Welcome to Quadrant Online | Login/ Register Cart (0) $0 View Cart
Menu
July 12th 2016 print

Michael Copeman

Brexit and the Camel’s Nose

By 2061, the future EU may well be majority Muslim, which appears not to have concerned younger voters steeped since infancy in the official doctrine of relativism and multicultural 'tolerance'. Older voters recalled that the Channel has been a useful obstacle to invasion and subjugation

rotherham sign IIThe UN High Commission for Refugees estimates over one million people made their way to Europe last year by boat.  Sadly, we are not talking the Queen Mary, nor P&O.  In the cold first six months of this year, a quarter of a million more arrived on small boats with unreliable engines.  Who knows what numbers — along with tragic losses in the crossing — the current summer will bring. 

This level of mass movement of humanity is unprecedented.  Even the surging population movements after the Second World War are being surpassed.  And Europe, or the EU as the body in charge of migration, has no answer to the problem, only Angela Merkel’s initial, naive response to let them come.

By 2061 (when I hope to be 100) the future EU (including Turkey) may well be majority Muslim.  If that sounds far-fetched, consider that half of current EU citizens will be dead by then, and record low birth rates mean next generations will be small, while family reunions of current and future migrants, plus two generations of their own vast progeny, will tip the scales the Muslim way.

The unprecedent immigration to Europe by people largely of Arab background was no doubt a major factor in ordinary Britons recently voting for Brexit.  Many average Englanders, interviewed the week after the vote, shyly but firmly implied this to be so.  Their second cousins in Scotland and Northern Ireland voted otherwise, but are also unlikely to be home to as many refugees.

Modern Britons — despite their occasional worst examples on TV — tend to be a tolerant people.  Alf Garnett was only funny because, already in the 1960s, his views were no longer mainstream.  In the lifetime of most British adults, there have seen successive waves of immigration from the Caribbean, from the Subcontinent, and in the past two decades from continental Europe.  These waves, with all the cultural changes accompanying them, have transformed urban Britain. London, Leicester, Luton and Slough already have non-white majorities.  Birmingham will shortly.  All these places are now irretrievably different from fifty years ago.

Jim Campbell: Defining the Problem With Allah

Did the existing British complain?  Yes. That’s a national British pastime, especially if the weather turns unusually mild for a day or two.  But, did they turn the waves back?  No.  Did they integrate all these diverse migrants into the wider British society, bit by bit?  Yes, of course they did. To do otherwise would have been unfathomable.

So, what is different this time?  By May, 2016, there were approximately 5,000 would-be illegal migrants to England in the so-called Calais Jungle migrant camps, not far from the entry to the Chunnel, and a fairly rapid journey across to Britain.  Lots of them had already tried to get to Britain.  Some had succeeded.  Some died trying, often jammed-packed into the back of airless lorry. They often come well-equipped to try, with cash, smart phones, contact lists and slogans to say to reporters.  The majority in the Jungle were well-educated young men of Arabic background and Islamic faith.  (Despite occasional stories on Syrian or Coptic Christians, these were tiny minorities.)

Well-meaning refugee advocates arranged for films to be made of the plight of these people, sitting in the damp, filthy and crowded camps, and shown widely on British TV.  It was clear from the looks on their faces, and what they admitted, they were just in this corner of France biding their time, waiting literally for the coast to be clear, to jump onto lorries or rush for the tunnel, to make it to Britain.

The Channel has always been a narrow barrier.  It defeated Hitler (who had second thoughts after the Battle of Britain) and Napoleon (who thought he would only meet shopkeepers), and the Spanish Armada before them (although go round a Welsh village and you may still see lots of Hispanic skin). Julius Caesar, the Vikings, William the Conqueror and William of Orange had little trouble crossing that foggy, frigid 19 miles of choppy brine.  Each wave succeeded in putting its stamp on (and their DNA into) the dis-United Kingdom they discovered existed beyond the White Cliffs of Dover.

So, why is much of Britain worried this time by fewer than five thousand, unarmed, fairly-well educated Arabs who lack a massed invasion plan?  Especially when, if they had arrived, they could have been housed in happy proximity to existing Islamic communities up and down the country? Well, other recent vistas on British TV news were of the much larger Arab refugee influx heading into Greece, Hungary, Austria and Italy.  And the voice-over that Britons listened to with this news was provided by Germany’s supposedly centre-right Chancellor Angela Merkel. Her own childless voice was welcoming, and reassuring to all her new children.  But not to 17 million British voters.

