DOCSLIB.ORG

Campaigner for Indian Mangoes Heads to U.K. Parliament

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Campaigner for Indian Mangoes Heads to U.K. Parliament With just a few days left before the official ban on Indian mangoes into the EU comes into effect, much work is going on behind the scenes to try to reverse the prohibition or at least find an alternative solution that will not have such a devastating impact on Indian farmers, exporters, importers and the retail trade who would ordinarily be embarking on the mango- selling season right now. Monica Bhandari, of London-based importers Fruity Fresh, is leading a campaign to 'reverse the mango ban' alongside Leicester East MP Keith Vaz. She started an e-petition a few weeks ago which has already received more than 1,000 signatures, and spoke with www.freshfruitportal.com tiday whilst she was at U.K. Parliament for a meeting with the British politician who is hoping to present Indian mangoes to British Prime Minister David Cameron to highlight just how widespread the effects of the ban would be. "We are meeting with MP Keith Vaz who wants to take the mangoes to Downing Street (U.K. Prime Minister's office) to highlight the problem and to say that these are the last mangoes we’ll be getting this season," Bhandari said. "The latest is that we are really trying hard to reverse the ban. We've been promised an audience with Parliament but ultimately things have to be pushed much more quickly. "We have reached more than 1,000 signatures on our petition which is great but the petition is really about raising the profile of this issue because there are still some people who just don't know about it – but they will find out next week when they go into the shops and don't find any Indian mangoes for sale." Today we published a story focusing on British politician Keith Vaz who has Photo: Wendyfairy, via Flickr Creative Commons branded the ban as 'Euro-nonsense gone mad'. While Bhandari did not share this sentiment precisely, she wanted to find a solution that will appease the European Commission and keep trade between India and the European market flowing. "I don't want to say its Euro-nonsense because ultimately if the EU commission has a problem with pests like fruit flies then we have to take that seriously whether or not we buy into it and we are taking it seriously," Bandhari said. "India has taken measures to tighten things up and we ourselves as importers have FreshFruitPortal.com voluntarily taken measures by putting in place heat treatment measures. "From all of our mangoes coming in from India this year, we’ve had no incidences of the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) finding pests in our mangoes so ultimately what we want is for heat treatment to be recognized and authorized by the EU - even if they say 'All mangoes coming from India have to be subjected to this treatment' that would be sufficient." She said such a move toward heat treatment may slow trade down a little but it would ultimately be better than an outright ban. "It might mean that some people don’t want to export or import but it would keep the trade going and keep the flow of mangoes from India into this country," she said. "We are asking the commission to give the industry another option the same way as other government departments have done with different products from India and around the world; it’s about working with a country to say 'this is what you need to do'. "India has those types of treatments in place and they already have arrangements with countries like Australia, New Zealand and Japan which all allow imports of Indian mangoes as long as they have been subjected to the proper treatments so why can't we?" She said this was a scientifically proven method of eradicating any risks associated with fruit flies, which are the pests the European Commission was worried about. "We don't want to harm U.K. agriculture, we are wholesalers, not just importers, we wholesale salad and we have no interest in destroying U.K. agriculture. We’re not saying we want to import produce whenever we want under any conditions. "What we are saying is that rather than a ban surely we can come up with a more constructive solution." Impact on U.K. trade Aside from the fact that Indian mangoes will not be available on the shelves, British independent retailers will feel a 'huge loss' because revenue from mango sales usually boost profits for quieter periods of the year. "It's the importers who are going to suffer as well as the small retailers because we're not taking about a product that is stocked in the massive supermarkets as such; mangoes are FreshFruitPortal.com stocked in the high street and it's these types of traders who are going to lose out," Bhandari said. "When you have someone saying it’s only a tiny percentage of businesses that will be affected, well yes that may be true but this is their livelihood and that means families will be losing. "Because mangoes are a high value item and they sell in such quantity – people don't buy a box of apples