this is no doubt going on up and down the country, there has been reason to vocalise it in Wales because that place is not seeing the take-up of the settlement programme as the same rate as the rest of the UK.
The reason for the difference is put down to immigrants in Wales feeling unwelcome there. David Rees, chair of the Welsh Assembly’s external affairs committee, and Labour politician, says that the feeling is generated by language used across parliaments and by individuals. Surely, however, this is nonsense. The British political class, collectively and individually (which is what we might assume Rees was referring to), could not kowtow any more than it already does to EU immigrants. The reality is that this shot from Rees was one at the Welsh public, and by extension the British public, who think very differently to him and his ruling class ilk. And, as we already know, the ruling class is never to change its outlook to suit the will of the people it is supposed to represent. Instead, the people will be guilty of political incorrectness, which they must be cured of. Indeed, that the Welsh are generally politically incorrect is what Rees is actually saying, and he takes the opportunity to disseminate the message for the necessary shift in public attitude:
People want to stay – they want to remain part of the community they live in and the Welsh economy clearly benefits from them.
Of course, the day that a British politician puts the interest of his British constituents first is the day that pigs will fly – one could not expect the likes of David Rees to remotely entertain the idea that EU immigration has been very disruptive rather than beneficial (and evidence will be presented yet again at the foot of this paragraph). So, on the ground, in the street, Rees’ imploring won’t necessarily have the intended affect on the target audience (but perhaps it will have quite the reverse). Moreover, his talking points can be easily countered. Firstly, whose community is it that Rees is talking about? Is it the general one, or is it a balkanised subset? While there may be anecdotal evidence that could provide an answer, those who could publish hard and fast data are bound to be loathe to do it; in any case, the reader who lives in an example of Rees’ notion of community will have his own very good idea. Basically, there is no benefit when there is ghetto-isation. And whose economy is actually benefitting from waves of humanity without the same expectations (already established) regarding pay and conditions? To this question, there is a definite answer: it is the economy of those who are able to exploit slave-wage labour, not of those who have to work zero hour contracts because of a glut in labour, and who cannot afford to do it because of the British cost of living. In truth, economy and community are intrinsically linked through a cultural aspect, and when cultural cohesion is put out of kilter, all will suffer. Further discussion of this topic can be found in the FBEL articles, Coming soon: The Cheated (here), The 2016 Harlow “Brexit murder”; UK vassal government still in the dock, never convicted (here), and On the eve of British forever-EU undeadness, Bulgaria provides an object lesson (here).ove
The same Guardian article that carried David Rees’ neural linguistic programming also gives a perspective from a Polish man who applied for the Settlement scheme. What is striking in this is the sense that being on the scheme is worthless because of how it was so easy to accomplish:
Real people are involved and it is important to consider how the process affects them and their families. Yet the debate appears to be all about the practicalities of the implementation.
Going through the process, while technically quite easy and straightforward, feels debilitating and comes with no legal guarantees. No wonder there are no queues to do it.
What Michal Poreba, the man in question, has done in speaking thus is put his finger on the synthetic nature of pseudo-citizenship, and then citizenship from it, but from a different point of view. It is a tool for which to beat Britons with, and is not real for those whom the Government are shovelling on to it. He complains that there is a big difference between being allowed to stay and being welcomed. (It has to be said: while this sentiment possibly stems from the unerring sense of right to belong – and tough luck to those who don’t like it – that the author detects over again from a particular corner of Europe, to whine about not being welcomed is going to have the reverse affect on a Briton who has been accused of being non-accommodating. This is but a small example of the cultural misalignment; the wind has been sowed to reap the whirlwind). Says Michal Poreba:
The message repeated by politicians appears to be the same – you will be allowed to stay. We want you to stay. Of course, economically speaking they need us to stay, at least for the short-term. But there is a big difference between being allowed to stay, and being welcomed.
The author suggests that the feeling of being unwelcome actually in the main is psychological. It is a convicting of the self, generated from knowledge of the undeniable fact that the British have never wanted to be in the EU, and certainly did not want to suffer mass immigration from it. Now, after a reminder of the latter has been served in the form of the assertion of the former, a sense of being unwelcome forming for itself in feelings of the EU immigrant would be completely understandable. Michal Poreba, perhaps, is complaining that the British Government’s Settlement Scheme does nothing to assuage the discomfort of the situation (and dare the author suggest, the cognitive dissonance in those who always have a right to be where ever they happen to be). Maybe, at a long shot, Michal Poreba also understands that the programme in fact is a provocation against the natives who see cultural and economic disruption rewarded, and what should be hard earned given to those with little merit to deserve it.
We can’t let the moment pass without taking the opportunity to notice the language used by Michal Poreba, and see how it reflects official usage of the myth of economic necessity in support of the argument for the retention of the EU immigrant in the UK. This was seen coming from far off quite the while ago and, naturally, the author would dispute it. In another place hereabouts (Coming Soon: The Cheated), mention has been made of Migration Watch’s belief that continued high levels of immigration will certainly not be required. The author’s personal view is that there are many man-hours performed at the moment by a low skilled EU labour force that can be done instead by Britons currently unemployed, self-employed, and in zero hour type contracts. Furthermore, a lot of industry that the EU immigrant is engaged in is phony in that it prospers because of cheap labour, but it was not needed when it wasn’t possible, and it won’t be missed when the EU immigrant is not in the country to participate in the industry. Moreover, those who would have been making money by this method, if they would instead invest in sectors that didn’t depend on the economic availability of the dregs of Europe, might contribute to a Britain with a serious manufacturing capacity, making things that people actually need. So the sustainability of the economy is a red herring. The truth is that the British Government wants a cosmopolitical country licked into shape for the New World Order – and wants it so desperately that it is even making its foot soldiery ill at ease.
