Category Archives: eu referendum

FISHING FLOTILLA DEMONSTRATION ON THE THAMES


FISHING FLOTILLA DEMONSTRATION ON THE THAMES


On Wednesday I was part of a thoroughly enjoyable demonstration on the Thames outside the Palace of Westminster.

The above pictures show me with the organiser of the demonstration, Bob Spinks.

It was not only perfectly organised, but an excellent idea of his, making the absolutely “on the money” point, that the EU, far from being good for jobs, has actually destroyed many jobs, focussing in this particular case on the fishing jobs that it has destroyed and doing so in a colourful, interesting and provocative way.

So much so that Remain were unable to resist trying to do a counter-demonstration led by the appalling Sir Bob (“God-awful”) Geldolf, who was vividly pictured in the press flicking V signs at the fishermen illustrating his sense of entitlement. 

Geldolf’s boat had very high volume loud speakers which he was using to try and drown out everything that was being said on the Leave boat.

Amongst the journalists, Michael Crick said that it was the best political demonstration that he had ever been to. I think that is high praise indeed for Bob Spink’s efforts.

Let’s hope all this activity pays off in the early hours of Friday, 24th June!

The deadline for voter registration is extended for the EU Referendum

The deadline for voter registration is extended for the EU Referendum


What does the extension of the deadline for registration of voters onto the electoral roll in preparation for the EU Referendum tell us about the British Political Establishment? 


The first point to make is that the mere fact that they wanted to extend the deadline shows the extent to which the British Political Establishment is desperate about the increasing possibility that the overall UK vote will be for Brexit. They think that the people who have left it until the last minute to register are not the sort of people who will vote for Brexit – bear that optimistic point in mind! 


Less encouragingly the date for the deadline for registration is actually written into the electoral legislation and the fact that there could even be an Establishment fix, in which the law under which the election is conducted could be changed whilst the referendum is actually ongoing, is the most appalling indicator of just how far the British/EUish Establishment will go to the fix the outcome of this Referendum. 


What this means is that those of us who are in favour of Brexit really must be on our guard for an Establishment fix. For instance, we do need volunteers to go to the opening of the postal ballots and check that there are no shenanigans and that the boxes are then sealed and have remained sealed when the count begins. 


Even that does not offer a full guarantee, as was demonstrated by someone I knew at university who became a senior Labour Party activist. He was amused to tell me that on one occasion when the local party had selected a candidate who the central party thought was unsuitable. They had managed to get the election re-run. So he was sent to oversee the election with, as he put it:- “with two ballot boxes, one for people to vote in and the other with the right result in”! 


There is also another implication to be drawn from the sudden change in law. This is the very fact that there really is such a thing as a British Political Class which can and will collude where its interests are threatened. We saw this very clearly in the Scottish Independence Referendum where there were also shocking levels of misbehaviour and improper and undemocratic manipulation. 

One good example that came out at the time was this one I did a blog article. You can find the link here >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/proof-of-media-collusion-at-heart-of.html


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.

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/

Why should English lawyers want England to leave the EU?

As part of my contribution to the campaign to come out of the EU I have been trying to get the English nationalist view across and got this article published in the Solicitors Journal. ISSUE: Vol 160 no 15 19-04-16

In discussion: Brexit

With debate over the UK’s continuing participation in the European Union hotting up, Solicitors Journal invites its readers to explain which way they are voting come the 23 June referendum. Can they persuade you?


Sir,

When asked why English lawyers should want our country to leave the EU, I would respond that lawyers should be the best and most loyal citizens. Any good citizen should be proud of his or her country. In the case of England, we have much to be proud of.

When our English nation state’s great founder, King Alfred, promulgated his great legal code circa 893 AD, he expressly based its legitimacy upon Christian values and upon the free traditions of the English nation. This code set the course of English legal development on a very different jurisprudential path to that of our continental neighbours. Thus, even before England was unified, in 927 AD under Alfred’s grandson, Athelstan, English law was already developing along the path of common law, resting upon the customs of the English people.

