Category Archives: uk

The purpose of the creation of the ‘Supreme Court’ was to entrench Blairism into the Constitution

So now we have had the decision of the “Supreme Court” on Boris Johnson’s proroguing of Parliament.  In which, on very thin grounds, the Supreme Court has dismissed one of the key provisions in our Constitution.  
This is Article 9 in the Bill of Rights which says as follows (the significant bits of which I have underlined):-
“Bill of Rights1688 CHAPTER 2 1 William and Mary Session 2:-
“…..That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament….”
To understand why the “Supreme Court” has ruled in this way it is necessary to consider its purpose. 
The purpose behind the creation of both the Judicial Appointments Commission & Supreme Court was to entrench Blairism into the UK’s Constitution.
The members of the Supreme Court are of course also appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission which was specifically and openly set up by Tony Blair and his friend Lord Irvine, his Lord Chancellor, to, as Lord Irvine, put it to “ensure that nobody with Reactionary Views can be appointed or promoted” as a Judge. 
In order to achieve this, the Judicial Appointments Commission has made it clear that, in order to get appointed or promoted as a Judge, you must “demonstrate a life time’s commitment to Equality and Diversity”.  This of course means that every appointment is likely to be of a Left-wing, Multiculturalist, Internationalist, Europhile.
It was as part of this drive that the now Lord Justice Hickinbottom when he was the “Judicial Lead for Diversity” gleefully told the solicitors Law Society Gazette that he suggested “Creating a judicial career fast-track (to) help improve diversity on the bench”
Ever since 2004 the Judicial Appointments Commission has continued to appoint and to promote wherever possible only those who are multi-culturalist activists.
The effect of this can easily be seen if you look at the backgrounds of the eleven Supreme Court “Justices”, as reported in The Slog, as follows:-
“Lady Brenda Hale (Chair) is a lifetime academic and former Law Professor who went straight into being a Judge with no history in commercial law at all. She is a feminist, a great believer in diversity, and a lifelong liberal. I would be amazed if she voted any other way than Remain.
Lord Robert Reed (Deputy) is a Scot who also sits on the EU’s European Court of Human Rights. He was an expert advisor to the EU/Council of Europe Joint Initiative with Turkey. No prizes for guessing where Rabbie’s sympathies lie.
Lord Brian Kerr is the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and the first Catholic ever appointed to that post. In 2014, he had this to say in a lengthy interview:
“The Law has changed enormously since the enactment of the Human Rights Act. The central point about the Act is that it has given judges free access to the rich vein of jurisprudence that is provided by the Strasbourg Court…..we now have the ability to draw on jurisprudence from all over the Council of Europe on matters that critically affect the balance of power between the citizen and the state and I think that that can only be a good thing.”
Draw your own conclusions.
Lord Nicholas Wilson is left of centre and on the record as saying, ““In pursuit of its economic policy, the UK government has recently felt the need to dismantle much of our welfare state, namely social security and the National Health Service.” He is a passionate supporter of the ECHR in Strasbourg. The activist site Divorce & the City is currently preparing to impeach Lord Wilson for alleged corruption and ‘pro State’ bias. He is, reputedly, not a fan of Boris Johnson or Brexit.
Lord Robert Carnwath is an unknown quantity who appears never to have expressed an opinion about anything, except he sits on the advisory council of the English School in Poland.
Lord Patrick Hodge is another Scot. He was a civil servant in the 1970s, and then Counsel to the Department of Energy from 1989 to 1991, and to the Inland Revenue from 1991 to 1996. Ergo, chummy with the unelected State, 99.99% of whom are anti-Brexit. I’d imagine he’s also a wow at parties.
Lady Jill Black is unique in the Supreme Court in not having been to Oxbridge. You can see from this just how inclusive the Court is, and thus totally in touch with the average person.
Lord David Lloyd-Jones is another scholar who wound up a judge. He was a Fellow of Downing College, Cambridge from 1975 to 1991. From 1999 to 2005, he was a visiting professor at City University, London, and was then put onto The Bench. He has always specialised in international  and EU law. Only two months ago, in a Supreme Court hearing involving Kuoni Travel, Lloyd-Jones ruled that EU Law had primacy in the case. He gave the judgement in Welsh, which was a first. Highly unlikely to have voted to leave a Union in whose law he specialises, one could reasonably argue.
Lady Mary Arden became a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague in 2011, and sits as a judge of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg blah blah yawn etc. In 2015 she published a book about the impact of the EU and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on the domestic law of the UK. In his preface to the book, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales noted:
Not a Leaver then, we suspect. This is all getting terribly predictable, isn’t it?
Lord David Kitchin coxed the team that won the 1975 Boat Race for Cambridge. More pertinently, he has for many years been a strong advocate of more harmonisation of the Law between EU jurisdictions. In May this year, he gave an interview offering the following opinion in relation to patent law, in which he is a specialist:
“The situation is improving and that is because there is now much more discussion and communication between judges in different countries. Judges now meet regularly to discuss these and other difficult issues. We consider each other’s judgments; all of us attach importance to the decisions of the Technical Boards of Appeal and the Enlarged Boards of Appeal at the European Patent Convention….there might not be jurisdiction to make references to the EU Court of Justice in these cases, or any cases after Brexit.”
And so this would be a bad thing, wouldn’t i? Get real: Lord Kitchin is a Good European who lectures about legal alignment in the EU.
Lord Philip Sales really is a case of leaving the best until last. Sales has had something of a meteoric rise: he is the youngest of the Supreme Court judges, and was a practising barrister at 11 King’s Bench Walk – according to The Guardian ‘a network of old boys and cronies’ that enabled him to be appointed First Counsel at the Treasury…a department of State with a long and grubby history of undying support for the EU. The recommendation that he be appointed came from Lord Irvine and Tony Blair’s old chambers.
Philip Sales is New Labour through and through. In 2016, he was a member of the Court of Appeal which ruled that 130,000 Labour members who joined the party after 12 January 2016 would not be able to vote in the leadership contest. This overruled the previous High Court decision to allow the 130,000 disenfranchised Labour Party members to vote in the 2016 Labour Party leadership election. In short, it was a bid by the Blairites to keep Corbyn out.
Finally, he was one of the three judges forming the High Court in proceedings concerning the use of the royal prerogative for the issue of notification in accordance with Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. His role in this judgment meant that he appeared in an infamous front-cover of the Daily Mail  – Enemies of the People – as a solid-gold Remainer.”
(The original of this useful article can be found here >>> https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2019/09/25/exclusive-why-this-supreme-court-was-never-going-to-find-bojos-proroguation-legal/ )
It is also being said that many of the 11 “Justices” are in receipt of salaries from the EU.  If true then this is a very serious scandal!
I have noticed that Jacob Rees-Mogg and other Conservatives are grumbling about the decision of the Supreme Court, but they have only their own Party to blame! 
It’s no use Conservative MPs now complaining about the same europhile multiculturalists whom their Party had appointed to the Supreme Court making Europhile Multiculturalist decisions.
The Conservatives have had nearly 10 years in power to change the Judicial Appointments system but they have chosen not to do so!

