Category Archives: english independence

THE DECAY OF THE BRITISH STATE IS TERMINAL AND ITS REPLACEMENT IS OVERDUE!

THE DECAY OF THE BRITISH STATE IS TERMINAL AND ITS REPLACEMENT IS OVERDUE!

At the height of Empire, when the British State was thought by vast numbers of people across the planet to be the greatest and most powerful State on earth; Rudyard Kipling wrote his famous poem “Recessional” – the haunting words of which are:- 

“God of our fathers, known of old,
   Lord of our far-flung battle-line,
Beneath whose awful Hand we hold
   Dominion over palm and pine—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

The tumult and the shouting dies;
   The Captains and the Kings depart:
Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,
   An humble and a contrite heart.
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

Far-called, our navies melt away;
   On dune and headland sinks the fire:
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
   Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
   Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe,
Such boastings as the Gentiles use,
   Or lesser breeds without the Law—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

For heathen heart that puts her trust
   In reeking tube and iron shard,
All valiant dust that builds on dust,
   And guarding, calls not Thee to guard,
For frantic boast and foolish word—
Thy mercy on Thy People, Lord!”

But who other than Kipling could have thought back then in 1897, that just a bit over a hundred and twenty years later the British State would have reached such a point where it seems to fail at everything it tries? 

We have got very used to hearing over the last two years, just how ineffectual the British Political Establishment has become that it cannot even get its act together to implement the EU Referendum result.  This is despite having made it crystal clear at the time from all sides of the debate that the referendum result would be implemented.  This really is not rocket science.  It is a clear demonstration of the further feebleness of the British Establishment’s Political culture. 

In everyday life we are also used to hearing other instances of just how bad the British State is at delivering on anything that it sets itself to.  Whether it be computerisation projects or even the MoD trying to bring the British Army back from Germany, but then finding that they had sold off so many of the bases that it is no longer possible!

The other day in my professional work as a solicitor I came across a little example of just how bad the administration of one of the most fundamental aspects of the basic institutions of the State has become, namely the Courts. 

It is worth remembering that the courts pre-date almost every aspect of the State’s functions, except for Defence.  The administration of the Courts is therefore far more fundamental to the running of the State than the Welfare system, the NHS, the Transport system, the Education system or any of the other things that the British Political Elite wants to talk about, however ineffectual their deliberations may be. 

I just thought I would share with you some of my woes in dealing with the Courts. 

I have been dealing with a case which was primarily dealt with at Edmonton County Court, but then there was an Appeal which went to the Central London County Court. 

The upshot was that the Assessment of the Costs of the case could theoretically either be assessed at Edmonton or at Central London County Court. I therefore wrote to both asking for them to let me know which.  Only Edmonton replied and even then after quite a long wait.  They said it was the Central London County Court. 

As the papers have to be taken in nowadays with a prior appointment, I then rang Central London County Court to arrange this and to which said that the papers should be taken into Edmonton. 

After some difficulty I managed to get through to Edmonton (who didn’t basically answer the phone!).  They said that it was Central London County Court. 

So I then rang Central London County Court again and they said it was definitely Edmonton.  I pointed out that both courts were now saying that it was the other Court and therefore I needed the Courts to resolve between them which Court the papers had to be handed into.

Central London County Court then issued a direction on the internet Court file. So finally, when I got back to Edmonton County Court, I got an appointment to hand in the papers. 

When I did so Edmonton County Court’s Clerks then moaned about the size of the file!

This particular small version of the Whitehall farce was anything unusual in dealing with the current British State.

The next part of the saga will be a long wait whilst we wait for the Court to actually deal with the Assessment.

This bit of incompetence is the result of typical Conservative ministerial actions, in this case by Chris Grayling.  Who, when he was the “Justice” Minister, not only did the usual “slash and burn” cuts of over 40% to the Civil Justice system, but also pushed ahead with asset stripping by selling off the historic court buildings in town centres. He coupled these actions with raising court fees by over 400%!  Despite the fact that before his intervention the Civil Justice system was actually making a profit for the State!  The results of his unwillingness to think about the consequences of his actions are that we now have a Civil Justice Court system whose administration is truly appalling. 

This of course is just another example of how bad the British State is at managing even its basic responsibilities.

This general incompetence is also partly because of the British Establishment’s addiction to political correctness.  People are no longer appointed within the British State because of their ability to do the job for the country and for taxpayers. They are appointed on the basis of Sovietesque, ethnic, sexuality, tick box “politically correct” tokenism.  So consequently it is no surprise that those appointed this way not only cannot do the job, but have no particular desire or incentive to do it properly.

Many of the key people within the State of course no longer really care to look after the interests of the country or our Nation and in many cases are actively against both the country and Nation. 

All this is symptomatic of the decay of the British State to the point now that it is not just past its “best before” date but well past its “use by” date!

In England we urgently need a rejuvenated State which is both dedicated to, and works efficiently to, promote the interests of England and of the English Nation!

This must be an English State which will confidently make a patriotic appeal for national unity and national pride and which stands against progressive tribalism, which has for too long sought to divide the country into grievance groups and to promote a narrative of shame. We need a State which will reject the decades of the British Establishment’s revisionist history and grievance ideology which have sought to undermine English national pride!

WILL THE EU COLLAPSE BEFORE THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT REMAINERS CAN GET US OUT OF IT?

WILL THE EU COLLAPSE BEFORE THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT REMAINERS CAN GET US OUT OF IT?
I read an interesting article recently in the Daily Telegraph entitled “The Brussels empire is collapsing before our eyes – but Remainiacs just don’t see it” by Professor Gwythian Prins who is Emeritus Research Professor at the LSE and applied historical methodology to the task of trying to work out what the risk of the EU’s collapse is likely to be.  