Our Anglo-Saxon forbearers also set us on the path towards another English constitutional contribution to the modern world: representative democracy. Their system of representation by means of consultative assemblies, culminating in the great council of the nation, the Witan, is the root of our democratic system.

This was supplemented by Magna Carta’s affirmation of the right to a fair trial, and its arguably more important contribution to the idea of the rule of law. This is unlike the continental jurisprudential legacy of Roman law derived from the Institutes of Justinian, the legacy of imperial tyranny, where individuals’ rights are only those which have been permitted by law. Implicitly, the civil law state is claiming to be antecedent to all rights.

By contrast, we cherish England as the ‘land of liberty’ and of the ‘liberties of the freeborn Englishman’, in which our freedom is only limited by express law as the foundations of our constitution and legal system. The 1689 Bill of Rights completed our unique representative democratic tradition.

It is no wonder, therefore, that all good citizens, patriots, and lawyers who care about England should be united in calling for an exit from an institution founded on jurisdictional principles so at odds with the rights and liberties of Englishmen and Englishwomen.

It was a policy blunder to have gone into the EU in the first place. The aim of the British establishment in doing so was to try to maintain its own pretensions of grandeur – to strut on the ‘world stage’ as a great power. It was misguided folly for ordinary people to have ratified that decision in the 1975 referendum, but now we have the chance on 23 June to triumphantly reassert our freeborn rights and liberties by voting to leave. Let us do so and let the nation stand proud again.

Yours faithfully,

Robin Tilbrook

Robin Tilbrook is principal solicitor at Tilbrook’s Solicitors in Essex and chairman of the English Democrats @RobinTilbrook

Here is a link to the original article >>> In discussion: Brexit | Solicitors Journal

Quentin Letts calls for us all to send letters to the Conservative Freepost address


Quentin Letts calls for us all to send letters to the Conservative Freepost address. Here is Quentin Lett’s article:-

QUENTIN LETTS: Cameron’s £9million pro-EU mailshot stinks. So I’m sending mine straight back!


By QUENTIN LETTS FOR THE DAILY MAIL

Received your pro-EU propaganda leaflet in the post yet? As you may have heard, the Government is blowing millions of pounds on a public mailshot.

All British households are to receive a copy of this 16-page, glossy leaflet which instructs us — cue a fanfare of trumpets and shouts of acclamation from an obedient populus — in the glories of the European Union.

You lucky, lucky people.

As we speak, valiant employees of Royal Mail are working to bring us this vital document.

It is emblazoned with the crest of Her Majesty’s Government and brims with snapshots, statistics and claims about the positive effect of the EU on Britain.

A message from our rulers, my, my! Across the kingdom, children press their noses to smudged front windows, waiting for sight of their postie to see if this will be their lucky day.

The project is so vast, it almost demands the poetic treatment W. H. Auden gave to the Night Mail in that celebrated 1936 documentary film (‘This is the Night Mail, crossing the border, bringing the cheque and the postal order. . . ’).

Steam trains may no longer be around, but articulated lorries are being loaded with pallets of these Cameroon EU leaflets at remote depots late of night.

Scandal

Sorting office machines chatter and click like crazy as the nation sleeps. Soon after dawn, postmen and women trudge the staircases of residential tower blocks or amble down provincial garden paths — no doubt whistling a cheery air as they step — to bring the uplifting news about Brussels.

‘Economic security, peace and stability,’ it declares. You can almost hear Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony pumping away in the background.

Such co-ordination of proletarian toil is enough, my dears, to bring tears to your eyes. Or perhaps not. For this £9 million junk mailshot is, to put it mildly, controversial.

There are some of us, and I would happily include myself in their number, who would call it a sorry and scurvy little scandal, one that could ultimately limit David Cameron’s premiership, damage the Conservative Party and dent our already battered trust in Whitehall.

The whole thing stinks — stinks like a Belgian wrestler’s jockstrap — and we should demand explanations from those who have authorised it.

