Currently, the most critical thing the commentariat are allowed to say about foreigners is that "they don't share our values." Plausible enough: it does express, sort of, the dissonance of being faced with people with incompatible ideas and behaviours. However, that careful phrase is doing a lot of work that you might not have noticed. For a start, who is the Our? It is not controversial to say the "Our Values" framing implies a first-person-plural - an Us with a We and an Our: a nation, even. But there is a lot of creative ambiguity about who this We consists of, especially when a politician says it. Is that the British population? Or that politician's partisan allies and client-group voter base? It could be either. Who can see what is in their mind when they say it?
And which values? "Our Values" defines this first-person-plural, this Us, with some particular value-statements, that and nothing else. Those value-statements specify who is in and who is out. However, there is just as much ambiguity about exactly what those values are. Are they an obvious-but-unspoken general understanding of what is acceptable? Or are they the "British Values" so Britishly fundamental that no-one had heard of them before 2006? Seemingly, British Values emerged spontaneously from the cultural ether, representing everyone. Actually, British Values are uniparty doctrine, worded by persons unknown. They arrived in Gordon Brown's 2006 Fabian Society speech, and were beefed up in the Conservative-LibDem Prevent Strategy in 2011. You had no hand in shaping them. They will be extended as expedient, and enforced by force of law.
Operationally, framing the nation as 'values' is a deliberate rhetorical act. Value-statements can be assented to by anyone with a mind to; so, with this framing, anyone can become British by saying that they 'believe in British Values'. It costs no more than 'converting to Christianity' or pretending to be gay to game the asylum system. With this framing, there is no difference between the administrative subjects and the moral constituency. That is, between those who became Administratively British by assenting to the values of Global Britain, and the moral constituencies of British, English, Welsh, Scottish and NI people. In fact, from a globalist point of view, this is exactly what you want: the moral constituency is the subjects administered by the regime; anyone can become Administratively British by receiving the Home Office stamp; and their politically-acceptable moral world is exactly what the administration says it is.
Of course, much of the governing class has been Administratively British for a long time - that is, nothing much invested in the place, and not much loyalty to it, if any. So much easier if everyone was administratively British! So much more convenient for business and NGOs and all that.
What to do, then, with the people who don't see it that way - those with nowhere else to go, and no desire to go either? From their point of view, the moral constituency is more than the administered subject population: we may be ruled by the current lot, but there is something that exists prior to any regime; the nation is a Burkean imagined community, with a Scrutonian homeland. The ethos of this moral community - what these people think about their nation - is not something conjured up with a declaration of value-statements. It is a mess of Burkean memory and identity and belonging. It is not rational assent, but sentiment, affections, traditions, bonds and obligations. Born into it, we understood it before puberty, even if it wasn't put into words. This is what people feel about home all around the world, even about the administrative non-nation of Britain. As Kipling put it in The Stranger: we may not share the values of others in our moral constituency; we may not even like them. Nevertheless, they see what we see; we and they exist in a thick shared understanding. To pretend that others can be shoe-horned into this shared understanding with a piece of paper or a few words is - politely - disingenuous. That it destroys that shared understanding is no coincidence.
Accepting that people can be more than Administratively British means accepting that Burkean mess, and with it, accepting that there is a moral space outside of what the regime administers. In their world view, there is no room for any of that.
"By Global Britain, they mean globalised Britain: a boundary-less economic opportunity zone for international capital; cheap labour from a cowed, deracinated population; total digital surveillance by unaccountable corporates; and ideological control of all areas of life. No matter how personable or plausible individual politicians are, the Conservative party speaks for other interests. If Conservative party members think those spokesmen are going to preserve their way of life, and the land they love, they are wrong." (1)
But surely 'Administratively British' is a pleonasm? What else can 'British' be but--whoever they are are and wherever they're from, no matter what language they speak or what their loyalties--those who are administered by British Governments? ("I'm from Ingerland./Where're you from?/Where you're from/Do they put the kettl'on?" Opening lines of "Vindaloo", Keith Allen's wonderful but unsuccessful attempt to make a left-wing football video.)