I thought the analysis was both interesting and quite compelling.
Here is the article:-
The Brussels empire is collapsing before our eyes – but Remainiacs just don’t see it 
There are two strange things about ‘remainiacs’ – the self-important 5% of the country who are trying to halt Brexit. The first is well known. It is their disrespect for the biggest winning democratic vote for any issue or any government in British history. But the second is not. This is their weird attitude to the EU. 
Their frantic ‘virtue-signalling’ finds all fault with Britain and none with the unelected Brussels machine in our mud-wrestling ‘negotiation’ to leave. But what is the actual state of health of this institution to which they would keep Britain shackled in a ‘Hotel California’ Brexit – one where you can check out anytime but you just can’t leave? 
I am an historian and cultural anthropologist, so I decided to compare the EU to similar complex social systems in the past, using the academic tools of my trade. 
My main finding should worry Mr Selmayr, the German uber-bureaucrat who just took effective charge of the EU in a surgical coup d’état last month. And it should reassure everyone who voting to leave the EU in 2016. 
By getting out now we may just avoid the cliff-edge of major crisis in the EU. And the ‘remainiacs’ just don’t see it. 
If we apply a famous technique for analysing the risk of collapse in complex societies to the EU, we find that it is squarely within the zone of that risk. How so?  
First, we have to identify what sort of institution the EU is. Well, it looks like an empire. It walks like an empire. It certainly talks like an empire – listen to Mr Tusk. It treats its subjects like an empire. They grumble rebelliously, as vassal-states do. Its rulers, the Brussels elite, feather their nests just like their predecessors in function did in the USSR. In 2007 the President of the Commission, José Manuel Barroso actually called it an empire. I think we may safely say that the EU is an empire. And empires collapse. Is this one facing that risk? And if it is, how would we know? 
The leading methodology today for analysing the risk of collapse in empires was first used by an American archaeologist in a comprehensive review of mainly ancient empires. He borrowed it from the world of finance and adapted it to measure the perceived marginal benefit that you either do – or do not – get if you increase the complexity of a social structure. 
Professor Tainter’s point is that empires are only strong when the benefits from increasing complexity are positive. It is when more complexity yields less benefit that an empire enters the zone of risk of collapse. So I ran the detailed history of the European ‘project’ through this methodology and the results show pretty clearly that since the introduction of the Euro, the ‘project’ has been badly on the slide. What’s happening? 
Across the EU – not just in Britain – we, the peasants, are revolting! The facts are stark. In referenda and increasingly in national elections too, since Denmark and Sweden rejected the Euro, we have had almost twenty years of rejection after rejection of the EU’s wishes by the people. 
The premature introduction of the Euro to try to force the pace towards political union was the Federalists greatest mistake. It infected the entire ‘project’ with a wasting disease that remorselessly destroys its legitimacy. 
The next crisis was 2005/6 when the Dutch and the French rejected the ‘EU Constitution’ only for it to be rammed through as the Lisbon Treaty. 
The Irish bridled, so they had to be whipped over the fence at the second attempt. The Brussels elite reran referenda when they could because they believe their own Vanguard Myth which tells them they know best. 
Or, in 2015, they simply ignored the Greek referendum and imposed even harsher terms on this troublesome colony. The biggest cluster-crisis started then, grew with Brexit and Germany’s immigration crisis. 
The revolts in Italy and now in Hungary are just the latest and possibly most threatening. All this evidence of citizen rejection while Brussels responds with further bureaucratic complexity, has plainly taken the EU into the Zone of Risk of Collapse where it now stands. 
In order to deter any other prospective escapees, Brussels is shaky but defiant, bullying, hoping to dishearten the British (some hope!), intent on punishing us for taking back control. Hardly a sign of self-confidence. 
Across the EU, the cost in terms of alienation mounts as citizens, resentful of being treated so contemptuously, rationally choose less complexity at the national level. Less complexity is no catastrophe. It’s the historical norm. And that’s the key. If people don’t regard an empire’s power as legitimate, they rebel. Empires are like Peter Pan’s fairy friend Tinkerbell. They can only live if all the children clap. And across Europe, the people aren’t clapping any more. This empire is collapsing before our eyes but it’s no crisis for the ‘Brexiteer’ Many, only for the ‘remainiac’ Few. 
The Government should understand this evidence. We are by far the stronger party facing this rickety EU. Stop being so timid. Thank goodness that ordinary people had to good sense to get us out in the nick of time. 
Gwythian Prins is Emeritus Research Professor at the LSE. His report is published on the university-based website ‘Briefings for Brexit’ set up by academics who back the majority decision to leave the EU.
What do you think? 


Answers to the “England is too big” to have its own Parliament argument

Answers to the “England is too big” to have its own Parliament argument


I have recently been hearing of several Tory MPs who have been doing the rounds making arguments against an English Parliament.

One of those is Sir Oliver Heald MP, who recently spoke at a meeting of Oxfordshire Conservatives, in which he claimed the reason why England could not have its Parliament and Government like the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish ones was because England is too big at 85% of the population of the United Kingdom. According to him the provision of an English Parliament would apparently lead to the breakup of the Union because Federal States cannot survive where one part of the State is 85% of the Federation.

On hearing this I immediately responded that first of all one of the things that Federal States always do is have measures in place to balance out the dominance of their larger States. So for example in the United States, California is by far the most heavily populated US State and also the richest. However it only has two Senators, just like Oklahoma in the Federal Congress.

It is also the case that Oliver Heald’s argument does not hold water in terms of history.

The reason the Soviet Union collapsed was not because Russia was “too big”. The USSR collapsed because the Soviet system had become economically bankrupt, partly as a result of the Soviet defeat in war in Afghanistan, but also partly because of the attempt to match American defence spending with regard to Reagan’s “star wars”.

Equally Austro-Hungary did not collapse because Austria was “too big”, it collapsed because Austro-Hungary was defeated in war (also because of the idiocy of Woodrow Wilson’s refusal to negotiate with multi-national states!).

As Oliver Heald’s suggestion as to how to cope with England being “too big” is to split up England into “Regions” of one sort or another (the latest being “City Regions”), my response to him, and any of his ilk, is that any question to which the answer is to split England up is the wrong question.

If the choice is between splitting England up or splitting up the United Kingdom, I have no hesitation in demanding that the split is that of the vastly overrated, expensive, grandiose and laughably decadent United Kingdom.

When it was suggested, before the First World War, that Ireland should have Home Rule and the then Liberal Government forced through Home Rule legislation, Tory troublemakers stirred up Ulster with cries of “Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right”. How much more justification would we English have to fight if the cry was to split England up? Perhaps we should have a cry that “England will fight and England will be right”?

