Category Archives: English Democrats

Labour Councillor attacks the English Democrats’ campaign stall in Batley

This is our press release following our successful day of action in Batley on Saturday during which we were attacked by the Labour Councillor for Batley East, who bizarrely admitted on camera that she supported Corbyn’s anti-Semitic policy – Repeatedly!

Here is our press release:-

Labour Councillor attacks the English Democrats’ campaign stall in Batley

On Saturday the 8th October the English Democrats had a stall with banners and leaflets and a public address system set up in the Market Place, Batley. We were getting a good reception from the public and were being filmed by TV reporters for Channel 4 when we were attacked by Councillor Amanda Stubley of Batley East Ward, Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council.

The Councillor used threatening, abusive and insulting language against the English Democrats, telling us that we are “racists” for campaigning for England and to Leave the EU. She said we should get out of her town and that as a Labour Councillor she was entitled to her seat in the Council for life. She proceeded to try to break up our stall and pop our balloons. Ms Stubley was hysterical with rage that the English Democrats would dare to challenge her entitlement and Labour’s ownership of Batley.

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “I have made a statement to the police and pressed charges. We will now have to wait and see if the Crown Prosecution Service charge Councillor Stubley with offences. I would expect these to be under the Public Order Act, Electoral offences, criminal damage and Breach of the Peace. It is always amazing to see how much Labour apparatchiks think that they own politics in Labour One Party State areas like Kirklees, even though the Berlin Wall came down decades ago now!”

Robin continued:- “I have confirmed to the police that I will attend court to give evidence in any prosecution brought against Councillor Stubley. Labour activists need to be taught that they cannot act in such a disgraceful and aggressive manner without facing justice.” 






I might add that Ms Stubley also went off at one point to go into a nearby shop saying that she was going to call “12 taxis” to get us driven off. Shortly afterwards there arrived various taxis driven by what looked like aggressive muslim/pakistani men – shades of Labour in Rotherham?

CHAIRMAN’S SPEECH AT THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS CONFERENCE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2016

