Category Archives: brexit

English Democrats bring the Case to get a Declaration that the UK has left the EU as of the 29th March 2019

This is our only chance to complete what we voted for in the EU Referendum!

We are serving the legal papers required to bring this case but we really need all the support that Leave supporters can give us to make sure that we can match the expensive legal muscle whom the Government and Remainers will instruct against us! 

Please help as generously as you can! 

There is a donate button on our website >>> EnglishDemocrats.Party

Here are the draft Grounds:-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
BETWEEN
THE QUEEN
ON THE APPLICATION OF THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS
(REG. NO. 6132268)
Applicant
-and-
THE PRIME MINISTER (1)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION (2)
Respondents
________________________________
GROUNDS OF THE APPLICATION
_________________________________
1.     It is submitted that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has left the European Union as of the 29thMarch 2019 after the expiry of its two year Notice to Leave dated 29thMarch 2017.
2.     Much of the relevant law has been explored and ruled upon by this Honourable Court and by the Court of Appeal and by the Supreme Court in the case of R (on the application of Miller and another) – v – Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC5.  Consequently Parliament enacted the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. 
3.     The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland joined the European Union pursuant to Treaty in 1972 and subsequently the European Union Act 1972 was enacted to give domestic legal force to the Treaty obligations to the European Union.
4.     The current overarching constitution of the European Union was reformed under the Lisbon Treaty which was brought into direct legal force in the United Kingdom pursuant to the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008.
5.     Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty  reads as follows:-
“Article 50 – Treaty on European Union (TEU)
1.     Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2.     A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention.  In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.  That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.  It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3.     The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4.     For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5.     If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asked to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.”
                           
6.     On the 23rd June 2016 the voters of the United Kingdom, by a majority, and the voters of England by a larger majority,  voted, in the largest democratic mandate in the United Kingdom’s history, to leave the European Union. 
7.     In accordance with the United Kingdom’s “Constitutional Requirements” Parliament enacted the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.  The Preamble to that Act states that it is:- “An Act to confer power on the Prime Minister to notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU” 
The Act provides:-
“1. Power to notify withdrawal from the EU
(1)  The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.”
8.     Pursuant to the statutory power granted by the European Withdrawal Act 2017 the Prime Minister duly served the Notice on 29th March 2017.  That Notice expired on the 29th March 2019. 
9.     Accordingly it is submitted that as of the scintilla temporis after the expiry of the said notice on the 29thMarch 2019, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has left the European Union.
10.In the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 Parliament further enacted a transitional scheme whereby it proposed to transpose all EU law into a direct effect in the UK jurisdictions of Northern Ireland, Scotland and England and Wales.  Much of that Act has not been brought into force.  The Act mis-describes its implementation date as “exit day”.  This is something of a misnomer since under the true construction of this Act it has no role, either purported or implicit, in determining the date of departure of the UK leaving the European Union.  Within the meaning of the Act, “exit date” is merely the implementation date for the Act’s transactional arrangements.
11.The Applicant is aware that there has been purported ministerial Regulation under the 2018 Act which may have been approved by resolution in both Houses.  However even if it has, it is submitted that such a Regulation cannot of itself be in any way definitive of the UK’s actual departure from the European Union.  The relevant wording of the Act makes this clear:- 
“European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018
An act to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and make other provision in connection with the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU.
[26th June 2018]
1 Repeal of the European Communities Act 1972
The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day.
2 Saving for EU-derived domestic legislation
(1) EU-derived domestic legislation, as it has effect in domestic law immediately before exit day, continues to have effect in domestic law on and after exit day.
20 Interpretation
(1) In this Act—
“exit day” means 29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m. (and see subsections (2) to (5));
(2) In this Act references to before, after or on exit day, or to beginning with exit day, are to be read as references to before, after or at 11.00 p.m. on 29 March 2019 or (as the case may be) to beginning with 11.00 p.m. on that day.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).
(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.”
12.Despite the express wording of the European Union (Notification f Withdrawal) Act 2017, expressly only empowering the Prime Minister to give Notice to withdraw the United Kingdom from the EU, the Prime Minister has purported to request an extension of the Article 50 date for departure and subsequently purported to agree an extension to the date of departure. 
13.It is submitted, in accordance with long and high authority of legal precedents and also recently and comprehensively in R (on the application of Miller and another) – v – Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC5 that, statute fully displaces any residual prerogative powers. 
14.In the premises the only power that the Prime Minister had, as regards Article 50, was the service of the Notice withdrawing the United Kingdom from the EU and giving two years notice.  That power was functus officio on the 29thMarch 2017. Accordingly, her purported request for an extension of the date of departure and the Government’s purported agreement to such an extension is and was unlawful and is and was null and void.
15.In the premises the Applicant seeks a Declaration from this Honourable Court that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland left the European Union upon the expiry of the Article 50 Notice on the 29th March 2019.
Statement of Fact
I believe that the facts in these Grounds are true.
Signed …………………………………           Dated ……………………..
            Robin Charles William Tilbrook

