Category Archives: english question

“EVEL” PROVED NOT TO BE EVIL BUT MERELY USELESS!

“EVEL” PROVED NOT TO BE EVIL BUT MERELY USELESS!

Remember when David Cameron’s announced in Downing Street, after the Scottish Referendum, that he thought that we now needed to give a voice to England?  He proposed that the voting system in the House of Commons should be reformed to provide English votes for English laws (“EVEL”).   

Labour howled that this would lead to disaster but our view was just that it wouldn’t prove to be an answer to the English Question.  In particular we thought then it wouldn’t even be an attempted answer to the question of how the Executive operates.  This is because there would be no English First Minister or English Government or even a Secretary of State for England!

Also it was always going to be unlikely that any such minor reforms to the House of Commons would change the fact that the people that get elected as Labour MPs or Conservative MPs are usually people who not only don’t care for England and do not identify themselves as being English.  In fact they often outright hate England!  For an example of this consider the infamous words of the former Leader of the Liberal Democrats, the late Charles Kennedy, who said that he supported the Regionalisation of England because Regionalisation “Was calling into question the very idea of England itself”! 

We thought how is it going to be possible for such people to ever give a proper voice to England?

Now there has been an academic study done by a Left-wing, Cambridge University Politics Department, academic.  Professor Michael Kelly is certainly no friend to English nationalism. However his report is worth reading and a link to it can be found here>>> https://academic.oup.com/pa/advance-article/doi/10.1093/pa/gsy003/4868636 

The extracts of the study that I particularly relished in their vindication of the English Democrats’ positions were as follows:-

“In the light of prime minister David Cameron’s assertion in September 2014 that EVEL would constitute a ‘decisive answer’ to the West Lothian Question that would enable the ‘voices of England [to] be heard’ (Cameron, 2014), and given the level of disagreement which these procedures have elicited at Westminster, the effectiveness and implications of this historic reform demand more careful assessment than they have hitherto received.”

“More significant objections to EVEL, however, concerned its potential constitutional implications. Some contended that this kind of reform would be inherently incompatible with the ethos of a body tasked with managing the legislative affairs of the UK as a whole, by creating different classes of MPs with different rights. As Bryant (2008, p. 674) noted, ‘[t]he standard objection to it is that it would create two classes of MPs … and in so doing it would run counter to the sovereignty of parliament exercised equally by all who are elected to it’.”

“For others, however, devolution to some parts of the UK, but not to England, has embedded an endemic unfairness and helped put the English Question back at the heart of British politics—a view that has been loudly championed by proponents of the idea of an English parliament.”

“With respect to the various practical obstacles that have been feared by sceptics, the evidence derived from the 2015–2017 parliament suggests that these pessimistic predictions have not thus far been realised.”

“We nevertheless found little evidence that the Commons authorities were unduly burdened in this period by the requirement to make adjudications. This is an important observation because it tends to undermine the common claim that it is not practical to identify England-only legislation.”

“The worry that EVEL might create ‘two classes’ of MPs was widely echoed in the debate about these procedures which took place in the House during 2015, and this became a standard complaint among some MPs—particularly on the question of the so-called ‘Barnett consequentials’ of legislation that appeared mainly to affect England. During these debates it was argued that the new procedures would establish ‘two classes of Members of Parliament’, ‘second-class MPs’, or even make some MPs ‘fourth-class’. This complaint also figured in a wider public debate about EVEL which took place in Scotland in 2015, and in a much more limited way in England.”

“The government possesses various mechanisms within the pre-existing procedures of the House of Commons to manage legislative business, including control over parliamentary time and the exclusive power to initiate taxation and spending provisions. Such tools mean that the possibility of an opposition party with a majority in England effectively displacing the UK government on England-only matters remains remote, at least as a direct consequence of these procedures.”

