The Real Reason for Brexit

Zander challenges the establishment lie that resentment over immigration from Poland and other East European nations was the main driver of the British vote to leave the EU. The reality is quite different.

In 2016, the year of the historic Brexit vote, there were approximately 1.3 million citizens of the EU8 nations (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia) and EU2 nations (Bulgaria, Romania) living in the UK. The largest group of these immigrants were Poles, estimated at around 814,000. These Poles and other EU8 nationals had been coming to the UK for work since 2004 when the EU expanded to admit them, followed by Romania and Bulgaria in 2007.

In 2012, Ed Miliband, Jewish leader of the Labour party which held power from 1997 to 2010 (also known as ‘New Labour’), made a statement appearing to be an apology, saying that the Labour government “got it wrong” on immigration by letting in too many people. Indeed, during their 13 years in power, 5.5 million immigrants were added to the British population. That this ‘apology’ came not during Labour’s time in power but after they were voted out, partly as a result of public disillusionment with unasked for ‘open door’ mass immigration, is no surprise. Such an admission by an incumbent government, unless triggered by catastrophic opinion polls, would be less likely. However, as we will see, the devil is in the detail, so let’s focus on the content of what he said.

Jewish Labour leader Ed Miliband apologises for allowing too much White immigration

Most of the speech he gave in London in 2012 (transcript here) was devoted to fawning over Britain’s non-white immigrants and ‘diversity’. He started off by immediately launching into a rhapsody about the multiculturalism of London, a city where “people of all different backgrounds, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Christians and those of no faith, live and work together… A place where people don’t just tolerate each other, but build friendships, families and businesses across communities.” Speaking more widely of the UK, he eulogised “our unity as a country and our diversity. The [Olympic] Games came to Britain because of the vibrant, generous-spirited, multi-ethnic, diverse city we presented in the London bid.”

Miliband was especially excited about the much-feted Somali athlete Mo (Mohamed) Farah, born in Somalia;

“But it was an even bigger privilege to see Mo Farah win the first of his gold medals. If anything was a defining moment of the Olympics, amidst so many defining moments, it was Mo Farah’s victories. And wasn’t that an amazing interview when he was asked: “Wouldn’t you rather be running for Somalia?” And he replied “This is my country mate”. That’s why I will be voting for him for Sports Personality of the Year on Sunday.”

He went on; “The whole Olympic experience reflected the diversity of modern Britain. So it was an immense achievement for our country and it reflects a crucial reality about our nation today. Social, cultural and ethnic diversity has made us stronger.”

Naturally he weaved in his own immigrant background and that of his Jewish parents fleeing Nazi Germany;

“For generations, new people have arrived in Britain, often seeking sanctuary from oppression, and have worked hard to build a new life. And they have contributed enormously to the country. I say this as the child of immigrants. I wouldn’t be standing here if it hadn’t been for the generosity of Britain. My parents came here as refugees from the terrors of the Nazis.”

Far from done with his favourite subject, he enthused about how wonderful it was that the school he attended now has “young people whose families come from over 60 countries, with 50 different languages spoken”.

”I love the diversity of London”, he continued, perhaps worried he hadn’t quite made this clear to his audience yet. “We are a multi-ethnic, diverse Britain”, he added, fearless in the face of tautology. “The British people have embraced this diversity”.

He spoke a little about Britain’s ‘racist’ past and then, just in case his listeners still hadn’t quite got the point about the specific wonderfulness of ‘ethnic diversity’, he went on;

“People marry across racial, ethnic and cultural divides. They bring up kids, and make a future for themselves more frequently and more successfully than in many other countries. Indeed, this week’s census showed that people of mixed race are one of the fastest-growing groups in Britain. A development people are entirely comfortable with.”

Having detailed at length what he believed makes Britain so great (along with some major assumptions about public opinion on the matter) he finally got round to addressing exactly what it was that Labour 'got wrong’ on immigration.

“Over the last fifteen years, migration to Britain has been faster and more extensive than it has ever been in our history. With many people coming here, especially from those countries new to the European Union. The last Labour government made mistakes. As I have said before, the capacity of our economy to absorb new migrants was greater than the capacity of some of our communities to adapt. We have said we will learn lessons from Eastern European migration and ensure maximum transitional controls in future.”

Having outlined ‘the real problem’, he returned to his favourite topic; the celebration of black people in Britain, including a woman from Sierra Leone who had just been to an ‘African family party’. “That is the real story of Britain today”, said Miliband in reference to the African, before talking some more about his Jewishness and quoting a rabbi.

