The impact of Immigration in the United Kingdom - who wins, who loses and can these concerns be real

The impact of Immigration in the United Kingdom - who wins, who loses –
are the concerns of the People real in respect to their quality of life
and can these concerns be realistically addressed?

Executive Summary

Tony Blair entered the 2015 election debate on Tuesday 7 April 2015 by suggesting that the economics of the United Kingdom (UK) would effectively collapse if the UK was to leave the European Union (EU). Tony Blair further considered that David Cameron was wrong in his proposal to give the people an in/out referendum in 2017 on the future of the UK in the EU as this was a decision that should not be left to the people of UK.

On the BBC Newsnight programme on Tuesday 7 April 2015 a report was presented showing how immigration had gone from a negative impact through the seventies and eighties to net immigration of around 26,000 in the late eighties early nineties to around 200,000+ from the late early noughties to the present day. However both Tony Blair and David Cameron are both wrong as there is an alternative to leaving the EU and that is for the people of the UK who are affected by mass immigration to take control of their own lives and seek redress through the courts.

This cannot be undertaken by an individual person or a localised group due to the sheer scale of the task and the money required is outside the scope of any individual person except for a billionaire. But a billionaire would not contemplate such an act as the impact of immigration does not encroach into his social or work circle.

One solution to this problem which does not include the UK leaving the EU is for all those affected by immigration or have concerns upon its impact on the standard of life in the UK, coming together and acting as a single unity organisation with a single aim of bring the EU and UK regulators responsible for the erosion of surplus capacity in the public services by mass immigration which has had a severe impact on their quality of life and put at risk their safety and human rights. The intent of this action is to make those responsible accountable for their actions and put a marker down so future EU regulators are aware that the people of the UK and possibly the population from other Member States will only take so much maladministration.

It should be recognised that bringing some balance into the process of the EU administration can only be achieved by the people coming together as one unit as the process of seeking redress will not come cheap and an estimate of the costs required to change EU attitude on human rights from the rights of a single citizen to address the rights of an entire population of a Member State whose citizens quality of life is being damaged by mass immigration is in the order of £240 million.

The sum of £240 million results from twelve distinct stages consisting of establishing a data base website for collecting the information from the public, surveys to determine the capacity of the public services throughout the UK, expert legal advice on the legal cases that can be purposed, various legal actions against EU and UK politicians with additional provision to seek case law against the EU regulator, the UK politicians and a major company employing large number of immigrants and those who challenge the rights of the UK population to seek such redress.

The intention is to fund the expense of these actions through contributions from those citizens of the UK who been affected by or have concerns over the open door approach to immigration in the UK. The sum of £240 million equates to £6/head for the 40 million or so of the adult population of the UK which polls suggest consider control on immigration in the UK from within the EU must be applied to a level that the UK finances can support without having a negative impact upon local and national public services which could impact upon the UK’s population quality of life or put human life at risk.

In order to gauge if the concerns of the people of the UK on immigration is the major issue that the polls and studies would suggest; a petition has been started to obtain an initial view. It would also help if donations could also be pledged at this early stage so that the sum of £50,000 required for the setting up of the website and data base for the collection and collation of people’s support and views could be obtained.

If this initial testing petition reaches 1 million and donations of £50,000 are pledged then the actions set out in this proposal can proceed, commencing with stage 1 the setting up of the dedicated website.

Data that should be considered when reviewing the causes that influenced the level of immigration into the United Kingdom

From the information presented on the BBC Newsnight programme of Tuesday 7 April 2015 it became evident that the rise in immigration in the UK from within the EU commenced during the period of the Labour Government of 1997 to 2010. In this regard a review into the events of the Labour Government during this period, the position taken by EU and the interrelation between these parties and the population of the UK can only be achieved by considering the following data when considering the causes that influenced the increase level of immigration into the UK:-