“It remains possible for England-only legislation not to be certified under EVEL. This is illustrated by government proposals to relax Sunday trading rules through the Enterprise Bill in 2016. Although this policy would only have applied in England and Wales, the Speaker’s provisional certificate confirmed that it did not meet the certification tests. This was because the relevant clause also contained material relating to employment rights in Scotland. 
Under EVEL, however, whole clauses are considered for certification, not components within them. This episode demonstrates rather well that, should ministers in future wish to circumvent the veto right provided by EVEL, there is every chance that this could be relatively easily achieved through the ‘tactical’ drafting of legislation.”

“Under EVEL, the backing of the UK-wide House remains necessary even if it is no longer sufficient for legislation to pass. This means that English MPs remain unable to force through legislation against the wishes of UK-wide MPs—a situation that in time may prove unacceptable to some MPs and wider English audiences.”

“This feature can be illuminated through reference to two different controversies that arose during the 2015–2017 parliament. In July 2015, the government laid before the Commons secondary legislation to relax the rules governing fox-hunting in England and Wales. But a scheduled vote to approve this change was abandoned after the Scottish National Party indicated that it would vote with Conservative backbenchers and others against the move, making a government defeat much more likely.”

“Subsequently, the provision to relax Sunday trading rules in England and Wales was deleted from the Enterprise Bill in a government defeat at Commons report stage. This policy achieved the backing of MPs in England and Wales, but it was MPs representing Scottish constituencies (where it would not directly have applied) who ultimately proved decisive”

“To clarify the extent to which EVEL does, and does not, answer the West Lothian anomaly on legislative voting, it is helpful to compare it to the devolved legislatures, and, specifically, to distinguish between two different ways in which these devolved bodies approve legislation in policy areas that are within their competence. The first, and most common, mechanism is for legislation to be introduced into the relevant devolved legislature, where it is scrutinised and voted on by representatives elected from that part of the UK. But an alternative mechanism that has been developed is for the legislation to be passed by the UK-level Westminster parliament, but with the expressed consent of the appropriate devolved legislature under the operation of the ‘Sewel convention’. EVEL has been designed to be, in some ways, analogous to the second of these mechanisms, but not the first. Consequently, English MPs remain unable to force through legislation against objections from non-English representatives and are thus in a ‘weaker’ position than their devolved counterparts.”

“Moreover, legislative voting is only one component of parliamentary activity, and Dalyell’s query is also potentially relevant to these other functions. In the Westminster parliament, these include the opportunity to hold debates, question ministers and conduct formal inquiries—functions which are also mirrored within the devolved legislatures. These can be understood as mechanisms enabling the expression of ‘voice’, rather than simply the right to ‘veto’ proposed legislation. While these tools clearly can be, and are, used by English MPs at Westminster on policy matters that in practice relate only to England, they are not badged, or even acknowledged, as being territorially bounded in this way.

David Cameron, as quoted in the introduction above, argued that EVEL would enable England’s voice to be better heard within the UK legislature. Subsequently, his party’s 2015 English manifesto claimed that the reform would enable ‘English MPs to express their voice on matters affecting England only’ (Conservative Party, 2015, p. 8). Yet it is far from clear that EVEL offers any notable enhancement of the expressive and deliberative power of English MPs, or gives more voice to England in any meaningful sense. 
More generally, there is a palpable sense that the newly established legislative grand committees have failed to provide a discernible English dimension to the legislative process or promote a clearer English voice.”

“During EVEL’s first year in operation, most of the legislative grand committees were entirely perfunctory, with few or no substantive contributions being made.”

“The failure of EVEL to facilitate any meaningful English voice also illustrates the dangers that can arise when different arguments for reform are conflated. There is a risk that ministers have ‘over-claimed’ in talking up what this kind of reform can achieve, and this could well lead to problems of expectation management in the future. As one MP opposed to the procedures told us, ‘any political advantage the government have got by doing this will be dissipated pretty quickly once people realise just how insignificant a measure it actually is. It just tackles one tiny part of the English Question.’”