but they will buy a box of mangoes – mangoes sell by the box to retail so because they are a high volume, high value item this means they keep people going. The European Commission voted for a ban in March amid serious concerns about pest contamination, mainly from non-European fruit flies. The EC said such pests were found in 207 consignments from India imported into the EU last year. It is due to start on May 1 and run until Dec. 31, 2015. Following the announcement in late March, Indian farmers have been left with high volumes of the fruit which, if the ban remains, will have to be sold elsewhere. Many growers and exporters have export deals outside of the EU, but many will be left to sell at lower prices to the domestic market. "The types of mangoes we get from India only come from India. The quality and characteristics they have, only come from there and Britain has been enjoying them for such a long time," Bhandari said. "The impact in India is going to be huge. Whilst some people say the local market can absorb the quantity that is being grown, the point is the growers cannot make money from the local market so they cannot sustain their businesses if they can only sell domestically. "So it’s the farmers and growers who will lose out the most. Who knows if the growers will be able to continue to support their own industry if they cannot export." www.freshfruitportal.com FreshFruitPortal.com.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Select Committees and Public Appointments
    House of Commons Liaison Committee Select Committees and Public Appointments First Report of Session 2010–12 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 14 July 2011 HC 1230 Published on 4 September 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £14.50 Liaison Committee The Liaison Committee is appointed to consider general matters relating to the work of select committees; to advise the House of Commons Commission on select committees; to choose select committee reports for debate in the House and to hear evidence from the Prime Minister on matters of public policy. Current membership Sir Alan Beith MP (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Chair) The Chair of the following Select Committees are members of the Liaison Committee: Administration – Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst MP (Conservative, Saffron Walden) Backbench Business – Natascha Engel MP (Labour, North East Derbyshire) Business, Innovation and Skills – Mr Adrian Bailey MP (Labour/Co-op, West Bromwich West) Communities and Local Government – Mr Clive Betts MP (Labour, Sheffield South East) Culture, Media and Sport – Mr John Whittingdale MP (Conservative, Maldon) Defence – Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP (Conservative, North East Hampshire) Education – Mr Graham Stuart MP (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness) Energy and Climate Change – Mr Tim Yeo MP (Conservative, South Suffolk) Environmental Audit – Joan Walley MP (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent North) Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – Miss
    [Show full text]
  • Interpreting Parliamentary Scrutiny
    Interpreting Parliamentary Scrutiny An enquiry concerning everyday practices of parliamentary actors in select committees of the House of Commons Marc Geddes A dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Politics Faculty of Social Sciences The University of Sheffield May 2016 Contents Abstract v Acknowledgements vi List of tables and figures viii Introduction 1 Part I: Theoretical Foundations Chapter 1: Traditions 9 Chapter 2: Theory 35 Chapter 3: Methodology 58 Part II: Interpreting Scrutiny Chapter 4: Members 81 Chapter 5: Chairs 111 Chapter 6: Staff 137 Part III: Scrutiny Landscapes Chapter 7: Relationships 165 Chapter 8: Evidence 194 Chapter 9: Conclusions 223 iii Notes Appendix A: List of select committees 245 Appendix B: Ethics agreement 247 Appendix C: House of Commons confidentiality agreement 249 Appendix D: Standard interview consent form 251 Appendix E: Interview themes and checklist 253 Appendix F: Summary statistics for committee members 255 Appendix G: Summary data for witnesses 257 Appendix H: Summary of witness database categories 259 Bibliography 261 iv Abstract This doctorate looks at the role of parliamentary select committees in the UK House of Commons. Though the literature on this topic is extensive, this research project explores the issue from a distinctive vantage point. While research on committees has predominantly focused on their outputs, such as committee reports, in order to assess the effectiveness of Parliament in holding the executive to account, this thesis looks at the input-side to committee work. It explores the individual beliefs, everyday practices and perennial dilemmas of parliamentary actors in select committees. In doing so, this thesis argues that understanding beliefs and practices of committee members, chairs and staff are crucial ways to better comprehend the way that scrutiny works in the House of Commons.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnic Diversity in Politics and Public Life