Latest twists in the Brexit Parliamentary fiasco and about the case to stop any extension to Article 50

Following the latest twists in the Brexit Parliamentary fiasco and my previous blog article about the case to stop any extension to Article 50 except by a full Act of Parliament, I have written again to the Government’s lawyers as follows:-
Mr Jonathan Stowell
c/o Government Legal Department
Dear Sir
Re:  Proposed Action
        English Democrats – v – the Secretary of State for Exiting the          
        European Union
We refer to the above matter and to our letter of 20th March.  We note that, since that letter was dictated, the Prime Minister has written a letter to the President of the European Council, Mr Donald Tusk, formally asking for an extension of the Article 50 Notice period.  This request for an extension has been made without the authorisation of an Act of Parliament. 
Ministers, including the Prime Minister, only have official power either on the basis of Statutory powers or on the basis of Royal Prerogative powers. 
A long line of legal authority, including the Gina Miller case, has repeatedly reaffirmed that the Prerogative powers only exist in the absence of Statutory powers.  The only relevant Statutory power was that set out in the EU Withdrawal Act 2017, which gave the Prime Minister power to serve a Notice to terminate the UK’s membership of the EU. 
It follows that on the face of it, the Prime Minister’s request for an extension is illegal. 
Also any agreement for an extension which might have been agreed by the European Council is also without any Statutory authority. 
We thought it only proper to raise these points in the light of on-going developments, especially in view of your not having fully responded to our initial Letter before Claim. 
Yours faithfully
Tilbrook’s