“On the larger question of whether these procedures provide a meaningful form of English representation at Westminster, our research leads us to a more sceptical response. EVEL has not eliminated the basic territorial anomaly associated with legislative voting in the House of Commons, which has been exacerbated by devolution. Nor has this new system managed to provide a more visible kind of symbolic representation for the English. In this sense, despite the considerable energy expended on these changes and the inconvenience they have caused for parliament and government alike, it is not clear that they have fundamentally changed the rules of the legislative game along the lines anticipated by their supporters.”

Former Labour Cabinet Minister calls for proper recognition of English interests

 Former Labour Cabinet Minister calls for proper recognition of English interests

John Denham, the former Labour MP and a former Labour Cabinet Minister, who is now the Professor of English Identity and Politics at Winchester University has called for recognition within Labour of the English nationalist movement.  In doing so of course he admits that at present the Labour Party doesn’t properly recognise England at all, and is reluctant to mention the ‘E’ word, let alone give us our rights as English people. 
His article is a good one, and I put it below, but one area of course that is not mentioned at all is the idea of the English Nation. 
Labour are willing to discuss the idea of the Scottish Nation and the Welsh Nation, but they are not prepared to recognise the ideas that England has its own Nation – let alone the English Nation has its own country, namely England!
It has been interesting also to see that John Denham has encountered flak from Far-Leftists within the Labour Party who do not like him raising the ‘E’ word!
His intervention is therefore welcome for the health and progress of the English movement – even if he feels he can’t fully come out as an English nationalist yet!
Below is the article.  What do you think?

DevolutionEnglandEnglish Votes for English LawsJohn DenhamNational Education ServiceScotland Bill

20 years ago, Parliament was debating the Scotland Bill. Within months, both Wales and Scotland were well on the way to their own elected governments. From then onwards, England’s education, health, social care, bus, environment and agriculture policy was distinct from that of its neighbours.
Reading Labour’s recently published 2018 policy consultation, you would never know devolution had even happened. Of eight papers, only one – on health – can even bring itself to use the word ‘England’. The policy consultation is a constitutional dog’s breakfast that ignores the challenges of making policy within a devolved UK. Most documents seem to refer to England, but don’t say so. Others wander blindly across UK, devolved and unresolved policy areas without asking party members how to manage the complications that will inevitably arise.
Education policy is devolved, so presumably the ‘National Education Service’ is only for England, but we are not told that. No one could imagine Welsh or Scottish Labour writing policies that don’t mention Wales or Scotland, so why can’t our Labour Party talk about England? The consultation on housing, local government and transport – all devolved matters – is subtitled ‘giving people the power’. It talks about local devolution. Is this devolution within England, or devolution in every part of the UK? We can assume that it is about England, but why not say so?
‘Greening Britain’ (sic) covers energy policy (not devolved) and air quality (devolved). It covers agriculture, which will become hugely contentious – in theory, it is devolved, but effectively most policy is made in Brussels. With Brexit, the powers will be returned to us: should they go straight to the devolved administrations? Cardiff and Edinburgh say ‘yes’, but many in England would want to maintain a single UK market for farm produce. It’s an ideal question for policy consultation, but the document doesn’t even mention the issue.
The policy paper on poverty and inequality is mainly about UK-wide policy, though it covers some devolved issues. ‘Protecting our communities’ ranges across English, Welsh and UK responsibilities, without making the distinctions clear.
Labour will pay a price for this confused lack of clarity. We cannot change Britain, or any part of it, without an understanding of where power lies now and a clear view of where it should lie in the future.
The 1997 Labour government did not make a serious attempt – despite John Prescott’s best efforts – to shift power and resources out of London. England saw no constitutional change (except, ironically, in London). England needs devolution today because the last Labour government, of which I was a part, failed. Labour members should be asked about the governance of England as a whole: how power and resources will be devolved, how laws for England are made, and about England’s relationship with the rest of the UK.
The party must stop talking as though England and Britain are the same thing. This lazy confusion feeds nationalist propaganda in Scotland, discourages party members from thinking about England’s needs and makes us sound out of touch with millions of voters.
The confused policy documents obscure the reality that England is the only part of Britain permanently ruled by the UK government. It’s a constitutional arrangement that allows a Conservative government to bribe the DUP while taking free school meals from English kids. We should at least be asked whether we want this to continue, but the papers avoid any discussion of how England’s laws are made (including the thorny issue of English votes on English laws).
The idea of a federal UK raised in the 2017 manifesto has disappeared.
Wales and Scotland have radical traditions. England has its own. ‘’For the many not few’ echoes popular English campaigns for land and homes, for protection from exploitation, for justice and rights, using self-organisation and co-operation. Labour could draw on such stories that are embedded in communities across the nation, but only if we can call the country, England, by its name.
While not all voters are bothered whether we mention England by name, plenty do care. They know where they live, they are proud to be English and they want to know what a Labour government will do for England.
In narrow electoral terms, Labour hasn’t won the popular vote in England since 2001. By the time of the next election, we will have been behind the Tories for 21 years. We are 60 seats behind the Conservatives and we won’t be in government unless we win more English votes. In 2015, we were badly damaged by claims that Labour policy for England would be dictated by the SNP.
At the next election, we need an English manifesto that sets out exactly what Labour will do in England; the policy consultation should be the starting point for that manifesto. Labour has gained a narrow lead on ‘best party to represent England’ but that support is dwarfed by those who can’t identify any party that stands for England. Making it clear that we know what country we are talking about and not being afraid of mentioning its name won’t guarantee victory, but it would be a good start.

