1. The penny dropped for me during a motoring trial. It was in plain sight. Anyone with eyes to see could see it clearly, namely, immigration is not the ugly truth everyone supposes it to be, but poverty is. And by poverty, I mean the poverty of leadership; it is the real culprit. As a trainee legal advisor in the Thames Valley Magistrate’s Court Service back in 2003, I remember being asked to take my first trial under the watchful eye of the very capable Mr. Philip Knowles, the then Chief Clerk to the Justices of the Peace in Buckinghamshire, whose turn it was to supervise me, to show me the ropes as it were. It was a motoring trial involving a young woman, accused of causing serious injury to a pedestrian while driving a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously in Aylesbury, the county town of Buckinghamshire, England.
Jeans and Nikes!
2. Under English Law, the accused’s offence, then as now, is one which is triable either way; that is, that the accused gets to choose whether to have their case heard in a Magistrate’s Court or the Crown Court. If the case is heard in the Crown Court, the accused may face a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment and/ or a fine. If, however, the case is heard in the Magistrate’s Court, the accused may face a maximum sentence of six months imprisonment and/ or a fine. In both instances there is also a mandatory two-year minimum period of disqualification from driving and, an endorsement on the accused’s driving license; an extended driving retest is also required.
3. The young woman chose to have her case heard in the Magistrate’s Court for obvious reasons. Her defence counsel, a newly minted barrister of just a few months’ standing after completing his pupillage at a big London criminal set, no doubt cutting his teeth for the first time as a criminal hack; very helpfully and patiently took the accused through her evidence, after the prosecution had presented their case against her. Ever the polite young legal professional as a barrister ought to be, and without the appearance of condescension of his part, he gently led the accused thus: “So, you were happily driving along Beresford Avenue, in the direction of Tiverton Crescent…were you?” “Yeah,” replied the accused. The barrister paused for a moment to address me directly: “My learned Clerk,” he said, “Please kindly accept from the accused that a ‘Yeah,’ in the course of the proceedings is to mean a ‘Yes!’” To which I replied: “Duly noted! Please do carry on.” The young barrister then continued: “Running along at a steady pace…mindful that you were driving in a 30 mile speed limit zone…yes?” She answered, “Yeah.” And wishing to cast the accused in the best possible light, aiming to show that she was a responsible driver; that is, driving with due care and attention, no doubt having taken the time to coach her beforehand; the young barrister pressed home what he thought was a good point, namely, “In your own words, please tell this court what gear you were driving in?” For a moment, there was an awkward silence from the young woman. It was as if the accused was slightly confused by the question, needing a little time to think it over. And then, out came the answered: “I…I…was…driving in me’…‘Jeans and Nikes’…Milord!”
Short-changed in their expectations
4. It was not so much what she said that made me sit up and take notice, as funny as it was; but rather, the cavalier tone in which she answered her advocate’s question, and her general attitude towards the court proceedings, spoke eloquently that here was a woman who had given up. In other words, she had stopped caring. She was simply not bothered about anything, not even for the fact that she was on trial for a very serious offence. A scruffy young woman that she was, the accused gave the air of not caring about anything really…holding even life itself in contempt. She represented an attitude and a class of people who astonished me then as they do today; it is an attitude I first noticed when I started navigating my way around the complex issue of the English social class in the late 1980s. For a very long time, I could never quite put my finger on the problem I saw; that is, I was not able to capture in word-form what it is I saw or experienced until that young woman opened her mouth on that fateful day. For when the accused spoke, I knew in my heart that I had stumbled upon something profound; but words failed me as I struggled to articulate what it is I saw in the young woman in the courtroom until, that is, a BBC comedy sketch written by Catherine Tate and Aschlin Ditta, The Catherine Tate Show, came along in the following year, 2004. The comedy made sense. It chimed with my general experience. And looking back now on the court proceedings as I write, the accused now reminds me of the character in the comedy sketch, Lauren Cooper, with her infamous catch phrase, “Am I bovvered?” or “Look at my face, is my face bovvered? Face? Bovvered?”
5. But what was so remarkable about the character, Lauren Cooper? I could be mistaken, but I think the Lauren Cooper character represents a class of people in the United Kingdom of Great Britain who feel they have been short-changed in this present life; that is, a people whose expectations have been let down by their political leaders. I say this with a great deal of humility. For I am mindful that my first home country, Uganda, is a country with an abysmal record for poor leadership; the Ugandan people have seen their expectations so terribly short-changed; they have been let down ever since the day the country gained her independence from the British in 1962. Still, as avid administrators of empire the British clearly were; it seems to me that they have in the last 60 years exhibited qualities of leadership that are alien to that much vaunted sense of British fair play, and they have somehow not mastered the art of political administration at home. The British political class stand accused for poorly managing the process which oversaw the dissolution of the British Empire and her imperial grandeur. After a quick perusal of modern British history books, one is left in no doubt that the dissolution of empire was a decidedly a disorderly affair: starting with an erroneous and costly First Great War, which was quickly followed by the Second Great War; and which in turn heralded the actual end of a mighty empire on which it was once said, the sun never set. This inability to master the art of political administration on the British Isles is, I suspect, what set in motion events which found their full expression in ‘that’ strange result following the 2016 Brexit referendum. These events, I should like to suggest, were given impetus by the piecemeal implementation of the Beveridge Report, particularly by the successors of the great reformers who sought to put to an end the five giant evils, which the report clearly identified.