• The European Union (EU) was formed in 1957 with 6 Member States
• There were four fundamental founding principles under the 1957 Treaty of Rome, goods, services, capital and people are able to move freely across the EU’s internal borders.
• The Member States have increased over time and now there are 28
• The United Kingdom joined the EU in 1973
• The population of the EU is in the order of 507 million
• The population of the United Kingdom in 1973 was in the order of 56 million
• The population of the United Kingdom in 1997 was in the order of 58 million
• The population of the United Kingdom in 2007 was in the order of 60 million
• The population of the United Kingdom today in 2015 is in the order of 64 million
• The United Kingdom census since joining the EU have taken place in 1981, 1991, 2001 and 2011
• The 2011 census report indicates that 19.6% of the population was under 16 years of age
• The Labour Party came into power in the United Kingdom in May 1997
• The current world financial crash started in September 2008
• The average migration of the United Kingdom over the 24 year period between 1973 to 1997 was an emigration of – 6,000 with a year low emigration of – 87,000 and a year high emigration of – 11,000
• In 1997 the net migration of the United Kingdom was 40,000
• The average migration of the United Kingdom for the 17 year period between 1997 to 2013 was an immigration of 161,000 with a year low immigration of 81,000 and with a year high immigration of 260,000
• The net migration of the United Kingdom in 2013 was 260,000
• The average increase in the population of the United Kingdom over the 24 year period between 1973 to 1997 was 0.15% with a year low of – 0.12% and a year high of 0.35%
• In 1997 the increase in the population of the United Kingdom was 0.26%
• The average increase in the population of the United Kingdom for the 17 year period between 1997 to 2013 was 0.57% with a year low of 0.26% and with a year high of 0.82%
• The increase in the population of the United Kingdom in 2013 was 0.63%


Concerns of the people of the United Kingdom on uncontrolled Immigration

The reports in the media and the rise of UKIP as a political party suggest that a large proportion of the people of the UK have concern over the level of immigration into the UK over the past fifteen years or so. Some consider such concerns are ill-founded and that immigration brings benefits to the UK in terms of economic growth and a diverse society and even if there was any validity to the concerns over immigration the elected political party of the UK (the Government) has no control over immigration from within the European Union as the open door policy to movement of citizens within the EU borders is a founding policy of the EU.

However these politicians and liberal elite do not reside in the towns and cities where major migration has taken place, they do not use the public services that are being used by the middle to low income households in such areas and their employment is not at risk from immigrant workers.

The issues that need to be addressed are (i) is there any validity to the concerns of the people, (ii) are these concerns racially motivated or are these concerns a direct result of the impact immigration is having upon their quality of life in terms of their children’s education, the provisions of health services, their wages, housing for them and their children and job security and (ii) is there any action or opportunity available to the people to bring an end to this migration from within the European Union and the rest of the world.

And just because freedom of movement is a founding policy does not mean this policy cannot be challenged in law on the basis that circumstance have changed over the past 50 years which have rendered this simple interpretation, without considering the consequences, unlawful on the basis of the impact on human life within the Member State that is most affected by such mass immigration.

In order to address these issues in terms of the UK we need to determine the rules that govern immigration, the facts to immigration, the impact immigration has on the quality of life on middle to low income families and how can the people come together to bring about change that results in an improvement in their standard of living, avoid erosion of capacity in public services provision resulting from immigration and deliver long term prosperity for their children and grandchildren.


The argument being put forward by politicians and some others on why a limit on the numbers coming into the United Kingdom cannot be controlled

The argument being put forward for the open door approach to immigration can be summarised into two cases (i) it is the rule of the EU since the 1950’s which has dictated that the major goal of European integration in respect to people is the free movement of people between member states to live, work, study or retire in another country and (ii) immigration is economically good for the country.


What is the truth behind these two arguments on immigration, how can these two arguments be challenged so that control on immigration can be imposed to protect the living standards and safety of the UK population

So taking the two cases of the argument for the open door approach to immigration in turn, it can by analysing the issue that brought about this mass immigration and the failure of both the EU and UK regulators to consider the views being expressed by the UK citizens on the impact upon their quality of life, conclude that both these arguments could be challenged in law. How this conclusion can be reached is as follows:-

The case being put forward for unlimited movement of people around the EU

All leading politicians of the EU 28 Member States, the EU legislators, the EU governing bodies and the liberal elite consider that the free movement of people between the internal borders of the EU is a legal fact that cannot be challenged in law and as such it is legally impossible to put in place any immigration control on the movement of the citizens of the EU with the EU.