Here is a link to the original >>>https://labourlist.org/2018/04/john-denham-why-does-our-labour-party-refuse-to-talk-about-england/

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.

The rise of political Englishness – BREXIT or EXIT?

The rise of political Englishness
I always think it is a good sign of changing currents of opinion when you can see even people who in many respects would be political opponents concede the way things are changing.  Although they may put it in language that is different, and regard the outcome in a completely different way.  A really good example of this has recently been published. 
So good is it that I thought I would confine this blog article to providing a link for you to read the whole article which contains various graphics that would be difficult to reproduce in a blog article.
Here is a link to “It’s England’s Brexit” >>> http://wp.me/p5XgA2-j3
I think you will find that it fully lives up to the billing that I have given it.

BBC’s Diversity “drive” – Freedom of Information Act Requests


Re: BBC’s “Positive” discrimination proposals


When I read about these I wrote a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act to the BBC and here is the text of my letter:-

Dear Sirs

Re: BBC’s Diversity “drive” – Freedom of Information Act Requests

I read the Daily Telegraph’s article on Saturday, 23rd April talking about the BBC’s sweeping new “Diversity” targets incorporated into a new “Diversity Strategy”, which appears to show that the BBC, in its drive to be politically correct, has abandoned all sense of both equality and of common sense.

It appears, for instance, that, in News Programmes, you propose that 50% of all commentators, experts and others brought onto the programme should be women regardless of whether they actually represent a genuine diversity of opinion, rather than represent a mere proportion of the population in the neo Soviet sense.

I also read that there are proposed targets across the BBC’s screen and back room staff which are to mirror the national population.

Since 60.4% of the population of England, according to the 2011 Census, identified themselves as being of “English-only” national identity, I ask, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, whether you propose to ensure that 60.4% of the staff, both on screen and in the back room shall be of English national identity? If you propose any other proportion then I request, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, the scientific basis on which you propose a different figure. If you do not propose to specify the proportion of people who are English then I request, under the Freedom of Information Act, your justification in failing to properly represent the population.

I note that you have set targets of 8% of on air roles of “LGBGT” people. I therefore formally request, under the Freedom of Information Act, how you arrived at 8%, given that the proportion of the population who are “LGBGT” is significantly smaller than that. Please also, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, confirm that you will reduce the numbers of “LGBGT” people down to 8% and ensure that they have no greater number than their proportion of the population, otherwise you will clearly be failing to properly represent the “non-LGBGT” proportion of the population. I again request your justification for such findings.