English Democrats bring the Case to get a Declaration that the UK has left the EU as of the 29th March 2019

This is our only chance to complete what we voted for in the EU Referendum!

We are serving the legal papers required to bring this case but we really need all the support that Leave supporters can give us to make sure that we can match the expensive legal muscle whom the Government and Remainers will instruct against us! 

Please help as generously as you can! 

There is a donate button on our website >>> EnglishDemocrats.Party

Here are the draft Grounds:-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
BETWEEN
THE QUEEN
ON THE APPLICATION OF THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS
(REG. NO. 6132268)
Applicant
-and-
THE PRIME MINISTER (1)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION (2)
Respondents
________________________________
GROUNDS OF THE APPLICATION
_________________________________
1.     It is submitted that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has left the European Union as of the 29thMarch 2019 after the expiry of its two year Notice to Leave dated 29thMarch 2017.
2.     Much of the relevant law has been explored and ruled upon by this Honourable Court and by the Court of Appeal and by the Supreme Court in the case of R (on the application of Miller and another) – v – Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC5.  Consequently Parliament enacted the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. 
3.     The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland joined the European Union pursuant to Treaty in 1972 and subsequently the European Union Act 1972 was enacted to give domestic legal force to the Treaty obligations to the European Union.
4.     The current overarching constitution of the European Union was reformed under the Lisbon Treaty which was brought into direct legal force in the United Kingdom pursuant to the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008.
5.     Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty  reads as follows:-
“Article 50 – Treaty on European Union (TEU)
1.     Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2.     A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention.  In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.  That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.  It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3.     The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4.     For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5.     If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asked to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.”
                           
6.     On the 23rd June 2016 the voters of the United Kingdom, by a majority, and the voters of England by a larger majority,  voted, in the largest democratic mandate in the United Kingdom’s history, to leave the European Union. 
7.     In accordance with the United Kingdom’s “Constitutional Requirements” Parliament enacted the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.  The Preamble to that Act states that it is:- “An Act to confer power on the Prime Minister to notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU” 
The Act provides:-
“1. Power to notify withdrawal from the EU
(1)  The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.”
8.     Pursuant to the statutory power granted by the European Withdrawal Act 2017 the Prime Minister duly served the Notice on 29th March 2017.  That Notice expired on the 29th March 2019. 
9.     Accordingly it is submitted that as of the scintilla temporis after the expiry of the said notice on the 29thMarch 2019, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has left the European Union.
10.In the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 Parliament further enacted a transitional scheme whereby it proposed to transpose all EU law into a direct effect in the UK jurisdictions of Northern Ireland, Scotland and England and Wales.  Much of that Act has not been brought into force.  The Act mis-describes its implementation date as “exit day”.  This is something of a misnomer since under the true construction of this Act it has no role, either purported or implicit, in determining the date of departure of the UK leaving the European Union.  Within the meaning of the Act, “exit date” is merely the implementation date for the Act’s transactional arrangements.
11.The Applicant is aware that there has been purported ministerial Regulation under the 2018 Act which may have been approved by resolution in both Houses.  However even if it has, it is submitted that such a Regulation cannot of itself be in any way definitive of the UK’s actual departure from the European Union.  The relevant wording of the Act makes this clear:- 
“European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018
An act to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and make other provision in connection with the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU.
[26th June 2018]
1 Repeal of the European Communities Act 1972
The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day.
2 Saving for EU-derived domestic legislation
(1) EU-derived domestic legislation, as it has effect in domestic law immediately before exit day, continues to have effect in domestic law on and after exit day.
20 Interpretation
(1) In this Act—
“exit day” means 29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m. (and see subsections (2) to (5));
(2) In this Act references to before, after or on exit day, or to beginning with exit day, are to be read as references to before, after or at 11.00 p.m. on 29 March 2019 or (as the case may be) to beginning with 11.00 p.m. on that day.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).
(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.”
12.Despite the express wording of the European Union (Notification f Withdrawal) Act 2017, expressly only empowering the Prime Minister to give Notice to withdraw the United Kingdom from the EU, the Prime Minister has purported to request an extension of the Article 50 date for departure and subsequently purported to agree an extension to the date of departure. 
13.It is submitted, in accordance with long and high authority of legal precedents and also recently and comprehensively in R (on the application of Miller and another) – v – Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC5 that, statute fully displaces any residual prerogative powers. 
14.In the premises the only power that the Prime Minister had, as regards Article 50, was the service of the Notice withdrawing the United Kingdom from the EU and giving two years notice.  That power was functus officio on the 29thMarch 2017. Accordingly, her purported request for an extension of the date of departure and the Government’s purported agreement to such an extension is and was unlawful and is and was null and void.
15.In the premises the Applicant seeks a Declaration from this Honourable Court that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland left the European Union upon the expiry of the Article 50 Notice on the 29th March 2019.
Statement of Fact
I believe that the facts in these Grounds are true.
Signed …………………………………           Dated ……………………..
            Robin Charles William Tilbrook

THE DISSOLUTION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM COMES A STEP CLOSER!

THE DISSOLUTION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM COMES A STEP CLOSER!

Although the “Mainstream Media” (AKA “Legacy Media”) newspapers and broadcasters, such as in the article below by Alan Cochrane, focus on the risk to the Union (of the UK) from Northern Ireland and Scotland, it may well be that the more important longer term “threat” to the Union will be from England and from English Nationalists.  As William Hague when he was the Leader of the “Conservative” Party said:-  “English nationalism is the worst of all nationalisms” for the future of the Union!

The constitutional position about Theresa May’s agreement, if she manages to get it through Parliament and ratified by all the relevant parts of the EU will be interesting, because, if that happens, with the majority Leave vote in England, of well over 15 million English people voting for Leave, can then only be satisfied by the dissolution of the United Kingdom!

From a legal and constitutionalist point of view this works because the dissolution of the UK as the contracting state means that the deal is dissolved too.  This was threatened against the Scottish Nationalists, in the run up to the Scottish Independence Referendum, when the then Commissioner Barosso pointed out that, if Scotland left the United Kingdom then (because the United Kingdom would be dissolved), Scotland would be a new State and therefore not an ‘Accession’ state and so not part of the EU. 