If we take the above as fact and consider this in a pure legal sense then the entire 453 million population of the other Member States of the EU can at any time enter the UK to live, work, study or retire. Therefore in law the UK or indeed each State of the EU must have the facilities in terms of housing, health care, infrastructure, transport network, social care etc to support the 507 million population of the EU.

Clearly this is not the case as no such extended facilities exist in any of the EU 28 Member States, therefore in terms of meeting the obligation of this law then the politicians of the EU 28 Member States, the EU legislators, the EU governing bodies have failed and as such are all in breach of the provisions of such law.

You may say that the movement of the 507 million population of the EU to one State such as the UK is not logical, practical or that people may not wish to move. You may be right but in terms of the pure interpretation of the law that argument is not valid. In any event the politicians have stated in the strongest terms possible that the entire population in terms of movement between States is free to do what it wants, when it want, where it wants and the politicians will protect these rights even in the courts by imposing substantial financial penalties against any Member State that does not permit the free movement of EU citizens into its borders with such entry being on identical terms and rights as those terms and rights that the Member State citizens enjoy.

On a practical note looking at this in terms of the mass movement of the 453 million population of the EU moving to the UK such an invasion is not practical in terms of population density as there is insufficient land available to build the facilities to accommodate such an influx which amounts to nine times the current land development that currently exists.

So given that these extended public resources for a 507m population in each Member State do not exist and that any argument put forward against the 507 million population of the EU moving to one State is invalid in law then the EU regulators are themselves in breach of the policy of free movement of citizens between Member States as the public service infrastructure does not exist to support such a policy.

On the other hand you could argue that logic dictates that it has never been considered or addressed that the free movement of the 507 million population of the EU would move to one Member State. If you consider this argument then by deduction it stands that some form of control or limit on the numbers of the movement of people within the EU does indeed exist. And if this is the case then what we do not currently know is what that overall number is in respect to each of the individual Member States but no such information exists in the public domain which suggests no such policy has been considered, indeed the opposite view prevails.

Each Government has a duty to the people of the individual Member State that elected them into office to provide the necessary public services that meet the population needs taking account the income received in taxes. Therefore on the undisputed fact that the population of no single individual State has sufficient income to support the entire 507 million population of the EU then in terms of internal Member State finances control on immigration must exist, the question is what is the number of people that particular individual Member State can fund to support by the income it receives through taxation?

Given most if not all the individual Member States of the EU are in debt then clearly there is insufficient income to maintain the public services currently being provided to that Member States population without considering the effect of any increase through immigration? In simple economic terms given the current income of most Member States cannot without borrowing look after the social requirements of their own population then control on immigration must exist as the alternative is anarchy. In this scenario the number of immigrants the Member State could fund without breaching the original objective of the EU to provide an umbrella of security and avoid the mistakes that lead to the first and second world wars is considered to be zero.

The information from the census provides the basis upon which the Government sets its provision in terms of hospitals, doctor surgeries, schools, transport services, local government, housing, planning structure, prisons, police and fire service numbers, etc and where they are to be located. This information is also used to set Government targets in terms of health provisions (A&E waiting time, consultant referrals, etc) prison sentences, waste bin collection. All of these are mandatory requirements and to be so they require precise data. The fact that such defined number of facilities providing public services and delivery targets are set confirms that some form of control on the movement of people within the EU does exist; the question is, what is the number of people that reside outside the UK borders that has been included within the future plans for public service provisions.

The rise of immigration to a level where it is now the number on major political concern of the population of the UK is a recent event with a beginning date of somewhere in the late 90’s to early 2000’s. This period coincides with the Labour Party coming to power in 1997 and the start of the increase in immigration. At the time Labour came into power the immigration rate was 0.26% or 40,000 people it then rose with immediate effect to around 0.40% and reached a level of around 0.80% by 2005 where it has remained for the past 10 years.

In regard to the above increase Mr Neather a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s has publicly stated in 2009 that the Labour Governments wanted mass immigration to make the UK more multicultural and considers the Labour Governments relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" and was also in part a politically motivated attempt by the Labour Government to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", but the Labour Government were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly at the time for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

It is considered that the Labour Government having started this mass migration into the UK had a duty to ensure that the quality of life of the people was not affected. In order to ensure this in terms of public services then a substantial increase in public services provision and infrastructure should have been instigated to provide the necessary additional capacity in the systems to allow for this immigration. No such provisions on a scale to match the immigration numbers was provided with a result that the surplus capacity within the public services provision in areas where substantial numbers of immigrants located to, came under severe pressure and in some places was completely eroded in terms of supply and quality of service.