I mention the bloody history of Irish Independence intentionally because unthinking Tory unionists like Oliver Heald MP need to remember that it was Tory intransigence and the refusal to grant the reasonable request for a devolved Irish Parliament and instead the call for Ireland to be split which led not only to the bloodshed of the struggle for Independence but the still worse Civil War. This has stained Irish politics with blood ever since.

The idea that patriotic Englishmen and Englishwomen will not only indefinitely allow England not to have its own proper voice of political expression but also quietly sit by whilst over a thousand years of English history is discarded and England is broken up, is simply crazy. In fact it is not only crazy but it is utterly irresponsible!

Labour’s Scottish Leader, Kezia Dugdale, declares WAR on England!

Labour’s Scottish Leader, Kezia Dugdale, declares WAR on England!


Recently the BBC was lauding one of their Labour pets, the Scottish Labour Leader, Kezia Dugdale, who was making what was hailed as an important speech at the Labour supporting Institute for Public Policy Research “think tank”. Here is a link to that speech >>> Kezia Dugdale on her plan for a federal UK – YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2DY1r93KHI

It is remarkably poor and ill thought out, but what caught my eye was this comment in the starry eyed BBC news coverage.

Labour’s Kezia Dugdale makes proposals “with the objective of adding English regionalism to existing devolution” in a federal UK!

So there we have it ladies and gentlemen Labour’s Scottish Leader has declared WAR on England. For what else is it, when a leader of one nation calls for the dismemberment of another nation, but a declaration of war against that nation?

History is full of many instances of lesser provocations than moves to dismember a country being considered, in St Thomas Aquinas’s terms, a cause (“Casus Belli”) for a “just war”.

I wonder what it is about the “very idea of England” (per Charles Kennedy) that so many Scottish leaders seem to find objectionable?

Are they perhaps still fixed on a rematch of the Battle of Flodden? I suspect that there would be many in England who would be up for that fight! And the result would be the same!

(Kezia Dugdale is also quoted as follows:-

“Kezia Dugdale has CALLED for a “new Act of Union” in a bid to “save the UK for generations to come”.

The Scottish Labour leader outlined her plan for a “federal solution” for the UK in a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research in London.

It would see extra powers for English regions as well as Holyrood via a “People’s Convention” for the UK.

The SNP said Labour had been promising “federalism max” for years but had “consistently failed” to deliver.

Ms Dugdale tasked former UK justice secretary Lord Falconer with exploring a federalist approach following the UK’s vote to leave the EU in June.

Her deputy Alex Rowley has called for Scotland to “move beyond narrow unionism and nationalism” and wants Scottish Labour to campaign for “home rule within a confederal United Kingdom“.

Ms Dugdale pointed out that the 1707 Act of Union still underpins the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK, arguing that there should be a new act “for this new century”.

She said: “The time has come for the rest of the UK to follow where Scotland led in the 1980s and 1990s and establish a People’s Constitutional Convention to re-establish the UK for a new age.

“The convention should bring together groups to deliberate on the future of our country and propose a way forward that strengthens the UK and establishes a new political settlement for the whole of our country.

“Some may say this is unrealistic, but it would follow the model of the Scottish Constitutional Convention which, without government support, established the basis for the settlement that delivered a Scottish Parliament in 1999.

“It would also – for the first time – provide a coherent approach to answering the question of how our country is best governed.

“I would not want the convention to just deliberate and report, but to produce a new Act of Union which would reaffirm the partnership between our nations and renew it for the future. After more than 300 years, it is time for a new Act of Union to safeguard our family of nations for generations to come.“”

Here is the link to that article >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38223719)

Consultation on what an English Parliament might look like – what is your view?


Consultation on what an English Parliament might look like – what is your view?

The issue of an English Parliament continues to rise up the scale of answers and of information and in response to this the Constitution Unit of University College London is consulting on it. Here is their briefing. Do complete their form!



What might an English Parliament look like? The Constitution Unit is consulting on the design options

Posted on November 24, 2016 by The Constitution Unit

The Constitution Unit has recently begun work on a new project examining the design options for an English Parliament. This was once seen as an unrealistic proposal but support has grown in recent years and it therefore now deserves to be taken more seriously. Nonetheless many major questions about what an English Parliament might actually look like remain unaddressed. In this post Jack Sheldon and Meg Russell set these questions out and invite views on them through a consultation that is now open and will close on 27 January 2017. 

Calls for an English Parliament have long existed, but frequently been rejected by academics and mainstream politicians. Although a Campaign for an English Parliament was set up in 1998, as the devolved institutions were being established for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the idea did not get off the ground. A central argument has been that such a parliament, thanks to representing almost 85 per cent of the UK’s population, would, in the words of the 1973 Kilbrandon Commission on the Constitution, result in a Union ‘so unbalanced as to be unworkable’ (para 531). As critics such as Vernon Bogdanor (p. 13) have pointed out, no major existing federation has a component part this dominant, and unbalanced federal systems (e.g. the former USSR and Yugoslavia), have tended to fail. Elites have thus often proposed devolution within England, rather than to England as a whole, as the preferred solution to the ‘English question’, and considered an English Parliament an unrealistic proposal. As the Constitution Unit’s Robert Hazell wrote in 2006, ‘An English Parliament is not seriously on the political agenda, and will never get onto the agenda unless serious politicians begin to espouse it’. 

Growing salience of the English question 


But various factors have increased the salience of questions around England’s place in the devolution settlement, and the idea of an English Parliament has gained new friends as a result. One factor is the gradually greater powers of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly beyond those bestowed in the 1990s – including legislative powers in an increasing number of fields and significant tax-raising powers. This means that a growing amount of business at Westminster concerns England (or sometimes England and Wales) alone. In turn, this brings the famous ‘West Lothian question’, concerning the voting rights of MPs elected from the devolved nations, more to the fore. The Conservative government consequently introduced a form of ‘English votes for English laws’ (EVEL) in 2015, through changes to House of Commons standing orders. But the new arrangements have been rejected by opposition parties, so might not survive a change of government. Furthermore, the version of EVEL that has been introduced does not actually prevent Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs from vetoing English-only legislation. It is therefore far from clear that this will prove to be a satisfactory long-term solution. 

