"A Very British Transition" - A Post-Junta Britain TL

SNP is going to suffer for this, I can see RISE claiming they sold Scottish freedoms to the Neo-Mountbattenits for a little of power. Maybe Unity can make the same argument against Reform.
I’m pondering if SA and People’s Party can strike a deal for a joint platform like the Izquierda-Podemos “Unidos Podemos” list in Spain (maybe called People’s Alliance or People’s Alternative).

By the way what is the term for the Senate? Is that similar to the Commons or to the local elections?
There are certainly people calling for a SA/PP alliance - but the main issue is who is to lead it. The Alternative is more established, with the backing of the unions and a much larger caucus of MPs - put the People's Party are polling much higher, despite the fact they currently only have one MP.

Senate elections are held at the same time as Commons elections.
 
What are unity and reform's opinions on English devolution? I know they opposed it in Scotland as anti-separatism, but how do they view it for non separatist regions.
 
Ah, Blair is finally relieved to see Hague enacting legislation based on OTL counter-terrorism laws in the mid-2000s.
Sorry, if I'm a bit petty, nothing to do with actual content of the TL. But wouldn't the British government actually name their laws rather blandly like Public Order Act, Counter-Terrorism Act, Digital Security Act. Wouldn't Mountbatten-era laws be called ordinances instead of acts (assuming parliament was shut). At least that's what my experience is in a Commonwealth country.
 
What are unity and reform's opinions on English devolution? I know they opposed it in Scotland as anti-separatism, but how do they view it for non separatist regions.
Unity wants to abolish provincial and regional government, instead combining local authorities into larger most powerful local authorities, with the provincial powers either going to these local authorities or back to the Westminister Government - effectively a return to the pre-coup status quo

Reform wants to abolish the Scottish Parliament but supports keeping the provinces but with no further devotion of powers i.e. the pre-Scottish Parliament status quo
 
Ah, Blair is finally relieved to see Hague enacting legislation based on OTL counter-terrorism laws in the mid-2000s.
Sorry, if I'm a bit petty, nothing to do with actual content of the TL. But wouldn't the British government actually name their laws rather blandly like Public Order Act, Counter-Terrorism Act, Digital Security Act. Wouldn't Mountbatten-era laws be called ordinances instead of acts (assuming parliament was shut). At least that's what my experience is in a Commonwealth country.
Parliament remained open for the whole Junta era - it was just staffed by Junta loyalists. Britain still cosplayed as a Parliament Democracy with debates, acts and even First Lord's Questions. So things passed by the Junta were still named "acts"
 
Parliament remained open for the whole Junta era - it was just staffed by Junta loyalists. Britain still cosplayed as a Parliament Democracy with debates, acts and even First Lord's Questions. So things passed by the Junta were still named "acts"
I really want a taste of what sort of tough "questions" were asked there. Did anyone ask a difficult question and then suddenly not turn up next week?
 
I really want a taste of what sort of tough "questions" were asked there. Did anyone ask a difficult question and then suddenly not turn up next week?
It mostly constituency related so long as they didn't directly question or criticise the regime i.e "Does the First Lord agree that Haringey Council should repair the roof on Wood Green library as quickly as possible".

First Lord's Questions were all screened before hand and since every MP was a National loyalist difficult questions were exceedingly rare. Whilst some MPs were a bit cheeky the only example of outright challenging the First Lord was in 1993 when National MP Peter Bottomley called out Hill-Norton on human rights abuses against trade unionists and irish catholics. He was arrested for subversion a day later.
 
Last edited:
It mostly constituency related so long as they didn't directly question or criticise the regime i.e "Does the First Lord agree that Wandsworth Council should repair the roof on Putney library as quickly as possible".

First Lord's Questions were all screened before hand and since every MP was a National loyalist difficult questions were exceedingly rare. Whilst some MPs were a bit cheeky the only example of outright challenging the First Lord was in 1993 when National MP Peter Bottomley called out Hill-Norton on human rights abuses against trade unionists and irish catholics. He was arrested for subversion a day later.

Obviously it ended in arrest but how did the First Lord actually respond to that question in the moment?