Notwithstanding the above impact upon public services, the collapse of the global financial markets in 2008 put the UK and the EU into a sustained period of economic depression that still exists today. Did the Labour Government take note of this financial collapse and cut back on immigration to a level that the public services could support local communities? No, it continued with its plans of mass immigration which as a percentage increase was 223% greater than when they came into power.

Another way of looking at this is in the 10 years prior to Labour coming into power immigration grew by 181,000 and in the 10 years post Labour coming into power immigration grew by 1,365,000 which amounts to an increase of 654%.

It is considered the experiment in mass immigration sponsored by the Labour Government of 1997 to 2010 without the knowledge or consent of the people of the UK resulted in the erosion of surplus capacity in the public services which had a negative effect on the quality of life of the population of the UK for which recompense should be provided by the senior politicians and advisors of that Labour Government.

The people of the UK in areas of mass immigration were aware that the public services in their area did not have the capacity to meet the demands being placed upon them. This concern was raised with the Conservative lead coalition government of 2010 who accepted there was validly to the concerns, raised such concerns with the EU regulators who again quoted the freedom of movement provision of the EU concluding the people of the UK just had to accept the consequences. The coalition Government did make promises that they would discuss these issues with other Member States but to date no progress has been made. The case being made by the EU is that the freedom of movement overrides all other considerations including it would seem a right by a citizen of the EU to a reasonable quality of life within the borders of their own country.

It would appear that the freedom of movement supersedes all other considerations within the EU including quality life to its citizens, the risk of anarchy and there is no flexibility for movement on this item of legislation. The global financial crisis of 2008 is not a normal event and the consequences of this crisis had a profound effect on the public services of the individual Member States this was no more apparent than in the UK. The impact of the global financial crisis taken with the volume of immigration on the quality of life of the middle to low income earners of the UK was brought to the attention of the EU regulators but they dismissed these concerns out of hand. The question is does the right to free movement within the EU supersede all other rights and can the EU regulators dismiss concerns of the citizens of the EU if their policies, in this case immigration between Member States result in a dramatic loss in the quality of life for the population of that Member State and could or may well have resulted in the loss of life due to insufficient capacity within the public services to meet the increase in population due to the numbers of immigrants given that such numbers of immigrants have not been included within the planning of public services and is such dismal of basis human rights by the EU regulators permitted by law?

Clearly the global crisis of 2008 was an international disaster therefore should the EU have addressed the changed circumstances this crisis generated and undertook an in-depth enquiry of the capacity in the UK public services and then legislated for control so that the public services and the quality of life they provided was not undermined and lives are not put at risk?

To summarise it would seem the idea behind EU legislation in the field of freedom of movement by citizens from one Member State to another Member State is that they are treated equally with domestic ones and in so doing they should not be discriminated against. However there is no balance in this legal view which protects the domestic citizen against adverse impact upon their quality of life or safeguard to their personal safety that may be put at risk by the erosion of capacity in the public services in their location by excessive and uncontrolled immigration.


The case being put forward for economic benefit to the country

How do you define country in the context of this benefit, is it the government, the business person, the wealthy, the liberal elite or the average person in the street, because logically in the context of finances it cannot be all.

The concern of the people are four fold the first is the impact that immigration is having on lowering the rates of pay for skilled and semi skilled labour, the second the number of immigrants that are prepared to work at minimum wages and below, the third impact is the drain of public funds by immigrants only entering the UK in order to obtain unemployment and housing benefits or use the NHS, the fourth impact is the strain and loss of capacity the number of immigrants is having on local public services especially to housing, NHS (doctors, A&E, hospitals), education (schools, colleges), retirement homes, care facilities, employment that benefits the people not the company directors, transport infrastructure (buses, rail network), local government provisions (library’s, social care, waste management), public finances, benefit finances, energy supplies (gas and electric), emergency services (fire, police, ambulance), law enforcement (police, security, courts, prisons), water supply, environmental protection (flood, housing, recreation) etc. There may be other concerns but these can be addressed during the initial collection of data.