It is hard to think of a more blatant stitch-up in public affairs since, well, the last time our country was given a vote on Europe back in 1975, when the Establishment presented the electorate an entirely false prospectus on what was then described as the European Economic Community.

Later, without any public vote on the matter, that segued into the European Community. And then the European Union. And these ruddy Europhiles expect us to trust them again!

The simple fact that such a mailing is happening at all reflects the intense ill-feeling — and, perhaps, of panic in Whitehall — that the public is refusing to be so gullible this time round.

The leaflet certainly appears to break promises made in Parliament by ministers less than a year ago.

The Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, and Europe minister, David Lidington, as good as stated in the Commons last June that no such mailshot would be undertaken by the Government.

I say ‘as good as’ because Mr Lidington’s exact words were ‘we have no intention of legislating to allow the Government to do things such as mailshots, paid advertising or leafleting’. The italics are mine.

I suppose Mr Lidington could claim that the Government did not, indeed, legislate for this mailshot. It just went ahead with it anyway. But if he did try to argue that, he would be guilty of the most disingenuous shading of the spirit of what he said.

As for that unconvincing figure Hammond (how can such an uninspiring little man have been given one of our great offices of state?), he noted that the Remain and Leave campaigns would do their own mailshots.

He added: ‘The Government has no intention of undermining those campaigns.’

Ladies and gentlemen, it has just done precisely that, undermining the Leave campaign with a nakedly pro-EU leaflet that has been funded by taxpayers.

If the Commons had any self-respect, it would accuse Messrs Hammond and Lidington of misleading the House last summer. Ministers who mislead the House were once obliged to resign. Alas, we now live in a Britain where ministers who lie on behalf of the EU get off scot-free. So much for the principle, or lack of principle, behind this leaflet.

Next is the cost: £9 million, says the Government airily, wafting aside objections as if to say that £9 million is a piffling sum.

Is it? The cost may well be higher when you consider production and distribution costs to 27 million homes from Land’s End to John o’Groats.

Schmaltzy

Since when has George Osborne’s Treasury become so careless of the pounds, shillings and pence? And would the public not prefer £9 million to be spent on, say, healthcare or schools or even on repairs to Buckingham Palace?

Instead, it’s being spent on millions of swanky leaflets telling us how to vote in the referendum.

Eurosceptic Liam Fox has called it ‘Juncker Mail’, punning on the name of the European Commission’s notoriously thirsty president Jean-Claude Juncker. With normal junk mail, of course, you can opt out of unwanted advertising (or try to — not that preferential mail schemes always work).

With Government communications, there is no such opt-out. The beggars send you the stuff even if you do not want it.

The timing of this public misinformation service has been highly questionable.

Some people believe it was announced last week in an attempt by spin doctors to obscure the row over David Cameron’s tax affairs.

Others claim, I suspect with rather more cause, that it has been issued sneakily just before spending limits are introduced on the two sides in the referendum campaign.

At this point you may ask: ‘Who is the top civil servant who would have authorised this leaflet?’

To which the answer, surprise, surprise, is Cabinet Secretary ‘Sir Cover-Up’ Jeremy Heywood. A sneaky, last-minute ambush of the Brexiters is a classic Sir Cover-Up tactic.

Then there is the content. It is a depressing (yet somehow simultaneously comical) mixture of dumbed-down rot and schmaltzy cynicism.

One photograph, in the manner of the children’s TV show Play School, shows a June calendar with a red circle round the 23rd, referendum day. Don’t forget to vote, children.

Political correctness has been observed, too. For example, there is a photo of someone who looks like a man doing a supermarket shop and carrying a taupe handbag.

A snapshot of a ‘UK Border’ sign, by the way, has the caption: ‘We control our own borders.’ Ha! I like it! If you think we exert any proper control of our borders, you really must be a politician.

So, what can we do with this darn leaflet, this flimsy wad of piffle, this stapled spiel of Cameroonish baloney?

Reading it is a fruitless enterprise, for you will not learn anything reliable and it may simply cause your pulse to race with irritation.