CHAIRMAN’S SPEECH AT THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS CONFERENCE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2016
Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen for your welcome.
May I say welcome to you to Leicester and the English Democrats 14th AGM?
Since we last met, in our Spring Conference at Huntingdon, there has been a dramatic change in English politics crystalized by the strong showing in the vote to Leave the EU by, in particular, English voters.  
In the UK as a whole, the overall the result was a 51.9% majority on the 72.2% turnout. 
In England however our people voted for Brexit by 53.4% or 15,188,406 Leave votes as against 46.6% or 13,266,996 Remain voters.
Ladies and gentlemen not only did we English Democrats campaign actively for Leave, and were registered with the Electoral Commission to do so, but also we predicted that England would vote to Leave.  Indeed, at least one of our national council members made a significant amount of money betting on it! 
I thought that it was obvious that England was going to vote to Leave; Also that Scotland was going to vote to Remain and so was Northern Ireland.  The only surprise outcome in the referendum was Wales voting to Leave.  In Wales opinion polls had said it would vote to Remain and it is a big net beneficiary of the EU. 
Now let’s turn to BREXIT – As a lawyer let me confirm the legal procedures.
There are two constitutional legal procedures required to put into effect the democratically expressed Will of the People to Brexit.
One is the external requirement, under EU constitutional law, of activating Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.  Article 50 is simple to activate and it is entirely in the hands of the UK as a Member State to do so in accordance with UK constitutional arrangements.  The “Royal Prerogative” gives that power to the Prime Minister.
Once Article 50 has been activated there is a compulsory 2 year period of negotiation managed by the EU Commission but if no agreement is reached, then the UK’s membership of the EU lapses automatically.  (Bad luck Scotland, but nice try Nicola Sturgeon!).
The second constitutional procedure is internal.  There must be a substantial repeal by the UK’s Westminster Parliament of the European Communities Act 1972 (perhaps with some saving provisions).
If Scotland held the threatened second Independence Referendum and voted to go, a third possibility would arise because if the UK, which is the EU Member State, was dissolved then all parts of the former UK State would be automatically outside of the EU.
In the meanwhile, legislation based upon the EU has lost the privileged status which Lord Justice Laws gave it in his judgment against the Metric Martyrs in 2002. Laws LJ held that the Referendum in 1975 gave the People’s democratic consent to the European Communities Act 1972 and thus conferred special status upon it as a constitutional statute. That consent has now been removed and with it the special status of all that strand of law!
So at the moment Ladies & Gentlemen we have one cheer for the vote to Leave but are not yet in a position to cheer for the process of Brexit being activated by notice being given under Article 50, nor, with the best will in the world, will we actually Leave until sometime in 2019.  Then we can have our full three cheers!
In the meanwhile as English nationalists we have seen an improvement of the political environment. 
Consider Dr Russell Foster, who is now Leverhulme Early Career Fellow at Kings College London, researching about:  “EU, symbols, borders and European identity politics”.  He was recently Marie-Curie Fellow at the University of Amsterdam.  No Steve! This Dr Foster did not go to Gloucester instead he wrote in his article: “‘I want my country back’: Emotion and Englishness at the Brexit ballotbox” that we have “a multi-party establishment which may soon discover that, like in Scotland in 2014, once the genie of nationalism has been released from its bottle, it turns on those who released it.  And it cannot be easily put back”.
What do you say to that Ladies and Gentlemen?  Are you the genie of English nationalism?
Are we going to be put back into the bottle?
Ladies and Gentlemen let me also remind you of Kipling’s “The English Way”:-
After the fight at Otterburn,
Before the ravens came,
The Witch-wife rode across the fern
And spoke Earl Percy’s name.
‘Stand up-stand up, Northumberland!
I charge you answer true,
If ever you dealt in steel and brand,
How went the fray with you?’
‘Hither and yon,’ the Percy said;
‘As every fight must go;
For some they fought and some they fled,
And some struck ne’er a blow.
‘But I pray you by the breaking skies,
And the first call from the nest,
That you turn your eyes away from my eyes,
And let me to my rest.’
‘Stand up-stand up, Northumberland!
I will that you answer true,
If you and your men were quick again,
How would it be with you?’
‘Oh, we would speak of hawk and hound,
And the red deer where they rove,
And the merry foxes the country round,
And the maidens that we love.
‘We would not speak of steel or steed,
Except to grudge the cost;
And he that had done the doughtiest deed
Would mock himself the most.
‘Sleep you, or wake, Northumberland-
You shall not speak again,
And the word you have said ‘twixt quick and dead
I lay on Englishmen.
‘So long as Severn runs to West
Or Humber to the East,
That they who bore themselves the best
Shall count themselves the least.
‘While there is fighting at the ford,
Or flood along the Tweed,
That they shall choose the lesser word
To cloke the greater deed.
‘After the quarry and the kill-
The fair fight and the fame-
With an ill face and an ill grace
Shall they rehearse the same.
‘Greater the deed, greater the need
Lightly to laugh it away,
Shall be the mark of the English breed
Until the Judgment Day!’
Ladies and Gentlemen what do you say?  Is this still true of us English today in the post Brexit world?
I think it is.  How many English have you seen boasting about what we have done?
The two questions for us that now arise are what happens for England and also what the consequences are for that very much more expensive Union than the European Union, namely the Union of the United Kingdom which costs English taxpayers over £49 billion a year (whereas the EU, at most, costs English taxpayers £19 billion a year). So which party will answer those questions?
What about UKIP?
I can’t start answering this question, which relates to the political future of UKIP, without mentioning the legal Latin expression “Functus Officio”. 
Functus Officio means a duty completely finished, or to quote from Black’s Legal Dictionary:-  “Latin: Having fulfilled the function, discharged the office, or accomplished the purpose, and therefore of no further force or authority. Applied to an officer whose term has expired, and who has consequently no further official authority; and also to an instrument, power, agency, etc. which has fulfilled the purpose of its creation, and is therefore of no further virtue or effect.”
The words of the second verse of that great Victorian funeral hymn “Abide with Me” also seems very suitable too.  Here they are:-
“Swift to its close, ebbs out life’s little day;
Earth’s joys grow dim; its glories pass away;
Change and decay in all around I see;
O Thou who changest not, abide with me.”
It is however fair that I also mention Nigel Farage’s and UKIP’s highly significant role in getting David Cameron to make what for Dave was the greatest political mistake of his life.  That role was in bluffing him into calling a referendum on our continued membership of the EU. 
Andrew Marr writing in the New Statesman on 1st July reported that:- “According to one of those involved, this all started at a pizza restaurant at Chicago O’Hare Airport at the time of a Nato conference in 2012, when David Cameron and his closest political allies decided that the only way of scuppering Ukip and the Euro-hostile Right of the Conservative Party was to give the British people a referendum.”
We English People, and our Nation, will always owe a debt of gratitude to UKIP and its role in getting us the opportunity to democratically vote to Leave the EU.
But perhaps, rather like an effective catalyst in causing a chemical reaction, in doing all this UKIP may have caused its own destruction.
While UKIP has elected Diane James what will be left of their Party once they have finished fighting over its constitutional structure and political direction?
Nor is the general political context completely clear, since we do not know for sure what will happen to Labour.  We can however hazard a few guesses.
So let’s turn to Labour. 
It seems highly probable that Jeremy Corbyn will be re-elected as Leader of Labour next week and then he and his “Momentum” group will set about the same task as Lenin applied himself to in reconfiguring the Russian Communists.  Momentum want to turn the Labour Party into a hard-Left party in which the Bolsheviks squeeze out the Mensheviks. Whether the de-selected Menshevik Blairite MPs will thereafter go on to form a new party or join the Liberal Democrats we cannot be sure at present. 
What does however seems clear is that there really is no future in Labour for anyone who takes a pride in England or in being English.
 Since those whom Labour has in recent times called the “white working class” are very likely to also call themselves “English” that will amount, in historical terms,  to a decision by Labour to cease to be a serious contender for Government (at least through democratic means!). 
Instead the “Momentum Labour” will no doubt seek to use their dominant position to infiltrate all aspects of our society, seeking to be the catalyst for socialist revolutionary change, however much such a change may be against the wishes of the majority of our country. 
For my part I wish them nothing but ill in that endeavour, but by doing so Labour will have given up any serious attempt to lead the English, just has Labour has already lost any serious claim to lead the Scots!
UKIP has also, without I think fully realising it, taken an historic decision not to represent the English. 
They did so in the way that often happens in history where a key individual, for personal reasons, takes a decision not to get involved. 
In UKIP’s case the decisive moment was when Paul Nuttall announced that he was not going to stand for their leadership.
Paul was the only potential UKIP Leader who either had any interest in the English Cause or could credibly claim to be an English nationalist.  This in a party which all serious commentators have noted is predominantly made up of people who are, to all intents and purposes, English Nationalists, albeit a Party which to most commentators is quite strangely led by people who are actually British Nationalists. 
In any case,  UKIP, as Paul Nuttall has since made clear, has lost the only “glue” that held them together. That was the glue of campaigning against the European Union. That was the sole purpose that UKIP was founded for and the sole purpose of being in politics for most of its leaders and officials. 
Nigel Farage is charismatic and he is a very able public speaker and debater and he is also personally very good company.  He has however been a very dominant figure in their Party and has prevented any other potential leader emerging and, indeed, he has worked very actively to prevent that happening.
In trying to understand what is happening to UKIP it is significant, to my way of thinking, that when Nigel Farage resigned for the second time as Leader, on a whimsy after the General Election, he had done nothing to plan how the succession to the leadership of the Party would work.  On the contrary Nigel Farage announced, without it seems even clearing it with her first, that he was appointing Suzanne Evans to be UKIP’s interim Leader, despite Paul Nuttall’s long-standing position as their Deputy Leader and therefore despite Paul being the obvious person to pull the Party together in the interregnum. 
Nigel Farage’s third resignation, again apparently without any planning about who would the next Leader, has been followed by him making highly aggressive and disparaging comments against members of UKIP’s NEC, who are after all volunteers giving up their own time and effort to their Party’s Cause and also who have been elected to their position by the membership of the Party in accordance with UKIP’s constitutional structures. 
These, I would remind you Ladies and Gentlemen, are the same constitutional structures which of course Nigel Farage had personally been involved in creating and apparently had approved.  Just, of course, as he had personally approved UKIP’s previous manifesto which, when he was caught out in a radio interview, he suddenly claimed was over 400 pages of “utter drivel”!