In terms of the first concern this starts with a company being awarded a contract based on standard UK rates for the skilled or semi skilled tradesman. At some stage they are either approached or take the initiative to employ immigrant works whose rates of pay in their own country are less than the UK standard rates? The business will then make a profit based on the differential in the rates. Once this has happened and word gets out then all other companies in the area has to compete on like terms this results in the rates of pay for that particular trade being reduced in stage across that location to a level that the immigrates will work for and these rates of pay them become the standard in that area.

Who benefits from this, the businesses do in the initial stages in increased profits but once the rates have stabilised at the lower rate than nobody benefits other than the immigrants who have higher income than they can earn back in their home country and are able to send money from the UK to their families. So other than a short term profit to the business owners who first employed the immigrant works there is no economic benefits for any section of the UK but there are losers in that the trade’s people of the UK are now on substantially less income and there is an increase demand on local public services to support the immigrants that were brought in. How can this manipulation of immigrant works to achieve a short term profit be classified as being an economic benefit to the country?

As to the second concern there are a number of factors to consider. The youth of the UK are at a disadvantage in taking minimum wage employment against those of immigrants of a similar age who are in the UK purely for commercial gains in that the UK youth receives no benefits from the State were as the immigrant will based on his own countries wages be far better off in terms of spending power between the UK and their home country when they return with savings. This is also compounded by seasonal working in that immigrants can come to UK for season or short term work and then return to their home country with considerably higher savings, this is no good for the people of the UK who have to consider the long term aspects upon their lives. In terms of adults and families this is a problem because it people are prepared to work for lower wages than the standard then there is no need to pay more than the minimum wages in the future as there will be surplus people. As to income to the State if they are on law income then they will be just above the threshold on which income tax is deducted; however there will be a negative impact on the public budget taking account tax credits if immigrants are employed on low wages and have a family. If immigrants are taking work that the UK population are unable to achieve a quality of life on then unemployment and social benefits will been to be paid from the public funds to these people who cannot sustain a quality life on wages that immigrants coming for a short period of time can.

Who benefits from this, the businesses do because if they had to pay wages that met minimum living standards in the UK they would not exist. Immigrants certainly do as they can earn a far higher wage than is being paid in their home countries. In terms of the local population they are certainly not gaining by immigration as they are unable to live on the wages being offered. The other big loss in this situation is the UK public finances as it has to service the increased costs in providing tax credits to immigrants on the low wages and fund the unemployment and social benefits of the UK citizens who cannot take the work on offer because they cannot sustain a quality of life on the wages being offered.

The third issue of immigrants entering the UK in order to obtain unemployment and housing benefits or use the NHS should not be supported by any section the UK population as this is a definitely an act of deception upon the citizens of the UK and should be denounced by both the UK and EU regulators. This is a drain on public finances and can result in the erosion of surplus capacity in local public services which can affect the quality of life and safety of the UK population.

The fourth issue of the impact of the strain and loss of capacity the number of immigrants is having on local public services may be the most serious in terms of actual impact upon people’s quality of life and safety given its impact is visible and the failure in the system to the erosion of capacity is a subject that makes daily bulletins on nation media. The list of public services which are affected by immigration are housing, NHS (doctors, A&E, hospitals), education (schools, colleges), retirement homes, care facilities, employment that benefits the people not the company directors, transport infrastructure (buses, rail network), local government provisions (library’s, social care, waste management), public finances, benefit finances, energy supplies (gas and electric), emergency services (fire, police, ambulance), law enforcement (police, security, courts, prisons), water supply, environmental protection (flood, housing, recreation) etc

As stated in the previous section this erosion of surplus capacity in public services due the mass immigration supported by the EU polices is an issue that the EU regulators should address and given that it could impact upon the human rights and safety of life in regard to the UK population then this should dictate that control in certain circumstance should be enforced.

