During Nick Griffin’s appearance on the BBC’s “Question Time” in October 2009, he directly confirmed that one of the BNP’s main goals upon achieving power is still to reduce Britain’s non-white population from 10% to 1%. This is despite the fact that, a few months earlier, he had stated that he was abandoning the proposed repatriation policy because “nobody wants it or wants to pay for it”.
Griffin recently reiterated the BNP’s “voluntary repatriation” plans (apparently now expanded to include people originally from mainland Europe) in a lengthy interview with Iain Dale published online by Total Politics, as follows:
In your 2005 manifesto you said: “We will end immigration to the UK and reduce our land’s population burden by creating firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home.” What does “firm” mean and what does “home” mean, because they are quite difficult to define?
Firm would mean that certainly in the case of serious criminals and illegals and people whose right to work was removed. For instance, when we left the European Union, there wouldn’t be a choice about it. They would have to go.
If we are talking about the Eastern Europeans, who have got the right to come here, it is obvious where home is. With most people, it is clear where they have come from. If people have entered this country and torn their documents up, then even if they have been granted asylum, they shouldn’t have been, and we would reverse that.
But if you don’t know where they have come from, you can’t return them there.
If you want to, you can virtually find out which village they come from in Africa with DNA tests. Someone has got to take them. But their presence here isn’t fair. And it is not legal.
Just because you want to send them somewhere, doesn’t mean that the state you want to send them to has to accept them. What do you do if they say no?
Well… we’ll find some silly European liberal state which will happily take them. Someone will take them.
Yes, someone will take them.
“Firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home…” Is that policy still your policy now?
Yes, broadly so. Let’s reword the bit in the case of ones who have no right to be here. It would be firm. It wouldn’t be brutal, it would be firm. In the case of people who have come here legally, who are integrated into our society, we would say: “Look it is on the table. If you want to take it, you can take it.”
This is despite the fact that the proposed “voluntary repatriation” policy is actually financially inviable, even if cash was diverted from foreign aid budgets or there were attempts to raise it via taxation; for example, the amount of money potentially required to cover 6 million people (the number of non-white British citizens) is truly astronomical. Even a relatively modest Â£5000 per person would require a total budget of Â£30,000,000,000. A larger repatriation “incentive” such as £50,000 per person would require a total budget of £300,000,000,000. And, of course, the choice of people taking up the offer is allegedly “voluntary”.
Nevertheless, Griffin has directly confirmed that the intention is still to eliminate the presence of 90% of the non-white citizens of Britain. Therefore, this raises the question of exactly how a BNP government would achieve a population reduction on that scale.
In fact, this question was formally posed to the BNP’s Legal Director a few months ago here on Pickled Politics, after he had expressed a willingness to openly debate BNP policies :
have the guts to undertake a real debate with people in the BNP….then give me a call.
I will debate with you anytime, anywhere.
….muzzle free speech.
Fine. I’m removing all alleged “free speech restrictions”; therefore, providing a detailed and comprehensive answer in writing and on the record to the following straightforward question should not be an issue:
Exactly how would a BNP government reduce Britain’s non-white population from 10% to 1% — confirmed as one of the BNPâ€™s continuing aims by Nick Griffin directly on the BBC’s “Question Time” in October 2009 — considering that Nick Griffin also confirmed during the latter half of 2009 that the BNP is now formally abandoning its proposed “voluntary repatriation” policy ?
Since “free speech muzzles” do not apply in this case, for the benefit of the public the maximum amount of detail possible should be provided in relation to the specific procedures and actions involved in the planned BNP population reduction programme.
The response should be restricted to the specific question asked and should also be accompanied by written confirmation that the contents have been formally authorised by the BNP’s senior leadership, are on the record, and are an accurate representation of the specific measures a BNP government would implement in order to achieve the aforementioned population reduction upon winning a national General Election in the United Kingdom.
Finally, the response should be copied in full & verbatim in an email from a verifiable BNP email account to this website’s editorial team via both of the contact forms displayed here: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/contact in order to provide an authenticated electronic record of the contents along with electronic confirmation that the author is indeed who they claim to be and has been formally authorised to speak for & represent the BNP in this matter.
Absolutely no details have been forthcoming. The silence is deafening.
This very simple question, focusing on one of the BNP’s major policies, and presented to a self-proclaimed legal & democratic political party which is campaigning in the General Election, is not posed solely to the BNP’s legal director but to any member of the BNP’s senior leadership.
Assuming that the BNP has nothing to hide about exactly how they plan to achieve a population reduction of that magnitude, of course.
|Post to del.icio.us|
Filed in: Race politics,The BNP