The five ‘Giant Evils’ – a burning injustice
6. The Beveridge Report, which was drafted by a Liberal economist, William Beveridge, was published by the British Government in 1942; it recognized a historical burning injustice among the poor on the British Isles and proposed a comprehensive system of social security, based upon subsistence-level benefits from ‘the cradle to the grave.’ The report identified five ‘Giant Evils’ in society, namely, squalor, ignorance, want, idleness and disease; and was deliberately published in the middle of the Second Great War, a war which at the time was exacting a heavy toll of the British people; it promised a ‘brave new world’ – a sunny promised land which the United Kingdom could become after the war. The report was on the whole well received by the British population, and was a blue print for significant post-war reforms leading to a Welfare State, which included an expansion of the National Insurance and the creation of the National Health Service. These reforms extended to include the legal justice system, which saw the introduction of Legal Aid. My biographical subject and hero, Lord Denning, was one of the reformers who played a leading role. But how exactly were the British people short-changed?
A major shift in British politics
7. I believe the British people were short-changed by the poverty of political leadership which, as I have suggested above, emerged in the British Parliament, in the years subsequent to the great reformers who held sway in British politics before and soon after the Second Great War. It will remain a matter of conjecture as to the precise particulars in which the Britain people were let down, we must leave the details to scholars of history who are better qualified than I will ever pretend to be. But as it is often said: coming events cast their long shadows before them. The events that followed the Second Great War cast a heavy shadow on British politics. They still do today. An incident that should have acted as a clarion call for better British leadership as a whole may now be told. The clarion call in question was the controversial address by one Enoch Powell on 20 April 1968, the ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech. The speech remains controversial to this day because of a deep seated fear which resides in all of us, namely, that those who act injurious to others have reason to expect that they may one day be repaid back in the same coin. I must place it on the record that I do not endorse Enoch Powell’s speech in any form or shape, but I am persuaded that the British people were robbed of an opportunity to engage in a grown-up debate on the fundamental terms of the dissolution of the British Empire and what those terms actually meant to them – be they native born Britons or members of the emerging British Commonwealth at the time. Misguided though the speech was, it exposed for the first time the poverty of leadership at the heart of the British establishment. The reaction to the speech heralded a major shift in British politics, namely, putting an end to the traditional politician; that is, a politician whose life was marked out with a specific calling to public life, as defined by Max Weber, a German political economist. This change ushered in the age of a career politician.
Politics as a vocation
8. In his public lecture in 1919, entitled, ‘Politics as a vocation;’ Max Weber said: “the politician needs to balance an ‘Ethic of Moral Conviction,’ with an ‘Ethic of Responsibility.’” The Ethic of Moral Conviction refers to the core unshakeable beliefs that a politician must hold. The Ethic of Responsibility refers to the day-to-day need to use the means of the state’s violence in a fashion which preserves the peace for the greater good. A politician, Weber writes, “[M]ust make compromises between these two ethics.” Max Weber’s thesis rested on the premise that a political leader is for all intents and purposes, a person who is raised up and put on a pedestal as it were, above the mundane daily routines that are the lot of the rest of us and is by implication, a person who holds in his own hands the reins of a country’s future or destiny. For such a leader three qualities are essential, namely, passion, responsibility, and a sense of proportion. And by a sense of proportion, Max Weber alluded to a capacity to take realities with an inner calmness and equanimity, and at the same time maintaining an emotional detachment from facts and people. He went on to argue that a ‘loss of distance’ is in a politician, deadly. Because a loss of distance in assessing issues in public affairs smacks of vanity. And vanity as we all know is deadly because of its capacity to frustrate the proper management of public affairs. The raison d’ etre of a politician is the pursuit of power. But where a politician pursues power in the name of vanity, his entering public life takes on a new unwelcome reality, namely, an irrational lust for power for personal self-glorification and not in the service of his people or country.
A celebrity politician
9. One is of course not so naïve as to imagine that a little vanity may be necessary to heed the stirrings in ones’ bosom in order to answer the high call for leadership. And yet, we also know from tragic realities in public life that the same vanity may be the catalyst that tempts a politician to act in ways which display a lack of objectivity, including acting irresponsibly. The result is that since the end of the Second Great War, we have seen the rise of a class of people in public life, of whom it may be said that pride alloyed with intense ambition are THE key primary driver in their political lives. We may charitably describe them as showmen; that is, they take the burdens of public office lightly, and they for example do not pause to consider the consequences of their actions. They are certainly the sort of people whose moral standing is dubious at best; they would not for instance lay down their lives in a major crisis such as a war. Moreover, they are the sort of people who enter politics for the glamour, they are something of a celebrity; the kind of celebrity that cuts a figure and seeks to make a name on both the national and international stages; and have little or zero interest in serving their people or country.