On another subject, were there any significant differences to the Harry Potter series prior to democratisation? I can't help but feel like a lot of the satire about the Ministry of Magic and to a lesser extent the Dursleys would lead to a sense of humour failure from the censors at some point. (Plus the whole evil fascist death cult being the main villains thing.)
 
Last edited:
Prime Minister William Hague also announced his intention to make changes to Britain's criminal code to make illegal sharing or possessing content that would “insight others to join a terrorist group”. In other words, anyone accessing website deemed to encourage terrorism could face time in prison.
Did this part make it into the final bill? This seems like arguably the most dangerous part of the law, or at least the most ripe for abuse. I mean, it's one thing if you're talking about websites with bomb-making instructions or directions to Daesh training camps, but what's to prevent some Islamophobe in a position of power from deciding that, say, the website for a mainstream mosque is "inciting terrorism"? Or, for that matter, websites that just criticize the incumbent government in harsh terms (as I'm guessing the pages for the People's Party or the SA probably do)? Even if the charges didn't hold up in court, an accusation and prosecution would still amount to significant harassment by the authorities.

Also, someone could easily "access" a terrorist website by accident without realizing what they're looking at until they've already clicked on something.
 
Obviously it ended in arrest but how did the First Lord actually respond to that question in the moment?

On another subject, were there any significant differences to the Harry Potter series prior to democratisation? I can't help but feel like a lot of the satire about the Ministry of Magic and to a lesser extent the Dursleys would lead to a sense of humour failure from the censors at some point. (Plus the whole evil fascist death cult being the main villains thing.)
A bit flustered, he mostly just responded with the usual justifications of terrorists and extremists but he was clearly taken aback.

The Harry Potter series is an interesting case as the first four books were written before the Junta fell whilst the last three were written in transition Britain. Thus the gradual darkening of Harry Potter was a lot more dramatic than OTL. With the first half of the series being a lot more "wacky adventures in magic school" and the second half being "Harry fights magical fascists". Same with the Ministry, it's corruption and incompetence only really comes a major plot point later into the series so Rowling was able to get away with it. But the books do take a marked tone shift post Junta.
 
Did this part make it into the final bill? This seems like arguably the most dangerous part of the law, or at least the most ripe for abuse. I mean, it's one thing if you're talking about websites with bomb-making instructions or directions to Daesh training camps, but what's to prevent some Islamophobe in a position of power from deciding that, say, the website for a mainstream mosque is "inciting terrorism"? Or, for that matter, websites that just criticize the incumbent government in harsh terms (as I'm guessing the pages for the People's Party or the SA probably do)? Even if the charges didn't hold up in court, an accusation and prosecution would still amount to significant harassment by the authorities.

Also, someone could easily "access" a terrorist website by accident without realizing what they're looking at until they've already clicked on something.
Yes this part made it into the final bill, and yes it is rather insidious
 
Chapter 76: The Caliphate
1642609902815.png

A handful of Brits had been recruited by Daesh

“Britain has detained four propagandists for ISIS, including suspects who targeted young women. Police arrested two suspects in Birmingham and two other suspects in Bradford. The detainees in Birmingham stand accused of running an online campaign “dedicated to the recruitment of women''. The detainees in Bradford allegedly spread ISIS propaganda through social media. One detainee had accumulated more than 1,400 followers on Facebook, according to authorities. Analysts estimate some 20 percent of ISIS recruits are women. All four detainies are women in what British officials call Europe's first all-female jihadi ring. 20% of Birmingham's population are Muslim. The City has a jobless rate of more than 30 percent, one of the worst unemployment problems in Europe.”
- Britain Breaks Up ISIS Recruitment Ring Targeting Young Women, Dan Kedemy, Time (2015)

The explosive rise of Daesh in Iraq and Syria would continue to headline British newspapers. Reports of UK young people leaving the UK to join Daesh became increasingly prevalent, with girls leaving to become wives and boys to become Daesh fighters. One notable police operation, named “Operation Budapest” busted a trafficking ring of over 30 British nationals fundraising and recruiting young people for the organisation. All in all over 200 British nationals would leave for the Levant to join Daesh in 2015. The recruitment of teenagers was the most sinister aspect of Daesh activities in the UK and British schools became increasingly suspicious of their students.