Another contributing factor is growing interest in the future of the Union pre- and post- the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. Various unionist politicians, pundits and other political observers have considered how Scottish demands for greater autonomy may be satisfied within the UK, and federalism is being increasingly discussed. The EU referendum result has led some such as Professor Jim Gallagher (Director-General, Devolution Strategy at the Cabinet Office from 2007–10) to suggest that the devolved nations, whilst remaining within the UK, might each pursue different relationships with the EU post-Brexit. Heavyweight political support for something similar has come from former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and former Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander. The threat of a second Scottish independence referendum, announced by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote and repeated since, means the government needs to take such proposals seriously. This would clearly require the consequences for England to be addressed.

A third factor is a growth in English, as supposed to British, national identity among the population. Professor Michael Kenny argued in his 2014 book The Politics of English Nationhood that politicians needed to ‘accept and speak to the implications of this shift’ (p. 239). Already we know from polling that those identifying as English rather than British were more likely to support UKIP and the Leave campaign, leading mainstream politicians to consider how to increase their appeal among patriotic English voters. The English question has traditionally exercised Conservative politicians in particular, but it is now within the Labour Party that these issues are being most urgently discussed. Recent manifestations include an e-book, Labour’s Identity Crisis: England and the Politics of Patriotism, edited by former Shadow Education Secretary Tristram Hunt, and a new group of MPs, Red Shift Labour, which has published three reports on how the party can improve its English appeal. A central message is that Labour must be more prepared to embrace English identity. As yet there is little agreement on how this should be achieved, but constitutional solutions are among those being discussed. 

Support has grown for an English Parliament, but no detailed blueprint exists 

Hence 10 years on from Robert Hazell’s comments, the idea of an English Parliament commands significantly more political support. On the Conservative side the most persistent advocate has been John Redwood, whilst other prominent supporters include David Davis, now Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, and Lord Salisbury. Within the Labour Party Frank Field, a longstanding exponent of an English Parliament, has recently been joined by the former shadow cabinet members Tristram Hunt and Chuka Umunna. John Denham, who served in Gordon Brown’s cabinet and established a Centre of English Identity and Politics at Winchester University in 2015, is open-minded towards the idea. The Scottish National Party are also favourable, and Paul Nuttall, widely expected to win the UKIP leadership election, has pledged support for ‘an English Parliament for English people’. Of course, many other politicians remain convinced by the case against an English Parliament, and neither the Conservative or Labour leaderships appear close to support. But the growing interest across the political spectrum means that the idea deserves to be taken more seriously than previously. 

Nonetheless, there remains no detailed blueprint for what an English Parliament might actually look like – compared, for example, to the proposals produced by the Scottish Constitutional Convention which formed the basis for the design of the Scottish Parliament. Hence we have recently begun work on a new project at the Constitution Unit, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, that seeks to address this gap. The project follows the Unit’s influential work on the design of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly in the 1990s. We will not be advocating for or against an English Parliament – there are strong arguments on both sides and it is ultimately for politicians to decide which case they find more convincing. Instead we will undertake an objective analysis of the options for the detailed design of such a body, in order to inform future deliberations. Whilst some proponents have addressed some design questions they often disagree on key points, while other major questions remain largely unaddressed. We will ask (and – as indicated below – are seeking views on) questions including the following: 

Should an English Parliament be established as part of a settlement to bind the UK together in a more stable way, or to facilitate English independence? Many supporters of an English Parliament are motivated by a desire to prolong the Union in the context of pressures for Scottish independence. Frank Field, for example, has written that an English Parliament is ‘the only way to save the UK’. Yet there have been recent moves towards supporting English independence among some of those campaigning for an English Parliament. The English Democrats have come out in support of independence and Eddie Bone, the Campaign Director of the Campaign for an English Parliament, has suggested that ‘English independence might be the only way forward’. 

Should an English Parliament be separately elected, or should it be composed of English members of the House of Commons holding a dual mandate? The first of these is favoured by the Campaign for an English Parliament, and would mirror arrangements in the existing devolved nations, but the second commands significant support among advocates of an English Parliament, including Conservative MPs John Redwood and Andrew Rosindell.
What powers should an English Parliament have? Most proponents agree that these should be equivalent to the powers of the Scottish Parliament, but in some models, for instance that proposed by Conservative MP Teresa Gormanin the late 1990s, an English Parliament would be responsible for everything except foreign affairs and defence. 

How many members should there be in an English Parliament, and within what structure? Under the dual mandate model mentioned above the number of members would clearly be determined by the number of English members of the House of Commons (currently 538). Were a separate English Parliament to be established it might be different – the Wilberforce Society, for example, has proposed a 180-seat English Parliament. The body might also be either unicameral or bicameral. 

What electoral system and boundaries should be used for an English Parliament? Alternatives to first-past-the-post have been used for other devolved parliaments in the UK, but it is not certain that this would also be the case for an English Parliament. The dual mandate model obviously implies the use of first-past-the-post (so long as that system continues to be used for Westminster elections), whilst many leading advocates of a separate English Parliament have not been clear about what electoral system they envisage being used. 

Where should an English Parliament sit? Some supporters of an English Parliament suggest that it would be based at Westminster (either in the House of Commons or House of Lords chamber) but others, including the singer Billy Bragg, have proposed locations outside London. 

Should there also be an English government and First Minister? This is a key demand of the Campaign for an English Parliament and would almost certainly be a feature of any separately elected English Parliament. However, under the dual mandate model the UK government might continue to perform the role of the English government. The Conservative Welsh Assembly member David Melding suggests that, under his version of the dual mandate model (pp. 244–245), a UK government lacking a majority in England could either form a coalition to secure an English majority or seek to govern England as a minority administration. 

How should an English Parliament be financed? The Barnett formula, used to determine the level of public spending in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, would not work for an English Parliament with powers equivalent to those of the existing devolved institutions, as it is based on the UK government’s English expenditure. Hence a new funding model would be needed.
How should an English Parliament relate to sub-national bodies such as city-regions? In debates about how to respond to the English question an English Parliament and regional devolution within England are often presented as alternatives. But in practice might it be desirable to have both? 