I hope my reader now understands why I’ve taken the trouble to break down so much of this nauseating speech. After delivering prolonged, ecstatic homage to Britain’s millions of non-white immigrants and their contributions - many of which came to Britain under the 1997-2010 Labour government - he makes it clear which immigrants he’s apologising for his party bringing in; those from Eastern Europe. In other words, White people.

A year previous to this, Miliband gave an interview to the BBC on this same topic.

"I don't think we lied but I do think we got it wrong in a number of respects. I think that first of all we clearly underestimated the number of people coming in from Poland and that had more of an effect therefore than we would otherwise have thought.”

In true Miliband style, he hammers the very same point home again seconds later;

“We thought there would be a certain number of people coming into the country from Poland - it turned out to be much larger - it did have an effect”.

As anyone with knowledge or experience of the West knows, the celebrating, advocating and enabling of mass non-white immigration by Jewish politicians is the norm rather than the exception. Indeed, it seems a key feature of the modern Western political landscape and quite possibly the most serious problem of our time. Nearly all White Western countries are stuffed with politicians just like Miliband, trying to make native Whites a minority as quickly as they can.

The role of the media in blaming Brexit on resentment towards Poles

What’s particular about this instance of it is how it affected public perception, especially overseas, regarding British attitudes to Eastern Europeans and the reasons for the Brexit vote. Miliband’s speeches and his ‘We’re sorry about all the Poles’ campaign were reported far and wide across all major media outlets. Naturally, Europeans across the EU wanted to know why the British had made the major decision to leave the bloc in 2016. The message communicated to them via the mass / international media was the same as it had been four years earlier; Brexit happened because ‘the British don’t want the East Europeans’.

The disproportionately Jewish (and today increasingly openly anti-white) media then, as now, amplified the messages of Miliband and his ilk, portraying his opinions as those of the general public. He claimed, as many still do today, to speak for a whole nation with statements like “The British people have embraced this diversity”, that “ethnic diversity has made us stronger” and that the rapid growth of a mixed-race population is something “people are entirely comfortable with”.

Miliband was correct about one thing; the British public were then - as they have been for some time, unhappy about mass immigration. They were particularly unhappy with Labour having opened the borders to vast numbers from around the world. What’s deliberately misrepresented - and this is a crucial point - is the type of immigration the British were protesting. Let’s examine immigration under New Labour more closely.

New Labour deliberately opened the doors to third world immigration in secret plan to make Britain multicultural

The headline above isn’t hyperbole. The Labour government of 1997-2010 deliberately increased immigration from the third world, while keeping the scheme concealed from the public. It’s true that EU immigration, especially from the newer EU2 and EU8 member states made up a large portion of the 5.5 million arrivals under New Labour’s tenure - but up to and possibly more than 3 million of those 5.5 million were from the third world.

As this article outlines, 200,000 were from the African nation of Somalia alone - one of the most corrupt, crime and chaos-ravaged countries in the world with no historic or cultural links to Britain. “Most Somalis—Britain’s largest refugee population—do not work. They are among the poorest, worst-educated and least-employed in Britain”, explains this Economist article, while framing it as a complete mystery. According to a 2009 government report, Somali-born migrants have the lowest employment rate of all immigrants in the UK (the unemployment rate of Somali men was estimated in 2013 at a staggering 65%), and yet in 2013 the Financial Times reported that Somalis send £500 million to Somalia from Britain each year. A vast proportion of this money is of course welfare, straight from the pockets of the British taxpayer.

Under New Labour, immigration from other third world nations like India and Pakistan increased enormously, but Prime Minister Tony Blair did his best to keep it from the public;

‘Like Straw, Blair was careful never publicly to mention the rising number of immigrants from India and Pakistan who could now enter Britain. Nor did he consider how to provide housing, schools and healthcare for an additional 300,000 people arriving a year.‘ [Daily Mail]

The Labour government, we came to learn, went out of its way to invite immigrants from the third world to settle in Britain. More shockingly, it transpired this wasn’t even done for economic reasons but ideologically, as a deliberate attempt to make Britain multicultural. The plan was deliberately concealed from the public. The treacherous motivation behind this secret plan was revealed by former Labour government adviser turned whistleblower Andrew Neather in 2009. Neather’s own words, in an article for the London Evening Standard, were that Labour’s relaxation of immigration controls was a deliberate attempt to engineer a ‘truly multicultural’ country. He also recalled ‘coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity’.