Can we scrunch it up and use it as litter for the hamster cage? But the paper is non-absorbent. How about paper darts? Wrong shape. Use it for wall cavities? As draught excluders? We could burn it, I suppose, but that might contravene EU carbon emissions targets.

Some have suggested sticking these ridiculous propaganda sheets into an envelope saying ‘return to sender’ and addressing them to Mr Cameron at 10 Downing Street, London.

But that will simply mean that we taxpayers pick up the postal bill — and anyway, the Royal Mail would probably cotton on and refuse.

Ingenious

There is, my friends, a better answer, and it comes from my friend Anthony, a vigorous and ingenious Brexiter. He suggests putting your EU leaflets in an envelope and addressing them to a Freepost address used by Conservative Party fundraisers for their fat-cat donors.

This will mean that the Royal Mail is paid by the recipient.

You might say that this is a little hard on the poor old Tory Party. Well, it is their ruddy leader who has sent out this leaflet. Let them have it out with him.

PS: And that address? It is Joanna George, Freepost RSBB-XRZT-ZTXE, The Conservative Party Foundation, 30 Millbank, London SW1P 4DP.

You can even enclose a little message, telling them precisely what you think of Mr Cameron and Sir Cover-Up’s leaflet.

I am sure they will be grateful for the feedback. After all, isn’t this a listening government?

Here is the link to the original>>> David Cameron’s £9million pro-EU mailshot stinks writes Quentin Letts | Daily Mail Online

Here is my letter:-

Dear Madam

Re: EU Referendum

I reject the propaganda leaflet for which your Leader, Dave Donald Cameron, misappropriated public funds to send to every elector in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

It was a gross Breach of Trust and I look forward to the day when he can be personally surcharged for doing it.

Yours faithfully

R C W Tilbrook

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!”

Sadiq Khan reveals the undemocratic gerrymandering at the heart of Labour’s vision of multi-culturalist London


Sadiq Khan reveals the undemocratic gerrymandering at the heart of Labour’s vision of multi-culturalist London

 

“Sadiq urges 500,000 EU voters to take revenge on Zac for backing Brexit”


The word democracy comes from the Ancient Greek, the Rule of the Demos or the People.

In Athens and the other ancient Greek democratic City States the Demos, the People, were clearly defined by law, so that only those that qualified legally could become citizens and could vote.

Even in the modern world only those States which have a defined citizen body can properly be called a democracy, since if the citizen body is not defined properly then anyone, whether they be citizen or not, can vote.

What could be a clearer illustration of the extent to which unchecked and uncontrolled mass immigration and the New Labour project to replace the English people with a new and no doubt more politically useful population than Sadiq Khan’s call as set out in the article below?

Can anyone think of an example of a more self-interested and anti-patriotic stance by a British Establishment politician, or, indeed, a living example of the best possible reason to vote to Leave the EU whilst the possibility of us still being able to do so still exists by the use of the ballot box rather than (in Irish Republican terms) the Armalite?

Zac Goldsmith and Sadiq Khan go to war over Brexit

Europe moved to the heart of London’s mayoral battle today as it emerged that the votes of a record half a million citizens from other EU states could be critical to the contest.

Labour’s Sadiq Khan launched an unprecedented campaign to persuade them to take revenge against Tory rival Zac Goldsmith for backing a British exit from the European Union.

Mr Khan said the Brexit campaign was putting at risk the rights of around a million EU citizens in London to live and work here. If Britain left the EU they could end up “having to leave London”, he said. The army of Europeans in London could become a significant political force as they make up around 10 per cent of the capital’s electorate.

A record 559,543 people from European countries outside the UK are registered to vote in the capital, according to figures released to Parliament.

Although they are not entitled to vote in the EU referendum or in Westminster elections, they all have the right to vote for a new Mayor on May 5 and for members of the London Assembly. Only 62,538 votes separated Boris Johnson from rival Ken Livingstone at the 2012 mayoral election.

The most recent mayoral poll suggested the gap between Mr Khan and Mr Goldsmith was about 140,000 votes.