In the same process of keeping so bloody-mindedly upon this tack, even after the implicit instruction given in 2016, the British Government has had to sacrifice any lip service to the false impression that British citizenship means anything other than economic availability at the pleasure of corporate-government. What has happened, in fact, is confirmation of what is in fact a fiction that been in existence for a long time.
In 2019 there was a case of a man whose child, by a court order, was registered for a birth certificate when neither he nor the child’s mother would do it themselves. For some reason, the child was already in the care of the State when this happened – the local authority having brought the court case. Nevertheless, the ruling showed the imperative felt by the State that individuals should not be left free of being catalogued in what is essentially an inventory of human resources. That his son was being treated as ship’s manifest, in fact, was the common law based argument being made by the father of the child – but we are not going to get deeply into the complexities of this issue, nor discuss how “freemen” keep making the mistake of not understanding that, ultimately, defence by common law will come down to a physical struggle, and rarely by arguing the toss with a State official in one of Her Majesty’s courts.
The sum total lesson from the proceedings is all in the following snippet from the judge’s ruling:
It is manifestly in… [the child’s] best interest for his birth to be registered, in order that he may be recognised as a citizen and entitled to the benefits of such citizenship.
This reveals that the State has a certain concept of citizenship that it considers to be the only valid sort, and that another, what we would call the lawful one (and the one that the father was trying to claim as being inherently belonging to his child) is considered as being invalid. At the crux of the issue is the difference between the State and the country, and there are two models of citizenship as a consequence.
The first model is when a person is a “landlord”. The belonging to the country, in this case, comes from the country and resources in it belonging to an individual or in fact a family. One doesn’t have to own an aristocratic estate; being a landlord in this sense means owing property as capital, or capable of being a means to produce wealth. The abovementioned FBEL article, Coming Soon: The Cheated, explains how the British have been reduced from capital-owning land lords in the main into being serfs on someone else’s land: i.e. the State. Please note, owning a collection of brick, wood and glass (a building in which one dwells) that isn’t worth the mortgage does not automatically qualify as capital owning. But in fact, a lot of Britons have a right by legacy to citizenship, because their ancestors established the mode of general ownership in this country. The country belonged to those people (we should perhaps think of the Commonwealth, not as a country that had been socialised [an alien concept], but a country with a capability of being capital belonging to the common man; i.e. those who are not aristocrats). The children of those people innately owned capitalist-style citizenship – and so it went on through the generations.
The second mode of citizenry is where belonging to a country is irrespective of capital ownership or the legacy from it. In fact, it is a thing that is defined not as a relationship with country, but as a relationship with the State. In other words, it is bestowed upon a person by the State. Now, the ruling at the case of child that would not be registered shows that it is this mode that is enshrined in legislation. Indeed, the ruling implied that without registration as, effectively, ship’s manifest, a person was not recognised as a citizen. Of course, this is dreadful, and unlawful, and no Government has the power to declare that a real British citizen is not such a thing. The Government should not be in the business of deciding who is and who is not a citizen. It might be in its place to regulate movement to the country for those who would make themselves economically exploitable (for a limited time, and as far as they are needed), but it should not be allowed to dole out citizenship (or deny it when it has lawfully been established).
Ultimately, it is exactly this latter sort of citizenship that Government is promising to be obtainable to millions of EU immigrants. For all the problems that we’ve discussed in relation to the Settlement Scheme the deepest flaw is that it stems from fiat. The Government hasn’t in fact hollowed out citizenship, it is operating an alternative legalistic sort, as colour of law, for its own benefit. And this is what the Settlement Scheme really draws to our notice: the difference between a socialist model of citizenship, and a capitalist one. It is no wonder, with the British Government always tending to socialism since Victorian times (as a way for the aristocratic ruling class to fend off liberal gentrification), that the socialist model has been legislated into the dominant and only form of citizenship.
Ultimately, then, if any on the other side would try to characterise opposition to the Settlement Scheme as racism or xenophobia, then it would be very wide of the mark†. The concern is in fundamental issues of social organisation, and in joining the decades-old struggle against progressive socialisation. For, if EU immigrants bought their way into a capital-owning society, then i) any problem of mass immigration would not exist because mass immigration would not exist, and ii) there could be no lawful objection to them becoming citizens of the country. As it is, we live in a socialist country, where the citizenry is rewarded by registration from which comes benefit bestowed by the State – as the judge said above. The benefit, supposedly, is the welfare state. So the difference is clear. In one model, citizenship is about having wealth regulated and distributed by government interference (criminality), and in the other, citizenship is about having the means to create wealth and distribute as one sees fit.
The solution is to insist on citizenship without reference to Government, or to the State. At this time, it would be foolish not to be registered at birth because why make it easy for Government to deny a birth right by the monopoly of force that it currently enjoys? In any case, as has been here illustrated, it’s not a defendable position as things are currently configured. However, and the author will always return to this idea: the change will come when citizenry come together in their communities to assert and defend their rights.
† There is no justice in the Settlement Scheme for citizens with British (Empire) ancestry, whatever the colour of their skin, nor other non-EU immigrants. Even if the take up of British citizenship was not potentially so large as on other occasions in the past, it has never been so wholly unconnected with Britain. The inexorable truth here is that Government will have irrevocably signalled its concept of British citizenship as being worthless by handing it out so freely to so many who didn’t qualify in real terms. And if any would like to quibble, here is the hard fact: up until January 31st, 2020, EU citizens will have been resident in the EU, not in an independent Britain. They will be staying in Britain past Brexit thanks to a new EU treaty. Their eligibility for British citizenship, on this basis, at this time and at any time in the future is surely null and void.