It should not be forgotten that the public services in the UK have not materialised over night they have developed over the past 60 years with the funds coming from the UK population. The provision of social care in the EU is not equal, with a majority of countries not having the welfare state provisions that the UK has developed. However under EU policies every EU migrant is entitled to these benefits even if they are not available in their own country. Given that these benefits have been provided by the UK population then it is only correct that those entering the country should contribute to their further development in order to avoid erosion of the surplus capacity. A large proportion of immigrants come to the UK because the quality of life is better in the UK and/or they are unable to find work in their own country. You cannot blame the people from coming given they are doing so to better their lives, you cannot blame the UK population for their concerns that such immigration is adversely effecting their lives. The problem rests with the system, as no consideration has been given to immigration taking account the consequences on the immigrant, local communities, the capacity of the public services and the employers who can only pay minimum wages.

The issues are the same for those employers both private and public who employ immigrant workers on level wages. In that the presence of these immigrant workers in areas of high immigration can have an adverse impact on the capacity of the public services in that area to provide the necessary social requirements of the population. Although they may be paying income tax etc, they are not contributing to the public finances for the supply of additional public services infrastructure to accommodate for the immigrant workers that those that have lived in the area for years have provided.

The average person in the UK pays around £5,000 per year in income tax, so allowing for an average 35 year work life than this equates to a total income tax bill over an average life in the UK of around £105,000. Say that 20% of this tax (£20,000) goes on building the infrastructure of the public services (schools, hospitals etc), then those entering the country seeking work are in fact being subsidised by the entire population of the UK. The only part of the country that are benefiting from the immigrant workers are the employers, therefore it is only correct that the employers should contribute to the public finances to provide additional services for the support of such immigrant workers. When an immigrant worker enters the UK they should be given a unique ID number that indicates that they have not contributed to the provision of the public services infrastructure and as a consequence of employing this migrant work the employer shall pay into the public services on the day the migrant worker starts work the sum of £20,000. This sum shall be non reimbursable from the public finances. If the migrant work should leave the employment of the employer who paid the £20,000 entrance fee then this employer shall be entitled to recover costs from the next employer at a reduced rate of £1,000/year of paid employment within the UK.

In conclusion you have to ask why the UK Government is allowing businesses to operate that are bringing no benefit to the country or the local population and why are they not insisting that employers make one off payments in the order of £20,000 as contribution to permit an increase in the capacity of the services to be expanded to cater for the migrant worker before allowing any immigrant worker to commence employment.


How do the people of the UK take the above argument forward and change the EU rules so that immigration controls can be applied

A case being put forward within the UK is that immigration cannot be controlled because of EU legislation and/or economic benefits immigration brings to the country. All straw polls and data collection surveys would indicate that some 80% of the population of the UK have concerns and reservation over the open door policy to immigration and consider some form of control on numbers entering the United Kingdom is required.

There is clearly a disconnection between the politicians and the people on this issue and given that the politicians have not taken any action to date on this the most important issue for the people, then any resolution will have to come from the people.

The issue of taking action is that most people sitting in their own home consider that they are the only person who has concerns over immigration. This could not be further from the truth because if the polls and studies into what concerns people in respect to their daily lives are correct, you are not alone. There are in fact some 40 million adults of the UK population thinking the same thoughts.

As a means of pacifying the people some of the politicians are offering an in/out referendum in 2017 but there is no guarantee that such an offer will be delivered. While other politicians are of the view that for the good of the country those people that have concerns will just have to accept the open house policy. This on the basis that those people with concerns who wish to control immigration do not understand the complexities of the EU or the economics of the case.

The politicians will not help or rather they cannot help as they are in a position of authority in the UK to implement the requirements of the EU regulators. There is also a proportion of politicians where immigration does not impact upon them as they have private health care, schools and live in areas were the immigrants cannot access through cost. Also politicians once elected have a desire to sit at the top table in world affairs and to achieve this aim they must conform to certain views and must not be seen to be to proactive in putting forward concerns of their population should such view be contrary to those of the world leading politicians.

The problem for the people is that they are approaching this concern on an individual basis, addressing the concerns in terms of the impact on their lives, area and community only and restricting their views so they do not come across as racist rather than a desire to protect their living standards and quality of life for themselves, their children and grandchildren. The politicians are working as a collective group and present their arguments in such a manner that those who object or have reservations are made to look incompetent or have racist tendencies.