Since you propose that 15% of all “lead roles” as well as on “air positions” will have to be taken by “ethnic minorities”, please can you specify exactly which “ethnic minority” takes up which proportion of that 15% and how that figure is calculated, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Please also provide the information which relates to how that 15% is calculated, given that 15% appears to be a larger proportion of the population than is demonstrated in the 2011 Census results. It would appear, prima facie, that you are seeking to have a larger proportion of “ethnic minority” people than the proportion in the population. How are you therefore properly representing the proportions of the population if you choose to have more than 15%? I again request your justification for such findings.

Please also let me have a list of those groups that you are including in your definition of “minority ethnic groups” that will be given this representation and please also specify where this definition has been taken from and why you have excluded other groups from the list.

Please note that in view of the simplicity of the information requested in this Freedom of Information Act request, I am presuming that there will be no charge for making the request. If there is to be a charge please notify me within the next 7 days from the date of this letter.

Further please note that if a deadline of 21 days for producing the information, which I hereby give, is insufficient, then I do require you to notify me within 7 days of the date of this letter.

If the information requested is in a document then I ask for all the information in the document including its formatting data, but would confirm that the provision of a copy of the document will be a sufficient discharge of this data request.

In the absence of such notifications and should I not receive the information requested, I shall forthwith make an Application to the Information Commissioner for an Order against you to order the disclosure of the requested information.

Yours faithfully

Here is the BBC’s response:-

Dear Mr Tilbrook

Freedom of Information Request – RF120160951

Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) received on 5th May 2016, seeking the following information:
 
1. Since 60.4% of the population of England, according to the 2011 Census, identified themselves as being of “English-only” national identity, I ask, whether you propose to ensure that 60.4% of the staff, both on screen and in the back room shall be of English national identity?
 
2. If you propose any other proportion then I request the scientific basis on which you propose a different figure.
 
3. If you do not propose to specify the proportion of people who are English then I request justification in failing to properly represent the population.
 
4. I note that you have set targets of 8% of on air roles of “LGBGT” people. I therefore formally request how you arrived at 8%, given that the proportion of the population who are “LGBGT” is significantly smaller than that.

5. Please also confirm that you will reduce the numbers of “LGBGT” people down to 8% and ensure that they have no greater number than their proportion of the population, otherwise you will clearly be failing to properly represent the “non-LGBGT” proportion of the population. I again request your justification for such findings.

6. Since you propose that 15% of all “lead roles” as well as on “air positions” will have to be taken by “ethnic minorities”, please can you specify exactly which “ethnic minority” takes up which proportion of that 15% and how that figure is calculated.
 
7. Please also provide the information which relates to how that 15% is calculated, given that 15% appears to be a larger proportion of the population than is demonstrated in the 2011 Census results. It would appear, prima facie, that you are seeking to have a larger proportion of “ethnic minority” people than the proportion in the population.

8. How are you therefore properly representing the proportions of the population if you choose to have more than 15%? I again request your justification for such findings.
 
9.  Please also let me have a list of those groups that you are including in your definition of “minority ethnic groups” that will be given this representation and please also specify where this definition has been taken from and why you have excluded other groups from the list.

In response to 1, 2 and 3, the BBC does not currently ask staff to declare national identity. For more detail on what metrics the BBC aims to measure across the workforce see

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/tools_use/diversity_equality.html

In response to 4 and 5, we have based our targets on a combination of governmental statistics alongside intelligence and estimates.

In response to 6 and 7, the BBC currently publishes general figures relating to the ethnicity of its staff as an annual reporting requirement under the BBC Charter and Agreement and in line with the Public Sector Equality Duty. We reflect the ethnicity of our staff under three broad headings: Ethnic Majority staff (White British/English/Scottish/Welsh) Black and Minority Ethnic staff (Black, Mixed, Asian, Chinese, Middle/Near Eastern) and staff from Other White Backgrounds (Irish, Central & Eastern European, Gypsy/Traveller & white staff from other backgrounds). You can see more about this on the BBC Trust’s website:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/tools_we_use/diversity_equality.html

It is not mandatory for staff to inform the BBC of their diversity information. Therefore the figures only relate to records, where the ethnicity is known (currently 98% of the workforce). The figures also excludes local recruits – staff who are recruited and work locally, outside the UK.