    BRIEFING PAPER CBP 01156, 22 October 2020 By Elise Uberoi and Ethnic diversity in politics Rebecca Lees and public life Contents: 1. Ethnicity in the United Kingdom 2. Parliament 3. The Government and Cabinet 4. Other elected bodies in the UK 5. Public sector organisations www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 Ethnic diversity in politics and public life Contents Summary 3 1. Ethnicity in the United Kingdom 6 1.1 Categorising ethnicity 6 1.2 The population of the United Kingdom 7 2. Parliament 8 2.1 The House of Commons 8 Since the 1980s 9 Ethnic minority women in the House of Commons 13 2.2 The House of Lords 14 2.3 International comparisons 16 3. The Government and Cabinet 17 4. Other elected bodies in the UK 19 4.1 Devolved legislatures 19 4.2 Local government and the Greater London Authority 19 5. Public sector organisations 21 5.1 Armed forces 21 5.2 Civil Service 23 5.3 National Health Service 24 5.4 Police 26 5.4 Justice 27 5.5 Prison officers 28 5.6 Teachers 29 5.7 Fire and Rescue Service 30 5.8 Social workers 31 5.9 Ministerial and public appointments 33 Annex 1: Standard ethnic classifications used in the UK 34 Cover page image copyright UK Youth Parliament 2015 by UK Parliament. Licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0 / image cropped 3 Commons Library Briefing, 22 October 2020 Summary This report focuses on the proportion of people from ethnic minority backgrounds in a range of public positions across the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Wednesday 8 February 2017 COMMITTEE of the WHOLE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS
    1 SUPPLEMENT TO THE VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS Wednesday 8 February 2017 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS EUROPEAN UNION (NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL) BILL [THIRD DAY] GLOSSARY This document shows the fate of each clause, schedule, amendment and new clause. The following terms are used: Agreed to: agreed without a vote. Agreed to on division: agreed following a vote. Negatived: rejected without a vote. Negatived on division: rejected following a vote. Not called: debated in a group of amendments, but not put to a decision. Not moved: not debated or put to a decision. Question proposed: debate underway but not concluded. Withdrawn after debate: moved and debated but then withdrawn, so not put to a decision. Not selected: not chosen for debate by the Chair. NEW CLAUSES AND NEW SCHEDULES RELATING TO THE PRIORITIES IN NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM’S WITHDRAWAL FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION; CLAUSES 1 AND 2; REMAINING NEW CLAUSES; REMAINING NEW SCHEDULES; REMAINING PROCEEDINGS IN COMMITTEE NEW CLAUSES AND NEW SCHEDULES RELATING TO THE PRIORITIES IN NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM’S WITHDRAWAL FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION Jeremy Corbyn Mr Nicholas Brown Keir Starmer Paul Blomfield Jenny Chapman 2 Committee of the whole House Proceedings: 8 February 2017 European Union (Notice of Withdrawal) Bill, continued Matthew Pennycook Mr Graham Allen Ian Murray Ann Clwyd Valerie Vaz Heidi Alexander Stephen Timms Mike Gapes Liz Kendall Mr Ben Bradshaw Mrs Madeleine Moon Angela Smith Stephen Doughty Owen Smith Sarah Champion Mr Clive Betts Helen Goodman Seema
    [Show full text]
  • THE 422 Mps WHO BACKED the MOTION Conservative 1. Bim
    THE 422 MPs WHO BACKED THE MOTION Conservative 1. Bim Afolami 2. Peter Aldous 3. Edward Argar 4. Victoria Atkins 5. Harriett Baldwin 6. Steve Barclay 7. Henry Bellingham 8. Guto Bebb 9. Richard Benyon 10. Paul Beresford 11. Peter Bottomley 12. Andrew Bowie 13. Karen Bradley 14. Steve Brine 15. James Brokenshire 16. Robert Buckland 17. Alex Burghart 18. Alistair Burt 19. Alun Cairns 20. James Cartlidge 21. Alex Chalk 22. Jo Churchill 23. Greg Clark 24. Colin Clark 25. Ken Clarke 26. James Cleverly 27. Thérèse Coffey 28. Alberto Costa 29. Glyn Davies 30. Jonathan Djanogly 31. Leo Docherty 32. Oliver Dowden 33. David Duguid 34. Alan Duncan 35. Philip Dunne 36. Michael Ellis 37. Tobias Ellwood 38. Mark Field 39. Vicky Ford 40. Kevin Foster 41. Lucy Frazer 42. George Freeman 43. Mike Freer 44. Mark Garnier 45. David Gauke 46. Nick Gibb 47. John Glen 48. Robert Goodwill 49. Michael Gove 50. Luke Graham 51. Richard Graham 52. Bill Grant 53. Helen Grant 54. Damian Green 55. Justine Greening 56. Dominic Grieve 57. Sam Gyimah 58. Kirstene Hair 59. Luke Hall 60. Philip Hammond 61. Stephen Hammond 62. Matt Hancock 63. Richard Harrington 64. Simon Hart 65. Oliver Heald 66. Peter Heaton-Jones 67. Damian Hinds 68. Simon Hoare 69. George Hollingbery 70. Kevin Hollinrake 71. Nigel Huddleston 72. Jeremy Hunt 73. Nick Hurd 74. Alister Jack (Teller) 75. Margot James 76. Sajid Javid 77. Robert Jenrick 78. Jo Johnson 79. Andrew Jones 80. Gillian Keegan 81. Seema Kennedy 82. Stephen Kerr 83. Mark Lancaster 84.
