A commentator here drew my attention last night to a new policy paper from the Restore Britain group that has been launched by former Reform MP Rupert Lowe, who now sits as an independent MP for Great Yarmouth in the House of Commons, and who, this weekend, launched his own political party.
That party is called Restore Britain, and sits further to the right than any other likely to attract media attention in the UK at present.
Entitled Mass Deportations: Legitimacy, Legality, and Logistics, this paper claims that the UK could remove every undocumented migrant now living in the country within a few years through sweeping legal change, administrative expansion, and a deliberately hostile environment designed to force voluntary departures.
The paper is not simply about immigration, though. It is also about power, law, and the nature of the state.
It proposes that mass deportation could be achieved by:
-
Repealing or rewriting all of the UK's major human-rights legislation.
-
Withdrawing from international human-rights agreements that were set up to protect us from fascism and the power of a state intent on contravening human rights.
-
Dismantling the current asylum system.
-
Dramatically increasing detention and removal capacity, including by the use of sites holding 15,000 or more people at a time.
-
Creating conditions so harsh that large numbers would leave voluntarily.
In other words, it recognises something very important: large-scale deportation cannot be carried out under the present legal order or within existing human rights frameworks. The law would have to be changed first.
That insight is fundamental. This document reveals that calls for mass deportation are not merely administrative tweaks. They are proposals to remake the whole constitutional settlement of the UK. Restore Britain wants to restore nothing. This country has never been remotely like the country Lowe imagines. Instead, he plans a hostile state unlike anything ever seen here before. In that case, the paper requires attention for several reasons.
Firstly, it shows that immigration is being used as a proxy debate about sovereignty and rights, with the intention of creating a state with unprecedented powers in the UK, overturning every principle of law known since Magna Carta, at least.
Its authors argue that courts, international treaties, and human rights law prevent deportations and therefore must be overridden. Implicit in that is a claim that democracy requires many fewer legal protections and fewer checks on executive power. Those who are immigrants to the UK, legal or otherwise, would be in deep peril as a result (and let's not pretend that the distinction mmatters to those who produced this report), but to suggest that they alone are in that state would be absurd: history tells us that such powers will also be used to quell any form of freedom, and any right to object to state power.
Secondly, it reveals the desire to mobilise economic resources on a massive scale behind political rhetoric. Mass deportation on the scale proposed would require:
-
Enormous state spending on detention, policing, transport, and legal process.
-
Major labour-market disruption in sectors dependent on migrant labour.
-
Diplomatic conflict with countries asked to receive returnees.
-
A huge and deeply oppressive administrative apparatus.
In short, it would be one of the largest state economic programmes in modern British history, put together with the deliberate intention of pursuing hate whilst imposing threats, fear, intimidation, incarceration and violent relocation on many hundreds of thousands, and potentially millions of people.
The supposed numbers involved are staggering. The suggestion is that up to 2 million people might be forced from the UK within three years. About 75% half of those would supposedly leave voluntarily due to the hostile environment the policy would create. That environment would undoubtedly target all migrants, regardless of their legal status. It would be totally foolish to think otherwise. The remainder, the report suggests, would be forcibly removed. Official estimates do not suggest that anything like that number of people are illegally resident in the UK.
Thirdly, the paper reveals a deeper moral choice.
The proposal depends on making life so difficult for millions of people that they would leave the UK. That is a policy based on exclusion rather than care, and fear rather than solidarity. All of this is driven by a politics of hate that would fundamentally change the nature of life in this country, to the detriment of everyone. Toxicity is pernicious and corrupts everyone, including (perhaps most especially) those promoting it.
Why this matters
We are often told that the state is powerless. That includes the claim that it is powerless to house people, powerless to fund social security, and powerless to invest in care.
This paper implies something quite differently. The implication is that the state is immensely powerful. The suggestion is that it is capable of tracking, detaining, transporting, and expelling millions. The contradiction is obvious, but it exposes something deeper.
The choice revealed is whether the state wants to do things that are good, to which the answer from the current political establishment is that, apparently, and for reasons that are not clear, it does not, or something straightforwardly evil, which is what this paper proposes, of which it is apparently thought to be capable.
The question is not, then, about whether the state has power. The question is about how that power is used, and to what ends.
The reality is that mass deportation proposals expose a political choice:
-
Do we build a politics of care, investment, and social security for everyone, using the power of the state to advance wellbeing in the process?
