HONG KONG
I can understand those on the benches opposite who genuinely favour a massive liberalisation of our
immigration laws. I have listened to them for 5 years
now. I strongly disagree with them, but I respect their point of view. Why is it that having over and over again voted for relaxation of particular aspects of immigration law, the front bench opposite oppose the Bill? Is it because the people who are being offered passports are the Queen's subjects in our last big colony rather than citizens of an independent Commonwealth country? Why are they so repulsive to the r. h. g.? Is it because they
can speak English? Is it because they are professional people who we hope will stay in Hong Kong but who if they
came here would make a strong and immediate contribution
to our society? Is it because some of them work
successfully in a capitalist society and others in public services of high reputation? Is it because they would, unlike some others, settle relatively smoothly into our society? Why does the Labour front bench discriminate with such Vindictiveness against these key people in Hong Kong? It makes no sense in terms of principle.
makes sense only in terms of a squalid little effort to
embarrass the Government. That will not tonight be a lobby for the squeamish or the principled on the Labour
side.
It
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.