    [Show full text]
  • Download (9MB)
    A University of Sussex PhD thesis Available online via Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/ This thesis is protected by copyright which belongs to the author. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Please visit Sussex Research Online for more information and further details 2018 Behavioural Models for Identifying Authenticity in the Twitter Feeds of UK Members of Parliament A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF UK MPS’ TWEETS BETWEEN 2011 AND 2012; A LONGITUDINAL STUDY MARK MARGARETTEN Mark Stuart Margaretten Submitted for the degree of Doctor of PhilosoPhy at the University of Sussex June 2018 1 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................ 1 DECLARATION .................................................................................................................................. 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 5 FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................... 6 TABLES ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Student Visas
    House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Student Visas Seventh Report of Session 2010–11 Volume I HC 773 House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Student Visas Seventh Report of Session 2010–11 Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/homeaffcom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 15 March 2011 HC 773 Published on 17 March 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Home Affairs Committee The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour, Leicester East) (Chair) Nicola Blackwood MP (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon) James Clappison MP (Conservative, Hertsmere) Michael Ellis MP (Conservative, Northampton North) Lorraine Fullbrook MP (Conservative, South Ribble) Dr Julian Huppert MP (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge) Steve McCabe MP (Labour, Birmingham Selly Oak) Rt Hon Alun Michael MP (Labour & Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth) Bridget Phillipson MP (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South) Mark Reckless MP (Conservative, Rochester and Strood) Mr David Winnick MP (Labour, Walsall North) The following members were also members of the committee during the parliament. Mr Aidan Burley MP (Conservative, Cannock Chase) Mary Macleod MP (Conservative, Brentford and Isleworth) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152.
    [Show full text]
  • Sessional Diary 2016–17
    HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSIONAL DIARY 2016–17 18 May 2016 to 27 April 2017 Prepared in the Journal Office of the House of Commons INTRODUCTION 1. This diary records the business on which the House spent its time in Session 2016–17, analysed into categories, and similar information for sittings in Westminster Hall. It is intended mainly to provide information in response to statistical inquiries, and in using it the following points should be borne in mind: (a) The diary does not include business which took little or no time, such as presentations of bills, unopposed private business, and motions agreed to without debate or division. (b) Divisions are normally included with the business to which they relate. (c) Timings are taken from the Official Report, using the printed times where available, and otherwise taking a column of debate to last three minutes. Daily prayers are assumed to last a standard five minutes, unless stated otherwise (and are not itemised in the analysis). (d) Periods of suspension are included in the total sitting time, and are listed in section 14j of the analysis (Miscellaneous). However, the 2½-hour suspension from 11.30 to 14.00 in Westminster Hall on most Tuesdays and Wednesdays (introduced on 1 January 2003) is shown in brackets in the “Duration” column and is left out of the totals. Other suspensions in Westminster Hall are included in the totals and in the analysis under section 7. (e) The times in the column headed “After appointed time” refer to business taken after the time appointed as the “moment of interruption”.
    [Show full text]
  • Nations and Regions: the Dynamics of Devolution
    Nations and Regions: The Dynamics of Devolution Quarterly Monitoring Programme Devolution and the Centre Quarterly Report February 2003 by Guy Lodge The monitoring programme is jointly funded by the ESRC and the Leverhulme Trust 1 Contents Contents Key Points 1 Devolution and Westminster 1.1 House of Lords Debate on the Constitution 1.2 New Breakaway Conservative Party 1.3 House of Lords Constitution Committee 1.4 Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill 1.5 Parliamentary Questions to the Wales Office 1.6 The Work of the Territorial Select Committees 1.7 The Work of the Grand Committees 1.8 Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor’s Department 1.9 Minority Party Representation on Select Committees 1.10 Barnett Formula 1.11 House of Lords Reform 2 Devolution and Whitehall 2.1 Edwina Hart accuses Whitehall of obstructing National Assembly 2.2 Helen Liddell Announces Decision on MSP Numbers 2.3 The Future of the Territorial Offices 3 Intergovernmental Relations 3.1 Meeting of JMC (Europe) 3.2 British-Irish Council Summit 3.3 Meeting of the British-Irish Council Environment Group 3.4 Meeting of the British-Irish Council Drugs Group 3.5 UK Government and the Devolved Bodies Launch the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy Consultation 2 Key Points • Assembly Finance Minister Edwina Hart criticises Whitehall civil servants • Lord Norton debate on the British Constitution in the House of Lords • Helen Liddell announces that the number of MSPs will remain at 129 in the outcome of the consultation on the size of the Scottish Parliament. • House of Lords Constitution Committee publishes Devolution: Inter- Institutional Relations in the United Kingdom • House of Lords debate on the Barnett Formula • Second Reading and Committee Stage of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill • Seven options for Lords Reform fail to gain a majority.