Here is what he wrote in his article “UKIP Needs to Play The Long Game, And Bypass The Total Amateurs On The National Executive Committee” which was published on Brietbart on 1st August. 
He wrote and I quote:-
“But the barrier to radical change and the modernisation of UKIP was implanted in the mid-1990’s. It is called the National Executive Committee. Many of its current crop are among the lowest grade of people I have ever met. To them, being a member of the governing body of Britain’s third-largest political party is the equivalent of scaling Everest.
People with no qualification in business or politics make the ultimate decisions of whom should be our candidate at a by-election. Or whether the former disgraced Tory MP Neil Hamilton should be given a route back to public life via being elected as an Assembly Member in Wales. It may sound odd to many but I have been a moderniser in UKIP. I have been fought at every step of the way by total amateurs who come to London once a month with sandwiches in their rucksacks, to attend NEC meetings that normally last seven hours.” (By Nigel Farage MEP)
In short Nigel Farage’s behaviour since deciding to resign again, without making proper provision for his succession, has been very strange and almost inexplicable to anyone who thinks that human behaviour is either rational or reasonable. 
I suspect the answer to this particular jigsaw puzzle is the piece that identifies Nigel as an “Egotist”. 
As soon as egotism is factored in his behaviour becomes fully explicable.  Only an Egotist would relish the idea that the very Party which has actually been so important to him achieving his political life’s work would collapse without him.
Whatever the reason however, UKIP is now in turmoil and would also seem to have necessarily chosen a course in which it does not represent those that consider themselves to be English and who are concerned about England’s future. 
Let’s turn now to the Conservative and Unionist Party.
They have emerged from the EU Referendum on the surface undented but let’s just look beneath the surface. 
The Conservatives have pretended for all my adult life (and I know that I am getting on!) to be a mainly Eurosceptic led Party.  That was exposed in the referendum, by most of their Ministers and MPs, as a downright lie!
In contrast apparently about 60% of their ordinary members and supporters voted to “Leave”.  Also the Conservative Party’s elite Establishment shenanigans have now given their Party a replacement Remainer Leader and the UK a Remainist Prime Minister. 
Theresa May, according to Jonathan Foreman, is apparently a vengeful and obsessive micro manager. 
Jonathan Foreman is an editor and writer based in London.  He is currently a Senior Research Fellow at the Civitas Institute for the Study of Civil Society and a frequent contributor to the Sunday Times and Saturday Telegraph. 
In his article “Theresa May is a failed Home Secretary and a bad choice for PM (http://reaction.life/theresa-may-failed-home-secretary-bad-choice-pm/) published in “Reaction” on the 2nd July he wrote and I quote:-
“In the run-up to the 2015 election one of the handicaps David Cameron had to finesse was the fact that net migration to the UK was three times as high as he had promised it would be. Remarkably, none of the opprobrium this failure provoked brought forth the name of Theresa May, the cabinet minister actually entrusted with bringing migration down. Then, as now, it was as if the icy Home Secretary had a dark magic that warded off all critical scrutiny.
The fact that her lead role in this fiasco went unmentioned reflects Mrs May’s clever, all-consuming efforts to burnish her image with a view to become prime minister. After all, Mrs May’s tenure as Home Secretary has been notably unsuccessful. Its abundant failures include a succession of derelictions that have left Britain’s borders and coastline at least as insecure as they were in 2010, and which means that British governments still rely on guesswork to estimate how many people enter and leave the country.
People find this hard to credit because she exudes determination. Compared to many of her cabinet colleagues she has real gravitas. And few who follow British politics would deny that she is a deadly political infighter. Indeed Theresa May is to Westminster what Cersei Lannister is to Westeros in “Game of Thrones”: no one who challenges her survives unscarred; the welfare of her realm is a much lower priority than her craving for power.”
Foreman also wrote that:- 
“The reputation for effectiveness that Mrs May enjoys mostly derives from a single, endlessly cited event: the occasion in 2014 when she delivered some harsh truths to a conference of the Police Federation. Unfortunately this was an isolated incident that, given the lack of any subsequent (or previous) effort at police reform, seems to have been intended mainly for public consumption.
In general Mrs May has avoided taking on the most serious institutional problems that afflict British policing. These include, among other things, a disturbing willingness by some forces to let public relations concerns determine their policing priorities, widespread overreliance on CCTV, a common propensity to massage crime numbers, the extreme risk aversion manifested during the London riots, and the preference for diverting police resources to patrol social media rather than the country’s streets.
There is also little evidence that Mrs May has paid much attention to the failure of several forces to protect vulnerable girls from the ethnically-motivated sexual predation seen in Rotherham and elsewhere. Nor, despite her proclaimed feminism, has Mrs May done much to ensure that the authorities protect girls from certain ethnic groups from forced marriage and genital mutilation. But again, Mrs May has managed to evade criticism for this.”
Foreman continues:-
“When considering her suitability for party leadership, it’s also worth remembering Mrs May’s notorious “lack of collegiality”. David Laws’ memoirs paint a vivid picture of a secretive, rigid, controlling, even vengeful minister, so unpleasant to colleagues that a dread of meetings with her was something that cabinet members from both parties could bond over.
Unsurprisingly, Mrs May’s overwhelming concern with taking credit and deflecting blame made for a difficult working relationship with her department, just as her propensity for briefing the press against cabinet colleagues made her its most disliked member in two successive governments.
It is possible (Foreman says), that Mrs May’s intimidating ruthlessness could make her the right person to negotiate with EU leaders. However, there’s little in her record to suggest she possesses either strong negotiation skills or the ability to win allies among other leaders.”
So if that article is right, Ladies and Gentlemen, Theresa May may well be the Conservative’s version of Gordon Brown. 
In any case she and the Conservatives also are locked in, by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, into having the next election in May 2020 by which time both they and she may be hugely unpopular!  This will be especially true if she doesn’t fully implement Brexit. 
This is also a risk for us all because she is a classic backroom EU operator.  It was Theresa May after all who was the main driver behind the gay marriage campaign and she used the EU’s systems to force this through not only here but also in other countries too.
It does appear however that Theresa May may have more of a sense of humour than the seemingly totally humourless Gordon. 
After all she and her team had made her leadership rival, Andrea Ledsom, turn on the waterworks and surrender her leadership challenge in tears and blubbing, having usefully knocked every other Leaver out of the running. 
Ladies and Gentlemen Theresa May has appointed Andrea Ledsom as the Minister in charge of waterworks and floods at DEFRA! 
I ask you has Mrs May got a sense of humour or what?
There is also the fact that the EU referendum showed that there are basically two main types of people who are Conservative MPs (except for a small and usually totally uninfluential number of mavericks).
These two types are either Liberal Globalists or Liberal Europhiles.  Neither of these two types care a hoot for England!  Both of them also actively hate the very idea of English nationalism.  This means that the Conservatives too have ruled themselves out of being the party for England.
I am sure that no-one here is unaware that I think there is a political answer ready and waiting for all those who care about England’s future!
That answer is the only campaigning English nationalist party:- The English Democrats.  Ladies and Gentlemen – Are we the Party for England?
Ladies and gentlemen there is no reason why the English Democrats might not prove to be as successful in the long run here in England as the Scottish National Party are now in Scotland except that we do need to remember that politics isn’t just about having the best arguments – which I might add that I am fully confident we do!
The famous Prussian military theorist Carl Von Clausevitz writing in his justly famous book Vom Kreige i.e. On War wrote that: “war is politics carried on by other means”. 
Consider the analogy Ladies and Gentlemen – war is merely politics carried on by other means. 
How is politics like war you might ask?  I would draw your attention to a few key similarities that are important to us. 
One is that wars are won and lost based at least in part on resources, but just like a war, it is not necessarily the most well-resourced side which wins, although it usually will be, particularly if it is a long war, as was demonstrated in both the First and Second World Wars where the economically weaker Central and Axis powers lost out in the end to the richer Allies. 
War also seems to be, at least in part, to be about ideas and arguments.  Of course it is important for a side to be able to put forward good arguments for their side to encourage others to join them as allies and also to motivate their own people with the justice of their cause. 
War also, just like party politics, may simply get people to rally around their side even where it is obvious that their side hasn’t got the better case.  It is not at all unusual for the side with the less good argument to win in a war. 
The result of a war is also often vital for a nation’s future.  Just like our campaign.
Last, but not least, the outcome of wars depends on the quality of each country’s armed forces. 
So Ladies and Gentlemen so far as our “war” is concerned we need to get more resources, both money and members, and to build up our party as an effective fighting force and we need to boost morale by winning a few skirmishes. 
I offer you therefore the first skirmish that we need some help with.  This is the Batley & Spen by-election where we are the only Leave campaigners standing in a local authority area where in a turnout of 70.8% in the EU referendum 118,755 that is 54% of the whole registered electorate voted to Leave. 
That not only gives us a chance to shine, but in fact may offer us a reasonable chance to do better than that.  I would very much like to introduce our candidate, Therese Hirst who got over 20,0000 votes in West Yorkshire’s Police Commissioner elections earlier this year.  I hope that, even if she doesn’t turn out to be our Margo MacDonald who delivered a surprise to the British Political Establishment by winning the SNP’s first major by-election back in 1973 in Glasgow Govan, but at least Therese makes more people sit up and think about our Cause.
Remember it was the victory at Glasgow Govan which put the SNP on the map and gave it morale and credibility, but of course the SNP was still not in a position to win overall either in the General Election which followed, although they won seven seats, or even more significantly in the referendum which followed in the late 70’s. 
We however Ladies and Gentlemen, just like the SNP were, are in this for the long haul!  We are in this for England.  We are in this for the future of the English Nation!  That is truly heroic when so much is up against us!
In another War long ago it is said that there was a famous heroic resistance about which the poet MacCauley wrote:-
“Then out spake brave Horatius
The Captain of the Gate:
“To every man upon this Earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers
And the temples of his gods.”
Ladies and Gentlemen, and heroes, what are we in this war for?  England!  Louder Ladies and Gentlemen!  We are in this war for?  England!