A follow up about the case to stop any extension to Article 50 except by Act

The follow up to my previous blog article about the case to stop any extension to Article 50 except by a full Act of Parliament is that I have had this letter from the Government’s lawyers:-
Dear Mr Tilbrook
Re:  Response to Letter Before Claim
1.    We write in response to your letter before claim dated 28 February 2019 in which you seem to argue that any extension to or revocation of the Article 50 Notice required an Act of Parliament.  This letter, sets out the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union’s response to your proposed claim and has been written in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review.
The Proposed Claimant
2.    The proposed Claimant is Mr R Tilbrook:
Quires Green
Willingale
Ongar
Essex
CM5 0QP
The proposed Defendant
3.    The proper Defendant to this matter is the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union:
c/o Government Legal Department
Team B6
One Kemble Street
London
WC2B 4TS
Reference details
4.    Our reference for the matter is Z1904738/JTZ/B6
5.    Jonathan Stowell has conduct of this matter on behalf of the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.  Any further correspondence or service of documents in relation to this matter should be addressed to him at the above address.
Response to the proposed claim
6.    As you will be aware the pre-action protocol for Judicial Review provides that the letter before claim should contain the date and details of the decision, act or omission being challenged.
7.    Your proposed claim fails to identify any decisionmade by the Secretary of State or indeed any other person or public authority.  The reason you are unable to identify the date or details of any decision to extend or revoke the United Kingdom’s notification to leave the European Union is because no such decision has been taken.  You have not, therefore identified a decision that is capable of being the subject of a judicial review.
8.    To be clear, the Government’s firm policy position is that the Article 50 Notice will not be revoked.  A clear majority of the electorate voted to leave the EU and both the will of the British people and the democratic process which delivered this result must be expected.  The British people gave a clear instruction to leave, and that instruction is being delivered on.
9.    For the above reasons your proposed claim is wholly misconceived and totally without merit.
Details of any other interested parties
10.You have failed to provide any details of the proposed interested parties.  As you will be aware should you decide to issue proceedings, you are required to serve the Claim Form on all persons you consider to be an interested party in the proceedings (see rule 54.7 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998). 
11.We have not identified any other parties who may have an interest in the proposed claim.
Alternative dispute resolution
12.N/A
Action
13.We have explained above why your proposed claim is misconceived, accordingly the Secretary of State shall not be taking any of your requested actions.
Response to requests for information and documents
14.N/A
Address for further correspondence and service of court documents
15.If, after proper consideration of this letter, you decide to issue proceedings, please arrange for all documents to be served on Jonathan Stowell at the above address.
Yours sincerely
Jonathan Stowell
For the Treasury Solicitor
I have replied as follows:-
Mr Jonathan Stowell
c/o Government Legal Department
Dear Sir
Re:  Proposed Action
        English Democrats – v – the Secretary of State for Exiting the          
        European Union
Thank you for your letter of 14th March. 
We would point out that our letter of the 28th February was written not on the basis of any decision yet taken, but on the basis of comments made in the House of Commons which suggested that an illegal decision might be in prospect.
We note that you have not denied that only a full Act of Parliament would legally authorise any delay in leaving the EU beyond the 29th March 2019.
In the circumstances we are enclosing a Request for Further Information to request that you formally admit our case.
Yours faithfully
Tilbrook’s
Enc.
And enclosed a formal Request for Further Information as follows:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
BETWEEN
THE QUEEN
ON THE APPLICATION OF THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS
(REG. NO. 6132268)
Applicant
And
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION
Respondent
__________________________________________
REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
___________________________________________
Of:-
“7. Your proposed claim fails to identify any decision made by the Secretary of State or indeed any other person or public authority.  The reason you are unable to identify the date or details of any decision to extend or revoke the United Kingdom’s notification to leave the European Union is because no such decision has been taken.  You have not, therefore identified a decision that is capable of being the subject of a judicial review.”
Request:-
Is it admitted that any purported extension of the UK’s Article 50 Notice beyond 29thMarch 2019 can only be authorised prospectively by a full Act of Parliament?
Of:-
“8. To be clear, the Government’s firm policy position is that the Article 50 Notice will not be revoked.  A clear majority of the electorate voted to leave the EU and both the will of the British people and the democratic process which delivered this result must be expected.  The British people gave a clear instruction to leave, and that instruction is being delivered on.”
Request:-
Is it admitted that any Revocation of the UK’s Article 50 Notice can only be authorised prospectively by a full Act of Parliament?
Tilbrook’s of Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP
Solicitors for the Applicant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
BETWEEN
THE QUEEN
ON THE APPLICATION OF THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS
(REG. NO. 6132268)
Applicant
And
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION
Respondent
__________________________________________
REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
___________________________________________
Tilbrook’s
Quires Green
Willingale
Ongar
Essex CM5 0QP
Tel: 01277 896000
Fax: 01277 896050
Ref/Brexit

The purpose in writing in this way is to set up an application to the High Court for Judicial Review in the event that an Act of Parliament is not passed authorising an extension of the Article 50 Notice period beyond 11.00 p.m. on the 29th March 2019.
So if the Government fails to get an Act through by then we shall need to be ready to immediately apply for the High Court to rule that the UK has left the EU with no Withdrawal Treaty or Agreement.  We do therefore need help with a fighting fund to make sure we can do this without delay, given its huge constitutional importance. 

