Come on - it's time to face what's right there in front of us. The nations of the world are being deliberately, systematically dismantled in preparation for the implementation of a world government. There are pages and pages of quotes by the movers and shakers of the world over the past hundred years, people such as HG Wells, Aldous Huxley and his brother Julian Huxley, people such as David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Edward Bernays, Walter Lippmann, and countless other insiders, where they are telling us outright that they are conspiring to destroy national sovereignty and bring in a world government where the citizens will be totally controlled and monitored. All the main political parties in most countries are totally on board with this programme. This is why there is no end to mass immigration; this is why there is no referendum about leaving the EU. Any analysis of what's happening in Britain and in other Western European countries that doesn't mention the World government and the maga-rich, powerful and influential aristocratic banking and royal families that are implementing it, is quite irrelevant and useless.

I see this article is a little dated, but anyway. I read nonsense in the comments about what the british did to their colonial subjects 200 or so years ago, and as is insinuated makes current day immigration to Britain morally right. It is obviously a fallacy, a fallacy that this very article tries to address, the commenters in question either didn't read the article, didn't get it, or just ignored it. As the case of Canada, I don't think Canadians today mind new british immigrants. Obviously for the reason of culture being near identical due to common historical roots. The fact that the immigrating briton is most certainly educated(no threat to canadian wealth) and civilised(no threat to security), then the ruling Canadian culture is not threatened in any way, in fact the briton will in all probability easily assimilate entirely into a canadian, even on his own volition. This also means that the status quo remains entirely unchanged, unthreatened. For Britain and the immigrating foreigner the situation is different. The typical immigrant comes from a different cultural background, has different values, has poor education and on top of that looks different(makes symbolising the conflict easy). The immigrant is not interested in assimilating(he does not take a new local name, take on british customs, or take on british values or even learn the language in some cases). In short he, unlike the briton in Canada, DOES represent a threat to the standing british cultural status quo. He will force a change in britain whether he or the britons like it or not. The point is that for such demographic, cultural, political and economical changes to be morally sound, then the native british population would have to welcome it, preferably by consensus. If not, then it is by democratic definition, immoral(due to Britain supposedly being a democracy). That's the "problem" isn't it? Europeans not only in britain, but all of europe, do not want "multiculturalism", here meaning distinctly different peoples from across the globe. The politicians disagree with this "plebian" majority, and decide to ignore public opinion and hastily import foreign cultures, and in so doing, ignore democracy itself.

England is the size of a small American state, eg Indiana, whose population is some 20 million. Mandelson has confirmed that New Labour opened the flood gates of migration for their own political reasons, and this trashed their blue collar people in terms of jobs and cultural chill factor, indeed ghettoisation. This was a way of digging up the stubbornly conservative culture of middle England, since socialism had become unelectable. Mrs Duffyist smears, recently repeated by Vince Cable, show that politicians of the left still try to smear any who question this scale of migration as racists and bigots. The BBC even ran a topic on last Sunday's Radio 4 'Broadcasting House' " Are all UKIP voters closet racists"? Now the issue is playing into the EU debate and so has gained traction as Labour is also bleeding support to UKIP. And now the issue of cultural norms of some large migrant groups is becoming an issue also. It's a problem now, New Labour is wholly responsible for its reckless politicisation of migration as a party political tool.

Until people realise that we are "reaping the whirlwind" of the sexual revolution which has been used to destroy the morality of the nations and enslave people to their desires, the slow motion suicide of Britain and the entire west will continue. If someone wrote a book about a people who killed and abused their own children born and unborn, destroyed their families, promoted and tolerated every kind of perversion and addiction all the while claiming they are the most enlightened people ever to exist, any fairminded person would be horrified at their lies and arrogance. And yet that is what our society has become.

it looks like your worries are about people moving in and taking over the country? you shpuld be more worried about multinationals companies taken over Britain.

Truely troubling the rise of xenophobia in this county. I am ethnically South East Asian, born, educated and raised in this country now studying medicine in Scotland. I intend to work in the NHS indefinitely until retirement. To have an article identify me as foreign because I am not White British seems absolutely ridiculous.

So there's never been any significant immigration to Britain? Falch clywed hynny; oeddwn ni wedi tybio fod y mwyafrif llethol o Prydeinwyr yn siarad Eingl-Sacsonaidd yn hytrach na Celtaidd. Da, er rhyfedd, clywed nad yw hyn yn wir. What, you mean you don't understand British, only Anglo-Saxon?

Your language stats are a complete farce. Half a million of these three millions would be welsh. I will salute the day when England is back to ending at the Severn and the Tweed.

Thanks to Douglas Murray for this clear and honest analysis. It is significant that nothing of a similar standard appears in the DT, or elsewhere in the British media.

Why shall indigenous Europeans of today suffer because indigenous Canadians did 200 years ago? We can do nothing about the past, except learn from it, and make sure not to do same mistakes once again today. To compare Europe with Canada you must include that the native Canadians, the Indians and Inuits, now have got the worlds most generous i indigenous rights. Native folks in Northern America have the rights to property of their pre-immigration culture, their infrastructure, their natural resourses, the legal securance of their indigenous way of living (google kennewick-man for exemplification of natives property rights to their culture). And Northern Canada has even an autonomeus indigenous state, Nunavut. When Europeans who proclaim their native rights, automatically get the same right to ownership of our European art and culture, our European infrastructure, our European natural resources, as the indigenous Canadians already have, you can start comparing Canada and Europe in this matter.