Electoral Commission QUANGO says:- “England Worth Fighting For” is “OFFENSIVE”!


PRESS RELEASE

Electoral Commission claims that saying “English Democrats – England Worth Fighting For!” is “offensive”


The English Democrats Party has just received a letter from the lavishly Taxpayer funded ‘Electoral Commission’ in which they claim that saying that “England is Worth Fighting For” is offensive!

Here is an extract of what their letter says:-

“The following registered party description is in the opinion of the (Electoral) Commission OFFENSIVE:

“English Democrats – England Worth Fighting For!”

The (Electoral) Commission has removed the above description from the register of political parties for Great Britain.”

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats, and a Solicitor, said:-

“It appears that the Electoral Commission has gone rogue again! I wonder whether the English Democrats did the right thing in not clipping your wings in our previously listed Judicial Review?

For the record the English Democrats do not accept that the Electoral Commission has the legal right to remove existing registered Descriptions. Also this decision is manifestly absurd and unreasonable and also will be repugnantly offensive to any patriotic English people.

It is a good thing that they and their ilk were not in charge of anything in the early 1940’s or we would now all be marching to very different tunes!”

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats

“TO THE STRONGEST!” “KRATISTOS” – ALEXANDER THE GREAT’S “LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT”

“TO THE STRONGEST!” “KRATISTOS” – ALEXANDER THE GREAT’S “LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT”


A week ago, with almost all the Party Leaders in trouble or resigning I was reminded of the famous story of Alexander The Great’s last Will and Testament in which it is claimed that he left his empire:- “To the Strongest!”

One of the principal classical histories says that on Alexander’s deathbed in 323 BC:-

“When he (Alexander), at length, despaired of life, he took off his ring and handed it to Perdiccas. His friends asked: “To whom do you leave the kingdom?” and he replied: “To the strongest!” Diodorus Siculus

The resulting wars between his Generals, which raged all across Alexander’s vast empire, gave birth to the Hellenistic kingdoms whose Kings rested upon the, often very temporary, support of their soldiers.

I was reminded of those times and that period of history when I suddenly found myself the only remaining leader of a political party in England who has held his position for any length of time!

Nigel Farage’s resignation, seemingly unexpected to the media, but which had seemed not unlikely to those that had heard that he was deeply fed up with the internal politics of UKIP, coupled with UKIP’s redundancy now that it has achieved the purpose of getting and winning the referendum on EU membership, suggests the story of Alexander’s Will is still highly topical and it may be something of a paradigm for the infighting which will now occur in UKIP between its various factions!

It was already apparent that this was going to happen after the referendum, when Neil Hamilton called for a leadership election within UKIP, saying that he intended to support Paul Nuttall. Paul for his part had then indicated that he now felt that he was ready to be Leader. Now however he too has withdrawn leaving the field open to only a medley of “Believe in Britain” types!

The saying:- “may you live in interesting times” is said to be an old Afghan curse, in that blood-soaked country. In England “may you live in interesting times” may however be a blessing to English nationalists. 

Let’s work to make it so!

LEAVE WINS (ENGLAND VOTES TO LEAVE BUT OTHER NATIONS IN THE UK VOTE TO REMAIN)


Here is the text of our Brexit Press release:-

LEAVE WINS (ENGLAND VOTES TO LEAVE BUT OTHER NATIONS IN THE UK VOTE TO REMAIN)

The English Democrats delightedly welcome the result of the EU referendum as the majority of the People across the whole of the United Kingdom have democratically voted for the sensible option of leaving the EU. We especially welcome the result in England where we have been campaigning. In England the turnout was 73%, the highest of the 4 countries in UK and England has voted by 53.4% to leave the EU.

It is now incumbent upon David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, to activate Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to begin the process of disengagement from the EU. If, despite the result of the EU referendum, he is not prepared to do so then he should resign forthwith and not wait until October.

The important thing is that the democratic vote of the People should be honoured without reservation.

The English Democrats now call for those parts of the United Kingdom, namely Scotland and Northern Ireland whom have voted to Remain to have the democratic Will of that Nation and Province also honoured.

Under the current uneven Devolution arrangements the UK’s membership of the EU is a ‘reserved matter’ which means that has to be decided by Government of the United Kingdom, not by the devolved assemblies or parliaments.

The English Democrats support the right of the Nation and Province which voted to Remain to do so. We therefore call upon the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to not only to activate Article 50, but to negotiate to enable the Remain voting Nation and Province to Remain within the EU whilst England and Wales leaves.

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “I am delighted with the result of the EU referendum vote but concerned that David Cameron and his clique will now try to subvert the democratically expressed Will of the English People and of the Welsh People.”

Robin continued:- “As a democrat I am also calling for the democratic Will of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Peoples be fully honoured without reservation and that their Will to Leave or to Remain should be honoured.”

“For the English Democrats it is very clear that the United Kingdom is now dead. It is no longer possible to argue that Britain speaks with one voice. We will work to ensure that the will of the people of England is carried out. We believe in England not Britain.”

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats

ESSEX POLICE COMMISSIONER ELECTION


ESSEX POLICE COMMISSIONER ELECTION


I issued the press release below last Wednesday which got a certain amount of coverage in Essex, as I was the only prospective candidate who had stood at the previous election.

I was in some ways a bit sorry to do this as I had been looking forward to the Police Commissioner elections which offer the opportunity to do a few hustings in which, so far, we have saved every single deposit. It simply was not however practical to fund all the elections that we were getting involved in, especially when Winston McKenzie’s potential candidacy was taken into account.

Also, and very importantly, in Essex looking at the field it was clear in any election prior to the 23rd June that UKIP was likely to do quite well.