What implications would an English Parliament have for the UK parliament and government? Many proponents of an English Parliament suggest that the establishment of an English Parliament should lead to a reduction in the number of members of the UK parliament and perhaps even the abolition of one chamber. Frank Field, for instance, suggests reducing the UK parliament to a Senate of 250 members. In a report published in 2015 the Constitution Reform Group, headed by Lord Salisbury, stated that ‘it will almost certainly be a design specification for any new English Parliament proposal that it results in and accommodates at least a corresponding reduction in the size and cost of the Westminster Parliament’ (p. 23). A separate English Parliament would clearly also have major implications for Whitehall.
We are aware that there will be a range of views on these questions. We are hence today launching a consultation that will close on 27 January 2017. This is not about whether or not there should be an English Parliament but about how such a parliament should be designed were it to be established. It is also designed to tease out the diversity of views, and get a sense for whether there is any viable model around which proponents might unite. 

It should be stressed that our consultation is not an opinion poll where responses will be counted up in order to measure the balance of opinion. We are seeking fairly detailed responses and particularly encourage responses from those who have given these questions considerable thought, and/or who have expertise in areas such as electoral systems, federalism, subnational government or devolution finance. We very much look forward to reading what respondents say, and this will guide our research as well as helping us to formulate our conclusions. We plan to publish our report late in 2017, and before then will include updates on the Constitution Unit blog. 

https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/s?s=45751
About the authors
Jack Sheldon is a Research Assistant at the Constitution Unit, working on the Options for an English Parliament project. He is also editor of the Constitution Unit newsletter and blog.
Professor Meg Russell is the Director of the Constitution Unit.

CAMPAIGN FOR AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT (CEP) GETS ACADEMIC ACCOLADE

 

CAMPAIGN FOR AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT GETS ACADEMIC ACCOLADE


On Thursday evening I had the great satisfaction of seeing Eddie Bone, the Campaign Director for the Campaign for an English Parliament welcomed to the rostrum to speak at the University of Winchester on the subject of English Governance by the former Labour Minister and now Professor, John Denham.

Eddie gave a very good speech. The text of which appears below and which deserves careful study.

Whilst we have not yet achieved our Brexit or Trump’s triumphal moment yet, the English movement’s trajectory is very encouraging for our future.

Whilst to quote Trump “No-one expected it to be easy”, I am hopeful that when the moment of trial comes we shall be ready!

Here is the text of Eddie’s speech:

There is a forgotten –

nay almost forbidden word,

. . . . a word which means more to me than any other. . . .

That word is

“ENGLAND”

Sir Winston Churchill.

Tonight, I stand here unashamedly as an Englishman talking about England and how we should be governed. I will also be talking about how England fits within the UK and ask you ponder the possibilities that are open to us. When we say, we love our country, England… that it means more than anything to us…. We need to establish what our history tells us about ourselves, our sense of belonging, and our sense of fight and if being English now is any different than our forefathers.

We can only hope to get close to understanding where we are now as a nation by looking at characters from our past and by picking out stories and quotes. Those lessons from our history should resonate with our code of values now. It is the personalities of our past that inspire us, at times will give us courage and in times of need give us comfort and reassurance that we will overcome adversity.

By looking back, we can walk ahead with confidence and be there for England when needed, which is now!!!

But how bad is it? Am I exaggerating, does England need us to stand up and be counted. Let me explain how bad the current situation is….

Since England has no constitutional or political existence of itself it could be argued that England is the last British colony.

Indeed, the Encyclopaedia Britannica describes England thus:

‘Outside the British Isles, England is often erroneously considered synonymous with the island of Great Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales) and even with the entire United Kingdom. Despite the political, economic, and cultural legacy that has secured the perpetuation of its name, England no longer officially exists as a governmental or political unit—unlike Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, which all have varying degrees of self-government in domestic affairs.

In many ways England, has seemingly been absorbed within the larger mass of Great Britain since the Act of Union of 1707.’ (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2004)

Please just contemplate how serious that is – England no longer officially exists!

However, that situation is made worse because there is grit in the wound because we also need to remember and be aware, that alongside England’s political non-existence, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have dedicated governments focusing on their national economic growth strategies for their respective nations. They have a national strategy, a national vision and a government structure equipped to turn that vision into a reality.

England does not have a national government, nor does it have a vision or main party political manifestos for the people of England.

Devolution has continued to leave England wanting in terms of a national vision or strategy and that needs to change – and it needs to change quickly if you believe in saving the Union. If not, then independence for England versus England disappearing is on the table. – what is your choice???

This is because a void in England’s democracy exists and the lack of her governance has allowed instability and dissatisfaction amongst the English to grow. Far too much attention has been given to the SNP and their lust for independence, whilst England and the English annoyance has been simmering quietly on the side.

You only need to look at the Political parties and Labour to see that they are running around as headless chickens, fretting over losing Scotland and Wales because they cannot face loving England. Political fools come to mind because it will be only through English engagement that they will return to power.

However now that one of UKIP’s potential leaders has declared he wants an English parliament then Labour’s rejection of England and its misplaced love of regionalisation of the English nation, in other terms the break of England, will see UKIP usurp them. I feel sorry for Labour having to put up with Gordon Brown’s celebration of the Scottish and Welsh nations but the utter rejection of England’s right for national determination. His words could easily be construed as anti- English racism.

So, it will be interesting to see if this new UKIP’s vision to save the UK means an English administration and an English First Minister.

Instead of tackling a usurper, Labour and the Conservatives would rather pretend that Devolution at a local level is developing in England, but that is not true because it is confused and dysfunctional Devolution and it is not giving a true voice to people across all of England.

City versus rural, City versus town and village, industrial areas versus agricultural areas. How much better it would be to have rational, coherent and structured de-centralisation of power linked at the conception of an English parliament towards local communities.

It was right when the last government, the coalition came to power, that they dismantled the hugely unpopular regional governments and regional QUANGOS but they failed to address the problem as they didn’t replace it with anything substantial. That should have been an English Parliament, accountable to the people of England. A national federal system should have been created then. The British government let the English down and by doing that they let the UK down because they broke the principles of the 1707 Act of Union and treated citizens across the UK differently.

Instead after the Scottish referendum the Conservative Government introduced English Votes for English Laws which upset the Scots and English at the same time. English Votes for English Laws will fail to address the English Question for the following reasons:
It is a procedural device, without the force of legislation, which can be reversed at any time. 

