Category Archives: united kingdom

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!

UKIP’S AGONY

UKIP’S AGONY


So now we know! UKIP, I think rather to the surprise of all involved as well as all commentators, has elected the relatively unknown Henry Bolton with just 3,874 votes.

Mr Bolton had been UKIP’s Police Commissioner candidate in Kent, but apart from that his career track record had been in the army and the police and as a Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate standing against Philip Hammond. He was also an EU apparatchik. His background is therefore somewhat surprising for the new Leader of UKIP!

Henry Bolton is the fourth Leader that UKIP has had in 18 months. Their chaotic leadership turbulence has undoubtedly contributed to their fragmentation from the highpoint of them being the main key to the ‘Leave’ vote in the EU referendum.

The public generally seems to think that UKIP’s job is done, judging by UKIP’s election results, but having 18 months of leadership turbulence cannot have helped. This can also be seen in the turnout levels in three leadership levels.

The turnout in the leadership election when they elected Diane James on 16th September 2016 was 17,842. The turnout on 28th November 2016 that elected Paul Nuttall was 15,370. The turnout that elected Henry Bolton on the 29th September 2017 was 12,915 votes.

Now the 2,755 members who voted for Anne Marie Walters and the 2,021 UKIP voters that voted for John Rees-Evans both look set to leave the Party along with both of their preferred leadership candidates.

This is not at all surprising given the insults which they have been subjected to by both Nigel Farage and Mr Bolton himself. If all their supporters leave it would be an exodus of 4,776 members.

I generally take it as the best possible measure of active membership within a party that every member of the party who still identifies themselves as a member of the Party and is engaged with the Party will vote in a leadership election. This is particularly so if, as in the case of UKIP, it was a postal ballot. There is little effort for the individual member in ticking a box and returning the form in the envelope provided, so almost all who care will do so.

It follows that shortly the engaged members of UKIP will be down to 8,139 which is below the 10,000 critical mass level required for maintaining a fully functional political party.

At that point UKIP’s only advantage over the English Democrats (with our 4,500 members) will be reduced to the difference in membership subscriptions and manpower and also the fact that they still have MEPs and other elected officials who are no doubt full time activists for the Party and contribute something to its running costs. Naturally most of those will go in mid-2019.

We may then be back to where we were before the UKIP surge in support in 2011/2012, when we generally beat them whenever we came across them especially where there was a reasonably level playing field. We also achieved much better results per pound than they were able to do. That was because the English Democrats were then clearly identified as the only political party standing up for England.

UKIP succeeded in initially pulling the wool over many peoples’ eyes and made them believe that they also stood up for English interests between 2012 and 2016. Now however it has become obvious, after their leadership elections in 2016 and 2017, that UKIP’s Leaders have rejected any pretence that they are interested in England, the English Nation or in English national issues.

The academic who has done most to study the rise of UKIP (and before that of the BNP) is Professor Matthew Goodwin of Kent University Canterbury. What his research shows and what he says himself is that there is space on the political spectrums for, in English politics what he would refer to, being himself of the Left, as a Radical Right party, similar to that of Marine Le Pen’s Front National.

It doesn’t appear from the remarks that Mr Bolton has made so far that he wants UKIP to be that party.

Mr Bolton has declared that he is not against immigration and, for that matter, he is not even against a transition period in the process of us leaving the European Union. He is therefore happy to not only wait to exit the European Union, but also to do so on the basis that Mrs May is currently talking about, that is continuing to make very substantial payments into the EU budget.

Mr Bolton also strongly attacked Anne Marie Walters and her followers as being racists and Nazis and of the BNP tendency.

Since Anne Marie Walters, although she is very much against Islam, does so from the militant Left/Liberal perspective of wishing to protect Gay Rights rather than as an advocate of the preservation of English traditions and traditional morality (which is not perhaps surprising given that she is of Irish origin and a Lesbian), it was clear that Mr Bolton’s intent on making those remarks wasn’t actually to describe Anne Marie Walters politics, but rather merely to smear her (given the Nazi regime’s record was of executing large numbers of homosexuals and others whom they called “degenerates”!).