Furthermore Bob Spink is, as I have said in the press release, an excellent candidate who in fact also has previously been in talks with us as a prospective English Nationalist so I had less difficulty, from a policy point of view, in supporting him and hope that my support and also the reduction in splitting the non-Tory vote may assist in getting Bob elected.

Here is the press release. What do you think?

ESSEX POLICE COMMISSIONER ELECTIONS UPDATE

Robin Tilbrook stands down to support Bob Spink


Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats Party, who is also an Essex Solicitor and a past President of the Mid Essex Law Society, has announced that he is supporting Bob Spink for Essex Police Commissioner. (Photo attached)

Robin was going to stand again in the Police Commissioner Elections in Essex to be held on 5th May, but today, Thursday, 7th April, as nominations close, Robin has announced that he is not going to stand but instead is supporting Bob Spink and has seconded Bob’s nomination to be the next Essex Police Commissioner.

Robin Tilbrook said:- “I am delighted that Essex is going to have Bob Spink standing in this election. Bob is a really strong candidate who has a very real opportunity to win this very important executive post”.

Robin said:- “In many ways this election is for a ‘Boris’ or ‘Ken’ style Mayor of Essex. The winner will have a very important job to do in setting the policies, priorities, budgets and direction of not only policing in Essex, but also Essex’ Fire Service too.”

Robin continued:- “This role needs someone of Bob’s experience. Bob has been in the forces with ‘exemplary’ service and an Engineer and leading Management Consultant. He has also been a Police Authority Member, a County Councillor and a Police Cells Lay Visitor. He was also previously the hardworking MP for Essex’s Castlepoint. He was the Junior Government Home Office Minister (Police & Crime). His parliamentary chairmanships include the United Nations Assn UK, Parliamentary Science & Education Committee.”

“What a fantastic and impressive c.v. to put before the People of Essex!”

“I hope this election will see Bob elected and Essex policing set for a period of real and sensible reform to return our Police to their proper role of protecting us from criminals!”

WHAT IS NATIONAL “SOVEREIGNTY”?

WHAT IS NATIONAL “SOVEREIGNTY”?


The EU Referendum has brought on a spate of discussions about “Sovereignty”.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary says that “Sovereignty” is:-

“1 supremacy 2 self-government 3 a self-governing state”.

“Sovereign” is defined as:- 1. Supreme ruler especially a monarch. 2 British history a gold coin nominally worth £1. 1 a supreme (sovereign power) b unmitigated (sovereign contempt) 2 excellent, effective (a sovereign remedy) 3. Possessing sovereign power (a sovereign state). 4. Royal (our sovereign Lord).”

However when politicians talk about “Sovereignty” they are often hoping that most people will not understand what they are talking about and will switch off and thereby silently accept whatever is being said.

But really “Sovereignty” is quite a simple idea wrapped up in a complicated sounding Norman originated word.

National Sovereignty simply means the power and the right for our national political institutions to make decisions for our national community unrestricted by any superior or more powerful decision maker.

The British State and the British Establishment have long maintained the theory that British Sovereignty rests with the “Crown in Parliament” which was the basis of the settlement following the “Glorious Revolution” of 1689.

Various other political theorists have argued that ultimately Sovereignty rests with the People.

In the Scottish “Claim of Right” all of Scotland’s senior political figures (including Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling) signed a declaration stating:-

“We… do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount”!

The English Democrats, as modern democratic nationalists, have long campaigned to assert the National Sovereignty of the People of the English Nation. English Democrats do not want decision makers in the EU having either the power or the right to tell our Nation and our People what they can and cannot decide!”

ENGLISH DEMOCRATS CHALLENGE LEFTIST LIES!


ENGLISH DEMOCRATS CHALLENGE LEFTIST LIES!

We wrote recently to the “Gay” newspaper the Pink News to complain about them calling us “Far Right”. This was their typically barbed reply:-

“The English Democrats have been classified as a far-right party in many places, and by a number of independent academic studies – including two cited on your own Wikipedia page. I would suggest you direct complaints on this front to Katherine Tonkiss, author of Migration and Identity in a Post-National World, and Daniele Caramani, author of The Europeanization of Politics, both of whom classified your party as such from an independent academic standpoint. We, of course, assume you are not trying to stifle free expression of academics.”

I therefore wrote to both academics and here is my email to Dr Tonkiss:-

Dear Dr Tonkiss,

It has recently been claimed to us by the “Pink News” that you have claimed that the English Democrats are “Far Right” in your book “Migration and Identity in a Post-National World”. Is this correct?

If so why did you make such a claim?

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook
Chairman

Dr Tonkiss kindly replied:-

Dear Robin,

I can confirm that I do not refer to the English Democrats as ‘far right’ in my book.

I have noticed this morning that on the Wikipedia entry for the English Democrats, my book is listed as a source to support the classification of the party as ‘far right’. I cannot, as you know, control how my work is reported on Wikipedia, but I will be contacting the website today to request that the reference is removed given that this is not something that I state in my book.

With best wishes,

Dr. Katherine Tonkiss
Lecturer in Sociology and Policy
School of Languages and Social Sciences
Aston University

So there we have it! The smear against us is based on a lie.

MY SUBMISSIONS TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION – Better Devolution for the Whole UK Inquiry

MY SUBMISSIONS TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION

APPG for Reform, Decentralisation and Devolution in the UK Better Devolution for the Whole UK Inquiry


The Local Government Association, which is a strongly Regionalist association of British Political Establishment apparatchiks, has recently launched an enquiry entitled:- “APP for Reform, Decentralisation and Devolution in the UK Better Devolution for the Whole UK Inquiry.” I thought I ought to respond to this on behalf of, not only the English Democrats, but also of the English Movement generally. I set out the response that I have sent in below, but first here are the terms of the Inquiry.

A panel, appointed by the qualifying officers of the Reform, Decentralisation and Devolution APPG, will consider written evidence and oversee the oral evidence sessions. The panel will be cross-party and drawn from both Houses and the four nations of the UK. The panel may appoint external expert advisers where it deems this necessary. As part of this inquiry, the Group would like to hear from businesses and voluntary organisations and their representative bodies, academics, and local government. The panel will seek evidence on the following areas:

1. Devolved nations: –

Devolution of legislative and fiscal competence to and within England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, including in the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill. 
Federalism in the UK.
English Votes for English Laws.

2. Local government: –

Devolution of legislative and fiscal competence to local authorities within the United Kingdom, including in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill.

Governance arrangements for decentralisation.

Sustainable funding system for local government.

3. Central powers in the UK and intra-UK relations: –

Implications for the role of Whitehall

Implications for the role of the Houses of Parliament

4. Wider constitutional reform: –

The reform of the electoral system

The reform of the House of Lords

Procedures to govern the consideration and implementation of any future constitutional reforms.

Written and oral evidence will inform the final report. The final report and its recommendations will be submitted to the Minister for Constitutional Affairs and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Here are my submissions to the Local Government Association Inquiry:-

As Chairman of the English Democrats I am writing to submit evidence to your enquiry. Here are some key facts about the English Democrats:-

The English Democrats launched in 2002 and are the only campaigning English nationalist Party. We campaign for a referendum for Independence for England; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for the Cross of St George to be flown on all public buildings in England; and we supported a YES vote for Scottish Independence.

