The British population will be a minority in its own country by 2050

Population issues beyond the taboo

By Jeanne SMITS for Reinformation.tv

He has top academic qualifications, he has been a researcher and lecturer at Oxford and London University, he regularly appears in the English-language mainstream press , from the BBC to the Financial Times , Der Spiegel and the Jerusalem Post : Dr Paul Morland is a well-known and recognised demographer in the UK … The Scottish Herald called him “the most prominent demographer in the UK”. It was with this notoriety that he issued this warning on Talk TV on 29 November : if the political class fails to reverse course, the British white population could become a minority in its own country by 2050. In the UK, as in France, we talk about a “great replacement”, and it is true that the country is now welcoming, willingly, through legal immigration, or reluctantly, through unprecedented illegal immigration, reaching hundreds of thousands of individuals per year.

In this respect, it is not enough to be an island to effectively regulate the reception of foreigners... Faced with the now visible flows of populations from elsewhere, the subject of immigration is among the priorities of the British, so much so that the super-Labour member Keir Starmer denounced at the end of the week the policy of "open borders" of the Conservatives after Brexit to "transform Great Britain into a single experimental country for open borders ", and this in a "deliberate" way.

The British minority population: a deliberate policy

“This has all been done by design, not by accident. We have made policy reforms… ‘Global Britain’ , remember the slogan?… That’s what they meant. Policy without any support… Well, that’s unforgivable.” Sir Keir was spot on: whether under Boris Johnson or Rishi Sunak, immigration has reached unprecedented levels after Brexit, while many Leave voters wanted to get out of the EU’s laxity in admitting third-country nationals. A million new migrants arrived in 2023 alone.

He was right on target, but he ignored the policies of previous Labour governments. Before Tony Blair became Prime Minister, new immigrants were counted in the tens of thousands per year. This figure exploded under his government to hundreds of thousands per year: one of his former advisers, Andrew Neather, even let slip in 2009 that Labour wanted to make the United Kingdom more “multicultural” by this means: a political objective, therefore, which aimed in particular to “rub the right’s nose in diversity”.

Bet won? In 2021, Breitbart reports , the 2021 census already showed that less than three-quarters of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom identified themselves as part of one of the “indigenous” ethnic groups of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, or 74.4%. They were 80% in 2011 and 87.5% in 2001. The phenomenon is significant and it is accelerating significantly.

Demographer Paul Morland predicts UK will have immigrant majority by 2050

Dr Paul Morland was interviewed by journalist Alex Phillips on Saturday on this hot topic. He immediately recalled the data that had just been made public:

“The number of migrants living in hostels has exploded under Labour and spending on them is now £5 billion a year. £5 billion a year! (…) Remember how much the government spends on hospices, it’s £350 million. Yesterday we also saw the figures for legal immigration. The OECD, of course, says we have the highest permanent legal migration of any developed country!”

The official figures are also established taking into account departures, which reached 414,000 people who left the country; in net figures, the number of new arrivals is close to a million this year. Paul Morland commented on the figure by recalling "two major demographic trends" currently underway:

"The first is, as you said, mass immigration on a scale never seen before. I have often said that since Blair came to power we have had more immigration every year than we had in the whole period from the Norman Conquest to the Second World War. But immigration as it was under Blair is child's play compared with what it is today.

“The other major change is that we have had fertility rates that have been falling for a long time, and are now falling quite rapidly. So the current population of the UK is falling by half roughly every generation – that’s people who consider themselves white British. Immigrant communities have slightly higher rates, a little bit below 1.5.

"But if the community here today does not reproduce itself, and for whatever reason we bring in hundreds of thousands of people every year, of course we are going to a very different country from the one we know. That will put an end to what was seen 30 years ago: the fact that the inhabitants of the country were overwhelmingly the descendants of people who were here a thousand years ago.

"That won't be the case by the middle of this century. Whether that matters, or whether it worries you, is another question. But those are the facts."

In plain language: by 2050, there will be fewer indigenous people in the UK than people of non-white, non-British origin.

Population issues beyond the taboo

There as here, it is a taboo question, but statistics have no political colour, and it is certain that this point of Morland gives additional indications to justify his prediction which he judges "very probable":

"We have census data that shows that about three-quarters of people are definable or self-defining as white British. Then we have historic communities who have been here for maybe two generations. And then we have a huge number of new arrivals."

But he reminds us that "nothing is predetermined":

“I was in Singapore last week. You don’t come into Singapore if they don’t want you. And you don’t stay beyond what’s allowed. Singapore is a very small, very rich country and an island in a sea of ​​much poorer people, but they have determined politically what they want in terms of immigration.

"If we stopped immigration tomorrow or stopped it largely, there would be continuing ethnic demographic shifts because some groups have higher fertility rates than others, but not by much, and they converge. Some groups are younger than others, but the change would be quite limited. So it's not really predetermined.

"It's a choice. What do we want as a country? And are our politicians able to articulate and implement it? It seems obvious to me that these two are not the same thing. The country wants one thing, and the politicians are not prepared to follow it."

No stopping immigration without pro-natalist policy

What , then, if the UK were to limit immigration to a hundred thousand people per year, but did not implement pro-natalist policies: what can we expect for 2045 or 2050, asks Alex Phillips.

Paul Morland's response:

"I think by then there will be a minority, or a group very close to being a minority, of those who define themselves as white British. Also, it is obvious that by then the younger population, the under-20s, will see this phenomenon increase. So it would be well established for the future.

"But on the other hand, without immigration and without pro-birth policies, we would have a population that would decline quite rapidly. We would have a labor shortage everywhere, and we would have a very bad ratio of workers to retirees. So that would be very serious for our taxes and our spending on health care and pensions.

"So to solve this problem, if you think this is a problem, if you think that massive ethnic change is a problem - and whether you want to discuss it or not, this reality has a significant political effect across the continent, in France, in Italy, in Germany, in Sweden... you have to look at the change that is happening.

"If we do nothing, if we don't implement a pro-birth policy, and we stop immigration, there will be some pretty serious consequences politically, in terms of population decline, and in terms of overall population decline in the country."

Paul Morland has just published a book entitled: No One Left: Why the World Needs More Children. For him, it is therefore urgent to promote the birth rate.

It is quite logical that he rose up on his X account, while the law on assisted suicide has just passed the hurdle of a first parliamentary debate, against euthanasia that an Internet user presented as a service to be rendered to the community to save health insurance:

"That's what happens when decades of low fertility and declining welfare ratios mean that you can't afford to pay for public services. The anti-birth attitude is the pro-death attitude. The right response is to choose life."

But beyond that, and Paul Morland does not mention this issue, there is the deliberate choice to counter human life. We must not forget that whether they are white British or people of all origins from all corners of the planet, men are in decline, and they are or will be replaced in their productive tasks, at an accelerating rate, by robots and by AI. This is another great replacement , which has nothing to do with the birth rate and is very comfortable with euthanasia.

Jeanne Smits