The votes of English MPs can still be overturned as seen when English voting for extended Sunday trading was overturned by the votes of Scottish MPs in the Westminster Parliament. 

It does not restrict the ability of a government at Westminster to appoint Ministers for English affairs from other countries of the UK
English laws are still proposed by a British Government and revised and scrutinized by a House of Lords, containing members from across the UK, whereas the laws passed by the devolved administrations are not subject to scrutiny by the Upper House.
There is no administration devoted to English affairs and membership of select committees for English matters include members of the SNP, who can influence decisions on policy for England 

It does not address the lack of representation of England per se either within the UK or internationally as in the EU or the British/Irish council.

Also, we, in this room and family across our country cannot ignore the financial reality that has occurred over the decades, the British government Red or blue has treated England’s taxpayer as a cash cow.

They haven’t listened to the concerns of English men and women; all they have wanted is their money. Yes, I am talking about the Barnett formula. The British Elite should feel ashamed of themselves for not abolishing the Barnett formula but unfortunately they do not.

In fact, they have pledged to keep favouring the Scots in naive belief that the SNP will be bought off. I talk from personal experience sitting in Edinburgh with SNP Special advisers they were clear they would take whatever they could financially from the British government. That means the English taxpayer will be expected to cough up even more.

The House of Lords report from 2009 cannot be ignored. The English taxpayer finances the Union. The amount of surplus money that goes to Scotland every year is £10 Billion. Heathrow expansion under Barnett consequential give the SNP at a minimum £500 Million of English taxes. For every 10 billion spent in England on Capital projects a further billion must be given to Scotland.

England has had to guarantee the Scottish Banks and compensate county councils for their adventures investing with Icelandic Banks – the list is endless.

England is now reeling under severe financial pressures that the Barnett formula has created. Closures of A&E departments and council services across England is wide spread.

We know what will work and what has not, irrational, incoherent and messy regionalisation of England is not the answer

Without a coherent English Government, issues such as the effective development of key strategies for England cannot be properly developed.

It is clear for all to see.

The needs of England differ significantly from the needs of Scotland and Wales. Not only in terms of England’s size, but the economic issues that England needs to address are quite different. Therefore, a dedicated English (rather than British wide) Governmental structure is needed to develop policy for areas, ranging from health to housing.

YET for far too long objections to an English Parliament have just been accepted without question.

We have heard many saying that the British Parliament is already dominated by British MPs from England and they can represent the interests of England within the British Parliament, it is essentially an English parliament because English constituencies make up over 80% of MPs, so the influence of Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh MPs is marginal.

But that is to ignore the obvious. Just look at the influence of Scottish MPs – they are anything but marginal. Unaccountable SNP and Plaid Cymru MPs have overturned, or worse helped enforce policy on England. A mosquito can kill a man and the SNP without a healthy England is killing the UK.

The British Parliament continues to be the Parliament of the United Kingdom and it contains MPs from throughout the UK and pursues the internal and external interests of the whole UK.

It is under no obligation to pursue specific interests relating to the whole of England and there is no body through which those interests can be voiced. The House of Commons splits along party lines, not along national lines.

Moreover, a Union parliament should not encourage ‘English MPs’ – who are British MPs who happen to be elected in England – to be nationalistic and act in England’s interest.

The British Government should put the interests of the UK above the interests of any of the nations. Neither the Union parliament, nor the British Government, can or should be encouraged to ‘speak for England’.

Only a parliament and government elected by, and accountable solely to, the English people can speak for England. Just think, ‘possibly proportional representation’ could be introduced in a new parliament if that was the will of the English people.

Then we have the old classic objection that suggests an English Parliament would be almost as big as the British Parliament and England would dominate a federal Union

That demonstrates a fundamental and unnecessary assumption that the British Parliament would need to be of the same size as it is now.

That assumption ignores or denies that the work of the British Parliament would be very substantially reduced and thus a much smaller Parliament would can represent the constituent parts of the Union.

We already have the situation where many British MPs from areas outside England, cannot initiate, debate or vote on domestic matters that affect them and their constituents, yet they are being paid the same salary as British MPs from English constituencies. Indeed, the Scots, themselves, are asking why they, as British tax payers, are paying for British Government MPs who have no responsibility in the domestic matters that most concern them as voters.

Then I use the word ‘dominate’, because that very quickly rolls off the tongues of Scottish, Welsh politicians and British politicians when an English parliament is suggested – and I agree. ‘no-one wants to be dominated’, but England representing 55 million will dominate under any system, it is the largest nation of the UK.

BUT there is less chance of non-English concerns being rolled out across the UK under a federal system because domestic issues would be separated. Federalism allows the smaller nations of the UK equal ownership of British institutions of governance. Moreover, a federal or confederal system where there is such disparity in size of the members has never been shown not to work. Again, the opposite is true, just look at the USA and Australia. AND if the SNP doesn’t like being dominated then why are they involved as unaccountable MPs in the British Parliament as it concerns itself with predominately English domestic matters.

Then cost is used to block it. It could potentially mean creating another Parliament building with a whole new set of politicians. This would impose an added cost on the taxpayer.

It would create a new layer of politicians but not necessarily a new parliament building. Savings could be made by completely abolishing regionalism and restoring and enhancing governance to ‘little regions’ that already exist called counties. It would means reducing the number of British MPs, and possibly abolishing the House of Lords in favour of a federal parliament. That is worth thinking about, maybe the time has come to wave goodbye to these unelected individuals who appear at times to want to block the will of the people.

Moreover, these costs were clearly not a reason considered very important when granting devolution to the rest of the UK. Why then should the argument that we must not have more MPs be used selectively against English aspirations? Of course, it hardly needs to be said that the cost of setting up an English parliament and government is, on a per capita basis, far less than the cost of setting up the equivalents in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Others say that there is no demand.

Clearly, until a proper referendum, based on those of Scotland and Wales, takes place that assertion cannot be demonstrated. However, a significant number of polls of every description since 2001 indicate a majority of the people of England might vote for an English Parliament if asked the same referendum question as was offered to Scotland and Wales.