The reasonable man on the fabled Clapham omnibus reading his Times or even his Daily Mirror could see that the few thousand waiting to cross the Channel at Calais was just the tip of the iceberg — or, in this case, the nose of the camel.  Behind that advance party a million, mainly Arab, young men, who  had no reason not to prefer Britain’s cosy welfare state once offered permanent refuge in the EU. Behind that lay the threat of Islamification of the UK – something that had happened in enclaves in Birmingham and in the North, and had shocked Britons to their core with its totalitarian extent, and its swaggering threat to do away with traditional British ways of life.

It always starts small. Halal meat? Tick. Women to wear headscarves? Tick. Polygamous marriage? Tick. Then come the big-tick-it items. Female genital mutilation? Tick.  Subjugation of women? Tick.  Outlawing of homosexuality? Tick.  Sharia law? Tick. Outlawing of other religions?  Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick — just like a bomb.

The consequences of voicing personal resistance are interesting and appalling at the same time. First, you are told that lack religious tolerance yourself. Second, you are branded a racist, which means nothing you say need be given credence. Third, you could be the legitimate target for a protest, often with posters that say “Death to…” (Fill in the blanks.) And finally, you could face repeated terrorist atrocities (in Europe, Africa, Asia, America and now Australia) to soften you up for the final and absolute submission to a creed whose tenets demand no less.

So, a majority of older, perhaps wiser, Britons said no to the likely Islamic invasion the EU would allow and voted for Brexit. Only by taking their island out of the EU could they protect their borders – and see if what worked to keep Britain safe before (but not always) might work one more time.

Comments [19]

  1. Bill Martin says:

    Michael Copeman has accurately identified the principal reason for the success of Brexit. It is hoped that the stemming of Muslim immigration to Britain is not already too late. As one reads about the virtually lawless (except for Sharia) Muslim enclaves of major British cities and considers the birth rate of the faithful, it is difficult to avoid the prognosis of a gradual Muslim takeover of the country, simply by the share weight of numbers. Rampant political correctness, cultural equivalence and white/European guilt greatly assist the insidious process. More to the point in local terms, we, but particularly our leaders, should heed the lesson of Britain and Europe. Alas, there is not the slightest indication of that happening.

  2. Eeyore says:

    The potential of thousands of young men looking with desire across the channel had its effect, the swing towards Brexit showed that.
    Would it not also have something to do with the desire to be the masters of their own destiny? To operate their businesses in the manner they see fit without instruction or interruption of unelected bureaucrats? Surely the idea of a Britain who’s laws is made up by those who have to answer to the populace at the election box was also a defining factor.

  3. SJones says:

    But will Brexit actually happen? It seems the key to the saving of the West again, so I hope it happens.

  4. gardner.peter.d says:

    Theresa May seems to be content with Sharia courts operating in Britain.

    • Lawrie Ayres says:

      I wonder what the conservative party had in store for Leadsom had she continued to stand. It is obvious they wanted May to continue the disastrous policy of the leftward leaning of the supposedly conservative party. If May does have an election to gain a mandate the winner will be UKIP.

    • Jody says:

      Obviously not intelligent enough to understand that, come the revolution, she’ll be amongst the first to face the firing squad.

  5. Jody says:

    I’ve had a friend staying with me, for the last couple of days, who lived for several years in London, spread over two stretches of time. She returned there recently for a visit after some years’ absence and was shocked by what she saw. Knowing the geography of inner London intimately, she lamented the proliferation of middle eastern cafes and outdoor ‘smoking’ (you know, those containers like bongs) areas all along the street (name forgotten) near Marble Arch which was once the scene of vibrant cafes and western culture. She said she’s spent many happy hours in that streeet and in those cafes and these areas were now no-go zones she seemed to be distressed about the future of London.

    Not so the younger generation brought up on the ‘multi-culti’ paradise of the ‘one world’. Sad, anodyne, predictable – all reminiscent of wallpaper which takes the forms of various scenes, all around the walls – but monotonously similar in pattern.

    • Ian MacDougall says:

      Jody:
      You and your friend might be interested in reading http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/features-may-2016-daniel-johnson-sadiq-khan-mayor-london-islam-election.