This dilemma of isolation in respect to people’s concerns on the open door policy to immigration in the United Kingdom that the individual person finds themselves in can be resolved by collective action with the other 40 million or so adults of the United Kingdom that polls suggest have the same concerns. Effectively if the people come together as one unit with one voice and one aim then the people can change the rules that govern their lives from the policies on immigration that are being dictated by the EU regulators.

This collective action would be undertaken on a number of fronts to collect the relevant information to establish that the United Kingdom has no redundant capacity to support any further immigration, that the action by the politicians are adversely effecting the lives of the people of the United Kingdom and proceed with legal action against the EU regulators and United Kingdom politicians to enforce through the courts a control on immigration in the United Kingdom to a level that the existing public services provisions can support and will not result in a negative impact upon quality of life of the citizens of the United Kingdom. This action will consist of the following stages:-

1. Set up a dedicated website to allow transfer of information and a data base where people can register their details, concerns and contributions. It is consider the cost of this action would be in the order of £100,000

2. Determine the actual number of people who have such concerns and manage the development of the action plan. It is consider the cost of this action would be the employment of 6 people for a 4 year period at an average yearly cost of £75,000 which equates to a total sum of £1,800,000

3. Establish the surplus capacity in the public services provision in respect to housing, NHS (doctors, A&E, hospitals), education (schools, colleges), retirement homes, care facilities, employment that benefits the people not the company directors, transport infrastructure (buses, rail network), local government provisions (library’s, social care, waste management), public finances, benefit finances, energy supplies (gas and electric), emergency services (fire, police, ambulance), law enforcement (police, security, courts, prisons), water supply, environmental protection (flood, housing, recreation). To undertake this exercise it is consider the UK will be split into 12 areas with the work being completed within 6 months at a cost per area of £1,000,000 which equates to a total sum of £12,000,000.

4. Seek legal advice to consider if the actions by the EU regulators to mandate that the freedom of movement by citizens from one Member State to another Member State is a legal precedent that overrides all other issues including the specific concerns of the United Kingdom population that the action by the EU regulators not to protect the domestic citizen of the United Kingdom against adverse impact upon their quality of life or safeguard to their personal safety that may be put at risk by the erosion of capacity in the public services in their location by excessive and uncontrolled immigration is lawful. If the legal advice establishes that sufficient evidence exists where a case can be put that such action by the EU regulators breaches human rights and/or could be considered an act of criminal deception against the population of the United Kingdom and/or is in breach of the spirit of citizenship of the EU by an individual or section of the United Kingdom then redress will be sought through the courts. This will be undertaken by a specialist legal firm with expertise in such matters with the advice costing around £1,000,000 with the court action around £7,500,000 which equates to a total sum of £8,500,000.

5. Legal action against the EU regulators to establish why they have not enforced individual Member States over the past 60 years to provided sufficient public services to accommodate the free movement of the entire 507 million population of the EU to each and every Member State. This will be undertaken by a specialist legal firm with expertise in such matters and given the scope and feeling this will generate it is considered the cost that will be incurred will be in the order of £12,500,000

6. Legal action on a personal basis against the EU regulators for compensation on their refusal over the past 20 years to accept that immigration from within the EU was and is having a negative impact upon the lives and quality of life of the United Kingdom citizens. This will be undertaken by a specialist legal firm with expertise in such matters the intent will be to seek redress against the 15 most senior EU regulators of the past 20 years and as this action will against them on a personnel basis that it is considered the average cost per case will be around £2,500,000 which equates to a total sum of £37,500,000.

7. Seek legal advice to consider if the actions by the Labour Party whilst in government during the period 1997 to 2010 to have a policy of mass immigration without addressing the consequences of such action in terms of the demise of capacity in public services could be considered an act of duplicity or criminal deception against the said population of the United Kingdom. This will be undertaken by a specialist legal firm with expertise in such matters with the advice costing around £2,000,000 with the court action around £15,000,000 which equates to a total sum of £17,000,000.

8. Legal action against the cabinet members and senior advisors of the United Kingdom governments over the past 15 years to establish why they have not increased public services to meet the requirements of the EU law on freedom of movement for both the full 507 million population and the actual number of immigrates that have entered the United Kingdom over the past 15 years. This will be undertaken by a specialist legal firm with expertise in such matters the intent will be to seek redress against the 20 most senior UK cabinet ministers, as this action will against them on a personal basis that it is considered the average cost per case will be around £2,500,000 which equates to a total sum of £50,000,000.