And then we finally go to party politics and you hear the concerns that an English Parliament would be permanently dominated by the Conservative Party.

That is not even worth answering as it so obviously not true….

This denial of English democratic needs means that the lack of forward planning is impacting on the English quality of life, our lives – prevention of overcrowding and preservation of green spaces etc. These issues need to be carefully considered. Or are you happy for your forests to be sold off, your village greens to be used or your beaches to become privatised.

Let’s take industrial strategy as an example – all I ask is that you think about this.

What kind of industries does England need to develop if we are to provide the kind of wealth creation necessary to finance an ever-growing population especially with the elderly living longer?

Rebalancing the economy away from financial services into manufacturing and hi- tech industries needs policies and incentives. To do that needs the younger generation to be involved across England.

Yet if you look at the education in England – you see English students dealing with a disproportionate cost for their university education when compared to Scotland and Wales.

Full Tuition fees are only applicable to English based students. What a slap in the face for the tax burdened English. This could not be a clearer example, the equal treatment of all people within the Union which is fundamental core value is happening. It has created unbearable financial and political strains which are in danger of breaking the union unless fair and equitable solutions to the financing of education can be properly developed.

If not, then English independence might be the only way forward. Why, who thinks it is fair that English taxpayers unfairly subsidise the education of Welsh and Scottish students whilst having to pay large sums for their own children?

English independence would give England full fiscal autonomy and the Barnett formula and Barnett consequential would be abolished end. That is 49 billion a year saving.

But how many times have you heard when an Englishman/woman complains about the unfairness – that he is a poorly educated, part of the left behind generation, that he is a fascist/racist, a fool and a duped far right. Nonsense.

That kind of anti-English sentiment weakens the bonds of the Union and breeds discontent amongst English taxpayers who are being exploited for their taxes. Be assured that is just a way of shutting the wider population in England up by an out of touch British elite. Look above those insults because it is only done so they can continue to empty your pockets of your hard-earned taxes.

For England to have good policies developed to meet her needs, she also requires a political party to address the people of England, in the same way the political parties deal with the specific and much smaller needs of those of the Welsh and Scottish.

But England also requires the political will of her people and strong leaders that are ready to engage with the 55 million people living in England,

The question for every political party is “who is standing up for England”?

More importantly for Unionists – what is the Union without England?

But take heart – England has had strong leaders in our past.

So, let me take you through a brief look at some events from English history. As mentioned at the start our past, should give us all confidence. These individuals mentioned knew that what England meant to them and they were not afraid to say how they felt, even if it cost them their lives. I have picked them for reasons.

Let’s start in AD 61 Boadicea, Warrior Queen

Before battle somewhere in the Midlands probably just north of Coventry in front of her troops

“I am fighting for my lost freedom, my bruised body and my outraged daughters. Win this battle or perish that is what I, a woman plan to do, let the men live in slavery, if they want to”.

Yes. Boadicea battled for her honour, but she also battled for

her people’s rights and liberty….

Let’s move forward to a character called Byrthnoth in 991

Because standing above the mud flats of Maldon in Essex before and in defiance of the Vikings he let us all know how he felt about protecting England. He said: –

“Listen Messenger, take back my reply

…That a noble earl and his troops stand here

Guardians of the people and of the country, the home of Aethelred, my prince –who will defend this land to the last ditch”.

He showed his entrenched love for England and her people.

And what about the events surrounding Simon De Montfort in 1265. Many of us will know this story but what is of importance is that in the summer of 1258

Those wise men gathered struck a new deal for England with a statement: –

‘Our kingdom shall be ordered, rectified and reformed in keeping with what they think best.

So, we know that a new deal can be done because it has been done…. if the Will is there.

The importance of that event cannot be under estimated and it was English not British…

Then you see an individual named John Ball who in 1381 on Blackheath Common which overlooks London gave a fiery speech as he cried: –

‘that all are equal, that servitude of man to man was introduced by the wicked.

I love those words; they were English words and you see passion and resolve.

Involved in the Peasant Revolt were characters called Wat Tyler, a Kent boy and an individual called Jack Straw.

They were leaders of that rebellion and it did not start in poor and down trodden areas in England, but in rich counties. In fact, it would better to call the Peasants Revolt, the Taxpayers Revolt because then as now the tax burden was too great for the ordinary man and woman… and in a town in Essex at the end of May 1381 rebellion was sparked and at Smithfield Meadow these words were spoken by Wat Tyler: –

Again, I love these comments

‘There should equality among all people …. All men should be free.’

You see that as a country we are prepared to be counted, prepared to stand up for the needs of our fellow man.

Who hasn’t heard of Henry V but on Thursday the 24th October 1415 with a strong belief in God he stood with his troops and said:–
 
if my cause is just, i shall prevail, whatever the size of my following.

I put this in to show why we feel that we can win against the odds

Then to Tilbury we go with Queen Elizabeth and her rousing words

I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman but i have the heart and stomach of a king and a king of England too.

It is no coincidence that England led the way in giving women the right to vote when you have the stories of Boadicea and Queen Elizabeth.

Then let’s move to 1620 and the Mayflower and which must be the beginning of the first written constitution 1629. You hear the commons sound defiant when Sir John Elliot

proclaimed and condemned taxation without parliamentary assent

You see the need for fair treatment has been with us for a long time

1819 Henry Hunt in St Peters Field, Manchester bellowed out the need for parliamentary reform and the right of all men to vote by secret ballot. Although great unrest occurred by 1830 Lord Grey told the House: –

‘The principle of reform is to prevent the necessity for revolution, reform is to preserve not to overthrow.’

If only our government would heed those words

Then we have the Tolpuddle Martyr’s story which is about ordinary working people combined to defend their rights. As the sun rose on 24th February 1834, George Loveless set off to work, arrested and deport/convicted of swearing a secret oath as members of the Friendly Society of Agricultural Labourers.

When sentenced to seven years’ penal transportation, George Loveless wrote on a scrap of paper lines from the Union hymn The Gathering of the Unions:

In England, they became popular heroes and 800,000 signatures were collected for their release.

God is our guide! from field, from wave, 
From plough, from anvil, and from loom;
We come, our country’s rights to save,
And speak a tyrant faction’s doom:
We raise the watch-word liberty;
We will, we will, we will be free!