A gentleman legislator
10. I write this with feeling because as a child, I well remember how my father would regale us his children with tales of political giants of a bygone age; that is, the age before the years subsequent to the Second Great War. He marvelled at the British legislature which he often characterized as, the greatest gentleman’s club the world has ever seen, whose membership was open only to a gentleman legislator; whereas what we have today is a completely different specimen of a legislator. This change has been attributed to, some say, the apparently demanding nature of business carried on in the House of Commons, both in terms of time and commitment required to fulfil the role of an MP. For example, the House of Commons sits for a much longer period than her European counterparts. In that bygone age, the would-be gentleman legislator only sought high office in answer to a specific call to leadership; and most frequently, answered the high call to leadership after reaching a certain level of prominence in either social or economic standing in the eyes of his peers and fellow countrymen. A gentleman legislator emerged from the ranks as it were of trade unions’ officials, aldermen, landowners or businessmen.
A new breed of politicians
11. Unlike my father’s day, my experience of British politics lends weight to a suggestion that: almost all members of the House of Commons derive their social standing and importance from merely ‘being’ members of the august institution as MPs. A quick perusal of the current crop of political leaders in the UK for instance, and you will see that the majority of them had begun their political careers at a very young age. It is now accepted as a Gospel truth that for one to aspire to high political office, one must get elected to parliament very young, and thereafter endeavour get promoted in much haste – with a view of dominating the highest frontbench offices. This reality only came to my attention very powerfully during the Major Financial Crisis which started 2008; I was running a charitable art gallery in Milton Keynes at the time. The constant refrain I heard from my artists and volunteers was to the effect that: “Our leaders do not have a clue about the daily vicissitudes of ordinary people, they could not for example tell the price of a loaf of bread;” and therefore, they were according to my artists and volunteers, “ill-equipped to administer the astonishingly severe austerity economic measures imposed upon the whole country”- in a desperate effort to rebalance the nation’s fiscal books. Until then, the thought had never crossed my mind, but following careful consideration in the last 10 plus years, I am inclined to agree with the artists and volunteers.
Consider the fortunes of one of our last Prime Ministers
12. Let us consider an instance by way of example. Without prejudice, let me put before you for your consideration one of our most recent British Prime Ministers, Mr David Cameron. His political career trajectory was as follows: After graduating in 1988 from Oxford University, he commenced work in 1988 to 1993 at the Conservative Research Department, where he assisted the then Conservative Prime Minister, John Major; leaving politics briefly to work for Carlton Communications in 1994, before getting elected to Parliament in 2001. Upon his election, he was quickly promoted to the Opposition Shadow Cabinet, serving under the then Conservative Leader, Michael Howard, whom he succeeded in 2005. The 2010 general election led Mr. Cameron to become the British Prime Minister, heading a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats; making Mr. David Cameron the youngest British Prime Minister since the 1810s. It was his misfortune to superintend the management of the after effects of the Major Financial Crisis of 2008; which, alas, he did rather poorly. Although his premiership oversaw the introduction of largescale reforms in welfare, immigration, education, and healthcare; they nevertheless, ripped asunder what was left of the British social fabric after the said devastating financial crisis since the 1930s. He subsequently led the Conservative Party into the 2015 general election, where he unexpectedly secured a Conservative majority, to continue as Prime Minister, this time leading a Conservative Government. In 2016, Mr. Cameron tragically presided over a referendum on whether the United Kingdom should continue as a member of the European Union; but alas, following the success of the Leave campaign, Mr. Cameron resigned his premiership, making way to Mrs. Theresa May, leaving her to oversee the ensuing chaos we now know as Brexit. Mrs. Theresa May’s management of the affair has left many Britons both at home and abroad blushing; and that’s putting it very mildly!
Robbed of an opportunity
13. But what has all the above got to do with the accused I saw in my Magistrate’s Motoring Court at Aylesbury or Enoch Powell? I answer. A lot! By asserting poverty of political leadership, I am suggesting that the United Kingdom was robbed of an opportunity to set her house in order, following the dissolution of the British Empire. Let me broaden an instance alluded to above concerning Enoch Powell by way of illustration. When we speak of Enoch Powell, we often forget that he was arguably one of the finest intellects of his generation; he was a classicist, historian, economist, and an accomplished student of the bible. He must have been aware of the sensitivity surrounding the simple fact the British Empire which was in the process of dissolution, had at its very underpinnings been founded on structural racism in which many crimes were committed in the colonies, especially in Africa and Asia. And that in the eyes of many in the new British Commonwealth, the legacy of the British Empire was one of enslavement, forced labour, racial apartheid, massacres, and genocides. We have for example just commemorated 100 years since that notorious massacre at Amritsar in what was British India. His speech was made against a background that at the time, the British Parliament was grappling with a new emerging realty, occasioned by the Kenyan Government’s increasingly discriminatory demands following independence in 1963; that all Asians, along with Europeans, must either acquire Kenyan citizenship or surrender their British passports. Of the 180,000 Asians and 42,000 Europeans in Kenya, fewer than 20,000 had submitted their applications by the designated deadline of 31st December 1965.
Nowhere to go but England
14. Those who remained in Kenya after the above designated date continued to work as they had done before, but their position in the country became more and more uncertain. They were clearly resented; sometimes resented bitterly by the black Africans who had sacrificed so much for their independence. Their failure to apply for Kenyan citizenship confirmed in the minds of many black African their disloyalty to the new country. Thus in 1967 the Kenyan Government passed the Kenyan Immigration Act, which required all those without Kenyan citizenship to apply for work permits; the Trade Licensing Act was also passed, designed to limit areas in the country where non-Kenyans could legitimately carry on a trade; and, finally, Asian civil servants were sacked in favour of black Africans. Thus many Asians found themselves cornered and without a future in Africa. Not able to migrate to India whence their ancestors had originally come from a century earlier, they were left with just one option available to them, that is, to travel to England. Thus it was that commencing with early 1967, Kenyan Asians started to arrive in England, reportedly, at a rate of 1,000 per month.
