Britain may launch advertising campaign about how much Britain sucks.

Bulgaria and Romania just lifted their laws prohibiting their citizens from moving to particular other EU nations, like Britain.  Nations that have their shit mostly together, like the United Kingdom, are now facing a possible influx of *gasp* immigrants.  The question is how to deal with this, and the UK may have found the answer.  Britain is considering putting up the cash for an advertising campaign to convince people in other countries that the UK sucks.

Ministers are considering launching a negative advertising campaign in Bulgaria and Romaniato persuade potential immigrants to stay away from the UK.

The plan, which would focus on the downsides of British life, is one of a range of potential measures to stem immigration to Britain next year when curbs imposed on both country’s citizens living and working in the UK will expire.

A report over the weekend quoted one minister saying that such a negative advert would “correct the impression that the streets here are paved with gold”.

Our country sucks!  I mean, we’ve got the spare money to run these advertisements informing you about how much our country sucks, but we’ve really got some problems. I know Britain looks spectacular on the news and everything, but we’re really just putting lipstick on a pig.  This is what it looks like on the inside.

“How do you know he’s a king?”
“He’s the one who doesn’t have shit all over him.”

Just make Richard Dawkins the Prime Minister, that’ll keep a lot of ‘em away.  :P

Other reported options include making it tougher for EU migrants to access public services. Another is to deport those who move to Britain but do not find work within three months.

Yes, our country blows.  But if, for some strange reason, you really want to live in our English filth and decide to move here anyway, we’re not going to let you use our abundance of public services (one of those non-sucky things that makes the country look appealing at first glance, but don’t be fooled: the seats are slightly uncomfortable).  Oh, and when you can’t find a job because we don’t let immigrants use public transportation, well, it’s time for us to shell out more money to ship you back to your paradise in Bulgaria.  So just stay home, ok?  We’ll have this all sorted out in a century or so and we’ll call you then.

I also had a trustworthy revelation that the country is considering changing its name to Mediocre Britain.

About JT Eberhard

When not defending the planet from inevitable apocalypse at the rotting hands of the undead, JT is a writer and public speaker about atheism, gay rights, and more. He spent two and a half years with the Secular Student Alliance as their first high school organizer. During that time he built the SSA’s high school program and oversaw the development of groups nationwide. JT is also the co-founder of the popular Skepticon conference and served as the events lead organizer during its first three years.

  • invivoMark

    This must be why England’s EuroVision entries are all crap. Scoring second to last place in 2012 was really part of their secret elaborate plan!

  • http://www.humanism.org.uk Steve Ollington

    Haha… We always lose Eurovision, the other countries take it real seriously and vote for each other. We see it as a comedy show. Check out some of Terry Wogan’s commentary of it on YouTube, it’s legendary stuff.

    • invivoMark

      Hey, any country where Lordi enters and wins by a landslide is a serious competition! :-D

    • Rufus

      You’ve got to feel a bit sorry for Ireland, with their habit of winning it.

      If you win then you have the “honour” of hosting it (at your expense) the following year. It virtually bankrupted RTE, they were winning it so often

  • Earl

    The problem is, when you do have a lax welfare system that anyone can take advantage of, you will attract the wrong kind of people. There will be people who want to migrate to the UK for better opportunity, employment(to be fair its not doing so well right now), and there will be those who move there because its an easy life with sit down money.

    • invivoMark

      Do a substantial number of people select their location of inhabitance based on a desire to remain jobless and feed off the system?

      I am not convinced. All I’ve heard is right-wing rhetoric and the “welfare queen” bogeyman, but never any data. I don’t believe that your concerns are justified.

      • John Horstman

        It’s a fantasy; the overwhelming majority of people would rather work a decent job in exchange for a comfortable life than rely on public assistance and live in abject poverty. The problem arises when the minimum wage is so low or unemployment is so high that those aren’t your options, but instead your options are work a shit job for so little pay that you live in abject poverty, or live off of public assistance and live in abject poverty (or you don’t have a choice because there aren’t even shit jobs to work).

        It’s an artifact of capitalist markets, and there is no way to “fix” it within a capitalist system other than oppression – limiting where people can live/move and what ‘public’ programs they can access. Unfortunately, too few people want to address the underlying problem of wealth disparity (both localized and global), as we’d have to abandon capitalism (I’m not talking about market economies or money or ownership – look the word up if you’re under the impression that capitalism is identical to or necessary for any of these), and it turns out rich people really like being paid for doing nothing and other forms of economic privilege.

    • Brad1990

      According to the Chairman of the Conservative party on Question Time last week, of the c. 700,000 Poles who moved here during their first year of EU membership, o.o6% of them ever claimed benefits.

      I’d be OK with caps on annual immigration and possibly with limited access to healthcare and benefits for non-citizens, depending on how it’s set up, but I have literally never seen any justification for this strange “Ooh they’re all here to claim benefits” hysteria.

  • Azkyroth

    I assume a couple will focus on the food, one will be just clips of Britaineseophiles pontificating smugly about thaeir country’s wildly countraephounaetci linguistci counvaentiouns…

  • guest

    actually, people who live in Britain do think it sucks (lots of expats I met at least). That’s not going to deter me from moving there ASAP. I just was there last year, and still like it a lot.
    sorry Britain. ;)

  • Gareth

    “I also had a trustworthy revelation that the country is considering changing its name to Mediocre Britain.”

    Proper laughter there. Thanks! :D

  • Custador

    I think the issue at the moment is that we’ve had lots of immigration over the last twenty years, and a lot of communities haven’t really settled in and been accepted and normalised yet; because incomers tend to ghetto-ise through choice, that incongruity can be really jarring to some people – Hence they push back. Of course migrants currently contribute about £4Bn per year more to our economy than they cost it, but that gets ignored. Much like the wholly fallacious “immigrants cost the NHS a fortune” thing – It just isn’t trie. I think I’ve treated 4 immigrants in the last four years, if you include giving a Bulgarian kid his immunisations.

  • David Hart

    As a UK citizen who loves Bulgarian folk music (and quite a lot of what I’ve heard from Romania), I want more immigrants from these countries. Their trad sounds rock.

    And also (pedantry warning) I’m pretty sure England doesn’t get its own Eurovision entry – there’s just a UK entry, which will more often than not be from England (although there may be plans afoot to allow the separate parts of the UK their own entries in the future, like in the world of football).

  • NotAProphet

    Public transport here is not free, therefore I doubt they’d be stopping anyone from using it. Things like healthcare and benefits are paid for by those that do work; what would be the argument against a country’s right to limit access to those services for those who have never, and appear unlikely to, contribute to the ‘pot’?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X