-
Or do we build a politics of hate, surveillance, exclusion, and punishment?
These are not incidental questions: they go to the core of the political debate we need when conventional political thinking has led us to the point where proposals of the sort Rupert Lowe is promoting are being made, with no obvious counter-narrative from mainstream political parties being made available.
The argument ahead
This document does, therefore, deserve attention not because its claims are in any way credible, but because it shows how economic insecurity and political fear are being channelled into proposals that would fundamentally change the UK's legal order.
The challenge it presents is real. The questions being posed are:
- What state do we think we are?
- What state are we in?
- What do we aspire to be?
- How can we achieve that?
- What will motivate this choice?
- What resources can be assembled to achieve this goal?
- What outcomes can we expect if we succeed?
Rupert Lowe has a vision for the UK. It is toxic, dangerous, profoundly destructive and massively harmful not just to the millions he proposes to terrorise, but those who will remain if he ever had the chance to do this. But let me be clear: he is only setting out a direction of travel of the sort that Marco Rubio clearly suggested the US administration thinks Europe should follow in his speech to the Munich Security Conference at the weekend.
In that case, let me state what should be obvious: what is being proposed, vile as it is, is not peripheral, irrelevant, or to be ignored.
This is what we must face.
This is the political reality of the moment.
This is what we must counter.
This is why the counter-narratives on which I am working are so vital, and why they cannot be ignored by our politicians if they claim to have any compassion, care or desire for a democratic future that respects the human rights of everyone, whoever they might be
And let me be clear: what this paper shows is that immigration debates are never just about migration. They are about:
- Power
- Control
- Democracy
- Human rights
- The rule of law
- Inequality
- Ethics
- Society, and how we view it
- Economics
- Political economy
and most of all:
- People, in all their glorious variety.
They are, then, about what kind of society we choose to be, who we want to be within it, and so, how we see ourselves. And anyone who pretends this is not the moment when we have to decide what that society might be is lying to you. That is precisely what we have to do now. If we do not, we may be too late.
So what do you want? A politics of care? Or a politics of hate?
That is our choice. We cannot duck it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
It is absolutely horrifying. Given the UK is one big melting pot of everyone whoever invaded us and English has absorbed elements of the languages of our invaders, hence our lack of consistent spelling, so who are the true Brits? I am totally against any form of ethnic cleansing, but taken to extremes, only those of us with Celtic origins would get to stay!
Maybe the extreme nature of these plans will expose how awful the end game of those obsessed with immigration are? As someone born in London in the 60s who has always lived with multiculturalism and believe it enriches our society, I find it abhorrent. It also totally ignores our current demographic time bomb which requires immigration for our country to function and pay for our pensioners, so would be economically disastrous.
What strange times we live in.
I am of Celtic origin.
I cannot imagine I will be allowed to stay.
Or maybe leave.
The Celts weren’t the first to arrive: there were plenty of migrants before them. We don’t even have words for some of them – after Neanderthals anyway. Early neolithic farmers, beaker people etc. Many got here without getting their feet wet – they could walk it from what is now “the Continent”. Many had dark skins. When the Romans arrived it was with people from all over their Empire. And the empire building indulged in during the “modern” era (so beloved of Rubio) brought in ever more peoples as well. The narrowmindedness of the current population of these islands shames us. How did we become so mean, so small, so cruel?
I know that. But the Celts are the only really distinguishable race if you want to follow this ridiculousness to its end. I’d like more immigrants and to get rid of the so called British people who think this level of racism is not only okay but something to shout about.
I moved to Devon 10 years ago and had real culture shock due to the lack of diversity. A real Brexit bonus for me are the lovely Indians and Africans that have moved here to work in the NHS and our care homes that attend my church and the international food shop that has now opened in Cullompton. I can now stock up on lentils and spices much closer to home as I love to make authentic dahls etc.
I had that culture shock on leaving London.
[…] light of my piece published this morning on Robert Lowe's Restore Britain and its profoundly racist and toxic views, this opinion poll's […]
Should it be Rupert Lowe?
Yes. I cannot find where it is not.
How many times did I read Rupert this mornig and then write Robert?
Weird…
Lowe is a Rupert, not a Robert. Had he ever served in the military, which he most definitely has not, there can be little doubt that he would immediately have earned the sobriquet “Rupert the Rupert”.