Not welcome in England
15. No doubt the above reality was a boon to anti-immigrants abroad in England who stepped up their propaganda. The press coverage did not help the situation either, as the British public was treated to sensational images of Asians scrambling for tickets in Kenya, forming long queues at the Airport and pouring off planes in England. There was a public outcry and calls for a stop to be put on any further immigration. Thus was the genesis of a political crisis that would shape British politics for generations to come and prove something of a little stone in the collective shoe of the British Conservative Party in particular; the little stone in question is the reason the British Tory Party has been limping between different opinions ever since.
16. It was a crisis of considerable significance in the sense that this was the first opportunity the British Government had to evaluate her colonial legacy, especially in respect of those to whom it had obligations to protect, who happened to be largely of dark skins. The crisis further challenged the notion that the Commonwealth was a worthy successor of the British Empire, in that it was ‘the greatest multi-racial Association the world has ever known’; and yet, the British Government was by virtue of the new Commonwealth Immigration Bill 1968, which was being debated in the Lower Chamber of Parliament, was set to strip British Asian subjects of their citizenship, namely, the fundamental right to enter the United Kingdom as citizens. The heated debate was not assisted by a closely related issue, namely, the Race Relations Bill, which was intended to curb discrimination on the ground of colour; for it was in the process of its passage in Parliament as well. Matters were further made worse that the crisis took place against the background of growing public demoralization at the slowness of the government’s implementation of the Beveridge Report; and in particular, the insensitive social housing policies, and the growing Social Security dependency at the time. This was the context in which the Enoch Powell speech was made.
Immigration – a taboo subject
17. If the Enoch Powell speech was insensitive, which undoubtedly it was, I suggest that the official response to it was a disaster for Britain. The decision to ask him to resign his frontbench position in the Conservative Party had the unintended consequence of sending a message abroad that immigration was henceforward a taboo subject in England. This was especially true seeing that it is an open secret that the English in particular are generally not very comfortable at engaging directly or straightforwardly with strangers. This has been my personal experience, and I write as one who has enjoyed friendships with many English people for more than 30 years standing and counting. And since no one wants to be labelled a racist, I believe the official response robbed the British people of a rare opportunity to debate a sensitive subject which immigration clearly is – in fundamental terms. Instead of ventilating immigration concerns in the open, the issue was driven underground or on the periphery; reducing the English to fall back to their default position in discussing the issue, by way of whispered ‘small talk’ for fear of offending. The above mentioned Acts of Parliament must therefore be interpreted as reflecting deeply held convictions in England; and placing these laws onto the statute book did not of itself change British hearts and minds with regard to immigration. Indeed many British hearts have not changed, and if anything, those pieces of legislation have served to harden hearts in some quarters. Thus the unintended consequence has been the creation in England a culture of indifference; indifference towards strangers, cultivating an attitude of them and us, that is, ‘we’ should mind our own business and the ‘strangers’ should mind theirs. It is a culture of separateness. One sees this culture of separateness in cities such as Bradford, Leicester and in some boroughs of London. It has also created a culture of weak leadership in all walks of public life in England – with special reference to the leadership’s approach to race and immigration. The ongoing knife crime in London must accordingly be seen as proof of this reality. Moreover, I would suggest that the recent scandals of sexual grooming cases by Asian gangs, Jihad brides and the continuing Windrush crisis should be viewed through this prism – in order to make sense of the debacles.
Lord Denning – a casualty of a taboo subject
18. The fear of causing offence or being labelled a racist is well founded and profound. In researching my biographical subject, the late Lord Denning, I was astonishing at the vehemence of the public outcry which was aimed at him following a careless mistake on his part, a mistake that could have reasonably been attributed to his growing isolation in old age. Lord Denning as many will recall, was arguably one of the most enlightened, brilliant and progressive English judges to ever have lived in 20th century Britain. A remarkable man in every sense of the word; Lord Denning rose from very humble beginnings to become one of the foremost giants of the English law, whose influence encompassed the entire English speaking world. Of all the members of the English establishment at the time, and most specifically the English Bar and Judiciary, Lord Denning was probably the most qualified person to raise an issue which many ordinary men and women in England were growing concerned about; for he was one of them, having risen from among their ranks. A reforming judge second to none, Lord Denning attempted to complete his life’s work, by proposing reform to the jury service to make it more fit for purpose in the modern age. Thus it was that in this self-same spirit of reform, Lord Denning published a book entitled, ‘What Next in the Law,’ in which he made suggestions, based on an unverified account relating to a live case at the time in Bristol that, ‘some of them [those from overseas] might not be suitable to serve on juries: and that there should be a new way of selecting jurors.’