LAWYER STARTS CASE TO BLOCK EXTENSION TO ARTICLE 50 NOTICE.

 

LAWYER STARTS CASE TO BLOCK EXTENSION TO ARTICLE 50 NOTICE.
PRESS RELEASE
Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats and a Solicitor, has started a case to block the UK Government from extending the Article 50 Notice or revoking it without having to get an Act of Parliament. 
The Civil Procedure Rules protocol letter which Robin has sent to the Government is set out below.  The Government had 21 days to respond, which means that the Court will be likely to rule that any attempt to extend was illegal and invalid after the 29th March and therefore when the UK will have already constitutionally left the EU.  The letter is attached. 
Robin Tilbrook said:-  “I am seeking funding to raise the necessary money to bring this case, which is of vital importance to all those of us who want to see a proper full Brexit implemented, to give full effect to the Will of the English People, expressed in a nearly two million vote majority in the 2016 referendum.”
“The constitutional law set out in the Gina Millar case is, in my legal opinion, clear and unchallengeable that any attempt to extend the Article 50 Notice or to revoke it without a specific Act of Parliament will be invalid and unlawful.  That would mean that if there has been a purported attempt to extend the Notice by agreement without an Act of Parliament that that would be invalid and therefore we would be out of the EU regardless of what the Government said we were.” 
Robin continued:- “For once this is an opportunity to make history through the courts which I hope will attract enough support to make bringing the case financially viable.” 


On the Party Website: http://englishdemocrats.party there is a donation button. Please use that to help us. 

Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats

The Treasury Solicitor
Government Legal Department
One Kemble Street
London WC2B 4TS
Dear Sirs

Matter: In the matter of a Judicial Review
Letter Before Claim 

This letter is drafted under the judicial review protocol in section C of the White Book, which provides for a response within 14 days. Given the urgency of the matter, we would appreciate a response within 7 to 14 days.
1.    Respondent: Our clients provisionally identify three possible defendants: the Prime Minister (or, if necessary, the First Lord of the Treasury), as the person with overall responsibility for Brexit policy; the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.
2.    Applicant: Mr R C W Tilbrook for the English Democrats of Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP, and for and on behalf of the 15,188,406 voters in England who voted to Leave the European Union in the 2016 referendum.
3.    The details of the Applicant’s legal advisers, if any, dealing with this claim:-

Tilbrook’s Solicitors, of Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP
4.    The details of the matters being challenged:-
Any purported non-statutory Extension or Revocation of the United Kingdom’s notification to Leave the European Union given under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
5.    The details of any Interested Parties:-
Every person in England and in particular the 15,188,406 voters in England who voted to Leave the European Union in the 2016 referendum.
6.    The Issues:-
Following the Judgments of the High Court, of the Court of Appeal and of the Supreme Court in R (on the application of Miller and another) – v – Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC5 and the consequent enactment of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, there is no remaining discretionary prerogative power vested in Her Majesty’s Government to agree any extension to the Article 50 Notice, or to Revoke the said Notice without a further express Act of Parliament to authorise such Extension or Revocation. 
Accordingly any purported Extension or Revocation is void and of no effect. 
7.    The details of the action that the Defendant is required to take:-
What is sought from the Respondents is:
(i)             An undertaking that there will be no attempt to purport to vary the Notice given under the said EU Withdrawal Act except pursuant to an express Act of Parliament; and
(ii)           A formal admission that the Government admits that any such purported extension of the notice period or revocation would be legally invalid; and
(iii)         A formal admission that, in the absence of any further statute, the UK’s departure from the European Union shall go ahead as notified; vis: on the 29th March 2019. 
8.    ADR proposals:-
N/A
9.    The details of any information sought:-
Not applicable.
10.The details of any documents that are considered relevant and necessary:-
          Not applicable.
11. The address for reply and service of all documents:-
Tilbrook’s Solicitors of Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 
 0QP
12. Proposed reply date:-
14 days from the date hereof.
Yours faithfully
Tilbrook’s

At last the two party system is beginning to break-up!

