By Andaç Yedigüller
French historian Bernard Lugan recently made the following observation on Alain Juillet’s YouTube program: “France has become a colony of its former colonies.” Lugan was referring primarily to Algeria and Morocco, and, to a lesser extent, Tunisia. France once conquered these countries militarily, turned them into colonies, spread its language and culture, and established extensive economic and social ties. Today, however, France, particularly in Paris and around it, is home to a sizable population of Moroccan and Algerian descent. Some sections of French society have grown uneasy about the influence of this Muslim population and the increasingly visible presence of its cultures in French cities. Lugan’s observation was essentially an allusion to this.
This article will examine the trend of economic and social decline mainly in Britain. Would it be so inaccurate to repeat Lugan’s observation in the British context? Could Britain, too, be described as “becoming a colony of its former colonies”?
Britain’s immigration profile
In Britain’s immigrant population, India ranks by far as the largest country of origin, followed by Poland, Pakistan, Romania, Ireland and others. In more recent years, the number of immigrants arriving from Ukraine have overtaken some of these groups.
There is another important characteristic of immigration. The first large-scale movement of Algerians to France took place after France was defeated and expelled from Algeria during the Algerian War of Independence. Algerians who had collaborated with French forces, a large group known as the Harkis, were compelled to flee to France. A similar pattern can be discerned within Britain’s immigrant population. Following its wars over the past three decades, Britain has had to admit a significant number of local collaborators together with their families. Many immigrants from Afghanistan, Iraq and various African countries fall into this category.
It would be a mistake to imagine that all of them were destitute or socially marginal figures. Some had run the central banks of Afghanistan or Iraq during the occupation and had been implicated in numerous corruption scandals. Members of their second generation have become respectable parliamentarians and ministers, even one of them came close to becoming prime minister.
These peculiarities cannot, of course, be explained solely by the personal talents. They are facilitated by membership in clandestine networks, such as Le Cercle, and by financial relationships involving oil interests in various countries and the ethnic connections surrounding them. In other words, there is a higher stratum moving the pawns whom we see on the political stage.
Other waves of immigration that transformed Britain’s social fabric were economic migrants from Europe during the country’s membership of the European Union. Each eastward enlargement of the Union amounted to a new wave of migration to Britain. Romanian and Polish immigrants largely fall into this category. A significant number of Turks from Bulgaria also came to work in Britain using EU passports.
Another group is because of economic crises. When Italy and Greece entered an economic crisis, large numbers of Italians and Greeks migrated to Britain soon.
The important and controversial category in recent years, however, has been that of migrants crossing the Channel from the French coast in inflatable dinghies. Around 50,000 migrants arrive in this manner each year. The largest countries of origin include Eritrea, Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan, Albania, Syria, Iraq and Somalia. The distribution changes from year to year in accordance with political developments in the relevant countries.
Where is the social structure heading?
In what direction, then, is Britain’s social, ethnic and cultural composition evolving?
The birth rate is falling rapidly. Without immigration, the country’s population would be contracting at considerable speed. Large-scale immigration is expected to keep the population broadly at its present level for another decade, after which it is projected to decline.
Immigration policy will naturally be decisive, yet such policies are being altered continuously and inconsistently. Growing populist pressure has propelled anti-immigration nationalist politicians such as Nigel Farage to the top of the opinion polls. At the same time, British political history offers numerous examples of popular preferences being pushed to the margins before they can be translated into governmental power.
Farage’s strewn path
Consider the example of Nigel Farage, who, according to opinion polls, is likely to become the country’s next prime minister. A media group recently published a photograph of the house where his daughter lives, and reporters even went to her doorstep. Farage interpreted this as a threatening message directed at his daughter and family, whom he had kept away from politics for years. And resigned from his parliamentary duties.
What is more, Farage’s party colleague Ann Widdecombe, a veteran politician and former member of Parliament, was killed by an intruder in her home, and her body was reportedly discovered on 9 July.
Farage has also faced pressure from the financial front. In mid-2023, NatWest, one of Britain’s largest banks abruptly closed his accounts. Farage took the matter to the media. The bank initially attempted to defend itself, but once the position became untenable, its chief executive, Dame Alison Rose, was forced to resign.
Nigel Farage’s political journey, it would appear, will not be lined with flowers.
The “Indian factor”
Understanding Britain’s rapidly changing social structure requires an understanding of these immigration dynamics.
Beyond numerical size, the various groups should also be examined in terms of their economic influence.
The most striking fact is the swiftly expanding weight of immigrants of Indian origin in the economy, social life and politics. In the field of foreign policy, it is equally clear that Britain attaches strategic importance to deepening its relations with India. This subject receives little media attention, yet anyone who lives and works in Britain can see the trend.
Like many other immigrant communities, families of Indian origin give great importance on education. Their children have high success at school, while Indian professionals are 1uite in several sectors of the economy. An Indian executive generally builds a team composed largely of people of Indian origin (the exact opposite of what Turks do).
As of today, families of Indian origin have overtaken white British households and every other ethnic group to become the wealthiest ethnic community in Britain. Their median household wealth exceeds £200,000.
One more observation: Almost all call centers in Britain are outsourced to India, and customers are routinely addressed in English spoken with an Indian accent. The public has become so exasperated that many people immediately hang up when they hear an Indian accent on the telephone. AI solutions are now in place. Even when the person speaks with an Indian accent, AI transforms the voice in real time, allowing the customer to hear what might be called “white British English.”
Britain recently signed a free-trade agreement with India, which entered into force in mid-July. Bilateral trade amounts to approximately £50 billion now: India exports £30 billion to Britain, Britain exports £20 billion to India. Britain therefore runs an annual deficit of £10 billion.
With the new free-trade agreement, we will see this deficit go up rapidly over the coming years. It is almost as though an invisible hand has mobilized Britain’s resources to accelerate India’s development. Could the objective be to transform India rapidly into a stronger regional counterweight against the “Chinese threat”?
Many of India’s wealthiest families maintain a foothold in London, some have relocated entirely to Britain. These families also transfer considerable wealth into British capital and property markets. Their common pattern is that they earn in India, but the family lives in Britain and the children are educated there. Tax exemptions applying in certain circumstances to income earned outside Britain, or exemptions from double taxation, make this financially sustainable.
The following example may help us understand the contemporary form of imperialism in Britain: Britain doesn’t control India with soldiers and extracts its resources anymore, today’s exploitation operates above the level of the nation-state: ordinary people of both Britain and India are exploited. A small super-rich stratum in Britain and India, together with comparable elites in several other countries, has formed a common class that extracts the resources of the societies. The system generally operates through corporations under its control, but it is supported by the education system, the media, non-governmental organizations and defense structures such as NATO. Central banks and many governments are also directly or indirectly subordinated to this structure.