The high cost of offending
19. Alas, when the book was launched on 20th May 1982, the above offending passage was subsequently seized upon by many leading commentators. For example: A Saturday 22 May 1982 copy of The Times ran a headline: DENNING JURY REFORMS ANGER BLACKER LAWYERS. The paper carried a call from the Society of Black Lawyers for the ‘Master of the Rolls to retire. In the article, Mr Sibghat Kadri, the society’s chairman at the time said that: “[T]he remarks were insulting and degrading and ‘couched in terms virulent enough to destroy any remaining credibility he may have as an unbiased and impartial interpreter of the law…’” Many others joined in the call for Lord Denning to retire. The long and short of this unhappy saga was that the book was withdrawn and the offending passages quickly removed; Lord Denning announced his retirement from his judicial office on Friday 28 May; and, a public apology was duly made on Tuesday 1 June 1982. Now let those with a taste and lurid interpretation of the above event indulge it, but my extended searches have found no credible evidence to suggest that Denning’s writing as he did was borne out of racism; on the contrary, all his dealings with people from the ethnic minorities as evidenced by his long career were part of his general vision of Englishness. His Englishness may have been eccentric, but eccentricity does not in of itself make one a racist. Thus it was that Lord Denning’s long distinguished career as a lawyer and a judge came to an ignominious end, joining the long list of illustrious men whose careers had also ended in disgrace and failure. Lord Denning’s long list of achievements, which included among other things the championing of the cause of the underdog – both at home and abroad – were all reduced to a mere heap of dust. They accounted for little. The message was loud and clear: trifle with race at your own peril, it’s not worth your career; thus was the door to any meaningful debate on race, immigration and integration slammed shut.
A catastrophic failure of imagination
20. But if the culture of feeble leadership robbed Britons of the opportunity to debate race, immigration and integration, its approach to the thorny issue of Britain’s relationship with her continental European cousins has been, without a doubt, an astonishing display of a failure of imagination among her leaders, rendering them almost schizophrenic. During the negotiations which led to Britain entering European Union as it were, thanks to the European Communities Act 1972, key issues which should been thoroughly debated across the country, were conveniently passed over because they were considered to be too controversial. The two key issues were: first, the cost of Britain’s contributions for entry and her continued membership; and, second, the small matter of sovereignty – both at national and at parliamentary level. Both these issues are too broad for this blogpost to cover exhaustively; and, at any rate, I am probably the least qualified to give an authoritative view. However, limiting myself to the issue of sovereignty, few could have predicted both its importance 40 years on, and its power to polarize. On the one hand you have those who are cast in the mould of little Englanders – usually depicted as narrow, nostalgic nationalists who cannot stomach to see the feudal trappings of Britain crumble into dust; and on the other hand, you have those who are cast in the mould of rational modernists, in other words, the foreword-looking. The rational modernists are those who see Britain’s future as part of the emerging Federal European Super State, going toe to toe with the mighty likes of the USA, Russia and China.
The subtle difference between Parliamentary Sovereignty and National Sovereignty
21. During a debate on Clause 2 of the European Communities Bill in 1972, a question was asked: What would happen if the repeal of the European Communities Act was proposed lock, stock and barrel; and more precisely, what would become of Parliamentary sovereignty? The Solicitor-General, Sir Geoffrey Howe QC, as he was then, answered the question by alluding to a possible conflict of English law and the Communities law. Sir Geoffrey Howe QC went on to add: “The courts would…try in accordance with the traditional approach to interpret Statute in accordance with our international obligations.” The answer did not distinguish between meaning(s) in respect of Parliamentary Sovereignty and National Sovereignty. To those who are confused, and I must confess that the difference is very confusing indeed! But if I remember my constitutional law correctly, National Sovereignty is the ability of a nation state to enter into and sign a treaty with another nation state; whereas Parliamentary Sovereignty is the ability for any given nation’s parliament to enact its own laws at will, and without hindrance. National Sovereignty is therefore a power which is not absolute; because it is a power which is capable of being shared or pooled with other willing nation states. And, it is a matter of political judgement as to how far an individual nation is prepared to cede its sovereignty. But with regard to Parliamentary Sovereignty, it is an absolute power. A parliament either has the said power or it does not, there is no halfway house; it is a power, which is not negotiable. I think this is what Lord Denning alluded to when he wrote: “No longer is European law an incoming tide flowing up the estuaries of England. It is now like a tidal wave bringing down our sea walls and flowing inland over our fields and houses – to the dismay of all.”
A curious case of the Spanish fishing boat, the Factortame
22. Lord Denning was absolutely right. By enacting the European Communities Act 1972, an automatic constitutional conflict was accordingly created, namely, which law would take primacy; that is, in the event of a conflict between domestic (UK laws) and international (European laws) – which of the two should judges give a legal higher order? Nothing brought this problem into sharper focus than a seemingly an unassuming case of the Spanish fishing boat, the Factortame. The facts of the case are too complicated to recite here at length, but the gist of the matter was who had what rights with regard to fishing in the disputed waters; which in this particular case involved British waters, and as such, which law the contestants must submit to. The British House of Lords sitting as a constitutional court, the judiciary reviewed a British Act of Parliament, an act, which in itself was a first in British legal history; and the long and short of it was that, in enacting the 1972 European Communities Act, the UK Parliament had in effect provided for a new constitutional process of making law in the United Kingdom. To you and me: European law took a higher order in relation to UK law. This new reality was not only a shock to the English legal system as a whole, but it was also profoundly devastating to the British political class. As Lord Pannick QC, one of England’s leading legal minds in the modern age was so persuasively quoted: “It brought home to lawyers, politicians and the public in this jurisdiction that EU law really did have supremacy over acts of parliament…” Thus it is that in addition to the five ‘Giant Evils’ identified by the Beveridge Report mentioned above, we must therefore add two more evils, namely, the evil of silence or indifference occasioned by the official response to Enoch Powell fateful speech, and the evil of a lack of imagination in our leaders for the last 40 or so years, in relation to the issue of who really lays down the law in the UK. The combined effect of these seven ‘Giant’ evils has coalesced to create a perfect storm we now know as Brexit. The damage done to the United Kingdom by the Brexit storm is, incalculable. But how do we recover from this self-inflicted destructive storm?