Jewish immigration minister Barbara Roche and her third world ‘open-door’ policy

Premier Tony Blair’s minister in charge of immigration, Jewess Barbara Roche, described as having ‘pioneered the open-door policy’ of New Labour, presided over a record amount of third world immigration during her tenure. Her views and motivations on this are summarised on her Wikipedia page, with sources:

‘Roche was a strong supporter of a liberal immigration policy to the United Kingdom,^[16] and advocated for increased immigration during her time as Minister of State for Asylum and Immigration. Among her reasons for this, she included using migration to free up skills shortages, respond to the country's ageing demography and for economic growth.^[17] In September 2000, she gave a speech outlining her desires to liberalize the United Kingdom's immigration policy, calling for what the government termed as 'managed migration'.^[18][17][19] She believed that the benefits of migration should be shown by emphasizing the ethnic diversity of the United Kingdom and migrants' contribution to the country, in similar ways to countries like the United States, Australia and Canada.’

Roche made it very clear that she particularly championed and sought to increase non-white immigration;

“I wanted to be the first immigration minister to say immigration is a good thing (...) We have a multiracial, multicultural society; we are a stronger country for it." [Barbara Roche interviewed by the New Statesman, 2000]

Roche did not believe in deportation under any circumstances. She expressed this view, which underpinned her policy while in office, quite openly;

“I think asylum seekers should be allowed to stay. Removal takes too long, and it’s emotional.”

Barbara Roche explains how her Jewishness informs her politics

Crucially, Roche was open about the fact that her ethnic Jewish heritage and her political views, motivations and actions regarding immigration were inextricably intertwined.

‘Similarly, Roche was also a supporter of multiculturalism, and attached this to her Jewishness and immigrant parents,^{[22][20][4][15]} stating; "My being Jewish informs me totally, informs my politics. I understand the otherness of ethnic groups. The Americans are ahead of us on things like multiple identity. I'm Jewish but I'm also a Londoner; I'm English but also British.”^[4]’

Third world immigration vs Polish immigration in Britain

The increase in third world immigration under New Labour brought - as it always has and does to this day - increases in terror, crime and social disorder to Britain. In addition to numerous Muslim terror attacks such as 7/7 and the Manchester Arena bombing, which claimed 74 lives between them, we had the horrors of (almost exclusively) Pakistani rape gangs, operating in cities all over the UK, grooming, raping, sometimes murdering young White girls. The number of victims of this is staggering - this left-wing newspaper admits that official figures confirm 19,000 victims, but the real number is likely to be considerably higher.

Cities like London have seen vast increases in knife crime, almost all perpetrated by black youths. Knife-related offences in London alone topped almost 16,000 in 2019. Blacks in general have long been overrepresented in street crime, as outlined on the Wikipedia page on crime and ethnicity in Britain;

‘Robbery and gang violence have been associated with black people since the 1960s.^[23]… In 1995, the London Metropolitan Police commissioner Paul Condon stated that the majority of robberies in London were committed by black people.^[27]’

Blacks and other non-whites also specialise in gang rape;

‘The London Metropolitan Police Service has collected statistics on gang rape. Filmmaker Sorious Samura studied statistics on 29 gang rapes and found that "a high proportion were committed by black and mixed-race young men".^[37]’

As mentioned Somali immigrants are one of the least employed groups in the UK (65% men unemployed, 95% women unemployed). Blacks and non-whites in Britain continue to have the highest rates of unemployment.

Poles were the hardest working immigrant group in Britain

Meanwhile in 2016, 92% of Poles in Britain were either working or studying - 'the highest rate among all ethnic groups in Britain’. As detailed in this article, EU workers as a whole brought more money into the economy than they took from it. Poles alone opened more than 20,000 businesses.

Speaking personally as a Brit who later came to develop close connections with Poland, my experiences with Poles in the UK were never anything but positive. Polish immigrants in Britain quickly earned a reputation for being hard-working and conscientious - an industrious, high-trust people, not to mention warm and friendly. This is corroborated by pretty much every other British person I know - none of whom ever had a problem with Poles or Polish immigrants. After Brexit, when told numerous times by Poles “you left the EU because you didn’t like Polish people”, I felt a mixture of sadness and anger that’s hard to fully describe. Anger at the lie, especially knowing exactly how this lie came to be, how it was spread and who spread it - and sadness that a people for whom I hold a great fondness were led to believe, quite incorrectly, that animus towards Poles caused Brexit. The statement “The British don’t like Polish people” is about as true as the statement “The British people have embraced this [ethnic] diversity”. Which is to say, it is manifestly untrue.

And yet, who can blame Poles for believing it? As outlined earlier, the British media, not to mention politicians like Ed Miliband, repeatedly pushed the public message that Polish - not third world immigration - was our biggest problem. So why did the establishment do this? There are several likely explanations.