If I am right and Mr Bolton’s leadership will take UKIP firmly back into the safe territory of British Establishment Politics, then I must say I really cannot see any future role or purpose for them at all.

UKIP AND THEIR MISSING ENGLISH MANIFESTO


UKIP AND THEIR MISSING ENGLISH MANIFESTO


In the General Election, as I told Russia Today in this interview click here >>>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzrCSDkjIac&feature=youtu.be, I think UKIP missed their historic opportunity.

UKIP’s leadership should have known, from the work of Professors Matthew Goodwin and Rob Ford, in their book “Revolt on the Right”, that UKIP’s best opportunity was to move into being English Nationalists.

I had always thought that, as a result of my discussions with Nigel Farage and other leaders within UKIP, that in fact UKIP would never go for this, as their leadership are too much focussed on being an old fashioned British nationalist party.

I have of course been saying this to anyone that would listen within the system, including some influential people within the Conservative Party. I don’t think that it is any coincidence that the Conservatives had spotted that UKIP’s leaders unwillingness to commit to English nationalism was a potentially serious weakness in UKIP’s position.

In the run up to the General Election the Conservatives had begun to make noises that would please less critical English nationalists, such as commitment to English votes for English laws and Cameron’s comments immediately after the Scottish referendum, they had not gone as far as agreeing to have an England specific manifesto, despite the obvious need for such a specific manifesto in a partially devolved “United” Kingdom. What however did happen was they waited to see what UKIP would do.

In the event UKIP opened themselves up to being triangulated (in the Blairite language i.e. outmanoeuvred) on the English nationalist flank by the mistakes of launching a British manifesto with very few mentions of England in it and then they compounded this mistake by launching a Scotland specific manifesto and a Welsh specific manifesto and a Northern Irish specific manifesto, but none specifically for England.

Once UKIP had done this the Conservatives came out with their specifically English manifesto. Although this was a fairly thin piece of work and its detail would not satisfy committed English nationalists, it wasn’t aimed at us, it was aimed at ordinary English people who are feeling increasingly left out of the devolutionist way in which the United Kingdom is going.

Anecdotally I can say from talking to quite a lot of people it worked brilliantly. One of the best examples being a sub-post master living locally where I live in Essex, who told me that although he and his family were long term trade unionists and Labour voters, even he in the end couldn’t bring himself to vote for Labour and for the first time ever he voted Conservative in order to keep the SNP from having a decisive say over England and being able to get Scotland even more favourable treatment than it has already!

As English nationalists we must of course hope that the habit of voting along national lines will grow!

I do think Scotland’s history suggests it will. After all it was Labour that was riding the Scottish nationalist lion in the 1980s as a way of undermining the Conservatives there. Once people got into the habit of voting along national lines they were far more open to voting for a specifically Scottish nationalist party!

THE UK TURNED UPSIDE DOWN


THE UK TURNED UPSIDE DOWN


Back in the 17th Century there was a popular song called ‘The World Turned Upside Down’ which it is said that the band of the British Garrison played as they marched out after the surrender at Yorktown to the American rebels to make the point they thought that it was contrary to the natural order of the world for “Yankee Doodle” to have beaten the world conquering Red Coats of the British Army. Here is a link which includes the tune third >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-N0ckzU1mI

Above is a picture of the surrender at Yorktown.

Although no such tune was played in the recent General Election it may be, with hindsight, that the result in Scotland will be seen as a similarly epoch marking change. Yorktown occurred before the United Kingdom came into existence in 1801 with the Union with the Kingdom of Ireland. It did of course however come after the foundation Union of the United Kingdom in 1707 between the Kingdoms of England and Scotland to create the new United Kingdom of Great Britain.