9. Legal action on a personal basis against the cabinet members and senior advisors of the United Kingdom governments over the past 15 years for compensation on their failure over the past 15 years to accept that immigration from within the EU was and is having a negative impact upon the quality of life on the United Kingdom citizens and put a case to the EU regulators that immigration should be suspended until such time that the public services can take an increased external population. This will be undertaken by a specialist legal firm with expertise in such matters the intent will be to seek redress against the 20 most senior UK cabinet ministers, as this action will against them on a personnel basis that it is considered the average cost per case will be around £2,500,000 which equates to a total sum of £50,000,000.

10. Legal action on a personal basis against the cabinet members and senior advisors of the United Kingdom Labour Party in government between 1997 and 2010 for allowing an open door immigration policy without increasing the public services to accommodate the subsequent unplanned increase in the population and in so doing have permitted all surplus capacity within the public services provision to be eroded to such an extent that this failure is having a server negative impact upon the quality of life on the United Kingdom citizens. This will be undertaken by a specialist legal firm with expertise in such matters the intent will be to limit the action to the 4 most senior members of the UK Government at that time as this action will be against them on a personnel but given their increase in assets over the period it is considered the average cost per case will be around £5,000,000 which equates to a total sum of £20,000,000.

11. Seek legal action against a major United Kingdom employer for compensation for their action in employing a high level of migrant works whose very presence in the local community is having a severe negative impact upon the quality of life on the United Kingdom citizens in that location due to the impact the immigrant workers are having on the capacity of local public services. This will be undertaken by a specialist legal firm with expertise in such matters and given the scope and feeling this will generate it is considered the cost that will be incurred will be in the order of £5,000,000

12. Contingency plan and funds in order to seek legal redress to any individual or group who may seek to belittle or question on grounds of racism the above outlined action plan by taking action in the courts for such individual or group to prove their case at law. This will be undertaken by a specialist legal firm with expertise in such matters the intent is to seek redress against the first 10 individuals or groups that raise objections over the people’s right to carry out action it is considered the average cost per case will be around £750,000 which equates to a total sum of £7,500,000.


The total cost of the various stages detailed above amounts to £222,000,000 allowing for some contingency then the total cost that would needed to support this action is considered to be in the order of £240,000,000

In order to instigate the above action plan it will be necessary for all those who have any concerns to register on a data base and provide a contribution. The contribution will depend on the number of people who register. If the polls are correct that 80% of the population have concerns and all register including registration for their spouse, children and grandchildren then the contribution should be around £5 per person or £6/person if limited to adults only.


How to start the process

In order to gauge if the concerns of the people of the United Kingdom on immigration is the major issue the polls and studies would suggest a petition has been started to obtain an initial view. It would also help if donations could also be pledged at this early stage so that the sum of £50,000 required for the setting up of the website and data base for the collection and collation of people’s support and views could be obtained.

If this initial testing petition reaches 1 million and donations of £50,000 is pledged then the actions set out in this proposal can proceed, commencing with stage 1 the setting up of the dedicated website.




Conclusion

There is an alternative option to leaving the future of the UK in the EU to the politicians and/or the proposal that the UK should have a referendum on whether it should leave the EU and that is for the UK citizens to join forces, work as one and change the system by pursing the rights of the UK citizens from within the EU through the courts.

It is worth noting that just because such an action such as this has been done, does not mean it cannot be done nor that the principle of action is not correct or that the action would win, it just means nobody has had the will or finances to carry out such an action.

The actions set out in this proposal are to change the way the EU operates and for a change in the system were the regulators have to take the concerns of the citizens of the EU seriously and address these concerns to the satisfaction of the citizens. It is not about compensation or seeking monetary gains it is about taken legal action against those that have failed to address the impact of immigration over the past 20 years on the citizens of the United Kingdom and take from them all the financial benefits they have received. In taking these various actions as set out in the proposal it is considered politicians and regulators will think twice before engaging in policies and actions or indeed non actions that results in the citizens of one Member State being put at a disadvantage from citizens from other Member States.