The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and to Plaid Cymru. The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include:- in the 2004 EU election we had 130,056 votes; winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council in 2009 and also the 2012 mayoralty referendum; in the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000; we won the 2012 referendum which gave Salford City an Elected Mayor; in 2012 we also saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; and in the 2014 EU election we had 126,024 votes for a total campaign spend of about £40,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK!). In the 2015 General Election we had the 8th largest contingent of candidates in England.

We would be happy to give oral evidence to the enquiry.

OUR EVIDENCE

In your Terms of Reference you have stated you want evidence on various defined areas:- 1) Devolved Nations; 2) Local Government; 3) Central Powers; and 4) Wider Constitutional Reform. The English Democrats on behalf of the Party itself and on behalf of the wider English nationalist movement would respond as follows:-

1. Devolved Nations


‘Devolution within England’[ cannot properly be described as “Devolution” at all by comparison to Scottish and Welsh national devolution. The only devolution that would be properly so called for England would be of an English Parliament, First Minister and Government with at least the same powers as the Scottish ones within a Federal UK.

It is the English Democrats opinion that the time for a Federal UK has already passed. For that to happen what should have happened in the first place when devolution occurred was that a coherent and fair national devolution for each of the constituent nations of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should have been set up with each assembly or parliament having the same powers and a defined relationship with central government, as per every proper Federal State in the world. The fact that this was not done and that England’s just and fair interests have been consistently ignored and derided has led to mounting resentment in England.

It also would have been possible for the UK to have been turned into a Federal Regionalist State in conformity with the EU regionalist objectives but that would have required Scotland and Wales to have been regionalised and not for them to have national devolution. That window of opportunity has now firmly passed.

EVEL or English Votes for English Laws is a bogus, populist positioning policy which does not even properly answer the representational element of the wider English question.

The Conservative Government’s proposals are in any case the weakest of all the proposals for English Votes for English Laws. They will certainly disappoint all those people in England who think that the political system should allow a proper and fair voice for English interests to be expressed. The EVEL proposals do not of course even touch the executive side of the question as there is no proposal to have either a First Minister or Government for England, nor does it touch the administrative side of the question as there is no proposal to have an English Civil Service and not even to have a Secretary of State for England and therefore there is no parity with these proposals with what has been created for Scotland and Wales.

2. Local Government


It is not part of England’s tradition for legislative competence to be devolved from the National Government. However it is part of England’s tradition for our local government structures to be as independent of central government as possible. It is partly the United Kingdom’s increasing obsession with centralisation which has created the demand for Decentralisation. The English Democrats would like to see traditional local government structures re-empowered and there to be a substantial decentralisation of powers.

As the power to raise their own funds is an important part of the effectiveness and independence of governmental structures we would also support decentralisation of tax raising powers to enable local government to fund itself. Those aspects of so-called local government which are little more than local structures being deputised to do exactly what central government wants done should be dealt with by separate agencies rather than continuing with the pretence that they are genuinely part of local government.

The governance of Local government should also be made more democratically accountable with the universal implementation of Directly Elected Executive Mayors for all principal local authorities.

3. Central Powers


The role of Whitehall should be reduced and the role of the Houses of Parliament should be confined much more to those areas which under the current and evolving situation have not been devolved to Scotland.

4. Wider Constitutional Reform


Electoral System


Scotland’s electoral system has shown that despite the whiff of gerrymandering that accompanied the way it was set up, it has enabled a diversity of political opinion to be expressed in the Scottish Parliament. It is therefore to be preferred to an electoral system, such as the current first past the post system for the House of Commons which gives a bogus cloak of democratic majority to a party voted for by only 26% of the electorate in the last election and, with one sole exception, almost wholly denied representation for the votes of nearly 4 million voters. Such an electoral system is not only unfair but it is undemocratic.

House of Lords


The current composition of the House of Lords is completely unsatisfactory and too often appears to rest on cronyism, patronage and donations. Having moved from the original composition of mainly hereditary peers, there are only three options:- 1) Abolition of the House of Lords; 2) Reform to be a democratic UK Senate, as suggested by Lord Salisbury; or 3) A wholly elected Upper Chamber.

Those are the basic submissions of the English Democrats which we would be happy to expand upon in oral evidence if called.

What do you think?

MY SPEECH AT THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2015 ENGLISH DEMOCRATS’ CONFERENCE

MY SPEECH AT THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2015 ENGLISH DEMOCRATS’ CONFERENCE


Ladies and Gentlemen I am delighted to welcome you to our Annual General Meeting and Autumn Conference here in Leicester.

There has been a little dispute between me and Steve Uncles as to the numbering of this conference. We launched at a General Meeting of Members at Imperial College in August 2002, which I am counting as our first General Meeting. Whereas Steve wants to start our count with the next Annual General Meeting on September 2003. But whether you count this as our thirteenth or fourteenth Annual General Meeting and, of course, we have also had Spring meetings for almost all of those years, we are nevertheless a party which has been established long enough for even our slapdash and complacent British Establishment to have fully recognised our existence. For example when the issue of English Votes for English Laws was being debated in the House of Commons, before the Summer recess, we were mentioned as the principal campaigners for an English Parliament.

Not only have we established ourselves over these years and made an enormous contribution to keeping the English flag flying politically, having distributed well over 30 million leaflets and appeared on television, radio and in newspapers on innumerable occasions, with several Party Election Broadcasts, but also there are a number of us who were present at that first meeting who are still active in the Party.

Ladies and gentlemen over the course of the last year the scene for English nationalism has been in some ways improving. I think this is particularly so since we last met at the Spring conference in York, as since then we have seen the continuing surge of support for the Scottish National Party in Scotland which has been transformed politically with Scottish National Party MPs winning 56 out of 59 Scottish parliamentary seats with an unprecedented almost clean sweep, leaving the British Establishment and Unionist parties only clinging on with one seat each. It looks quite likely that a similar clear out may occur in the Scottish Parliament elections next May! This surge bodes well for a similar nationalist surge here in England.

Breaking off there, did you see the clash between UKIP’s Suzanne Evans and Alex Salmond on Newsnight a few weeks ago? Suzanne Evans used the expression ‘Regional Assembly Elections’ to describe the Scottish Parliament elections. This was a remark which had Alex Salmond literally gibbering and spluttering furiously that Scotland wasn’t a Region but a “Nation”. It was hilarious!

But Ladies and Gentlemen seriously let’s make sure that we are here to tell idiotic Unionists like Suzanne Evans that England isn’t a series of Regions – England is a Nation! What do you say Ladies and Gentlemen? Is England a series of Regions? Is England a Nation like Scotland? 

Ladies and Gentlemen you may be interested to know that a while before the Scottish referendum, at the time when Douglas Carswell was about to stand in Clacton, having left the Conservative Party to join UKIP, I had a meeting with the Conservative’s election guru, the so called Wizard of Oz, Lynton Crosby, and I briefed him about the English question.