It is the United Kingdom of Great Britain which is again under threat as a result of the almost total victory of the Scottish National Party in Scotland reducing each of the three British Establishment parties to a rump of one MP only. It isn’t now only Conservative MPs that there are less of in Scotland than pandas. The same applies to both the Liberal Democrat MPs and Labour MPs! It is the 56 (out of 59) SNP MPs that will over the next 5 years until the next General Election on the 7th May 2020 that will mark out the increasing need for a nationalist voice for England. There is of course only one political party that is interested in being that voice, which is of course the English Democrats.

That brings me on to the next most interesting result in the General Election which was the nemesis of UKIP. All the academic commentators including Drs Matthew Goodwin and Rob Ford had pointed out in their studies that UKIP’s appeal depended to a very large extent upon an English nationalist base.

It always was a contradiction that a party with a British nationalist leadership should actually depend upon an English nationalist support base. UKIP, despite the books and articles published about it, which I think should have been a matter of detailed and careful study by the leadership of UKIP, failed to learn the lesson and during the course of the General Election published a manifesto which managed to barely mention England let alone provide for a proper English nationalist vote winning set of policies. As a result UKIP had left clear space on the political spectrum for the Conservative Party to “triangulate” them.

We therefore then had the spectacle of a specifically English manifesto being launched by the Conservatives. It was therefore a strange backdrop to the great change of heart that seems to have occurred amongst the electorate at the last moment that in fact the party that was ticking most of the boxes of English nationalism (with talk of reducing immigration, an EU referendum, English votes for English laws, and an English manifesto and talking up the need for fairness for England) should in fact be the generally fairly anti-English Conservative and Unionist party whose Leader not so very long ago had been talking about his determination to fight “Little Englanders” wherever he found them!

In contrast the party that had been talked up as being a potential voice for English nationalism, namely UKIP, went from bad to worse not only with his interview by their MEP for Scotland in which he made clear that he thought UKIP were all about maintenance of the British Union (rather than of course about England). Click here >>> https://youtu.be/QSuT0JjgSjY

Then, a few days later, UKIP actually launched a specifically Scottish manifesto without having done anything of the sort for England. Nigel Farage even talked about increasing the Barnet Formula rip-off of English taxpayers to give the Welsh yet more of English taxpayers’ money!

The UKIPs mis-positioning of itself on the English question, which for some commentators seems wholly inexplicable but seemed quite inevitable to me, given what I have seen of the internal party politics at the leadership level of UKIP, not only left the Conservative Party in a good position to undermine UKIPs appeal, but it also undermined UKIP’s position in trying to get the English white working class vote to come over to them in many former Labour seats. (Click here for an academic article on this >>> http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-shy-english-nationalists-who-won-it-for-the-tories-and-flummoxed-the-pollsters/ ).

So far as Labour was concerned the Conservative appeal to English nationalism and also their scaremongering over the impact of the Scottish National Party, not only insured an even more massively impressive result for the Scottish National Party in Scotland, but also unsettled some of Labour’s support in England.

Whilst the Conservative appeal to English nationalism has delivered a bumper and largely undeserved harvest to the Conservative Party in this election, the long term effect may well be of much greater interest to us English nationalists.

The fact is of course that for the first time one of the major British Establishment parties (since the First World War) has appealed to and called upon English nationalism to help it. In the long term I think that can only do the English nationalist cause good as English nationalism has now become much more of a mainstream phenomenon.

Interestingly I am aware that even the Conservative Party had great difficulty in placing stories that were pro-English nationalism in the “mainstream media”. Also their very appeal to it raised a storm of protest by all sorts of media luvvies. One of the results is that the media has come out of cover and exposed itself as being infested with Anglophobes (anti-English).

The Anglophobic British media is a factor in national politics in England which we English nationalists need to deal with. In my view we need to be looking at an assertive policy of attempting to get anyone who comes out with Anglophobic views not only prosecuted, but, if at all possible, excluded from journalism by Ofcom. Until we make Anglophobia as dangerous to the careers of journalists as racism, Islamophobia and homophobia are currently seen to be, we cannot hope to make an effective breakthrough without being unfairly blocked or attacked by the Anglophobia British mainstream media.