Britain would face a reckoning with Daesh when one of Daesh’s leading television executioners, was named as Mohammed Emwazi, or “Jihadi John” by the tabloid press. Emwazi had gained notoriety for his televised beheadings of several western hostages, including journalist James Foley and aid worker David Haines. The Security Services would come under further pressure as it emerged that Britain's intelligence community was not only aware of Emwazi, but had actively tried to recruit him as an informer. Security services believed that Daesh agents were actively seeking out British nationals to take as hostages to increase it’s infamy abroad - particularly targeting British aid workers, journalists and tourists across the Middle East.

1642609972515.png

Daesh had stormed through Syria

In response to the growing threat the Foreign Office ordered all British nationals in high risk countries such as Tunisia and Saudi Arabia to return home as quickly as possible declaring that an attack on British tourists was “highly likely”. Major airlines like Thomas Cook announced they would be suspending flights to the Middle East in light of increased security concerns. The Home Office also began mounting regular counter terrorism exercises, the largest of these named “Operation Home Coming” simulated a mass jihadist attack across London involving over 1,000 police officers and military personnel. Whilst there was unlikely to be any malicious elements to these exercises, they still put the public on edge, especially for those old enough to remember the military “exercises” leading up to the 1968 coup.

“A simulated terror attack on London’s tube network tested the capital’s emergency response capabilities on Tuesday. Armed men in balaclavas were seen on a London street and “victims” were treated by emergency services. The exercise, planned since January, was sometimes “noisy and visible” as Police London had warned. The two-day operation, which began on Tuesday and is codenamed Homecoming, is designed to test responses to such an attack. London’s largest ever counter-terror drill included 14 different organisations and agencies. Police London says it now arrests on average one person a day for possible terror offences and believes it has disrupted some “very serious” plots. Maxine de Brunner, the city's Chief Inspector, said before the exercise started that mistakes were bound to be made “but best we make them today".” - London police and emergency services take part in mock terrorist attack, James Meikle, The Guardian (2015)

Not all who travelled to Syria fought on the side of Daesh. As a country with both dormant and active left-wing paramilitaries Britain was prime recruiting ground for Kurdish Rojava fighters. One video emerged on social media showing a group of British youths posing with the flags of the Soviet Union, Kurdistan and republican British flag. It was reported dozens of youth, mostly affiliated with the SNLA or left-wing paramilitaries like the Red Brigades had joined the People's Defence Units in Kurdistan fighting against Daesh. The most notable of these was over a dozen leftist fighting as part of the "Scargil Brigade". Foreign fighters for Kurdistan included former British servicemen, most notably former Royal Marine Konstandinos Scurfield who was killed in action on the frontlines of Syria’s civil war.

1642609856897.png

Counter-terrorism exercises made some uneasy

Whilst some in Hague’s Cabinet wanted to see Britain take more direct action against Daesh through joining in US/French airstrikes in Syria - Hague was hesitant to act without official UN approval. Both Reform and the SNP stated they would only vote for airstrikes with a United Nations International mandate, so Hague didn’t have the votes for airstrikes even if he wanted to. Hague also had one eye on next years election, with his incredibly low approval rating and divided Parliamentary caucus Hague simply didn’t have the political capital to ram through controversial and expensive military operations. Britain would be sitting the airstrikes out.

Britain’s non-interventionist policy may have been popular at home, but it left the Hague administration isolated in the western community. Hague was not invited to a Sarkozy led summit on countering ISIS involving the United States, Germany, Italy, Russia, China and Canada. But Hague remembered how popular opposition to the Iraq War had helped to bring the Junta down and arguably elected Hague as Prime Minister. The National Party was caught between a rock and a hard place, wanting to stand in solidarity with France on one hand and desperate not to awaken the ghosts of the past on the other. Hague instead reached a compromise that pleased no-one.