Brexit is no ordinary trouble
23. I have heard it said by some very wise grey-heads, that there are times when it is prudent to let trouble well alone. Trouble, they say, is like a cesspool, it is all the worse for being stirred, it is therefore wisdom let it alone. It has not enough vigour to live of itself; it is only our stirring it up that gives it vitality. But there is an exception. And like all good exceptions, we must make an exception in this particular instance, as Brexit is no ordinary cesspool. It is full of vitality even when left well alone. Many have tried to walk away from it to no avail. Truth to tell: we are in deep trouble, nay, we are in deep ‘SHIT’ as some of our more vulgar brethren are wont to say. We are in it up to our eyeballs! The time to apportion blame is now behind us. Brexit is not just Mr. David Cameron’s fault alone; we too have a share in this mess, be we Brexiters, Remainers (or Remoaners), and all others of whatever political stripe – take your pick. There is no denying it that we are all implicated in this debacle; we must own it, because as it is often said, we get the leaders we deserve. Mr. David Cameron, regardless of what we may think of him, he was the British Prime Minister at the time – our Prime Minister, and therefore, our leader. There are no winners or losers in ugly situations such as Brexit. Okay, what has this got to do with you or me; and, what can we do about it?
We share a common citizenship – we are in it together
24. In answer, let me first address myself to fellow Britons whose citizenship is by virtue of the fact that they are natives of the British Isles. And in speaking thus, I do not presume to be better than any of you or superior to you. I know right well that as a foreign born Briton, my right to speak on a highly charged, sensitive, vexatious, and deeply divisive issue such as Brexit is difficult at best; for no matter what I say, I am bound to offend one person or other. But choosing to stay silent is no option. Silence is probably worse than speaking out. I too have an interest in England; for England is my home also. If the United Kingdom’s fortunes sink, my fortunes will sink with her as well. And most importantly, if I choose to stay silent I will in effect, be biting the very hand which fed me during those many years in England when I continued long as a stateless refugee. Whereas it is true that Her Majesty’s Government gave me a very tough time during that period; but that was done by civil servants who were merely carrying out the terms of their employment. It was their job, and I do not hold anything against them. In the end, it is England that gave me a home when my first home country rejected me; and, when I became a British citizen, her people became my people; we are thus united by a common citizenship. We are in it together, for better or worse. Therefore, what I say here I say it in the spirit of a concerned British citizen. It must accordingly be taken as such.
Looking to the future is the better option
25. Since ordinary peoples’ life cannot be so easily conducted in the shades of black and white, pray, let me speak plainly. Not everybody begrudges the English for seeing themselves, and for continuing to see themselves, as members of a proud and independent imperial race. Indeed, based as I am in Taipei, Taiwan, I know for a fact that the English imperial history is viewed with much admiration; brand UK is celebrated here in Taiwan, there is much good will towards the British as a people. But it would be a grave mistake for the English to continue revelling in the past glory days of empire, where the English had the advantage of having their cake and eating it. The world has changed: it is changing rapidly, and the speed with which it is changing is accelerating apace. We must all of us, look to the future; for the glory days when the English went about with a swaggering sense of entitlement are over. By all means play the sceptic if you please, protest as much as you like, but I think there are better ways of solving the present contradictions inherent the dream of creating the European Union – a dream which many sceptics are opposed to. I have written elsewhere how the European Union project may unwittingly undermine itself, with many possible unintended consequences. These unintended consequences are real. For instance, the European Union project may provide the impetus which sees the creation of protectionist empires in the new global order elsewhere; the ongoing trade dispute between the USA and China should be a warning of things to come. These are very interesting times indeed! The Orwellian future of Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia – is a very real possibility. We have the power to influence these developments and we can start doing so by accepting that looking to the future is the better option; that is, by getting involved, and not excluding ourselves willy-nilly. Recollect John Donne’s powerful words: “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.” Therefore fellow countrymen and women, please look to the future.