The other feature of course of the General Election was the probable end of the Liberal Democrats. Given that the only purpose to many of its voters of the Liberal Democrats Party was simply that it was a vote for none of the above and, as it turned out, that only a few of their votes were actually for Liberal Democrats’ policies it is difficult to see them making a recovery or indeed of there being any point in there being any such recovery.

In short, I think this General Election will turn out to be a sea change that nationalists will look back on with some affection as we move more towards nationalism as the driving force in our politics!

UKIP FAILS THE ENGLISH TEST

UKIP FAILS THE ENGLISH TEST


When Nigel Farage got re-elected as Leader of UKIP there was a distinct move in UKIP, for a time, to portray itself as being, at least to some extent, an English nationalist party. 

Given the various dirty tricks and other activities that were going on with UKIP at the time against us, it seemed obvious to the English Democrats’ National Council that these moves were just designed to undermine the English Democrats, rather than a genuine change of heart.

Over the years since we have had various people say to us that UKIP is an English nationalist party and try to persuade us that we should therefore join forces.

It is obvious from looking at Twitter, Facebook and the internet generally that there are a great many others out there who had also thought of UKIP as being an English nationalist party.

During the course of this General Election the scales should have fallen from all those peoples’ eyes as UKIP has shown itself to be very clearly not an English nationalist party. Nigel Farage has even expressly denied being an English nationalist (and, indeed, even a British nationalist, no doubt to the somewhat surprise of his British nationalist members!).

Not only has Nigel Farage’s new UKIP (British) manifesto very limited mention of England or the English, but their slogan in this election was “Believe in Britain”. Also despite clear commitments in the past to produce an English manifesto it has not been produced. In stark contrast they did launch a Scottish-only manifesto. Last, but not least, we have had a series of very clear remarks from others in the leadership of UKIP that they are British Unionists and not about English nationalism at all.

Probably the clearest example is the comments of David Coburn MEP, who before he became elected as an MEP had for many years been UKIP’s principal organiser in London. Click here for a link to YouTube where we have recorded his very clear answer as to where UKIP’s national loyalties lie >>> https://youtu.be/QSuT0JjgSjY

In fact, of course, nobody should have been surprised, the answer was always in UKip’s name! I wonder if people would have understood that more easily if they had called themselves BRITKIP?

What do you think?

We will hold Ed and Westminster to ransom: SNP chief boasts!

 
Following Alex Salmond’s outspoken interview on the Andrew Marr Show last Sunday there have been a spate of articles in the various newspapers making much of Alex Salmond’s “threat” to use the SNP’s likely 50+ MPs to force the next (Labour) Government to give all sorts of concessions, not only to Scottish interests, but also to “progressive politics”.


There has been much wind and fury expended on this topic, but what all the commentators do seem to miss is that this is a problem entirely of the British Establishments own making.

After all the English Democrats and the Campaign for an English Parliament have been pointing out for nearly 15 years that what needed to happen, in order to make a level playing field for all the Nations of the UK, was an English Parliament, First Minister and Government, with at least the same powers as the Scottish ones.

There were no sensible or credible arguments against this proposal ever made, merely smear tactics, because it was not seen as being in the interests of either of the three leading parties! If that proposal for a proper Federal UK had been accepted there would now be very little difficulty in accepting SNP representation for Scotland.

The effect of having such a reform would have been to create a Federal United Kingdom, in which the powers and positions of all the various levels were crystal clear and legally binding. It would follow that had that been done, Scottish MPs of whatever colour would not have been able to vote on English-only issues. They would only have had the jurisdiction over the remaining issues reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. In just the same way it is not for the Federal United States Congress to legislate for non-Federal matters which are subject to the States’ jurisdiction. So, for example, we have just had the State of Utah legislate to re-introduce the firing squad method of execution of criminals sentenced to death by their (States) courts. This is nothing whatever to do with the Federal Government and the Federal authorities have no jurisdiction over it whatsoever.