Whilst Britain would not be taking part in joint airstrikes against Daesh, Defence Secretary Nicholas Soames, in a joint press conference with French Defence Secretary Gérard Longuet announced both nations would deploy more troops to Africa in joint counter-terrorism exercises with a focus on Mali and the Central African Republic. Britain would also take command of EU CSDP operations in Africa. Soames argued that deploying British troops on crisis management operations in central Africa would free up French forces for operations against Daesh in Syria. After it’s experience of military dictatorship the British public were sceptical of foreign intervention, and international allies also believe direct British intervention would do more harm than good. Thus Britain could assist in the anti-Daesh effort without committing British military resources directly.

“Some 7,000 people protested in London against military action in Syria, with many wary of Britain becoming a target for militants. French leaders have in recent days called on allies to join France in stepping up military action against the jihadist group. On Thursday Defence Minister Gérard Longuet called on Britain to help "win this war". A day later, Foreign Minister Alain Juppé said the campaign against IS should move beyond airstrikes to ground troops. "It will be necessary, France has no intention of intervening on the ground. Foreign troops would be seen as an occupying force. Thus they must be Syrian, Arab, Kurdish troops," he told the BBC. Whilst PM Hague has ruled out joining French led airstrikes he is facing mounting pressure from the international community.” - Protests in UK As Momentum Builds to Join Syria Strikes, Associated Press (2015)

1642610030121.png

Hague didn't want to commit to risky military campaigns so close to an election
 
Last edited:
Not all who travelled to Syria fought on the side of Daesh. As a country with both dormant and active left-wing paramilitaries Britain was prime recruiting ground for Kurdish Rojava fighters. One video emerged on social media showing a group of British youths posing with the flags of the Soviet Union, Kurdistan and republican British flag. It was reported dozens of youth, mostly affiliated with the SNLA or left-wing paramilitaries like the Red Brigades had joined the People's Defence Units in Kurdistan fighting against Daesh. The most notable of these was over a dozen leftist fighting as part of the "Scargil Brigade". Foreign fighters for Kurdistan included former British servicemen, most notably former Royal Marine Konstandinos Scurfield who was killed in action on the frontlines of Syria’s civil war.

Given that OTL this was the Bob Crow Brigade, I'm assuming Crow got nobbled while he was starting out by the junta?
 
Even if it were so inclined does Britain by this point have much of a military to intervene with against ISIS?

How are the British Armed Forces regarded by their counterparts around the world?
If they did decide to become involved would they be welcomed onboard with open arms by France and the US or thought of more as a liability?
 
Given that OTL this was the Bob Crow Brigade, I'm assuming Crow got nobbled while he was starting out by the junta?
Crow survived, ending up as an Alternative MP. But since he denounced the armed struggle he didn't get the Brigade named after him, unlike Scargill who kept fighting into the transition.
 
Even if it were so inclined does Britain by this point have much of a military to intervene with against ISIS?

How are the British Armed Forces regarded by their counterparts around the world?
If they did decide to become involved would they be welcomed onboard with open arms by France and the US or thought of more as a liability?
Britain has got a large military, but its not as well equipped or trained as it's NATO counterparts.

Most countries are happy for the UK not to get involved as like you say their military is a bit of a liability. But the French are on a war path and will take any help they can get.
 
Chapter 77: Scalpel
1642761752916.png

Transport unions organised the biggest set of strikes of the Hague era

“Air traffic controllers are due to start a week of partial strikes today. The Industry Ministry has set minimum service levels at 70% for the stoppages, which could affect up to 13,000 flights. The stoppages will take place for two-hour periods during morning and afternoon shifts, from 10am to 12pm, and 6pm to 8pm. The protest has been called by the Air Traffic Controllers Union (ATCU), which represents 90% of the country’s controllers. The reason for the industrial action is the suspension of 86 controllers as punishment for a wildcat strike. The walkout had its origins in a decree passed by the previous SDP government that increased controllers’ working hours at the same time as it lowered their salaries. The action took the form of an avalanche of staff calling in sick as a result of alleged “anxiety and psychological pressure.”
- air traffic controllers start week of strikes, BBC News Bulletin (2015)