• It’s deemed politically acceptable to openly discriminate against Whites. If the war on Whites wasn’t evident to many people 10 years ago, much less 20 years ago, it’s certainly evident now. It’s open season on us - non-whites and Jews get away with saying virtually anything they want about us, and yet they’ll now lock us up for even spreading awareness about our ethnic replacement. This has been intensifying for some time, so it should be no surprise that in 2012, Jewish Labour leader Ed Miliband felt that Poles - one of the most hard-working, law abiding peoples in the world - were the one group of immigrants that he could attack and ‘apologise’ for letting in. Would a Jewish leftist politician like Miliband ever stand up and say the same about a genuinely problematic immigrant group - i.e. “we let in too many Pakistanis?” The answer, obviously, is no - not in a million years. In a growing anti-white climate, knowing the British public were unhappy about immigration, he and the media decided it was ‘safe’ to scapegoat Poles, thus avoiding charges of racism.

• It provided a pretext for reducing White immigration to Britain. Knowing what we do now about the clear agenda by our elites to fill every White country with non-Whites as fast as possible, it seems likely this also served as a pretext to reduce immigration from White nations like Poland and increase third world immigration, despite knowing it was the latter, not the former that the British were sick of.

• It was an attempt to turn public opinion against Poles and other Eastern European immigrants. It’s undeniable the anti-Polish propaganda had some effect domestically. As mentioned I never met a single person who had a problem with Poles in the UK - but there is a certain category of people who will always be susceptible to media brainwashing. Tell enough people that Poles are stealing their jobs and some will believe it.

Now we’ve explained some background including how this lie was propagated, along with New Labour’s agenda and messaging on immigration, a key question arises, to which any European citizens reading will naturally want an answer;

If third world immigration was the problem, why would the British vote against free movement from Europe?

To address this question we need to pay close attention to the events of 2015, the year before the 2016 Brexit vote. Before 2015, many viewed the European Union in a far more positive light. Free movement of Europeans around Europe, of which Britain was officially a part, seemed a good idea - although some politicians like Nigel Farage had long argued that the EU, originally pitched as a pan-European trade bloc, was mutating into a European superstate with increasing demands for centralised power - something like a political manifestation of ‘feature creep’.

The 2015 Migrant Crisis

In summer 2015, an event that came to be known as ‘The 2015 European Migrant Crisis’ was largely triggered by conflict in Syria, creating a new wave of refugees from the Middle East. German Chancellor Angela Merkel made the fateful, apparently unilateral decision to welcome them to Germany in an open invitation, famously declaring “we can manage it”.

Naturally word spread like wildfire around the entire third world, and well over a million fighting age men entered Germany - nearly all claiming to be Syrian, despite also coming from nations such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Eritrea and nearly every other corner of the third world. Many destroyed their paperwork so their country of origin could not be identified and they could not be returned.

The rest of the Western world looked on in astonishment and alarm as Germany appeared to commit cultural and ethnic suicide. Without permission or consultation of the German people, Merkel single-handedly effected a major transformation of Germany’s demographics. The newcomers were treated to extremely generous welfare handouts including housing, spending money and healthcare.

Unsurprisingly violent crime, gang activity, murders and particularly rape skyrocketed in the wake of this mass resettlement. Indeed, the raping began almost immediately; just months after the mass influx, 1200 young women were sexually assaulted by migrant men amid the 2015 New Year’s Eve celebrations in Cologne, Germany. In German towns schoolgirls were advised not to dress provocatively, and countless incidents were recorded of young girls being sexually assaulted by young migrant men in Germany’s many public baths.

This decision soon bore fateful consequences not only for Germany but the entirety of Europe. Now the message was out there; simply claim to be a refugee, and you’ll get access to Europe. The stories, photos, videos, evidence were seen by tens of millions across Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Iraq, Africa, the Arab world; ‘refugees’ were being given everything. Europe was the land of milk and honey; free houses and money, not to mention young European girls. The arrivals intensified and ever since, thousands upon thousands of third world men now arrive each day on Europe’s shores, stowed away in the backs of lorries, on rubber dinghies, using every method available to them. The list of European victims, including many European girls, some children, murdered and raped by these invaders is long and grows by the day. 2015 caused a European crisis indeed - a serious one which persists to this day.

