A point I keep coming back to on this blog and my previous one is that nationalism is the best organising principle for the world. This means that peoples should like in distinct territories of their own, under their own governmental authority. What constitutes their peoplehood can be left for them to define, but we can assume shared ancestry will be a major part of it, and there's nothing wrong with that. When the principle of nationalism is violated - that is when peoples who perceived themselves as being distinct are forced to live in the same land or under the same government - their lack of empathy with one another is the source of endless problems. We have seen this illustrated recently in Iraq, Syria and the Ukraine.
In this blog post arguing for the break-up of Iraq into smaller states based on ethnography, Daniel Hannan takes an important stumble towards understanding. He fails to draw any conclusions about our immigration policy from his newfound insight, however. If ethnic diversity causes problems in Iraq, why should it not also cause problems in Britain?
Although Hannan is a consistent critic of the EU, and a qualified admirer of Enoch Powell (he apparently only appreciates his early scepticism about European unification and has no time for his opposition to immigration or American domination of Britain), he is a dedicated Muslim apologist and a tireless pro-Turkey propagandist. He spends almost as much time campaigning for Turkey to be offered EU membership as he does for Britain to leave the EU. The policies he supports must inevitably one day lead to Syria-like and Iraq-like conditions in Britain, and not in some distant era either: this century or the next.