The two party system is beginning to break-up


Monday saw the politically exciting prospect of Labour breaking up into its politically constituent parts! 
The Labour Party has long been recognised as a coalition between hard-Left figures like Corbyn, McDonnell and the late Tony Benn etc; and multi-culturalist social democrats like Chuka Umunna, David Lammy and the Milibands; the traditional Labour, like Dennis Skinner and Frank Field; and the remnant of the globalist, liberal lifestyle, Blairites. What happened on Monday looks like it may be the start of the split between the hard-Left and the others.  How that split works out in Labour will probably depend on which way the various trade unions jump. 
Then on Wednesday we had the further excitement of the Conservatives starting to break up!  

Within the Conservative Party there was always some tension between the Europhile, internationalist, social democrats like Soubry and Dominic Grieve and the apparently patriotic global Britain Brexiteers whose view of patriotism is similar to 19th Century Liberals who were opposed to the State looking after our poorer and less fortunate citizens and all for the free market and low taxes. 
Although amongst the non-parliamentary membership, I would say there is a considerable number who are patriotic people with traditional values that support welfare, health and housing provisions for all our fellow citizens.  That is however not a group that is very well represented in the Conservative Parliamentary Party.
The interesting thing from within the Conservative Party are that there are moves afoot to deselect more of the Europhile liberal values, social democrats. 
I suspect that if those MPs think that they are going to be deselected by their local party, they will jump before they are pushed and might well follow the others in jumping into the new parliamentary group with Chuka Umunna etc.
If that group manages to combine with the Liberal Democrats that will bode well for a major shift in parliamentary representation because there will then be a clear need for a patriotic political party that supports traditional values, low immigration and welfare, health and housing provision for our citizens. 
When we consider what is happening with the Union with the likelihood of Northern Ireland and Wales breaking away, it seems probable that that patriotism will be England-only focussed. 
So this is a very interesting time where we are beginning to see the shape of a possible realignment of English politics!  Let’s hope our politics can also become more honest so that when a voter is asked to vote for a Party’s candidate then that Party will be sufficiently politically coherent for the voter to be able to be sure of the real policies which the candidate will pursue if elected.

COULD YOUNG FABIAN SOCIALISTS BECOME ENGLISH NATIONALISTS?


COULD YOUNG FABIAN SOCIALISTS BECOME ENGLISH NATIONALISTS?


What I have reproduced below is a speech given by the former Labour Cabinet Minister and long-serving MP for Southampton and now Professor at Winchester University in the Centre for English Policy Studies, John Denham. 

 

John Denham is an intelligent and eloquent man, but his politics are highly Labour Party political partisan. 

 

As the speech shows he is fully alive to the risk to the Labour Party’s future of the fact that the English are becoming more nationally self-aware and that English nationalism is awakening. 

 

In the main his analysis is good although his agenda is unattractive to any real English nationalist.  He wants English nationalism to become multi-cultural and therefore in effect cease to be nationalism. The English are to be told in the words of John Prescott “there is no such nationality as English”!   
His recipe is really therefore an argument that Labour should be more effectively deceitful about England and the English Nation than they are currently being!

 

It is a good example of John Denham’s partisan unreliability, lack of objectivity, that despite having met me and quite a few other English Democrats on a number of occasions, he is unwilling to openly admit that there is a campaigning English nationalist party!   
It is also deceitful of him to only quote the BBC’s survey which showed many people saying that they are both English and British.  Whereas the much larger and much more authoritative survey, the National Census in 2011, showed that 60.4% of English people identified as only English and not British!