The BBC’s Equality Information Report for 2014/2015 can be found at the following address:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/diversity/strategy/equalityreport2015

In response to 8 and 9, we have based our targets on a combination of governmental statistics alongside internal intelligence, estimates and projections.

Please note that, as set out in section 6(1)(b)(ii) of the FOI Act, our subsidies (including BBC Studio & Post Production Ltd, UKTV, BBC Global News Ltd and BBC Worldwide Ltd), as well as the charities BBC Media Action and BBC Children in Need, are not subject to the Act, therefore information for their personnel is not included in the figures quoted above.

I hope this response satisfies your request.

Appeal Rights

If you are not satisfied that we have complied with the Act in responding to your request, you have the right to an internal review by a BBC senior manager or legal advisor. Please contact us at the address above, explaining what you would like us to review and including your reference number. If you are not satisfied with the internal review, you can appeal to the Information Commission. The contact details are:- Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF, Tel: 0303 123 1113 (local rate) or 01625 545 745 (national rate) or see http://ico.gov.uk/.

Yours sincerely

BBC People

And here is my response:-

Dear Sir

Re: Freedom of Information Request – RF120160951

Thank you for your unsigned letter of the 2nd June 2016 from which it would appear that you have next to no actual data which would enable you to justify a basic breach of principles of equal and fair recruiting, contrary, inter alia, to the Equality Act 2010.

For your information the categories which you describe in which you “reflect the ethnicity” of your staff are not “ethnicities” as recognised by Law. “Ethnicity” is a subset of another group such as the House of Lords found Sikhs were of the wider racial group of the Northern Indians.

Since one of the leading cases on the English as a Racial Group is a case against the BBC, one would, with respect, have thought that the BBC was capable of learning from its previous mistakes and, before undertaking the kind of egregious social engineering project as proposed, would have gone to the trouble of acquiring the requisite data.

For your information ‘White British’ is a legal oxymoron, given that British is anybody who has a British passport. English, Scottish and Welsh are separate National Origin and Racial Origin groups. The idea that “Black, Mixed, Asian, Chinese, Middle/Near Eastern” all represents a single “Ethnic” Group is bizarre. Obviously your “Other White Backgrounds” is equally a miss mash of different peoples. The fact that you quote these would seem to demonstrate that you actually have not done the required groundwork to depart from basic equality law principles in recruitment.

We invite you to correct us if there is any information which supports your proposed course of action?

Yours faithfully

What do you think?

The English pay £140 each for the EU

The English pay £140 each for the EU


Scotland’s taxpayers are no longer a net beneficiary of EU largess and now pay in £64 per person more than they get back from Brussels, according to a new economic analysis published.

David Bell, Professor of Economics at the University of Stirling, calculated that Scots now pay more than £1.4 billion towards the EU every year and receive almost £1.1 billion back through the UK’s rebate and funds such as Common Agriculture Policy payments.

However, the English on their own contribute more than that averaging £140 for each and every person in England.

In comparison, the Northern Irish pay a net sum of only £31 per person, while the Welsh are net beneficiaries to the tune of £164 per person because they receive that much more than they pay in.

Here is a link to the original article>>> http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14537100.Scottish_Labour_considers_becoming___39_independent__39__party/

“ENGLISH DEVOLUTION” MINISTER SHOWS LITTLE INTEREST IN THE ENGLISH QUESTION

“ENGLISH DEVOLUTION” MINISTER SHOWS LITTLE INTEREST IN THE ENGLISH QUESTION.


Back on the 8th August I wrote a blog article suggesting writing to the new Minister appointed to oversee English Devolution, Dominic Raab. Here is a link to my article>>>Robin Tilbrook: UK Government appoint “Under Minister” responsible for “Devolution” to England

http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/uk-government-appoint-under-minister.html

It appears that the Minister for English devolution has so little interest in the English Question that he cannot even be bothered to sign off the reply!

Most of the answers we have had so far have been standard holding letters but one member got the reply below. What do you think?