Now is a good time to seriously talk about race, immigration and integration – openly
26. Seeing that one of the great stumbling blocks in our relationship with continental Europe is the movement of people, I think the time has come for all of us to seriously talk about race, immigration and integration openly. Speaking for myself, I have never considered it as racist for one to feel threatened by me. We all fear that which is different from the norm. Indeed, growing up in an African country that has had her fair share internecine tribal conflicts, I know what it is to fear those who are different from me. Fear is a normal human reaction when dealing with the unfamiliar; I sometimes see it even here in Taiwan, where I now live. All the more reason I feel a grand debate on how we feel about the unfamiliar is an absolute necessity. The tragedy for us in England is the continuing culture of weak leadership which I have alluded to above, as it has failed miserably to give an explanation of the extraordinary changes now taking place in England, of which immigration is but a major part. The absence of an explanation is, I would suggest, the fertile soil in which xenophobia grows like wild weeds. This is particularly the case when ‘context’ for, say, the ‘Windrush generation’ was never clearly spelt out. Because no plausible explanation was ever given to native Britons, as to why it was necessary to import labour to Britain after the Second Great War, the Windrush generation’s critical contribution to the rebuilding our country has gone largely unnoticed so much so that 70 years later, their descendants are presently being brutally abused, humiliated and deported from Britain in answer to the growing clamour in England about immigration. Their continued mistreatment gives a clear impression that the descendants of the Windrush generation have always been seen as foreigners by the authorities, that is, illegally residing in England.
We are all neighbours – one to another
27. We can assist this grand debate on immigration by giving demonstrable proofs that immigration is, in of itself, not the enemy we think it is. Of course there will always be your oddballs, criminals and what have you; but we have laws to deal with such cases – that’s why we have law enforcement institutions in place. Let them do their job. The English legal system despite its many glitches is probably second to none in the world; so let matters that fall in the realms of the law be dealt with by the law accordingly. We are all neighbours – one to another. An instance may now be mentioned here. I once knew a native born Englishman in Buckinghamshire; he was a picture of rude health in his prime. He and I debated a lot about immigration, crime and what have you; he entertained some very obnoxious racist views. He put up with me because I was probably the only one in his circle of friends who listened patiently to his racist rants; he sometimes used some very choice words to describe foreigners. He smoked liked a chimney; I think he smoked easily 60-to-80 a day. The hazards of smoking eventually caught up with him and he succumbed to lung cancer. In the months before I relocated to Taiwan, I discovered by pure chance that he was dying at Milton Keynes University Hospital. When I visited him one day, I was shocked to discover that his family had not visited him for a very long while; basically, he was all alone, with virtually no one to visit him.
28. Despite experiencing my own share of trouble at the time, I took it upon myself to visit him as often as I could; I would spend hours just being there with him. We did not talk much as he had virtually lost the power of speech; his ranting days were long behind him, he was at death’s door. Nearly all the nurses who looked after him around the clock were foreign born, sporting different shades of colours in their skin pigmentation. On my last day of visiting him, and bidding him my farewells as I had shared with him my plans, all he could do was cry silently, thanking me in the process for the kindness I had shown him. He died a few months afterwards. Now a true Israelite that I am, I am forbidden by my Lord from summoning up the spirits of the dead from their sleep, as it is a sin of divination; but let us suppose, just suppose for argument’s sake, it were possible to summon up his spirit from the grave without committing the sin of divination and put him in a witness box: now I ask you, how do you suppose he will answer, if a question were put to him, namely, “Who was your neighbour in your darkest hour?” I fancy his answer will surprise many!
To the Briton according to law and/ or his descendants
29. I must now address myself to the foreign born Britons and their descendants, especially refugees. I will speak for myself as a personal testimony is in the circumstances a better advocate. When I was a boy, my father used to say to me that if my lines should fall pleasantly while a sojourner in a foreign land, and if by God’s grace I were to come into a pretty penny or two; that I should see to it never to live in a palace. Nothing is more offensive to the native, he would say to me, than to see a beggar on horseback; therefore, endeavour never to be odious to your hosts. Of course his wise words meant absolutely nothing to me at the time, but I now see he was cautioning me against insensitivity with regard to the feelings of the locals. Therefore, as an immigrant, please understand that immigration is an extremely sensitive subject in England; do not trivialize the issue. If it should be your lot to be an immigrant, especially to be numbered among the refugees as I was, please do not RESENT the fact that you are a refugee. To be a refugee in a foreign land is hell. Do not be astonished by it, in fact you will do well to expect hell; for no one invited you to their land and therefore they owe you absolutely nothing as a ‘self-invited’ foreigner. Indeed, as an outsider, with your nose pressing on the glass window as it were, do not be shocked if you are looked upon by those inside with the combination of politeness and subconscious condescension which the English tend to reserve for a people of, by common acceptance, exotic background. Remember that as a foreigner, you really are exotic in their eyes; for you sport a strange appearance, your speech sounds strange, and you probably have a strange sounding name to boot – this is normal. Chances are, those sitting inside have never met or experienced an exotic foreigner quite like you; do not take it personally. I shudder to think, what for instance, Mr. David Cameron, our former prime minister, would make of a man like me, that is, if he were ever to bump into me in the flesh. I should not be shocked if he completely took no notice of me; for I am, to him, a nobody. That’s what it means to be a foreigner in another man’s land. You are a nobody! Get over it!