      The Spectre Of Mayor Khan’s Islamist London
      DANIEL JOHNSON
      May 2016
      On a crisp, sunlit morning in March, I ceased to feel at home in London. It dawned on me that the city where I had been born 58 years ago was no longer safe.
      I was walking past two men at a stall outside my local Underground station. Their beards and dress revealed them as Salafists; they were proselytising for their fundamentalist form of Islam. My face must have betrayed my anxiety, because they started pointing and talking while I entered the station. As I looked round, both men were grinning at me.
      Why did I find their presence disquieting? A couple of hours earlier in Brussels, three suicide bombers had detonated nail bombs in the airport and on the Metro, killing 32 passengers outright and inflicting horrific wounds on another 312 people, of whom 62 were critically injured — all in the name of the Islamic State. It was hard to believe that the two jovial gentlemen outside the station could have been unaware of what had just taken place less than 200 miles away. That was presumably why they were there.

      We in this country cannot be complacent. We live next door to the biggest (and from an Islamist point of view, the slackest) Islamic nation in the world – Indonesia, aka the Javanese Empire. Thus we cannot easily do a Trump and ban all Muslim immigration; and the Constitution guarantees absolute freedom of religion. The West, of which we are part, is also beholden to the Islamic world for a major part of its oil supplies. IMHO the sooner we wean ourselves off our fossil carbon addiction, the better.

      • ianl says:

        > “… the sooner we wean ourselves off our fossil carbon addiction …”

        Oh dear. And precisely how do you suggest we handle the road transport issue across this wide, desert-prone land and dense city 24/7 power needs? Don’t spout “batteries”, they can’t get beyond 50km or a small electric toothbrush.

        • Ian MacDougall says:

          Oh dear yes. Fossil carbon will last, what? Two hundred years? Getting ever more expensive all the while, and that is as long as there are no global climate consequences from all the CO2, escaped methane etc, etc, etc.
          Meanwhile there are much more important long term uses for all the large molecules in coal and oil: lubricants, feedstock for the chemical industry, synthetic rubber and road tar.
          Burning them for short-term energy needs is folly, IMHO.

  6. iain says:

    Bit late for britain methinks – islamic arrivals have been happening en masse for about 60 years – they make fabian socialists look amateurs.

  7. Don A. Veitch says:

    A disturbing article. Be alert but not alarmed?? Learn from history.
    England has accomodated ‘invasions’ before, by redefining them.
    The last, most successful invasion (which is mentioned in the article) was organised by Orange forces around William and his dear wife Mary – the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
    This was in fact a coup détat organised with Dutch money and facilitated by treacherous merchantmen, treacherous military, within the City of London.
    The aim was to get rid of those troublesome Scots (the Catholic Stuarts, Papists, Jacobites). Orange forces were forever causing trouble and in 1830 the Duke of Cumberland came close to treason with his religious activists in the army’s Royal (later ‘loyal’) Orange Lodges.There was a Parliamantary Inquiry in 1830
    The Scots are still causing trouble (McBrexit);
    the merchants will still do deals when an opportunity arises;
    religion is back on the agenda.

  8. en passant says:

    I fear Brexit is ‘Slip Sliding Away’ trough the inaction of those whose job it is to make it happen. So how will they do this?
    1. Move very, very slowly, considering every option and imposing a do-nothing analysis paralysis
    2. Making ridiculously bad deals – “Every non-British Passport holder must wear a Yellow European Star and report to the police station 3x a day”
    3. Focusing on the irrelevant “Can we now grow cucumbers with more than a 10 degree curve?” and will this make its consumers go round the bend?
    4. Impose purely UK silly laws that are even sillier than the EU ones they replaced.
    5. Place embargoes on products from the EU that people like
    6. Talk down freedom and being your own master and create a nostalgia for ‘the good old days’ of craven slavery. Ask those who belong to Scottish Clan societies how this works, or tell people they cannot have a new hall in their village because we no longer get (our own) money (back) from Brussels and the generous EU.
    7. Encourage the EU to overtax British goods entering the EU.

    Actually, change that ‘Slip Sliding Away’ anthem to ‘Ghost Riders in the Sky’.

    • Salome says:

      The British sell a lot less to the EU than the EU sells to the British. A tax on British goods might leave the British having to cultivate their other markets (which they have), while a retailiatory tax on the EU goods entering Britain would both raise revenue for Britain and also harm EU exporters.

  9. Salome says:

    Am I the only person to notice that Britain’s Muslim problem is largely of her own making–the Rotherham perps, for example, were largely Pakistani–an influx that arose from some form of misplaced obligation to the old Empire rather than from any participation in Europe. Still, the opportunity to put up a wall against the current invasion will at least prevent exacerbation of the existing problem.