A spokesman for Mr Goldsmith accused Mr Khan of “divisive scaremongering” and claimed the Labour candidate’s policies were a bigger risk to all Londoners. “This divisive scaremongering shows Khan doesn’t want to talk about the issues at stake in this Mayoral election — more homes, better transport, safer streets and cleaner air,” he said. “Zac’s job, if he is elected, will be to bring London together and make sure it flourishes. The real risk to London’s families is a four year Khan–Corbyn experiment in City Hall, with a £1.9 billion budget black hole, and the threat it presents to all our futures.”

Conservative MEP for London, Charles Tannock, said it could be the first major election where EU citizens are a major factor. “Generally EU citizens don’t turn out in large numbers for local elections and have been traditionally ignored by mainstream parties and candidates for that reason,” he told the Evening Standard.

“Things could change on May 5. There is no indication of that at present but the EU Referendum happening the following month may raise awareness of UK elections.” The number of EU citizens has risen since the last mayoral race in 2012 because of the arrival of young workers from countries such as Bulgaria and Hungary, whose citizens gained full freedom of movement in 2014.

London boroughs with the largest number of European citizens are Ealing (31,339), Lambeth (28,035) and Newham (25,562).

Mr Khan said that Euro-voters could become a significant factor because of the In-Out referendum. “Britain’s role in Europe is absolutely critical for all Londoners — supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs, and helping us keep Londoners safe,” he told the Standard.

“But our relationship with Europe is of even greater concern for the half a million European citizens in London. If Zac Goldsmith has his way and drags London out of Europe, they face massive uncertainty and even the prospect of having to leave London altogether.

“EU citizens in London won’t get a vote in the referendum, but they can still have their say by backing a Mayoral candidate who will campaign for Britain to remain in Europe. It’s clearly in all Londoners’ interests for Britain to remain in Europe.”

What do you think?


Here is a link to the original article >>> Zac Goldsmith and Sadiq Khan go to war over Brexit | Mayor | News | London Evening Standard

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/zac-goldsmith-and-sadiq-khan-go-to-war-over-brexit-a3187961.html

17 WEEKS TO 23RD JUNE – UK’S INDEPENDENCE DAY?


17 WEEKS TO 23RD JUNE – UK’S INDEPENDENCE DAY?


Some people have pointed out that the day after the EU Referendum vote on the 23rd June, when hopefully the result will be announced, is the day on which the blockbuster film sequel “Independence Day 2” is being launched. Let’s hope that is a prophetic coincidence!

Now that the referendum campaign has in effect started inevitably we have had the Remain camp talking up “Project Fear” to try and start frightening people to stay within the EU.

Their argument is that leaving the EU is a jump into the unknown by the country and that those in favour of Leave will be unable to say what exactly the deal will be. This is of course true and it is no use denying it, although arguments can be put forward to show that the risk is not really as serious as is being suggested.

Nevertheless since it is true that those in favour of Leave cannot be precise as to what the arrangements will be it is, in my view, necessary for those arguing for Leave to talk about the uncertainties of remaining within the EU

Whilst the BBC etc. have been keen to publicise the uncertainties of Leave what hasn’t been so well publicised is the uncertainties of Remain.

In particular do we want England broken up into the EU “Regions”? Do we want the UK to become twelve EU “Regions” within a Federal EU? Do we want an EU army? Do we want an EU police force? Do we want an EU judicial system? That is if the progress to “ever closer union” continues.

In the alternative there may be a messy breakdown as further problems with the Greek bailout becomes critical again and with the imminence of financial collapse in the Italian banks. Quite apart from those other parts of the EU which look more likely to want to leave, such as France if Marie Le Pen wins the Presidential election next year? What do you think?

I have also been thinking of what slogan would appeal to English nationalists that has people thinking about this kind of issue and I suggest:-

‘Stop the EU breaking up England. Vote to Leave

What do you think?

For English nationalists there is also the very interesting prospect that many of the likely scenarios in the EU Referendum will undermine the UK. Here is an extremely useful and interesting article by Professor Rose of Strathclyde University which sets this out and in which he has crunched the numbers for us:-

Will the EU referendum trigger the break-up of the United Kingdom?