The EU is composed of “Member States”.  If a Member State is dissolved and ceases to exist, then the arrangements with the EU also cease to exist.  The EU is not a territorial entity, nor an entity of individual people, nor of peoples, it is an entity only of accession Member States.  This means that the general legal principles on dissolution or death of a participating entity in an agreement apply.  Generally that means that the agreement itself ceases to exist as well as the dissolved entity upon its dissolution (or death).

I explained this in my Blog article quite a few years ago.  Here is a link to that article >>> https://robintilbrook.blogspot.com/2012/12/england-to-be-free-of-eu-in-2014.html

The article below by Alan Cochrane is also interesting but is of course yet again looking at the Union from the Scottish perspective rather than from the point of view of English nationalists. 

In short I think Theresa May’s proposed deal may actually fill the sails of English nationalists and of English nationalism because our way of thinking will then be the only practical way of coming out of the EU. 

What do you think?  Here is Alan Cochrane’s article :-

Warring Tories have put a hurricane in the sail of the nationalists 

With the Conservative Party tearing itself and the government of Theresa May asunder last night, one of its hitherto more successful parts appeared to be also heading for the intensive care ward.

In a bitter, and unprecedented Cabinet-level war, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party accused resigning Brexiteer ministers of threatening to wreck the United Kingdom. In one of the most outspoken attacks one senior minister has ever launched against colleagues, former or otherwise, David Mundell, the Scottish Secretary, described Dominic Raab and Esther McVey as “carpetbaggers”.

Just for good measure, he claimed that Mr Raab’s departure was more about a future leadership bid than the Brexit deal.

In their resignation letters, the former Brexit and Work and Pensions Secretaries had both cited the threat to the Union posed by the fact that special provisions were proposed for Northern Ireland in Mrs May’s withdrawal deal.

And there is little doubt that this escalation in insults reflected the fact that the Northern Ireland aspect of the deal has put immediate and intense pressure on Mr Mundell and, also to a lesser extent, Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Tory leader.

Their partnership has been largely responsible for the revival of the Conservatives north of the border – leaping from one MP to 13 at the last general election and forming the official opposition to the SNP at the Scottish Parliament.

However, significantly, at least in terms of their current embarrassment, both signed an open letter to the Prime Minister last month in which they threatened to resign if there was a “differentiated deal” agreed for Northern Ireland. And, no matter how you cut it, that is precisely what is contained in the deal Mrs May put to her Cabinet on Wednesday.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the view expressed in Scottish Tory circles that Mr Raab and Ms McVey used the threat to the Union as “cover” for their resignations. And I can also understand Mr Mundell’s intense irritation that many of the most ardent Brexiteers care little for the maintenance of the Union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Indeed, I can’t remember any of them making an appearance during the Scottish independence referendum campaign four years ago.

That’s neither here nor there now, however. No amount of name-calling and foot stamping will alter the plain fact that, by including a distinctive feature for Northern Ireland after Brexit in the deal, the Prime Minister has done two things: she’s delivered a major boost to the SNP, whose sole aim is the break-up of Britain, and she’s ignored the warnings she received from Mr Mundell and Ms Davidson.

In one of the great ironies of the situation, the nationalists claim that Scotland should be given a different deal from the rest of the UK but haven’t got it, whereas Northern Ireland is getting one but its majority party doesn’t want it. And yesterday First Minister Nicola Sturgeon claimed that Ulster’s special treatment would give it an unfair trading advantage over Scotland.

There is a hope within Scottish Conservative circles that Mrs May might yet be able to retrieve the situation by clarifying and playing down the differences in the deal for Northern Ireland. But given the furious reaction from DUP MPs yesterday, she has a mountain to climb in that direction.

Nevertheless, the Scottish Tories’ main problem is that threatening letter sent to the PM and signed by Mr Mundell and Ms Davidson. It was seen at the time, by some observers, as a silly piece of grandstanding and it has now come back to bite them – hard.

Ms Davidson is on maternity leave and, last night Mr Mundell said he was staying put, insisting that he would fight on for the maintenance of the UK, adding: “That’s what I’m focused on, not being the heart of some soap opera of resignations and I’m not going to be bounced into resigning by carpetbaggers.”

Notwithstanding his determination to fight on and his angry words about his now former colleagues, I’m sure that he wishes he hadn’t signed that letter. It’s boxed him in, good and proper.

BREXIT IS DAMAGING UK’S “STRENGTH AND DIVERSITY” CLAIMS WELSH “CONSERVATIVE” MP

BREXIT IS DAMAGING UK’S “STRENGTH AND DIVERSITY” CLAIMS WELSH “CONSERVATIVE” MP

The Remainer newspaper, The Times, recently published the opinion piece set out below written by the Remainer “Conservative” MP for Aberco, Mr Guto Bebb.  In his article he mourns the impact of Brexit on the Union of the United Kingdom and its “strength and diversity”.  As he says:- “As a Conservative, as a Unionist and someone who loves Wales and our place within the UK I am moved to ask if any of this is worth it?”
I would reply as an English Nationalist and as a Leaver that it is definitely worth it!  