 

The speech will however, I think, be interesting to anybody who cares at all about England and the English Nation. 

 

Here is what John Denham said:-

 


English identity and Labour

This is the text of a talk given to the Young Fabians in Westminster on 8th January 2019.

Thank you for the invitation to talk about English identity. The Young Fabians have led the way in addressing the issue, including your recent suggestion that Labour should support an English Parliament. But in my view it is still too rare and unusual for any part of the Labour Party to organise a discussion about England and English identity.

 

Because this is the really interesting thing: England and the English are an ever-present component of our national culture and our politics. But England – as England – is barely mentioned in the national political debate; it is only occasionally addressed in the national culture of the establishment. And if English identity is mentioned, it is to be disparaged and abused.

 

There is now a fair amount of data about English identity, but the quality of academic work – particularly on what people mean when they say they are English – is woefully poor. This allows lazy writers to ascribe to the English dreams of Empire, entrenched racism, or rural idyllic romanticism. They project whatever prejudice takes their fancy unencumbered by troublesome facts.

 

Despite this, we know more about English identity than many might think. And, of course, those of us who spent a long time talking and listening with English identifiers in our constituencies have plenty of insights ourselves.

 

The cost of ignoring England and English has been high. If you are a Remainer the cost is paid in the overwhelmingly English decision to Leave. If you are Labour, the cost is paid in the failure to win votes in English places and amongst English people who were once proud to be Labour. If you want a multi-cultural society shaped by tolerance, inclusion and shared values, the cost is paid by our failure to strengthen the versions of Englishness that meet that challenge and in the persistence in a minority of an ethnicised and racist national identity

 

Above all, if we want to see a radical and progressive transformation of our economy and society to serve the common good, we pay the price in a divided nation, within a divided union, in which the ‘many’ Labour wants to stand for, is too divided and disparate to bring about change.

 

Engaging with England and Englishness is not a quaint cultural diversion. It’s central to the possibilities of progressive change.

 

Nationally (in England) about 80% say they are strongly English; and 80% strongly British.

 

As those figures make clear, most people who live in England say they are English AND British to some degree. The largest group (around 35-40%) are equally English and British. But either side of this there are rather more ‘more English’ than are ‘more British’ – about 3:2 in most surveys.

 

One striking thing is that, in most Labour meetings, there are few who say they are more English than British, and many who are more British than English. There is no ‘must’ about national identity; no sense that people should feel English. But it is very important to be aware when the identities of those in our own party are out of step with many of the people who we want to vote for us.

National identities are about far more than flags and football. In the classic academic description, they are ‘imagined communities’: that set of shared  stories, histories, culture, values and symbols that enable us to feel a sense of common identity with people we have never met.

 

But they are also offer world views; stories, narratives that help us make sense of the world as we experience it. And in a nation where multiple identities are common, people will emphasise the identity, or the mix of identities that make most sense of our own experience.

 

People who identify as more English are also more likely to be rooted within England -that is they are more likely to also identify with a town, city or region of England. They are though, much less likely than British identifiers to see themselves as European.

 

The English are significantly more patriotic – not just about being English but about being British too. You won’t be surprised to know that the people who are more English than British are those most proud to be English. But they are also the most proud to be British!  People who are British not English are not particularly proud of being British.

 

These same is true about national characteristics. In the popular mind, there is virtually no difference about the extent to which British or English identities are seen to be open, welcoming tolerant, friendly, generous. But people who identify as English or English and British, are much more likely to associate both identities with these relatively positive characteristics, than do the people who say ‘I’m only British’.

 

In summary, as you move across the spectrum of identities, we move from people who are strongly rooted within England, towards those with weaker local and more strongly international identities; we move from those who are strongly patriotic to those who have less pride in any national identity; we move from those who associate national identities with positive values to those who are less likely to be positive about any national identity

 

And there is a final but very important point: the differ on attitudes to the governance of England, the union, our relationship with the union and people’s sense of political power.