The British are a generous people
30. Please note that the British, for all their many faults, are an exceedingly generous people. Therefore, do not abuse their generosity; for you, as a refugee, are on their land at their sufferance. I know this piece of advice jars the ear, especially coming as it does against a background where everyone these days enjoys some legal right or other; freedom under the law is what makes Britain such a welcoming place to refugees, and your journey as a refugee will be all the smoother if you take the time to respect their laws and generosity. Read the political temper of our times and act accordingly. For in so doing you will make the job of those taking risks to come to your aid in your hour of need, very easy indeed. Nothing is more frustrating to an advocate of refugees than to see those whom he seeks to help stoking up the resentment of locals by acts of thoughtlessness or deliberate provocation. I am here specifically speaking about how we, as refugees, consume public services. If you should be lucky (I was not) to be awarded some benefit or other by the British government, however small that benefit may be, please receive it with grace and with thanksgiving. Do not complain about anything.
31. Remember refugees in other parts of the world are not as lucky as you are; for many countries across the globe do not have laws to protect refugees, they do not offer any support to refugees, in fact they do not care at all about refugees! Consider for example the plight of the Rohingya refugees, and count your blessings accordingly. Moreover, remember that the benefit(s) you are now receiving is thanks to the British tax payer, many of whom are poor people themselves, on very low incomes, some of them working on zero-hour contracts. Poor people proportionately pay more taxes than their rich counterparts in the UK and other rich countries; they also give proportionately more to charities, the very charities that support you. Therefore, do not test the patience of a generous people. If, for example, you should be given access to free medical care at the National Health Service, use it by all means, but use it sparingly. Free medical care is not a right – certainly not a jolly. For nearly 30 years that I continued in England, I called upon the services of an NHS hospital only twice: the first time was for an operation on my wisdom teeth, which I paid for as I was still stateless at the time and therefore not entitled to it (I borrowed the money); and, the second occasion was for my wife’s mandatory medical tests – upon her settlement in England following our marriage. That too was paid for by us. For that reason, it is imperative to be sensitive to the locals’ feelings; do not be obnoxious to them, they are only human just like you and me.
Make yourself useful to your hosts – as best as you can within your limits
32. When I said life as a refugee is hell, I was not exaggerating. But because life as a refugee is hell, it does not mean you should sit idle. Do not sit around feeling sorry for yourself. You are not the first refugee in the world, and you will most certainly not be the last. In a turbulent world which the 21st century is proving to be, becoming a refugee is now more normal than you think. Refugees are ten a penny these days. Feeling sorry for yourself will not get you anywhere; and therefore, you owe it yourself and to those helping you, to find whatever your hand finds, and do it with all your might – paying or otherwise. In the 12 years in which I was in a legal state of limbo, I did many things for which I was not paid. The authorities did not allow me to work. But those things I did free of charge saved my life: they for instance broke my isolation, giving me a purpose and more importantly, they renewed my hope in my God. They were the foundation of the functioning experience I have accumulated over the years in England. That practical experience exposed me to certain kinds of English people, some of whom for instance, taught me that they simply could not abide working with a black man. I now know what to look for when navigating the world of work. Moreover, I discovered that some of people I worked with, were quite prepared to make allowances for ‘an ethnic minority’: but if I as a black man asked no special favours and expected to be judged solely by what I am and did, this was found to be gravely and uncomfortably disorienting to them. Furthermore, being an immigrant and therefore by implication a member of a different class, I learned that having firm convictions is found to be exceedingly alarming in some quarters – that the values and virtues of a refugee should, perish the thought, be brought to bear on a particular issue which is considered to be the preserve of members of a certain class. I often offended and probably will continue to offend people’s sensibilities. These lessons I discovered by getting out there and mucking in with the rest of UK’s society – in the English counties of Gloucestershire and Buckinghamshire. I would not change the experience for the world. Neither should you!
If you cannot find work, create it
33. And speaking of work experience, please tailor your expectations accordingly. It is good to have ambition, but it is much better to have a purpose in life; for not all of us will be given the opportunity to realize our ambition in our chosen careers. Let me be more particular here, as I have heard about some refugees who spend their time casting envious eyes upon those who appear to have done better them. Please do not envy or covert the success of others, do not be factious; but, rather, rejoice in their success and wish them well. Their success is but mere evidence of what may be possible to you, that is, if you are lucky. Moreover, you may be surprised to discover that those who appear to be very successful, that they too have their own troubles, they are subject to the common calamities of human life; and, the mantle of a refugee is never far from them. And yes, even for those in the high places; for the odour of a refugee follows them wherever they go. I for example know that I will never be a Dr John Sentamu, the former Archbishop of York; neither will I ever be a Ms Priti Patel, the Home Secretary; nor will I ever be a Ms. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a leading British journalist and author – with all of whom I share something in common, namely, Uganda. We must accept the lot in which providence has cast our lives; we cannot have it otherwise. For I believe such an acceptance is sufficient to free our minds as refugees, including other classes of immigrants, to engage more fully and openly with native born Britons, in order to think our way out of the current mess Brexit really is. Yes, the British people, native and immigrant alike, have been short change by our political leaders. But their poverty in leadership need not define us as a people. We are free to liberate ourselves as a nation to forge a kind of leadership capable of looking to the future. Else we shall all be like that young woman I saw in the Magistrate’s court, whose character is best summed up by Lauren Cooper, in The Catherine Tate Show, with her infamous catch phrase, “Am I bovvered?” or “Look at my face, is my face bovvered? Face? Bovvered?” This is no laughing matter: we must all be bothered! We must care; else it may be our great misfortune to see life imitate art before our very eyes.