In the same way, had there been a proper Federal UK structure created, rather than a mish mash set up and maintained for what they thought was the convenience of the Establishment parties, Mr Salmond’s MPs would not have been in a position to vote on England specific taxes, part of the product of which could then be spent in Scotland, or to influence the English Government on what it did with the English NHS or English transport policy, such as the proposed building of the HS2.

It is the very absence of an English Parliament which makes it now seem quite unlikely that the Conservatives will form part of the next Government after May 7th.

I am looking forward with interest to hear what kind of diversion tactics they get involved in, in order to try and disguise the fact that the difficulty that they are going to be in is as much as anything a product of their own incompetence and lack of forethought! But then we have been with this very much before with the Conservatives, David Cameron appears to be someone with very little strategic vision and is as one commentator rightly pointed out “slapdash and complacent”. Well now, Mr Cameron, it looks like the Caper Caillie are coming home to roost!

Here is one of the articles I was referring to:-

Salmond

holds Ed to ransom: SNP chief boasts he would dictate a first Labour budget with plans for £180bn spending spree to ‘end austerity’
 
SNP leader Alex Salmond has revealed he plans to hold Labour to ransom
A landslide for his party would allow him to dictate Ed Balls’ first Budget 
Mr Salmond also said construction of HS2 rail line must start in Scotland
Comments described as one of the ‘scariest interviews’ in political history

Alex Salmond has boasted that a SNP landslide at the General Election would allow him to demand that Ed Balls ends austerity

Alex Salmond vowed yesterday to hold a Labour minority government to ransom to secure a £180billion debt-fuelled spending spree.

Scotland’s former first minister boasted that an SNP landslide at the General Election would allow him to dictate Ed Balls’s first Budget as Chancellor – and demand that he ‘end austerity’.

Mr Salmond also declared construction of the HS2 rail line would have to start in Scotland and Britain’s nuclear defences be scaled back.

With polls pointing to a hung Parliament and the SNP on course to win dozens of seats from Labour, he said of last year’s independence referendum: ‘We haven’t lost after all. If you hold the balance, then you hold the power.’

Tory Defence Minister Anna Soubry told him he had delivered one of the ‘scariest interviews’ in modern political history.

Boris Johnson increased pressure on Labour to rule out any post-election deal with the SNP, which is predicted to take as many as 50 of Scotland’s 59 seats, up from six in 2010.

‘Labour would be drawn to feed the beast,’ he said. ‘That’s what they have always done. They have created the problems by trying to appease Scottish Nationalism. They have endlessly encouraged it rather than taking it on.’

The Conservative Mayor of London called himself an ‘absolutely fervent unionist’ and said he was ‘very worried’ the SNP was deliberately stoking resentment against the Scots in the rest of the UK. He condemned Labour for vowing to use a new levy on expensive homes in the South East of England to pay for public services north of the border.

‘I was appalled by what [Scottish Labour leader] Jim Murphy had to say about despoiling London and the South East with property taxes in order to pay for Scotland,’ Mr Johnson said. ‘That’s not going to promote good relations’.

With polls suggesting the SNP could hold the balance of power at Westminster – and fears a deal with Labour could break up the Union – Mr Miliband finally bowed to pressure from senior colleagues last week and ruled out a formal coalition with the Nationalists.

But he has refused to reject a ‘confidence and supply’ deal, which would see the SNP guarantee to vote for key legislation in the Commons in exchange for concessions. More likely still is the SNP negotiating with a minority Labour government on a vote-by-vote basis.

When asked by the BBC’s Sunday Politics yesterday, Mr Murphy declined six times to rule out such an arrangement.

Mr Miliband will today travel to Scotland in a desperate bid to shore up votes, stepping up his warnings that an SNP surge would risk keeping David Cameron in power.