I have corrected it.
I’ve read about this too from the link in PfP.
What I find astounding is that ‘Restore Britain’ is unashamedly a political project that is being offered ‘FOR SALE’ and that purchasers (because they are not donating – they are receiving something back – read on) can join an elite club called the (wait for it) the ‘Cromwell Club’ (he must be turning in his grave). No doubt cabinet posts will be in the offing?
So at once, we have a political project that will be avowedly supported by rich people claiming to care about everyone else. Well, 10 out of 10 for the honesty – wealth will rule.
My concern is that our society is so in love with wealth and the notion of being wealthy as a virtue that they will get away with it. But for sure, this is still a major open goal for Restore Britain. It is their Achilles heal and we should focus on it.
White Brits need to understand that if Restore Britain get their way, they will wiping people’s bottoms in care homes for less than minimum wage, not any ‘brown people’ or those with ‘funny accents’ anymore.
An unpleasant way of putting it maybe, but necessary I feel.
In summary: “if your face fits and you support us, you can stay, otherwise we will throw you out of the country, regardless of what bits of paper you hold”.
I am confident that a significant segment of UK sheeple will support this – “cos it’s immigrunts innit”. & another section of the pop’ will claim that “oh ‘ees just sayin it ‘ees not serious” just like in the late 1920s and early 1930s.
Also keep in mind: a wholly compliant plod force who have zero problem arresting grannies holding pro-palestinian/anti-genocide signs – “just following orders missus”. They will have zero problem chucking people into concentration camps prior to deportation.
Agreed.
Lowe boasts about his stout defence of Britain and its culture. He has not served in the military. He campaigns to protect Christian values. There is no evidence that he is a practising Christian. The pinnacle of his achievement in public life to date has been to mistakenly identify a team of charity oarsmen as a boatload of illegal immigrants. This vacuous individual simply needs to slink away.
It is important to pay attention to far-right policies. At its heart, beyond all the deregulation, deportations, and stripping away of rights and freedoms, the far right is about the collapse of civilisation, a civilisation they see as corrupt, because they have no place in it. Their policies reflect their post-collapse power fantasies, where they are the strong leaders rebuilding civilisation. That’s why Restore Britain’s manifesto does not reflect any form of Britain so far. It is a power fantasy. And remember this: the Right is obsessed with children, and with women’s bodies, especially young women. So much funding for the far right comes from organisations that were involved with Epstein and his associates. What they want is a powerless society with them on top, able to do in full view what Epstein and his cronies have done in secret for many years. When you dig down through all the filth these people spew out, that appears to be at the heart of it. The power fantasies of entitled little men, unable to accept that the world is not just for them alone. Neoliberalism has rewarded predatory behaviour for years, now all we have in power are predators.
It may be that the establishment (people who’ve owned and run the country for near a 1000yrs) could support or promote this dystopia. When Jeremy Corbyn’s vision of a politics of care looked like becoming a reality , senior military figures threatened him publicly on prime time news. Given that a supposedly enlightened labour government is actively assisting genocide of brown people in Palestine, could we reasonably expect that they wouldn’t turn their power against major centres of opposition in London, Manchester,Leeds, Birmingham,Leicester should it come to that? We’ve already seen right wing thuggery on the streets with a contrasting ‘soft’ policing approach when compared to so called left demonstrations. I too am an immigrant and in theory could be expelled. I recall that in the 80s government used powers to prevent internal travel within the UK for persons they deemed undesirable i.e. Mrs Adam’s and McGuinness. I don’t wish for this post to come scryas naysaying but we – all of need to be hyper aware of backlash and dirty tricks campaigns from people with almost limitless resources. On a positive note the fact that some of the UK judiciary are independent minded enough afford some protection to citizen activists.
The same people have not owned this country for 1,000 years.
I didn’t mean it literally Richard but I would refer you to Kevin Cahill’s Who Owns Britain. I believe that it’s fair to suggest that the same tribe has owned and ruled Britain since 1066 and maintains their tribal identity through the public schools system and other exclusive networks. I’m always happy to debate this and would love to be proven wrong.
I disagree with that. Of course there is some continuity, but that assumption is well wide of the amrk as to who has power now.
Deaths now outnumber births in the UK so Lowes fascist plan would be economic suicide for us all.
What a stupid disgusting little man he is.