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity and Democracy: Race and the 2015 General Election
    June 2015 Intelligence for a multi-ethnic Britain Diversity and Democracy: Race and the 2015 General Election Summary Table 1. Top 15 Labour vote share increases in diverse seats, 2015 • In 2015, Labour remained the first preference for most Labour Minority Black and minority ethnic voters, with around 60% choosing Constituency increase population Labour. The Conservatives have increased their vote share Birmingham, Hall Green 26.9% 64% significantly, from around 16% in 2010 to over 25% in 2015 Brent Central* 20.9% 61% • The Liberal Democrats got around 5% of the BME vote, and Poplar and Limehouse 18.6% 57% the Greens less. Only 2% of BME voters chose UKIP Bethnal Green and Bow 18.3% 53% • There is increasing variation in how different ethnic minority Birmingham, Ladywood 18.0% 73% groups vote, as well as regional differences Walthamstow 17.0% 53% • There are now 41 BME MPs, a significant rise, suggesting a Manchester, Gorton 17.0% 48% future BME Prime Minister could now be sitting in Parliament Birmingham, Hodge Hill 16.4% 64% • The success of Britain’s democracy depends not only on BME Leyton and Wanstead 15.0% 51% voter participation and representation, but on policymakers Ilford South 14.6% 76% responding to ethnic inequalities Leicester South 14.2% 51% Bradford East 13.8% 47% Introduction Bermondsey and Old Southwark* 13.8% 42% The 2015 General Election saw the Conservative Prime Ealing Southall 13.5% 70% Minister David Cameron returned with his party’s first overall Ealing Central and Acton* 13.1% 37% majority since John Major’s win in 1992.
    [Show full text]
  • First Review of the National Security Strategy 2010
    House of Lords House of Commons Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy First review of the National Security Strategy 2010 First Report of Session 2010-12 Report, together with formal minutes Ordered by the House of Lords to be printed 27 February 2012 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 27 February 2012 HL Paper 265 HC 1384 Published on 8 March 2012 by authority of the House of Commons and House of Lords London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy is appointed by the House of Lords and the House of Commons to consider the National Security Strategy. Membership HOUSE OF LORDS HOUSE OF COMMONS Lord Cope of Berkeley (Conservative) Margaret Beckett MP (Labour) (Chair) Lord Fellowes (Crossbench) Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP (Conservative) Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour/Co-operative) Mr Adrian Bailey MP (Labour/Co-operative, Lord Harris of Haringey (Labour) Rt Hon Sir Alan Beith MP (Liberal Democrat) Lord Lee of Trafford (Liberal Democrat) Malcolm Bruce MP (Liberal Democrat) Baroness Manningham-Buller (Crossbench) Fabian Hamilton MP (Labour) Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale (Labour) Rt Hon Paul Murphy MP (Labour) Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Conservative) Richard Ottaway MP (Conservative) Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Labour) Mark Pritchard MP (Conservative) Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Conservative) Rt Hon Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Conservative) Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour) Mr Tim Yeo MP (Conservative) Powers The Committee has the power to require the submission of written evidence and documents, to examine witnesses, to meet at any time (except when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved), to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, to appoint specialist advisers, and to make Reports to both Houses.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislators of Non-European Origin in the British House of Commons, 2001–2015
    Lucas Geese, Wolfgang Goldbach and Thomas Saalfeld Mobility and Representation: Legislators of Non-European Origin in the British House of Commons, 2001–2015 Abstract: While the share of immigrants as a percentage of the UK population has in- creased steadily since the 1950s, it was not until the early 2000s that the descriptive representation of such new citizens in the House of Commons became more propor- tional. Focusing on Members of Parliament with a “Black or Asian Minority Ethnic” background in the three Parliaments between 2001 and 2015, we examine the ex- tent to which these legislators’ parliamentary behaviour was influenced by their party membership, legislative experience, “immigrant generation” and constituency demographics. Based conceptually on a sociological “mobilities” framework and Fenno’s work on “Home Styles” in the US Congress, we perform a dictionary-based content analysis of over 23,000 parliamentary questions for written answer. Com- paring first-generation immigrants and the immediate descendants of such immi- grants, we find that the content of questions reflects a relatively strong concernfor transnational mobility amongst the former and a stronger focus on questions of so- cial mobility in the UK in the latter group. Having been the origin of significant levels of emigration to non-European des- tinations in previous centuries, European states have become the destinations for large-scale immigration from non-European societies since the Second World War. Great Britain is a case in point: the number of foreign-born
    [Show full text]