Yet now we see the Cross of St George being banned for the Tolpuddle Festival and Trade Union congresses for Scotland, Wales and Ireland but not for England.

If English Independence is to be avoided, it can easily be done within the bounds of the Union by completing the Federalisation of the United Kingdom which means providing to England the same democratic rights as have been given to the rest.

By answering once and for all the English Question and with only English elected politicians voting on English only matters.

That principle is not heresy. That principle is not an outrageous suggestion. That principle is the basis on which the Union’s democracy is based and it is up to a political party who recognises that restoring democracy to England is the only way the Union will survive into the long term. Samuel Johnson was right “He that wishes to see his country robbed of its rights cannot be a patriot”. Do right by the people of England and they will not forget it.

In conclusion, I will quote another Churchill, a poet called Charles Churchill and he lived between 1731 and 1764. He stated: –

“Be England what she will. With all her faults, she is my country still”.

Those words for me are true and stirring and I hope they are for you as well. All we ask for is an English parliament so that we can be governed fairly. If that cannot be given, then English Independence is the only way forward.

Eddie Bone

Campaign Director

The Campaign for an English Parliament

Here is the link to the original >>> https://thecepreview.wordpress.com/2016/11/14/the-cep-speech-to-the-center-for-english-identity-and-politics-at-winchester-university-101116/

Five reasons for English Independence (of many!)


I was recently challenged for reasons to justify our call for English Independence. In reply I drew these up.

What do you think?

Five reasons for English Independence (of many!):-

1. Democratic Self Government – the natural state for a modern democratic nation >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/my-evidence-to-mckaywlq-commission.html ; and

2. Fiscal autonomy – to end the “Barnett Formula” subsidies which the HofL report of 2009 stated were then over £49 Billion per year >>> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldbarnett/139/139.pdf; and

3. End “Barnett Consequentials” ie For every £10 Billion spent by the UK in England on a Capital project a further £1 Billion has to be given to Scotland eg HS2 £50Billion = £5 Billion bunce! and

4. Prevent Unionist plans to beak up England into “Regions” because “England is too big”! eg >>> http://stv.tv/news/politics/1371867-gordon-brown-sets-out-vision-of-more-federal-constitution/ and >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/my-submissions-to-local-government.html

5. Dissolution of the UK equals automatic and immediate exit from the EU >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/uk-to-be-python-esque-dead-parrot-after.html

“Home Rule” for England called “Racist”!

“Home Rule” for England called “Racist”!

This is our Press Release:-

It is a measure of the state of England that the disgraceful article below could be published, apparently in all seriousness, here in Essex!

Click here to view the article >>> ‘Racist’ signs appear on Chelmsford roundabout near Three Mile Hill calling for ‘Home Rule’ | Essex Live

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “It is absolutely disgraceful that anyone living in Essex should describe calls for Home Rule for England as “racist”. It is legally a so called “Hate Crime” for these offensive and insulting Anglophobic discriminatory remarks to have been publicly made.

Robin continued:- “The English are as much entitled to Home Rule as any other nation on earth. Any person living here who thinks otherwise should seriously consider whether they really want to live in England!”

Here is the text of the article:-

‘Racist’ signs appear on Chelmsford roundabout near Three Mile Hill calling for ‘Home Rule’


Signs have been spotted plastered around a Chelmsford roundabout, showing a St George’s Cross and calling for ‘Home Rule’.

At least three of the placards are visible on the back of road signs around the Widford roundabout, near Indian Nights restaurant and Three Mile Hill.

A woman, who wished to remain anonymous, reported the appearance of the signs to Essex Live and said: “They are quite high up and I hadn’t noticed them before so I assume they are new.

“I saw the first one and it took me a second to realise they were political, I turned my head round to check the back of the other sign as we headed down Three Mile Hill and was quite shocked to see another one – showing it was an actual campaign of some sort rather than just one person putting up one sign.

“I was quite shocked and disgusted, I know Chelmsford is more right than left, but I’ve never seen something so blatantly inciting racial politics and hatred.

“I was also concerned about who is putting them up – is it a new group in town?

“As someone of Irish descent, the phrase “home rule” and the irony of the whole thing was not lost on me.”

Since Britain voted to leave the European Union incidents of hate crime sharply increased across Essex.

In the week after the vote, 39 hate crimes were reported to Essex Police, up from 21 in the previous seven days and higher than the 31 incidents reported in the same week earlier.

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats

BRITISH GOVERNMENT MIS-USING ENGLISH & WELSH POLICE COMMISSIONER ELECTION FUNDS for EU PROPAGANDA?

GOVT MIS-USING POLICE COMMISSIONER ELECTION FUNDS for EU PROPAGANDA


The Cabinet Office refused to spend what they claimed was £9 million on an information booklet for the Police Commissioner Elections which was recommended by the Electoral Commission, but instead it is set to waste £9 million on a booklet of propaganda for the European Union about which the Electoral Commission has stated as:- “We don’t think the government should have done it, but it’s not illegal,” and that:- “Electoral Commission recommended that the Government should conduct no taxpayer funded advertising”.

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said that:- “In September 2015 I wrote to ask the Government to do a Mayoral style booklet for the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections and wrote that:-

“the Government has neglected to properly consider and apply the Electoral Commission’s conclusions in their report dated March 2013 that there must be a Mayoral style booklet delivered to each elector. Please could you let me know what you are proposing to do to sort out this mess?”

On the 29th February 2016 David O’Gorman of the Cabinet Office’s Elections Division replied to me stating that despite:-

“the Electoral Commission’s recommendation to provide printed booklets of candidate election addresses … there are no plans to provide the booklets to all eligible households in May 2016, given it is estimated that to do so would cost up to £9m.”

Robin Tilbrook continued:- “So it is now crystal clear that this is a government which refused to spend £9 million on a Mayoral style booklet which was recommended by the Electoral Commission to enable the Police Commissioner elections to be conducted fairly. Instead it is determined misuse that £9 million to try to unfairly skew the results of the EU referendum. This is directly against the Electoral Commission’s advice. This is a striking illustration of the rottenness at the heart of the British Government and, as the old saying goes:- “A fish rots from its head”!”

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats

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!”