Ladies and Gentlemen I make no apology for doing so as I think it is important for the English Democrats and for The English nationalist campaign to work with anyone who may help to further our Cause. I think that is a lesson that could usefully and forcibly be pointed to the Scottish National Party and to Plaid Cymru, neither of whom are willing to work with any English organisation, not just the English Democrats, but also, for example, the Campaign for an English Parliament because they are simply blinded by their hatred of the English. Despite this neither of them could hope to achieve what they say they want to achieve without support in England for independence.

Anyway Lynton Crosby, being Australian, wasn’t aware particularly of the distinction between English and British, nor was he aware of the rising support for English National Identity, as shown in the 2011 Census, in which, I am sure you need no reminding, over 32 million people, that is 60.4% of the entire population of England stated that they were English-only and not British. A fact which British Establishment spokesmen and politicians are very keen to play down, so much so there is even talk of pulling the rug from under the Office of National Statistics because they even dared to ask that question!

Anyway after our meeting, Lynton Crosby went away and did some opinion poll and focus group research which showed, he reported to me, that we would get great support if we could once marshall the resources to campaign on a more or less level playing field with the richer parties. He also confirmed rising support for English issues and of a rising English political demand for recognition, also a rising concern amongst English people that the Scottish National Party might go into coalition with Labour and so be able extract even more unfair advantages for Scotland from a Labour led coalition government to be paid for by us English.

I think my conversation with Lynton Crosby and his subsequent research was very important. He has recently confirmed this in a televised interview in Australia, in which he confirmed that their polling and focus group research was what I was expecting and that it therefore showed figures that Englishness was potentially an important factor.

It was for this reason that David Cameron, a man whom I would remind everyone, had never previously shown any interest in the English question and, indeed was on record as saying that he was going to ‘fight little Englanders wherever he found them’, suddenly came out on the morning after the Scottish Referendum with his suggestion of English Votes for English Laws!

EVEL was then put into the Conservative Election Manifesto and there was much public talk about what the English nation wanted in the way of a new constitutional settlement – much to the horror of Labour and Liberal Democrats and almost all the British nationalist media!

During the General Election campaign the English Question was often discussed and the Conservatives made big headway with the threat that the Scottish National Party might get undue influence in a coalition Labour Government.

Every time that was mentioned, not only was Labour’s vote undermined in Scotland with more people deciding to vote SNP in order to get such a result, but in England people were increasingly hesitant about voting for Labour with that as a possible outcome.

Indeed where I live, in a rock solid Conservative constituency, whose MP is Eric Pickles, Eric actually got a higher vote in terms of the numbers of people who voted for him than he had previously obtained because people, like my local sub-postmaster, Mick, voted for him. Mick told me that he had been getting increasingly worried about the SNP threat and when he actually got into the voting booth, despite the fact that he and his family had always been Labour and he had been a Trade Unionist, he just couldn’t bring himself to vote Labour and so he voted Conservative!

Ladies and gentlemen the significance is that for the first time in his life that man voted not according to his family tribal political tradition and custom, but he voted as an English patriot and in what he saw as the interests of England.

Of course those like Mick that voted Conservative in such a way are going to find that the Conservatives let them down and that English Votes for English Laws is a completely inadequate and frankly bogus proposal which does very little to settle the English Question. Also of course, it doesn’t even touch the Executive side of the English Question and is only a bit of tinkering with the Representational side.

In discussing matters with Lynton Crosby I also pointed out to him that UKIP had a weakness on the English Question. Although UKIP depends for much of its support upon people who are basically English nationalists, according to the research that has been done by the Institute for Public Policy and Research. The IPPR, in their papers on the rising sense of English political identity, had clearly identified that many of UKIPs supporters were English nationalists.

Nevertheless UKIP’s leaders, especially Nigel Farage, are old style British nationalists (with many of their funders being City Brit/Scots) and consequently were almost certain not to satisfy the English nationalist calls for an English Parliament and for proper representation for England and were not even likely to have a separate manifesto for England! Lynton Crosby was very surprised about this and went and did his research which confirmed it.

In the event, as many of you will know, UKIP lived up to my prediction exactly. They produced a British manifesto which barely mentioned England or the English. They then went on to produce specific Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish manifestos, but nothing specifically for England.

This was despite the Campaign for an English Parliament specifically lobbying them and directly lobbying Suzanne Evans. She point blank refused to have any English manifesto.

Having been forewarned, the Conservatives were then ready to triangulate UKIP by launching a specifically English manifesto, which although it was a thin document, confirmed peoples’ views that the Conservatives were the big party that was most interested in English nationalist questions in the General Election.

In the event, as Lynton Crosby indicated in his televised interview, the English Question may well have been the issue which tipped the Conservatives into an outright majority in the House of Commons (albeit on the back of course of only 26% of the electorates’ votes!). It may also have been the issue which halved UKIP’s representation in Parliament. If they had gone full throttle for English nationalism I think they would have won quite a few of those seats where they came second.

Instead UKIP were over confident that they were going to win many seats, so much so that Nigel Farage had not even prepared a speech to give at his count in Thanet in the event that he failed to win the seat.

It is also why, with his usual weakness for ill-thought-out grandstanding, that he announced that he was standing down with immediate effect as Leader of UKIP and appointing Suzanne Evans, as the temporary Leader, who wasn’t, he misguidedly thought, as dangerous to his position as Paul Nuttall would have been, who as their Deputy Leader ought to have been the person to lead in the interim.

It was only when Nigel Farage spoke to Suzanne Evans and she refused to confirm that she would stand down, so that he could be re-elected at their conference next weekend, that he started the whole ridiculous scenario of trying to un-resign.

I don’t think of Belgium politicians as being usually particularly funny but the Belgium ex-Prime Minister and MEP, Guy Verhofstadt, got it absolutely right when he said:- “He is a man of his word. Nigel Farage has sent a letter to Nigel Farage saying “I resign”, and Nigel Farage has responded to Nigel Farage saying “I refuse” … That’s the way it works there”. Ladies and Gentlemen what about that?

In fact I gather that at UKIP’s next NEC meeting, Nigel Farage told them that they must refuse to accept his resignation and he then refused to leave the room whilst they discussed it.

I am afraid that UKIP’s leadership has been left with its credibility badly damaged. With the Conservatives becoming ever more clearly committed to an In/Out Leave or Remain referendum on EU membership by the end of 2017 UKIP’s purpose is coming to an end. Ladies and Gentlemen I predict that, when we have had that EU referendum, whether we are in or we are out, UKIP will be finished as its one and only purpose will have ended.

We on the other hand, whilst we are of course strongly interested in England coming out of the EU, nevertheless we have an overriding objective and indeed mind-set of being English Nationalists seeking what is in the best interests of the English Nation in respect of any given problem.

It is for this reason that we are today launching our own English nationalist referendum group to leave both of the Unions. We offer two bites of the cherry, not only the referendum on the EU, but also dissolution of the UK which automatically puts us outside the EU.