Also I would muse aloud:- ‘hasn’t it long been said that the tears of the vanquished are the sweetest joy of victory?’
Here is Guto Bebb’s article:-
Brexit is a risk to the integrity of the UK
The UK’s success is founded on being a multi-national state where we pool sovereignty and share power while taking as many decisions at a local level as possible.
If that reminds you of the EU, it’s not accidental. People with different national histories, traditions and languages coming together to make a new history in common is a very British idea, indeed you could argue that it is the quintessential British idea.
As any Welshman knows the union that is the United Kingdom was not born easily — the magnificent castles that dominate the towns of North Wales were, after all, not built by a grateful populace to celebrate the English conquest.
Policy editor Oliver Wright and politics reporter Henry Zeffman help you understand the effects of the UK’s decision to leave the European Union. 
However, while the history is challenging for many there can be no doubt that today’s UK is democratic to its core. There can now be no question of holding any constituent nation inside the UK if it wants to leave. It is therefore worth noting that before Brexit there was no sign that any majority anywhere supported quitting.
Brexit is putting everything at risk. Recent polling in Northern Ireland showed Brexit would see support for staying in the UK collapse from 52 per cent of the population to just 35 per cent, while support for a united Ireland rises from 39 per cent to 52 per cent.
As well as the damage to our country’s strength and diversity I worry that any attempt, even one based on a majority decision by the electorate, to take Northern Ireland out of the UK would risk a return to violence, mass migration and untold suffering.
It is also clear is that the UK shorn of Scotland would be a shadow of its former self, whether or not it contained Northern Ireland. The complex but often highly constructive relationship between England and Scotland made the UK what it is, something I recognise even though I see myself as a proud and patriotic Welshman.
In Scotland the figures on the impact of Brexit on the independence debate are a concern with a clear pattern. Support for independence rises and support for the UK falls with Brexit and that picture gets more depressing for unionists the harder the form of Brexit delivered becomes.
In a UK reduced to just England and Wales, my own nation’s desire to stay in what would be now a completely unbalanced state would surely become an issue. I can envisage no circumstances under our current constitutional framework where the people of Wales would support independence but it’s one thing to be a partner in a multi-national state of four nations. It’s quite another to be the junior partner in a two nation state where the other party is 18 times larger than you!
As a Conservative, as a unionist, and as someone who loves Wales and our place within the UK I am moved to ask if any of this is worth it? The EU is far from perfect. There is much that needs reforming but surely the unity and the balance of powers developed over the years within our United Kingdom is worth protecting? Surely we can agree that frustration about some rather silly directives often far too easily blamed on Brussels remains a flimsy reason for putting at risk a UK that has served all constituent parts well?
If the price of any of the above was the destruction of the United Kingdom then that is a price that a Conservative and unionists should deem to be far too high.


IS THE UK’S POLITICAL BRITISH ESTABLISHMENT NOW A CLASSIC “CARTEL DEMOCRACY”?

IS THE UK’S POLITICAL BRITISH ESTABLISHMENT NOW A CLASSIC “CARTEL DEMOCRACY”?