The latest poll suggests Labour is failing to stem the Nationalist tide, with the SNP 21 points ahead on 47 per cent.

The Conservatives last night unveiled an animated campaign video, featuring Mr Miliband dancing a jig as Mr Salmond ‘calls the tune’.

Speaking to the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, the former first minister said he would work with Plaid Cymru and the Green Party in a ‘progressive’ alliance.

TERRIFYING! TORY ANNA LAYS BARE SNP THREAT TO BRITAIN 

Anna Soubry launches a fierce criticism of Alex Salmond on the Andrew Marr show

Alex Salmond faced an extraordinary assault yesterday by Conservative MP Anna Soubry over his plan to hold Westminster to ransom. Here are highlights of their exchange on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show:

MISS SOUBRY: I have to say, I think [Mr Salmond’s] is one of the scariest interviews I have heard for a very long time.

MR SALMOND: Scary? Come on …

MISS SOUBRY: Absolutely! It’s not personal at all. I’ve met Alex a few times – he seems a very charming man, but absolutely terrifying.

The thought that we are in a position where you could be actually controlling, in the way you have described, this United Kingdom fills me with absolute horror. The audacity is astonishing.

There was a wonderful debate in Scotland. You lost it. We are a united kingdom; that’s what the people of Scotland wanted and because of the inadequacies of Labour north of the border …

MR SALMOND: But Anna …

MISS SOUBRY: You guys are now in a position whereby you would be this power broker.

MR SALMOND: So we haven’t lost after all then …

MISS SOUBRY: Exactly! It’s a back-door way of breaking up the Union. It’s really concerning.

MR SALMOND: I wanted Scotland to be independent. I wanted to leave Anna to her own devices in the House of Commons. She wanted us in the House of Commons. Now she’s complaining that we are going to have too many seats. I mean, goodness me …

MISS SOUBRY: This is really concerning for our democracy and for the safety of our nation as well, because of his views on Trident.

MR SALMOND: This is about a gateway decision on renewing the next generation of nuclear weapons, and that would be taken next year. It’s £100billion.

Anna wouldn’t be a defence minister under my formulation [of propping up a minority Labour government]. It’s nothing personal, I just have a fundamental disagreement. She wants the poor to pay. I don’t think we need the new nukes.

MISS SOUBRY: The real problem is this: Alex has made it very clear that, as far as he is concerned, there would be no deal with Labour unless there’s no renewal of Trident.

He has made that very clear. That’s true and honest to his own beliefs…

MR SALMOND: You couldn’t have coalition or confidence and supply, but a vote-by-vote basis is what comes up in the House of Commons …

Miss Soubry: No, no, no. Hang on a moment. When you and I were doing [BBC Radio 4’s] Any Questions, you said it was a red line for the SNP.

MR SALMOND: Yes, for a coalition or confidence and supply, obviously. Vote-by-vote is vote-by-vote …

MISS SOUBRY: We now have a situation whereby Labour is in real danger. There’s an absolute possibility that they will sell out on Trident, they will sell out on our defences. What chaos. Absolute chaos! Chaos.

MR SALMOND: My view is, confidence and supply we describe as possible; I think vote-by-vote is probable.

MISS SOUBRY: God, what a way to run a country!

MR SALMOND: Listen, I ran a minority government for four years …

MISS SOUBRY: Yes, but that was in Scotland. We are are a United Kingdom [Parliament] where we do defence and do other things as well.

He suggested the SNP could support a minority Labour government on a vote-by-vote basis even if it refuses to scrap the Trident nuclear deterrent, a previous ‘red line’ issue. A ‘tartan bloc’ at Westminster would ‘move the Labour Party in a different direction’, Mr Salmond said.

‘I think there are lots of people – certainly lots of people in Scotland, but I think people across these islands – [who] are pretty fed up with the duopoly at Westminster and might want to see politics a bit more interesting, where parties have to work for their votes and justify things on a vote by vote basis,’ Mr Salmond added.