Britain’s trade unions were on manoeuvres again for a summer of industrial action. Despite pleas from the SDP leadership not to spook voters before next year's election - several leading unions announced strike plans. The union “Signal” that represented train drivers and other rail workers announced a week of strikes in disputes around hours. Signal argued that Britain's railways were understaffed by nearly 2,000 workers, leading to unreasonable hours for railway workers and safety issues for the public. The Air Traffic Controller’s Union (ATCU) announced they would also be joining the strikes also complaining of chronic under-staffing and overworked employees. The strikes came as Britain entered it’s busy holiday period, with children off school and families planning to jet away, the strikes brought national infrastructure to a halt. News cameras recorded winding lines in airports and families sleeping in terminal corners.

At the same time as strikes rocked the country, big business started to make cuts. HSBC, Britain’s largest bank, announced they would be downsizing their UK operation by sacking 8,000 employees - over 10% of the bank’s UK workforce. HSBC’s downsizing was quickly followed by other leading banks. Instead HSBC and other leading financial institutions would prioritise their work in Asia, most notably China, a quickly rising financial super-power. HSBC’s decision stirred outrage in much of the public, HSBC had been saved by UK taxpayer money and the Troika bailout, and the bank had even had a 5% tax cut last year. Despite all the support and money poured into Britain's banking industry, leading financiers were cashing their chips.

1642761624564.png

An ageing Meacher would rail against the cuts in Parliament

To rub further salt in the wound, as Britain's bankers laid off staff Chancellor Bob Stewart announced over 12 billion euros worth of benefit cuts. This included a new 21,000 euro benefit cap for families, as well as cuts to housing benefit and tax credits. Voters hoping for reprieve from the Social Democrats received no such luck when Shadow Chancellor Douglas Alexander confirmed the party would not oppose the benefit cap. In Parliament, Alternative Leader Michael Meacher railed against the cap consensus, calling Stewart’s speech a “sermon from an austerity cult - cutting where it is not necessary and weakening further the chance of a sustained recovery".

"Besides the themes of anti-austerity, the emphasis on sovereignty was recurrent throughout Ribeiro-Addy's speech. She grounded Britain’s nationhood in a shared history and a rootedness in place and space, rather than abstractions. Ribiero-Addy made the place she was standing, Trafalgar Square , a central protagonist of her speech. She recalled the many fights for liberty that have taken place there, alluding to them but without ever uttering the name "Mountbatten''. Instead speaking of how those “below” fought for liberty, democracy, justice and the “dignity of our country”. “This Square has seen the recovery of our freedoms” she continued, “and on that 2009 day, thousands of young people cried ‘They don’t represent us! We want democracy!’ Those brave people are here today, you are the force of change, thank you for being here”. - Bell’s March for Change, Cristina Fominaya, Open Democracy (2015)

Stewart also turned his eye to Whitehall, where he announced all Ministries apart from Defence and the Home Office were expected to make a 25% cut to their total budget, saving nearly 40 billion euros in spending. Stewart went on to say that he would prioritise government spending in areas that promoted “ innovation and greater collaboration in public service”. Whilst the military was protected from direct cuts, Stewart announced plans to self-off 1.5 billion euros worth disused military land. MoD owned land accounted for over 2% of Britain, amounting to over 600 billion euros worth of land. For the first time under a National Government, the boys in green also received the scalpel.

1642761831404.png

Cuts to the military would have been unthinkable before the 2009 reforms

The “banking cull” as the media called it, alongside the benefit cap, and civil service cuts led to fresh rounds of OutRage protests, now under the leadership of the People’s Party. Polls showed the People’s Party in a close three way battle with National and the SDP to become a mainstream party. With it’s best case polls showing the insurgents winning 120 seats, if the People’s Party could make a deal with the Alternative they faced become Britain's largest party. The rally cry of these protests was “dignity” arguing that whilst things were going well for the City, over a quarter of Brits remained unemployed and struggling to survive. Since Hague came to power in 2012 he had cut over 212 billion euros from the public realm, and showed no sign of slowing down. Still British elites look nervously at Greece, where similar protests against austerity had swept the radical left Syriza to power.