A few weeks ago I was reading an article by the Conservative MEP, Daniel Hannan’s, in the Sunday Telegraph called in the print edition “Coalition politics has turned European democracy into a beige dictatorship”.  Here is a link to the original article >>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/21/coalition-politics-has-turned-european-democracy-beige-dictatorship/
In that article he says:-
“Several Western European countries have had German-style traditions of permanent coalition. In some of them, favoured parties were more or less permanently in office. These became known as the “cartel democracies”, because the ruling parties used legal and financial barriers to prevent newcomers from breaking through. Austria, Belgium and Italy were textbook cartel democracies for most of the post-war era.”…
You can always spot the symptoms. The public sector grows as the various coalition partners scrabble to find sinecures for their supporters. In Austria during the Christian Democrat/Social Democrat duopoly, every position, from the headmaster of a village school to the director of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, might be allocated according to party membership card. These membership cards, by the way, were actual physical things: the Italian versions, beribboned and bemedalled, were especially magnificent, signifying, as they did, a precious IOU.
Cartel politicians, being unchallenged, could award themselves handsome perks, such as legal immunities and high salaries. When I was first elected to the European Parliament, MEPs were paid at the same rate as a national parliamentarian in their home country. The Austrians, Italians and Germans earned twice as much as anyone else. The cartel parties were quite flagrant in their attempts to stop newcomers from posing a challenge. In Belgium, for example, restrictions on private donations made parties dependent on state funding – which was then withdrawn from the Flemish separatists following a parliamentary vote by their rivals.
Secure in office, the old parties were able to ignore public demands for tax cuts, immigration controls, powers back from Brussels or anything else they could fastidiously dismiss as “populist”. Because leaders from a previous generation generally decided who could stand on their party lists, politics remained stuck in a Fifties corporatist consensus.
Only in the Nineties did the system start to break down. Fed up with the complacency and sleaze of their semi-permanent rulers, voters began to grope around for battering rams to smash open the old system. In Italy, they found  a Trumpian avant la lettre – Silvio Berlusconi, who made a point of issuing no party membership cards. In Austria, they turned to Jörg Haider’s anti-immigration Freedom Party. In Belgium, they elected the Flemish nationalists. Only in Germany has the old partitocracy remained intact – at least until now.
Last year, Germany’s Christian Democrats suffered their worst result since 1949. The Social Democrats suffered their worst result since 1933. How will it look if the two losers get together to form a government based on all the things that had characterised the old racket – more immigration, deeper European integration, little economic reform, and the dismissal of all opposition as unconscionable populism?”
These comments chimed strongly with my experiences of the way in which Labour and the Conservatives have embedded themselves within the State, in such a way that for years now it has seemed to matter little which party was technically in power.  The classic “LibLabCon” even when the other party is in power many of the key people within what is supposed to be its rival still have plum political patronage jobs. 
So I looked further and found the BBC’s Home Editor, Mark Easton, had written an article which was published on the 12th June 2017.  Which asked:- “Has British democracy let its people down?”
Mark Easton’s reply is:-
 “Parliamentary democracy is one of the British values that English schools are now required, by statute, to promote during lessons – not debate, not discuss, promote.
If some teachers interpret their new role as propagandists for this kingdom’s existing system of governance, that would be a shame, because right now there are questions about how well our form of democracy is serving the UK.
Far from providing the stability and legitimacy it promises, one could argue that our democratic system has served to expose and deepen social divides.
Some would say it has even contrived to leave our country vulnerable at a critical moment in its history.
Rather than seeking to close down critical challenge of our form of democracy, do we need a serious and urgent conversation about how we can improve matters?…
Our two main political parties were founded and evolved to deal with the social and economic challenges of the industrial revolution.
Conservative and Labour, Left and Right, capitalism and socialism – these ideological movements were a response to the economic and cultural challenges of power moving from the field to the factory.
But power is moving again, from the national to the multinational.
How citizens think we should respond to that shift is the new divide in our politics.
It is less about left v right and more about nationalism v globalism….
…Old-fashioned political tribalism is actually on the wane…
And the diminution of local government in England, the weakening of the trade union movement, the impotence of political protest movements, the increasing centralisation of overarching authority to one house in Downing Street – these add to the sense that the “demos” (people) are increasingly excluded from the “kratos” (power).”
Here is the link to Mark Easton’s original article>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40245805
I think that much of what Mark Easton had to say here is right, particularly in his analysis of what the division now is; not left and right, rather globalist/ internationalist as against nationalist/patriotic.
It was said by many of the more astute commentators, including Professor Matthew Goodwin of Kent University, that the appeal of Euroscepticism and of Brexit to English nationalists anxious to “get our country back” and to “take back control” was, when focussed solely on the EU, somewhat misconceived. 
Professor Goodwin in particular was saying that for people who identified themselves as being English, that their desire to get back control was a confused response because the problem wasn’t the EU, it was the British Political Establishment which is seeking to break England up and to change English society and English communities in ways that English people don’t want.
Its support of the EU was a system of this attitude so the real struggle ought to be focussed on England and on the English taking back control.  The British State and British Political Establishment not only no longer cares about them or about what they think about things, but also actively works against English interests.  Its default position is internationalist or globalist. 
I thought therefore I ought to look at what academics have written about “Cartel Parties” and see whether that is a concept which helps to explain the problems of power that we have currently got in England.  So a quick search of the internet showed me the article you find here>>> https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/77c01c49-8fe0-4c5f-a83e-c64362debb30.pdf
This article actually found that the UK was not a Cartel democracy but that is because the article was written in 2001 and not in 2018!  For the last 20 years we have lived in the sort of political environment which is all too clearly explained in this paper.  The key points of the article are here:-
“Cartel parties in Western Europe?
Changes in organizational structures, political functions and competitive behaviour among the major parties in Denmark, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
By Klaus Detterbeck
University of Göttingen
Introduction
Among the various attempts to pinpoint the changes in West European political parties which have been going on over the last decades, the cartel party model (Katz & Mair 1995) has been one of the most provocative of…   In their article Katz & Mair (1995) are constructing an evolution of party types from the late 19th century onwards to show how parties have changed from being party of society (mass parties) to being part of the state apparatus. The provocation, the cartel party model entails, lies in its claim that the established parties in Western Europe have adapted themselves to declining levels of participation and involvement in party activities by not only turning to resources provided by the state but by doing so in a collusive manner. The inter-penetration of party and state, so the argument goes, has been achieved through co-operation between the major parties – most obviously by unanimously introducing and expanding public subsidies to themselves. The former opponents now run a party cartel which excludes new and smaller parties. These changes on the level of party competition are associated with decisive changes in the internal balance of power among the individual cartel parties, their relationship to society and the quality of the democratic process in Western democracies per se. Thus, Katz & Mair (1995) are depicting a fundamental change of party democracy in Western Europe since the 1970s. Precisely because the consequences of the alleged cartellization would be so dramatic – a self-referential political class unremovable from power dominating politics and determining their own infrastructure- it is necessary to empirically review the central hypotheses of the cartel party model.
Three dimensions of party change
Analytically there are three dimensions on which Katz & Mair (1995) are describing party change since the 1960s and on which they are conceptualizing the cartel type. I will look at them in turn:
·        Political role: representative vs. governmental functions
·        Party competition: cartellization and exclusion
·        Organizational structures: parlamentarization and stratarchy
The political role of parties concerns their position between the sphere of society and the sphere of the state. The cartel party model postulates that West European parties have increasingly lost their capacity and their eagerness to fulfil their representative functions for society (interest articulation and -aggregation, goal formulation, political mobilisation), whereas they became more strongly involved in executing governmental functions (elite recruitment, government formation, policy making). The professional party leaders thus became more concerned with the demands of the parliamentary arena than with interpreting party manifestos or discussing politics on party congresses. The near exclusive dominance of parliaments and governments enabled parties to rely on a new source for financing and staffing their organizations which made them relatively independent from party members or donors. Cartel party are therefore characterized by a weak involvement of party members and historically related interest groups (classe gardée) in party activities on the one hand, and by an emphasis on governmental functions and state resources on the other hand.
Turning to the level of party competition, the mutually shared need for securing the flow of state resources has changed the relationships of the political opponents towards each other. In a process of social learning – facilitated through the daily interaction of professional politicians from different parties in parliament – the party actors realized that there are common interests among the „political class“ which laid the basis for collective action (von Beyme 1996; Borchert 2001). The process of cartel formation has two facets: cartellization aims at reducing the consequences of electoral competition, basically through granting the losers, the established opposition a certain share of state subventions or patronage appointments. Exclusion aims at securing the position of the established parties against newly mobilized challengers. This can be achieved through setting up certain barriers for newcomers in the electoral competition (e.g. thresholds), excluding them from access to public subventions or media campaigns, or excluding them from access to executive office by declaring them unacceptable coalition partners („pariahs“). However, a cartel doesn’t have to be closed completely. The co-optation of new parties which are willing to play according to the established rules of the game may strengthen the viability of a party cartel. Katz & Mair (1995) argue that the formation of a party cartel poses a fundamental problem for the West European party democracies as it denies the voters the possibility of choosing a political alternative – “none of the major parties is ever definitively out“ (ebd.: 22) -, and gives munitions to the rhetorics of neo-populist parties on the political right. In the long run, cartellization will widen the gulf between voters and politicians and make it increasingly difficult to legitimize political decisions.
The organisational dimension is concerned with the balance of power inside the parties. The “mechanics” of internal decision-making are determined by the structural and material resources of the various “faces” within the organisation. Cartel party are characterised by a further strengthening of the “party in public office” which can be explained by their direct access to political decisions in parliaments and governments, their access to the mass media as well as by their better access to state resources (e.g. parliamentary staff). The dominance of party executive organs through parliamentarians, the marginalisation of party activists (e.g. through member ballots) or the professionalization of election campaigns are organizational indicators of the cartel type. The second organizational feature of cartel parties consists in the vertical autonomy of different party levels. Whereas the national (parliamentarian) party elite tries to free itself from the demands of regional and local party leaders as far as political and strategic questions on the national level are concerned, the lower strata insist upon their autonomy in their own domains, e.g. the selection of candidates or local politics:  Each side is therefore encouraged to allow the other a free hand. The result is stratarchy“ (ebd.: 21).
Although the causal relationships between these three dimensions are not clearly spelled out by Katz & Mair (1995), it seems to be the logic of the argument that the increase of vulnerability (less party members, more volatile voters) caused party change. Vulnerability brought about a declining capacity of parties to fulfil their representative functions (e.g. interest articulation) which led them
a.) to concentrate on their governmental functions (e.g. selecting leaders, seeking parliamentary majorities, passing laws) and,
b.) to collude with their established opponents in order to secure the required resources for organisational maintenance.
The freedom of manoeuvre which party leaders needed to do both led to internal party reforms which strengthened the “party in public office”. As a result of these changes, the linkages between the professionalized party organisations and the citizenry further eroded, which in turn intensified the trend towards the sphere of the state and towards inter-party collusion (see Young 1998)…
The core element of the cartel party type can be seen in the self-interested co-operation between the major parties which aims at securing organizational resources (public subsidies, patronage) and career stability (income, reelection, alternative political jobs) for the individual politician.

So what do you think?