Asked if Ed Balls would have to negotiate his Budget with the SNP, Mr Salmond replied: ‘Yes, any minority government has to negotiate in order to win a majority for its proposal. That is patently obvious. To deny that is to deny reality.’

One of the SNP’s many demands is to delay plans to tackle Britain’s deficit by spending an extra £180billion over five years on the country’s credit card. Treasury chiefs have warned that it would drive up debt.

Challenged to explain how he would respond to Mr Balls if Labour told him ‘where to go’, Mr Salmond said he would demand that the Scottish phase of the HS2 rail line be built first, rather than the London section.

‘Let’s say, for example, instead of this very, very slow fast-rail coming up from London, I think we should start [building] it from Edinburgh or Glasgow to Newcastle and I put that down as a Budget amendment,’ he said. ‘It would have substantial support in the North of England from the other parties and will carry the House of Commons. What does Mr Balls do then?’

Later, he told Sky News’s Murnaghan programme: ‘What I think is possible is a confidence and supply arrangement where we have a limited number of objectives and in return we would vote for Budgets.

‘More probable is a vote-by-vote arrangement. We would move, or attempt to move, the Labour Party away from signing up to the Tory austerity agenda.’ Miss Soubry said the possibility of Mr Salmond controlling a Labour government filled her with ‘absolute horror’.

She told the Andrew Marr Show: ‘That was one of the scariest interviews I’ve heard for a very long time … absolutely terrifying.’

Confronting Mr Salmond directly, she added: ‘The audacity is astonishing. There was a wonderful debate in Scotland – you lost it. We are a united kingdom; that is what the people of Scotland wanted.’ …

Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps said: ‘Thanks to Labour’s collapse in Scotland the only way Ed Miliband will get to Downing Street is if he does a grubby deal with Alex Salmond.’

He added: ‘In every vote … weak Ed Miliband would dance to Alex Salmond’s tune – it would cause chaos for the country.’

Scottish Labour Party leader Jim Murphy (pictured) refused six times to rule out a post-election deal with the SNP

Labour’s leader in Scotland refused six times to rule out a post-election deal with the SNP in a bruising TV interview yesterday.

The BBC’s Andrew Neil asked Jim Murphy repeatedly whether he would renounce a so-called ‘confidence and supply’ arrangement with the nationalists.

Both sides have made clear that there will not be a formal coalition with the SNP holding ministerial posts – but neither have ruled out a looser agreement, with the nationalists supporting Labour in certain votes.

Mr Murphy insisted he would ‘not get into further detail of a post-match analysis of a contest that hasn’t yet taken place’.

He said: ‘We are in this contest to win, not for a near draw.’ Asked again if he would rule out a deal with the nationalists, he said: ‘If we are the biggest party we will put our positions on the minimum wage, the living wage and much else besides, if the SNP vote for it, that’s nice.

‘If they vote against it that is their mistake because if we cannot get a majority in the House of Commons … the SNP would be responsible for bringing down a Labour government.’

He went on: ‘We are trying to win an election, we are trying to win the majority, we cannot do that when the whole debate is about what happens after the election.

‘Let’s talk about public spending, how we make the UK stronger at home, how we eradicate poverty. Let’s have those big discussions, then let’s debate after the election what happens after the election.’

Mr Murphy, the MP for East Renfrewshire, has been leader of the Labour Party in Scotland for just four months.

He took over in the shadow of the independence referendum in which Labour’s performance took a battering and its former Scottish leader, Johann Lamont, was forced to resign.

Mr Murphy is highly regarded in the party and has tried to run a unity campaign based on tackling poverty and inequality.

But he is grappling with polls suggesting Labour – which won 41 out of Scotland’s 59 seats in 2010 – could lose almost all of its MPs north of the border in May.

Click here for the original article >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3006926/Salmond-holds-Ed-Balls-ransom-SNP-chief-boasts-dictate-Labour-budget-plans-180bn-spending-spree-end-austerity.html