So how did the EU respond to this crisis? Did they declare a state of emergency, massively ramp up Europe’s border security, or help to facilitate wide-scale removals of people with no demonstrable right to be in Europe? Did they even criticise Merkel’s insane decision to welcome 1.1 million unvetted third world men into Germany? No. The EU leadership closed ranks around Merkel, maintained that she had ‘done the right thing’, and insisted that every European nation take their ‘fair share’ of the migrants. That’s right - every European nation - not just Germany, whose leader (not its people) invited them in, but Britain and all the other European nations - none of which had invited or asked for these people - were now expected to open their doors.

The migrant invasion of Europe was the background to the Brexit referendum

All of Europe, if not much of the world, watched the above events take place in real time. What the British saw was the European Union, rather than defending its borders, appearing to collude in opening them up to massive non-white immigration. Keep in mind that this took place in the summer of 2015 - only one year before the scheduled vote on Brexit in summer 2016.

The British voted to leave the EU by an extremely narrow margin - 52% vs 48%. Considering this outcome in the light of the prevailing geopolitical landscape outlined above, it seems inconceivable that Merkel’s decision, and the EU response to it, did not influence this vote. Indeed, the effect of the migrant crisis on the Leave vote was correctly predicted by Business Insider in late 2015. Given how narrow the margin was, it’s a reasonable assumption that had the 2015 migrant crisis not taken place, the leave vote would likely not have prevailed.

The truth is that for millions, the EU’s response to the migrant crisis of 2015 was a ‘mask off’ moment. Before 2015, even so-called ‘Eurosceptics’ saw the main issues with the bloc as attempted political overreach, excessive hunger for power, the imposition of excessive bureaucracy, cumbersome legislation and possible financial corruption. The events of 2015 painted a far more sinister picture. No longer did those who spoke of a ‘globalist superstate’ sound like conspiracy theorists. In real time we saw the facilitated opening of Europe’s borders to non-Europeans, and an apparent desire not to maintain Europe’s territorial integrity, but a concerted, centralised drive to turn Europe itself non-European with massive non-white immigration.

If the UK voted Leave to reduce third world immigration, why has the UK taken record numbers of non-white immigrants since Brexit?

It’s an important question which needs to be addressed. Hopefully I’ve succeeded in making the case that concerns over EU-driven third world immigration drove the Brexit vote. A logical (and correct) assumption voters made was that having left the EU, the UK would no longer be subject to the ‘migrant quotas’ the EU forced and are still attempting to force on EU member states. A second assumption was that British politicians would get the message delivered by this anti-establishment vote. The British government itself vowed to ‘take back control of our borders’ following the Brexit vote - a pledge echoed by former British Prime Minster Boris Johnson.

The sad truth is that not even referenda, never mind politician’s promises, necessarily mean anything in our ‘democracy’. Despite repeated Conservative pledges to dramatically bring down immigration (David Cameron famously promised to limit numbers to the ‘tens of thousands’) the incumbent Conservative government has presided over record numbers of immigration eclipsing even those of the pro open-border New Labour administration, with over half a million work visas granted in one year and huge numbers of asylum claims granted. The majority of the work visas were given to Nigerians, Indians and Pakistanis.

It’s my firm belief that in addition to the general, worldwide escalation of the agenda to replace all native Whites in their homelands, the above is in part a deliberate policy to ‘punish’ the British for voting for Brexit, in full knowledge that they have always wanted third world immigration dramatically reduced. The sad truth is that immigration probably wouldn’t be much different in the UK now had we voted to remain. Labour or Conservative, Brexit or no Brexit, the top-down agenda of White replacement and dispossession is unchanged and it continues apace. Therefore the answer to the question above can be encapsulated in one word; treachery.

In conclusion

From Poland’s PiS selling visas in Africa to Italy’s Giorgia Meloni being elected on a promise to control immigration, a pledge upon which she soon reneged, betrayal by ‘conservative’ establishments is a sadly common theme in recent times. I hope this article reaches as many Poles as possible, and I hope that I have made my case convincingly. Not only do I believe it’s vital for the truth to be known, but this issue is personal for me. As one of the British elements of the Watching Poland collective, I bring an understanding of British politics to bear along with a warm regard for Poland and its people. Stepping back from it all, you see the familiar patterns time and time again; Jewish politicians agitating for non-white immigration to White countries, whipping up hostility towards Whites (as Ed Miliband did towards Polish immigrants) and ultimately attempting to drive a wedge between us. Similar patterns are emerging now as Irish resentment is being diverted towards the (genuine) Ukrainian refugees, instead of the third world imports who have been stabbing children, raping and killing their way through the streets and cities of Ireland.

All White Europeans, be we British, Polish or otherwise - will always have far more in common with each other than with ethnic non-Europeans. Once we truly internalise this and see our enemies for who they really are, we will be unstoppable.

(The article was first published here.)