People’s Party leader Bell Ribeiro-Addy would even headline Glastonbury, the world famous music festival that had been crushed by the Junta so long ago. Speaking at the festival Ribiero-Addy called for young people to register to vote and to turnout against a “deck stacked against us”. After Ribeiro-Addy spoke, musicians lined up to endorse the party including Run the Jewels and Stormzy. People’s Party MEP Charlotte Church, a former singer herself then performed for the crowd. Polls showed over 50% of under 24s intending to vote for the People’s Party, more than double their next closest rival Unity. The main issue for the People’s Party would be getting protest and glastonbury attendees off the streets and into the ballot box.

“The People's Party will win much of the youth vote at the general election, but those who attend their rallies are older. Activism comes to those in their forties and above, many of whom recall the Junta and are surprised by the younger generation’s passivity. Loudspeakers pumped out Patti Smith’s People Have the Power to 11,280 people packed into the football stadium. “Here comes the rockstar moment,” warned a journalist as Ribiero-Addy and her Deputy Owen Jones appeared to raucous applause. A middle-aged woman in leopard skin-print trousers bellowed: “Prime Minister!” Someone else shouted: “Long live the mother who gave birth to you!” As capital of a region notorious for political corruption, Derby is fertile ground for the People's Party, despite it's older whiter population.” - The People’s Party revolution, Giles Tremlett, The Guardian (2015)

1642761687123.png

The mainstream parties continued to push young voters away
 
Chapter 78: 2,500 Miles
1643126916196.png

Hague made a visit to a Congolese Refugee camp alongside celebrity Angelina Jolie

“William Hague on Thursday urged world powers to help end the war in Syria after the "horrifying" sight of a dead Syrian toddler on a Turkish shore. “I am not in a position to say if it is a good or a bad thing to use ground forces” to intervene in the Syrian conflict, Hague said. speaking to BBC Radio's Today Program. Millions of people have fled Syria to escape its civil war, according to the UN. In the latest shocking sign of the migrants' plight, photographs of a small Syrian boy washed up dead made front pages around Europe. “The photograph is truly tragic. It is horrifying,” Hague said. “And it is a sign of something that is happening often. Many women and children have died in the Mediterranean”. Hague has faced demands for the United Kingdom to host a greater number of refugees, but he did not shift his position on Thursday.”
- Hague “horrified” by drowned toddler image, BBC News Bulletin (2015)

As Syria and Iraq collapsed Europe faced down it’s worst ever migrant crisis, the response from EU member states was decidedly mixed. Germany won international acclaim for welcoming Syrian refugees unconditionally, whilst countries like Austria and Hungary shut their borders and unleashed water cannons on migrants. Chaotic scenes erupted in Budapest as authorities closed the city's main train station, preventing refugees moving on to Germany. The Merkel administration processed over 800,000 asylum applications in 2015, quadruple the number of applicants in previous years - more than the rest of the EU combined. In an attempt to balance the refugee crisis, Berlin called on a European wide migrant quota, so EU member states would accept refugees in proportion to their population.

A showdown would quickly develop between allies of Germany, and newer Eastern European states suspicious of migrant quotas including Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. These states threatened to reintroduce border measures in violation of Shengen or even deploy soldiers to keep migrants out. Britain found itself in the middle of this debate. Being over 2,500 miles from Syria and with a massive unemployment rate Britain would not be an attractive location for Syrian refugees anyway. Without a quota Britain would likely be unaffected by the crisis. Thus the Hague administration had a choice, join with the Eastern rebels and let Germany shoulder the burden, or step up as a true European partner.

As the EU’s fourth most populous member state the Commission sought to assign Britain 21,000 Syrian refugees, around 18% of the 120,000 people the commission hoped to resettle. The Hague administration, especially Home Secretary Steven Woolfe, were resistant to the quota push, arguing Britain was already overwhelmed by the 4,000 asylum applications they had already received. Hague, a natural eurosceptic himself with one eye on the election, was also reluctant to join the quota scheme. This was until the image of Alan Kurdi, a three year old boy who drowned in the Mediterranean was published across the globe.