There is also what has happened to Labour. For those of what they refer to as the “white working class”, but who mostly think of themselves as “English”, who were already concerned that Labour cares about everybody more than they have found it by electing the anti-English Jeremy Corbyn. We have also seen the whole strength of the Far-Left throughout the UK turn out and vote for him. The number is 251,417. That isn’t such a big number, less than the number who voted for us in the 2009 EU election when we got 279,801!

Ladies and Gentlemen whilst there are therefore various reasons for English nationalists to feel optimistic about the future, there are of course various reasons to be concerned and issues to campaign against. One of which is the flood of immigration that we are being subjected to in England.

An extraordinary amount of sentimental nonsense is written and spoken about what “Britain” should do about these problems. Whilst it is true that David Cameron and William Hague have made the situation worse by causing the collapse of the Libyan State. The dramatic scenes that we have seen of migrants in unseaworthy vessels on the Mediterranean have often set out from the anarchic civil war zone that was Libya. In the main however the crisis has little or nothing to do with the United Kingdom.

As a small country on the periphery of the European continent with a living standard which is already quite low down the pecking order of “the developed world” (and sliding!) there isn’t realistically anything that this country could do to completely sort out what is likely to be an ever growing problem; as the population of the world spirals well out of the ability of the earth’s natural resources to provide adequate lifestyles, let alone comfortable lifestyles for its ever vaster human population.

Within the UK the vast majority of migrants (and a disproportionate proportion) prefer to stay in England and are both not willing to be dispersed into Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but also are made very unwelcome by local people. It is the English who have been peculiarly tolerant towards immigrants over the last 50 years in which more migrants (and a larger proportion of population) have come here than in the entire previous history of England.

Last year alone the official statistics said that we took in 330,000 migrants. Given the inadequate collection of statistics of those coming in and going out of the country these figures should be viewed with extreme scepticism. The true figure may well be more than double the official one!

It is in the interests of the Government and the State generally to down play the size of immigration as the people of England become ever more concerned that this whole issue is being grossly mishandled by our so-called leaders.

Discussion of the number of Eastern Europeans that have come has been framed by a figure of 600,000 Poles being regularly touted. In fact this figure only represents those Poles that have signed up for employed status with an employee national insurance number. The Polish Government does keep statistics of whose going in and going out of their country and where they are going to and they think that we have over 1.5 million Poles here.

It is worth bearing in mind that the Government of the day claimed, when they opened our borders to Eastern European immigration, that only 13,000 Eastern Europeans would come. Now officials talk disingenuously as if the claimed 600,000 Poles was the equivalent to the 13,000. Actually if the official figures are out to the extent which seems to be the case with Poles, then you can probably add another one million other Eastern Europeans here!

Some years ago one of the main supermarket chains published their estimate of the total population on the basis of the amount of food eaten. They estimated that there was at least another 10 million people in the United Kingdom over and above those officially thought to be here. A similar discrepancy emerges if the amount of effluent produced by the population is considered.

If all the calls for “Britain” to do something were answered, then the county’s infrastructure would simply be unable to cope. I think it is no exaggeration to say that it is already creaking at the seams. There is also the question of our peoples’ living standards, their access to jobs and their facilities and our culture and our countryside.

Just as a reality check, 330,000 people coming in in a year requires a building programme equivalent to building nearly two Colchesters just to house one year’s migration. It is also more than a new Doncaster or a new Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Then there is the 8 million migrants that the Government has now admitted are here. This means that a new Greater London must be built and, given the migrants’ preference for England, that is going to be built in England. Such levels of migration are totally “unsustainable”.

So when British politicians say that we should take more migrants, whether they be refugees or economic migrants or EU citizens, bear in mind that they are asking us all to treat the UK State as if it were in fact a private charity rather than an organisation the purpose of which is to look after the interests of our Nation and our People.

My answer to those who would like to see something done for migrants, is that those people should do it themselves out of their own money and using their own time and effort.

The English are already by far the most charitable people on Earth so go and do it yourselves but don’t expect to use the State, the taxpayer and our fellow citizens’ futures to subsidise your consciences!

Ladies and Gentlemen also there is the question of Regionalisation which has again reared its ugly head with George Osborne’s proposals to try to produce different levels of Regionalisation in different parts of England. Although this is clearly a threat, as it is part of the British Establishment’s agenda to try and break up England, which is, of course, the very threat that is one of the reasons why English Democrats think that the only way in which England can be properly looked after in the future, and protected, is by Independence. Nevertheless this has been done very much on a very top-down basis, rather than as a result of a democratic mandate.

This can be seen most clearly in Manchester, which only recently voted in a referendum not to have a Metro Mayor, but it is now in the process of having to create one in readiness for elections in perhaps two year’s time.

It is for that reason, the lack of democratic mandate for the break-up of England, that I am not as worried about this wave of attempted Regionalisation, as I must say I was ten years ago now with Labour’s proposals for referenda and regional assemblies. That would have been much more difficult to reverse once people had voted in a referendum for Regionalisation.

Interestingly the IPPR research shows that there is virtually no support for any form of Regionalisation in England outside, of course, the British political class. Regionalisation is however a threat that we need to constantly bear in mind and fight against. The main point to make however is that any local government reorganisation is not “Devolution” like what has happened in Scotland and Wales, instead it is merely “Decentralisation”.

Ladies and Gentlemen I am pleased therefore not only to welcome you to this 13th or 14th Conference or Annual General Meeting, but also to say that I think our Cause is making good progress. Over the coming year we have some interesting challenges, not only, of course, probably the EU referendum, but also some significant elections. In particular the Police Commissioner elections on the 5th May 2016.

I would remind everyone that these are elections that we have previously done quite well in, having spent next to nothing on it. Our total spend across all five county forces that we previously stood in was less than £1,000 on campaigning, but we still saved every deposit, getting over 5% of the vote and we also came second in South Yorkshire. Ladies and Gentlemen make no mistake these are important elections that give a position of actual power and decision making to the Police Commissioner. I think it is an opportunity for us to focus on something where we could make a real difference if we got our people elected and could change the way that the Police in England behave.

This is perhaps particularly important when the Government is starting to turn its anti-terrorism strategy, known as CONTEST, against those of us that they consider to be “extremists” because the word “extremist” is now to be used against anyone who opposes the status quo. Those of you who are nurses, doctors, teachers, social workers and police will know that this is a new target for the Government.

To show how far they are prepared to go, consider the fact that recently a “Conservative” MP, the unmarried Mark Spencer. The MP for Sherwood surprised many of those who had not been paying attention to direction of travel of British politics by enthusiastically endorsing the idea that “Extremist Disruption Orders” should be used against any teacher (and shortly, no doubt, any public speaker) that dares to teach traditional Christian morality by indicating disapproval of “gay marriage”. In my view such a comment could never have been made by anybody who had any belief in civil liberty, whatever their views on gay marriage.

So Ladies and Gentlemen I hope that we English Democrats will all leave here re-enforced and with a new determination and resolve to fight for England and the English Nation and against our enemies, whether they be Islamist, EU’ish, Regionalist, Scottish or British!

As part of that process we have got important resolutions for you to decide today whether to adopt for our Party and also some interesting speakers and presentations for you this afternoon.

Thank you very much Ladies and Gentlemen.