THERESA MAY TRUMPED ON ISLAMIST TERROR TWEETS BY TRUMP!

THERESA MAY TRUMPED ON ISLAMIST TERROR TWEETS BY TRUMP!

Sometimes there is justice in the world! 

Theresa May, the Remainer politician, who has, like most of the Tories in Parliament made out throughout most of her political career that she is a Eurosceptic, but she was revealed, when the EU referendum came, to be the untruthful Remainer that we always suspected that she was really! 

Theresa also makes out that, as a Church of England vicar’s daughter, she is a practicing Christian, whilst in fact she was the prime driver behind “gay marriage”. 

As Prime Minister Theresa rushed to welcome Trump when he was inaugurated as President, despite her private office having been very partisan against him in the Republican primaries and also in supporting Hilary Clinton in the actual election for the US presidency.

This, of course, is the very same Theresa May who has had the temerity to lecture Donald Trump on what he should tweet about Islamist threats!

(It is an interesting reflection on the great value of the American constitutional guarantee of the right to “Free Speech” that Ann Coulter and Trump and indeed any other Americans are free to re-tweet the videos or to make comments like Jayda Fransen has made, However because Miss Fransen has made those remarks within the UK she is being prosecuted for hate speech. How ironical that old phrase from Rule Britannia, “Briton’s never, never will be slaves” is now becoming!)

Well Theresa has been well and truly bitten now hasn’t she with Donald Trump’s response?

Theresa and some of her fellow Conservative MPs exposed themselves in their knee-jerk responses to be unpatriotic appeasers. Many of the same were exposed as “Brexit Mutineers” by the Daily Telegraph just a few weeks ago. Now here they are again standing shoulder to shoulder with Emily Thornberry, Yvette Cooper and Sadiq Khan. All of whom are yet again showing that they are more attached to multi-culturalism and Islamist appeasement than they are to acting in the best interests of our country – which is clearly to have the best possible relationship with the Government of the United States!

I doubt whether it is irrelevant that this spat took place at the very time when Theresa May and her Government are in the process of betraying the interests of the country over Brexit in offering to pay £50 billion of English Taxpayers’ money to the EU simply for the privilege of being allowed to engage in trade negotiations, with no real prospect of those trade negotiations actually resulting in any trade agreement, let alone one which is advantageous to our Nation!

These people are not only hopelessly incompetent, but also are unpatriotic even to the UK.

Of course it goes without saying that they also all hate the very idea of England and of the English Nation!

IRELAND THREATENS BREXIT DEAL

IRELAND THREATENS BREXIT DEAL
Two weeks ago the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic made the entirely credible threat that, if the Irish Government didn’t get what they wanted in keeping an open border with Northern Ireland, then they would veto any proposed EU trade agreement with the United Kingdom. 
The reason that such a threat is entirely credible is that for any EU trade agreement to be ratified it has to go through the process of ratification, not only by the EU institutions, but also by all 27 remaining Member States of the EU. 
This is part of the reason why the EU has been so very slow over the years at entering into trade agreements.  In the case of the trade agreement with Canada, the vast majority of terms were agreed relatively quickly, but the ratification was then held up for years because the Belgium Walloons were being difficult about an obscure point and until they agreed the Belgium state could not ratify the agreement. 
We may also have difficulty with the Walloons, who are, of course, notorious about being difficult about almost everything.  There has also been a direct threat from Spain of vetoing any EU trade agreement with the EU unless they get what they want over Gibraltar. 
Then in terms of troubles ahead there is the problem that Germany is currently politically rudderless. Angela Merkel, the Chancellor for so many years is no doubt focussing all her efforts on internal political considerations (and her own future!) rather than thinking about issues relating to Brexit!
As things stand under Article 50 we are out of the EU in March 2019.  That is just 16 months away!
Even if we were already agreed on almost every aspect of the trade agreement negotiations that would be an almost impossibly short period to succeed in getting all the EU institutions and also all the Member States to all ratify the agreement. 
As it is, we haven’t even begun the trade negotiations because of the EU’s approach to negotiation – that the divorce package must be agreed before any trade negotiations can begin.  This negotiating approach was always intended to minimise the British Government’s negotiating position. 
The EU will be left desperately short of money as a result of us, one of its major cash cows, leaving the EU which is why they are trying to get us to agree to pay a vast ransom before they will even agree to discuss any trade deal, so that we cannot use our financial position to extract any concessions from them.
In addition to our financial position our Government’s negotiating team throughout that the question of the EU migrants who are here would be helpful.  In many cases they are sending back to their home countries a significant proportion of what they are earning, plus child benefit and other remittances which help keep their home countries financially afloat. 
Our negotiating team also thought that it would help us that our security services are more effective and sophisticated than most of the rest of the 27. 
All of these issues seemed to give potentially strong negotiating positions.  That is why all of which points the EUs current negotiating stance is intended to strip away from us!
When you couple all of this with the relative weakness and incoherence of Mrs May’s Remainer dominated Government – it has never looked very likely that she was going to be able to deliver a good deal on trading terms between us and the EU countries!
If the Irish deliver on their threat it would be politically impossible (not to mention – politically suicidal!) for any British Government to negotiate away the integrity of the United Kingdom, let alone a Conservative and Unionist Prime Minister whose very Party, as it currently stands, was formed on the question of Ireland in 1922 when Conservative and Unionist MPs came together in the original 1922 Committee to vote to withdraw from Lloyd George’s National Coalition over the question of Ireland. 
There is also the electoral dynamic in the House of Commons which requires the support of Arlene Foster’s Democratic Unionist Party who would not agree to what Ireland is asking for anyway.  So Mrs May’s Government has even less ability to agree what Ireland is demanding than any other British Government would be able to!
So it would appear that no deal is really the most likely outcome. 
If Mrs May’s Government are really sensible it would be currently planning for that and certainly not parting with any English Taxpayers’ money to buy the possibility of having trade negotiations, when those trade negotiations are clearly going to go nowhere in the long run.
Brexit, membership of the EU and properly implementing the referendum decision combine in a cluster of issues which are very important to a lot of people.  They are perhaps more important than traditional party loyalties. They also cut across the line of the political spectrum represented by the Post War two party system British Establishment Parties. 
Therefore we have a real prospect that the Remainiac manoeuvres that we see going on in Parliament may lead to a smash for the Establishment. That means that there is to a real prospect on re-alignment of the political spectrum, hopefully more in accordance in delivering what ordinary people really want out of politics.  In my view, that is patriotism; coupled with welfare for our people; control on immigration; coupled with higher wages for our people; support for traditional values; an end to political correctness; integration not multi-culturalism; a land in which there is room for difference and innovation; self-improvement without the dead weight of bureaucratic “Equality and Diversity” quotas.  In short an England that would truly make you proud to be English!
As against that majority view we do, on one end of the spectrum, have perhaps no more than 25,000 corporate globalists supporting the Tory Party, but they are armed with vast resources and control of big business and much of the print media.  On the other end there are certainly no more than 600,000 internationalist, socialist, statists supporting Labour again armed with influence in the state hierarchy, academia , teaching, Social work and in the media – especially the BBC.