Here is the text of the letter:-

Thank you for your email of the 24 August to Dominic Raab MP regarding English ethnicity, English Votes for English Laws and the Barnett formula.

Shortly after the General Election, the Prime Minister announced that the Government will implement the Smith Commission Agreement in full. The cross-party talks were convened to consider the devolution of further powers to Scotland, and culminated in the Smith Commission Agreement. Once the new settlement for Scotland is operational, the Scottish Parliament will be responsible for more than 50% of its funding.

The Scottish Government will therefore have greater accountability and autonomy; changes in the Scottish Parliament’s funding will be increasingly determined by changes in Scottish tax and the importance of the Barnett-based block grant provided by the UK Government will therefore decrease.

It is worth noting that levels of public spending throughout the UK – including comparisons between regions in England – recognise the fact that costs are different because there are different demands on services and benefits, depending on local economies and circumstances.

The Prime Minister has been clear that the United Kingdom should remain as one and that if we are to govern our nation in the best interests of the whole United Kingdom it is important that devolution is balanced and every part of the UK has a fair say.

The devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has led to changes in the constitutional settlement and the question of the fairness of that settlement to England must now be addressed. However, the Government does not believe that a federal UK or an English Parliament is the answer. The Government believes in a strong UK Parliament for a strong UK. The creation of an English Parliament could significantly weaken and diminish the role of the UK Parliament by reducing its workload and its status. The Government thinks it right and proper that English MPs should have a decisive role to play in the passage of legislation that affects only England. However, creating a separate English Parliament would mean that MPs from other parts of the UK would be denied the opportunity to contribute to debates and would therefore diminish the current decision-making process rather than enhancing it.

On 2 July, the Government announced its plans to implement ‘English Votes for English Laws’ to strengthen England’s voice, just as devolution has strengthened the voices of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland within our Union. The proposals will be debated soon and decided upon by the House of Commons.

Under English Votes for English Laws, every MP would continue to have a vote on every Bill. However, the key change would come into effect when the Commons considers England-only measures on matters which have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Norther Ireland Assemblies. English MPs would have the decisive say in Westminster. This provision would also extend to English and Welsh MPs where measures apply to England and Wales and are on matters which been devolved elsewhere.

You can read more about the Government’s proposals at the website:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatins/english-votes-for-english-laws-proposed-changes

For the matters raised on immigration, please write directly to the Home Office who leads on the immigration policy.

I hope you find this useful.

Policy Support Team
Constitution Group, Cabinet Office

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much Ladies and Gentlemen.

More evidence of England paying the piper (but not calling the tune)!


More evidence of England paying the piper (but not calling the tune)!

 

Even MPs who represent English seats but who are not English like the Welsh Mrs Cheryl Gillan sometimes stick up for their constituents.  What do you think?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150609/debtext/150609-0002.htm
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1081
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con):
“I hope that the Government will resist the call for the triple lock, quadruple lock—or whatever we are going to call it now. I asked the House of Commons Library to look at the disaggregation by UK constituent nation of the EU budget contributions and receipts. My right hon. Friend the Minister will be interested to know that it clearly shows that although the average cost across the UK in the last year for which figures were available was £48 per head, when that is disaggregated, we see that the real burden falls on England. The cost of membership is £72 per capita in England, whereas in Scotland, it is a mere £2; in Wales minus £74; and in Northern Ireland minus £160. So the devolved nations, which are effectively feather-bedded against the real cost of membership, should not be allowed to slant the results of any referendum by demanding an individual country lock on any result.”
The actual debate can be viewed here, with Mrs Gillan speaking about 14 minutes 37 seconds in:

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/035a053e-b29e-4a3a-a1d9-3916a6a5cce7?in=12:40:21
Alex Salmond misrepresented opposition to a Referendum on continued EU membership being determined by the vote in each nation as meaning, by extension, “that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should not get a vote at all.” The analogy with the USA is absurd.

This ‘disaggregation’ sets in context the positions of rUK in respect of EU Membership.