If England drags Scotland out of the EU, there will be trouble. But if Scotland keeps England inside, it could be double.

On the night of the EU referendum, there will be three counts that matter. The first will show whether there is an overall British majority for staying in or leaving the EU. The second will show whether English voters are on the winning or the losing side. The third will show how likely it is that the United Kingdom will stay together.

That might sound drastic to some readers. But large differences in support for the EU among different nations of the UK mean that many potential results are bad for the Union. Unless England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all agree in their answers to the referendum question, factions in each will be able to reject the result as illegitimate.

England contributes five sixths of the British electorate. To produce a UK majority for leaving the EU, regardless of the preference of other Britons, would therefore require 61 percent of English voters to endorse Brexit.

Opinion polls, however, show English voters tend to be evenly divided, and often in favour of Brexit. Even if a British poll reported 51 per cent in favour of remaining in the EU, a majority of English respondents would be in favour of Brexit. This is because other UK nations are much more pro-European.

The National Centre for Social Research calculates that 55 per cent of Welsh, 64 per cent of Scots and 75 per cent of Ulster voters endorse the European Union on the basis of more than a dozen polls taken in the past year.

These numbers are also more stable than the equivalent figures in England.

So collectively, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish voters will contribute about 11 per cent of the pro-EU vote. English voters would only have to add another 40 per cent to the UK total to create an absolute majority keeping the UK in Europe. But that would mean most English voters had endorsed leaving the European Union – only to have their wishes overriden by the other UK nations.

On the other hand, if 53 per cent of English voters voted to leave the EU, this would be enough to take the UK out of Europe against the preference of a majority of Scots, Welsh and Ulster voters.

The only result which would keep the UK united would be a narrow English majority in favour of remaining in the EU. In that scenario, all four parts of the United Kingdom were of one mind. For this to be true we would expect to see a UK-wide majority of more than 53 per cent.

On the basis of current polling, that is unlikely. Of 30 major British polls I have analysed, only ten reported a pro-EU majority so large that most English respondents agreed with their fellow Britons. An additional 13 polls showed majorities of up to 53 percent in favour of remaining in the EU, but such a narrow lead implies that most English people would be held in Europe against their will. And seven of the 30 polls actually showed enough English opposition to the EU to overpower the other nations’ leads.

A conflict between Britain’s nations on future relations with the EU would be a huge headache to the Prime Minister. Part of the argument for Scottish independence in 2014 was that England would no longer be able to “impose” decisions on Scotland. An English-led withdrawal of the UK from the European Union could trigger another referendum in Scotland on the linked issues of leaving the UK and joining Europe. That would confront the Westminster government with simultaneously negotiating the UK’s withdrawal from Europe and Scotland’s withdrawal from the UK.

Yet the opposite outcome – a UK majority to remain in the EU, and an English majority to leave – would also be a nightmare for Downing Street. Conservative Eurosceptics could denounce the result as illegitimate, but it would be politically impossible for the Eurosceptics to win a referendum on the issue of England withdrawing from the United Kingdom.

Even if a narrow English majority went along with other Britons and voted to stay in the EU, there could still be an absolute majority of Conservatives voting to leave. Determined Eurosceptics could then adopt Jeremy Corbyn’s doctrine that the party leader should represent his party’s members. This argument could be used as a weapon to extract promises of further anti-EU actions from Cabinet ministers wanting to succeed David Cameron as the next Conservative prime minister.

Whatever the feelings of English voters on the emotive issue of Europe, there is no escaping the fact that the outcome of the forthcoming EU referendum will be decided by the total vote of the United Kingdom. That is the price England pays for being British.

Richard Rose is a professor of public policy at University of Strathclyde Glasgow and a commissioning fund awardee of The UK in a Changing Europe

Click here for the original article>>> Will the EU referendum trigger the break-up of the United Kingdom? – Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12114578/Will-the-EU-referendum-trigger-the-break-up-the-United-Kingdom.html