UPDATED DIFFERENCES IN UK GOVERNMENT FUNDING BETWEEN THE NATIONS OF THE UK


THE UPDATED DIFFERENCES IN UK GOVERNMENT FUNDING BETWEEN THE NATIONS OF THE UK

Back in 2009 the cross-bench independent House of Lords Committee enquiring into the Barnett Formula funding allocation system reported that England was subsidising Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to the tune of £49 billion a year. 

Here is a link to that report >>> The Barnett Formula Report with Evidence published 17 July 2009

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldbarnett/139/139.pdf

Given the years that have passed since I think it is worth reviewing what public spending is now in the 3 different Nations and in the Province of the United Kingdom. Here are the figures:-

THE PROVINCE OF NORTHERN IRELAND

Population 1.9 million

Public spending per head £14,018 (approx. £14,263 after deal)

Social security 43 per cent: local politicians effectively refused to approve benefit cuts in 2015 and received a £585 million package to soften the blow over four years

Health 19 per cent: funding cuts for GPs have forced some frontline services to be withdrawn and over 6,500 patients waited over 12 hours in A&E last year

Education 13 per cent: Northern Irish pupils are the highest performing in Europe at primary level for maths but a third of GCSE entrants do not achieve five A*-C grades

Public sector workers 25.2 per cent

Private sector workers 74.8 per cent

THE NATION OF ENGLAND

Population 55 million

Public spending per head £11,297

Social security 45 per cent: cuts to benefits have failed to offset the spiralling cost of pensions, which under the DUP deal will still be protected by the triple lock

Health 24 per cent: the Red Cross warned in January that NHS England faced a “humanitarian crisis” amid chronic bed and staff shortages and long waits for care

Education 14 per cent: Many schools are facing real-terms budget cuts under the government’s new funding formula and last year the number of A*-C grades at GCSE saw its sharpest decline since 1998

Public sector workers 17 per cent

Private sector workers 83 per cent

THE NATION OF SCOTLAND

Population 5.4 million

Public spending per head £13,054

Social security 41 per cent: legislation to give the Scottish government control over 11 benefits has been introduced in Holyrood, which the SNP hopes will ease Westminster cuts

Health 21 per cent: only 5 per cent of A&E patients wait more than four hours despite a staffing shortfall and £100 million bill for locum doctors

Education 13 per cent: literacy and numeracy rates have declined or flatlined since 2012 but fewer pupils are leaving school with no qualifications

Public sector workers 21 per cent

Private sector workers 79 per cent

THE NATION OF WALES

Population 3.1 million

Public spending per head £12,531

Social security 46 per cent: Wales’s population is the most deprived in the UK

Health 21 per cent: the Welsh NHS has repeatedly missed targets despite high investment and is suffering from a shortage of full-time nurses

Education 13 per cent: Welsh students score lowest in the UK for science, reading and maths and Carwyn Jones, the first minister, says that the country’s schools are “crumbling”

Public sector workers 20.8 per cent

Private sector workers 79.2 per cent

These figures do clearly show the effect of England’s subsidy to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They have more public sector spending on every man, woman and child and they also have a higher level of State employment. All of that is dependent upon the English taxpayer.

It should also be noted that these figures do not include capital spending and that is split in the same sort of way which explains why Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish politicians are so keen on HS2, since as a result of that money being spent in England, they will get extra windfalls of tens of billions of pounds of English taxpayers’ money!

So far as Ulster is concerned, Theresa May’s DUP deal is the latest subsidy windfall for a Province long reliant on the English taxpayer.

As the Times recently put it:-

“The £1.5 billion price tag for the DUP’s confidence and supply deal — equivalent to an extra £530 for every resident of Northern Ireland — has caused raised eyebrows at Westminster and across the rest of the UK.

But in one respect the windfall is nothing new: The Province of Northern Ireland has long received the most generous funding of any region.

Despite its population of just 1.9 million, public spending per person is higher in the province than anywhere else in the UK: £14,042, according to the Office for National Statistics.

Almost a third (27.4 per cent) of the Northern Irish workforce is employed by the public sector, compared to just 17 per cent across the UK as a whole. Tuition fees remain heavily subsidised and prescriptions are free, as is domestic water. Unlike the other devolved administrations, Northern Ireland runs its own social security system but the money flows directly from the Treasury.

This high public spending and low tax revenues means Stormont’s budget deficit — £9.6 billion in 2014 — is equal to a third of Northern Ireland’s total economic output.

Though that figure is vastly higher than most other developed economies, Northern Ireland defies easy comparison for one very obvious reason: “the Troubles”.

As DUP chief whip Sir Jeffrey Donaldson pointed out last week, decades of conflict have posed huge structural challenges for its economy. Resolving the Troubles has in practice meant the Exchequer alone footing the bill in the absence of significant inward investment from the private sector.

Keen to preserve the delicate constitutional settlement at Stormont, Westminster effectively allowed local politicians to refuse to implement the worst cuts in the coalition years. Not for nothing did the Northern Irish historian John Bew say: “The only thing that unites Northern Ireland’s parties is the way they hold out their hands for money. It’s the SNP on crack.”

Though it is hoped that a planned reduction in Northern Ireland’s corporation tax rate to 12.5 per cent next year – in line with the Republic – will help rectify the imbalance in public and private spending, the DUP deal means a long history of state subsidy will continue.”


CATALONIA AND WHAT IT TELLS US ABOUT SPAIN, THE EU AND THE UK


CATALONIA AND WHAT IT TELLS US ABOUT SPAIN, THE EU AND THE UK

Catalonia is now amongst the leading nations on Earth in demanding National Sovereignty, National Independence and National Liberty and has done so in the face of outrageous bullying by the Spanish Government and by the EU.

On Sunday, 22nd October the Spanish Foreign Minister, Snr Alfonso Dastis, in his interview with Andrew Marr on the BBC’s flagship current affairs programme, The Andrew Marr Show described the Catalan Government as:- “A group of rebels trying to impose their own arbitrariness onto the People of Catalonia.” And he also said that the outrageous behaviour of the Spanish Police was a “provoked use of force”.