1643126605431.png

Many older Brits had experience of being refugees themselves

Kurdi’s death sparked a wave of sympathy for migrants across Europe, especially hitting the heart-strings of British voters - many of whom had lived as exiles or refugees themselves. At protests in London and across the country 230,000 people turned out under the banner “our home is your home” as marches began at Park Lane and proceeded to Downing Street. The protests were joined by leading politicians like Bell Ribiero-Addy and Owen Jones but also well known celebrities including Benedict Cumberbatch, Keira Knightly and Colin Firth. The People’s Party wrapped itself in pro-migrant protests as Ribiero-Addy hailed a “remarkable turn” in public opinion.

“Few could have predicted, some months ago, such a response. The fact that in less than 24 hours more than 100,000 people signed a petition to welcome refugees advanced by change.org is the tip of the iceberg. What explains such reactions? With one in four still unemployed, British society had all the numbers to embrace a “Thanks, but no thanks” approach to the refugee crisis. That was the policy adopted by Hague’s government initially, now Britain will be the fourth biggest recipient of refugees in Europe. Pressure from society factored in the executive's decision to overturn its initial policy. Together the 71 refugees found in a lorry abandoned on a motorway in Austria and Aylan’s lifeless body lying on a Turkish beach were a tipping point. The images of the deadly lorry and Aylan made us all fall out of our Mephistophelian beds.” - A turning point for Britain on refugees, David Blake, Open Democracy (2015)

As the public turned the politicians followed, in a shocking u-turn speech Hague announced Britain would accept the 21,000 refugees stating there was “no limit to Britain's solidarity with refugees”. In an unusually liberal speech Hague told journalists “now is not the time to quibble over numbers”. As well as the central Westminster Government, the Scottish Government under Patrick Harvie confirmed intentions to welcome a further 2,000 Syrian refugees on top of those settled by the Westminster scheme. Provincial Governments also announced their willingness to go further in accepting asylum seekers with South Yorkshire President Rosie Winterton even pledging to open up her own home to refugees in her province.

1643127084276.png

Provincial Government were embarrassing Westminster into action

Hague also emphasised to stop migration at it’s source. He joined with Merkel and Commission President Barnier in calling for a 1.8 billion euro EU fund to help African and Middle Eastern nations better manage their borders to slow the stream of migrants moving towards Europe. Now came the question of not only accepting refugees but absorbing them, Britain did not have a strong track record of assimilating refugees. When Johnson first came to power in 2005 he hoped to show Britain's new democratic progressive side by accepting thousands of Afghani, Iraqi and Cuban refugees in what ended as a complete fiasco with refugees unable to find work and many even emigrating. Britain had come a long way from the broken country it had been in 2005 but now she had to prove herself as a reliable host country.

There were also fears of the far-right. Whilst Britain had avoided the radical right entering mainstream politics like in France, the Netherlands and now even Germany, a xenophobic movement was still underneath the surface. With a weakened housing and public welfare system many observers worried parties like the Centrists could exploit tensions between British-born voters and their new refugee cousins. Britain and Germany had been the exception to the rise of radical conservative political forces, but now even Germany was succumbing to the growing far-right AFD. If Germany couldn’t resist the anti-migrant siren call, what hope did Britain - with fascists paramilitaries marching in the streets - have?

“Britain is very much the exception in Europe: France, Germany and the Netherlands have all seen the growth of anti-immigration parties. So why not the United Kingdom? To start with, say the experts, the majority of migrants who came to the UK did so during a construction boom, and they came to work. Migrants were well received because they fed the boom. What’s more, unlike in other countries, many migrants share a language and cultural traits with Brits. Another reason is that Brits are able to identify with the immigrant’s position, much more so than say, a German or a Finn. In the 1970s and 1980s, millions of Brits went abroad in search of work, and now, the children of those men and women are repeating the process.” - Why Britain has resisted the rise of the far right, Robert Siegel, NPR (2015)

1643126873186.png

Civil Assistance had pivoted from anti-democracy activism to anti-refugee and migrant actions
 
Top