The language spoken about “rebels” must not only have been carefully thought out as it came out of the mouth of the Spanish Foreign Minister who would have been thoroughly briefed by his officials as well as worked with English language interpreters to ensure what he said was exactly what the Madrid Government thinks. For a Senior Spanish Government Minister to use the word “rebels” is therefore highly significant.

From a psychological point of view that is in the same area of words in our language as “civil war”, “guerrillas” etc. It thus portrays a very senior Spanish Minster, and therefore the Madrid Government, generally to be thinking in terms of civil war.

Last time such language was used about the Catalonian nationalists it was from the mouth of Francisco Franco, later to become the Spanish Dictator, el Caudillo.

In short it seems evident that the Spanish Government is gearing up to the point where they will not only send in the Guardia Civil but also the Army. Once the Spanish Army is sent in you can be sure that the consequences will be Civil War. It is hard to imagine the Spanish Army coping with the degree of provocation they are certain to get from the Catalonian nationalists without opening fire.

This is the same army that when my father was the Defence Attaché in Madrid that one of its officers shot dead a conscript soldier on parade whilst inspecting his troops guns because he found that this soldier’s gun wasn’t clean enough. The response of the Spanish Military was to back the officer as being within his rights! You can imagine how that kind of attitude is going to play out on the streets of Barcelona!

The leadership of the EU has already disgraced itself by supporting the Spanish Government in sending in the Guardia Civil to beat up large numbers of citizens trying to vote in the Catalonian Independence Referendum. The EU yet again showed that it is bizarre for any genuine nationalist to support membership of the EU – take note Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party!

So far as Catalans are concerned this is particularly a stark betrayal because it is the EU Regionalisation policy which has been busy ever since the Maastricht Treaty trying to create the demand for separatism in the “Regions” of all the bigger states of Europe, including of course Spain.

I expect that most Catalonian nationalists probably originally thought that the EU would support them. If so how misguided they were!

But also how misguided is so much of the multi-culturalist agenda of the EU which is partly responsible for the regionalisation agenda.

Also the UK Government under its inept Remainist Leader has turned its back on the Catalans demonstrating that Theresa May hasn’t really got out of her pro-EU mind-set.

Now that we have voted to come out of the EU, all our leaders should be considering the basis of our foreign policy post Brexit.

For centuries it was England’s policy to ensure that no one Power ruled over continental Europe. All the negotiations with the EU demonstrate, if demonstration was ever needed, that that policy was pure common-sense for England. We ought therefore to be encouraging all the nationalists within the EU to be breaking away, thus dissolving the EU and restoring the balance of power on the continent. 

Catalonia is now also leaving the EU as well as Spain and should be welcomed with open arms by any of our leaders who have any strategic vision or understanding!

Total of 29.25 million EU migrants? Is this the number of immigrants who have come from the EU since UK Accession?


Total of 29.25 million EU migrants? Is this the number of immigrants who have come from the EU since UK Accession?


I ask this question because of the huge discrepancies in the official figures.

Let me explain. The official numbers of EU migrants is much lower than the true number. However the discrepancy between the official figures and the National Insurance numbers (which have only recently been revealed) is simply staggering. The National Insurance numbers are only the numbers of those who are actually signing up to work as employees or self-employed rather than children, and economically inactive dependents ie they are much less than the real total.

Over the last five years the Government has claimed that there have been “only” (sic!) one million EU migrants. The only figure available against which this claim can be checked against is the 2.25 million EU migrants who have registered for National Insurance in that period.

So on an over simplistic calculation: if in the last five years there would appear to have been more than 2.25 million EU immigrants (of whom the vast majority will no doubt be in England), it isn’t as completely fanciful as you might have thought that the total number of EU migrants over the 40 years since the UK joined the EU would amount to 29.25 million!

Here is an article about the true scale of EU migration:-

Ministers accused of hiding true scale of migration and real number may not emerge until eve of referendum

Britain’s official statistics body announces review into migrant figures amid concerns real figure could be significantly higher


The Office for National Statistics has announced an official review of migration figures amid concerns that hundreds and thousands more migrants have come to Britain than figures suggest.

According to official figures 1million EU migrants came to Britain over the past five years, but over that same period 2.25million registered for national insurance numbers.

Eurosceptic Cabinet ministers have called on David Cameron to publish figures revealing the number of active insurance numbers being used by migrants.

The ONS, which produces Britain’s national statistics, has said that it wants to use the figures as part of its review to ensure that the public have a more “complete picture”.

The review will be published alongside official net migration figures, which are expected to show that he number of migrants coming to Britain is at near record levels.

Jonathan Portes, Principal Research Fellow at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, said that the review is likely to be a “big moment” during the referendum campaign.

He has tried to use Freedom of Information laws to try to obtain the figures from the Government but has been repeatedly rejected.

He said: “The fact that the Office for National Statistics is going to look at these different sources and reconcile them is entirely welcome.

“This is an important issue, we know the current numbers are far from perfect and the Government has data which is highly relevant. They are doing their best to hide it from us.”

Official figures suggest that 257,000 EU migrants came to Britain last year, but over the same period 630,000 EU citizens registered for a national insurance number.

David Cameron has refused a request to release the figures, claiming that the difference is accounted for by short term migrants.

Official migration figures are based on a survey of more than 800,000 migrants as they enter and leave Britain, known as the International Passenger Survey.

The ONS said that “at times when migration patterns change significantly, there is a risk that the International Passenger Survey design may need to be changed to fit these”.

It said: “When available, DWP and HMRC data on national insurance number activity (those who have applied for a national insurance number and are still active in the UK) will be incorporated to provide additional information for the users of our statistics and a more complete picture.”

Earlier this month John Whittingdale, the Culture Secretary, told The Daily Telegraph: “There is already enormous concern on the basis of the numbers that that are published. The suggestion that they may understate the position is a cause for even greater concern.

“I have heard the reasons why national insurance numbers don’t necessarily reflect actual levels but at the very least that’s a debate which we need to have and I can see no reason why we can’t have the figures.

“The massive influx that has occurred as a result particularly of the expansion of the EU is putting pressure on all of the public services – housing, education, health.

“It is creaking at the seams. There is a very strong feeling that his is a small country and we simply cannot go on having an enormous influx over which we have no control.”

Here is the link to the original article>>> Ministers accused of hiding true scale of migration and real number may not emerge until eve of referendum – Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12191579/True-scale-of-EU-migration-could-emerge-on-eve-of-referendum.html