 

The English are more likely to be dissatisfied with the way they are governed (though few people of any identity think they are well represented), they feel least able to influence politics and business, they are most likely to support an English parliament and certainly to want English MPs to make English laws, most strongly want to put England’s interests ahead of the union.  They most strongly feel the Barnett formula is unfair and have a far higher estimation of the importance of the EU in shaping domestic policy than do their peers in Wales or Scotland.

 

So, we can begin to see how the different world views expressed in these different identities are reflected in people’s political choices. Even though we don’t hear people say ‘I’m voting Leave’ because it is the ‘English’ thing to do, or ‘Labour’ because it is the ‘British’ thing to do, those choices do map strongly on to people’s sense of national identity.

 

For reasons we don’t entirely understand, Britishness rather than Englishness has emerged as the choice for those who are most comfortable and potentially successful in the world as it is; they are least attached to a sense of place, most open to other identities, less patriotic. Englishness is more rooted in place. We can, then, understand why the cultural impact of immigration is most keenly felt in those places where a rooted sense of belonging is most central to people’s idea of their own identity. And, of course, we find the ‘more English’ living outside the big cities, in the smaller towns, where people have seen social and economic change go against them.

 

In short, Englishness is felt most deeply in the places where Labour has been losing ground and needs to win.

 

Tonight, because I’m talking to Fabians, I’m concentrating on that Labour vote (many of whom now unfortunately vote Tory and have supported UKIP); a fuller discussion of English identity would also consider the more traditional Conservative English Leave voters; people who are often somewhat more prosperous than the stereo-typical ‘left behind’ working class voter, though they are no less disconcerted by social change and equally out of step with metropolitan values. They are, though, a harder reach for Labour as they are less likely to share the left of centre economic views of potential English Labour voters.

 

Let’s just think about those potential Labour voters. They are older, poorer, (though not necessarily the poorest) more working-class, have spent less-time in higher education, are more economically precarious, and least likely to think it is worth voting at all.

 

If the Labour Party does not exist to work with them to change the world, I’m not sure why we do exist. Yet we are struggling amongst them. And we don’t even talk to them.

 

At this point, many on the left say: ‘why do we have to engage with national identity of any sort?’ Why can’t we just have policies for older people, policies to improve skills, policies to end austerity, policies for towns and seaside resorts?’

 

In other words, why can’t we talk about everything except the way people talk about themselves!

 

Because these voters are English; they are proud to be English, (usually proud to to be British too). If Labour is not palpably proud to be an English party; palpably proud to be British too; then we send a rather clear message: ‘we are not people like you’.

 

Indeed, many hear the message as ‘we are Labour and we don’t actually like people like you, even though we would like you to vote for us’. Fat chance. And of course, many will not even listen to our policies because most voters look for a party they can identify with BEFORE they will listen to its policies.

 

People who want to talk about policy not identity are often deliberately trying to avoid the difficult conversations: with people who are more socially conservative, with people who are more worried about migration. People who, in other words, don’t share the cosmopolitan values of the metropolitan graduates.

 

But that’s the central challenge in social democratic politics right across Europe. We can build a majority that wants to reform capitalism, that wants to make it the economy work for the common good. But only if we can unite those who are on the left economically: to do that we have to find common ground across the cultural issues that divided us.

 

So, that’s our challenge. To engage with voters who are

·      English

·      Patriotic

·      Socially conservative

·      On the left economically

·      Live disproportionately in key marginal seats

 

Our willingness to engage with English identity is a test of our willingness to engage with these voters. It’s a powerful symbol of being willing to listen. And it is evidence of a commitment to involve them fully in building a better society, not just promise to do things for them. It’s a clear sign that, for all our internationalism, building a strong, fairer nation is at the centre of our aims.

 

One of the common objections that is raised is that this is all about pandering to English nationalism.  In fact, English nationalism barely exists as a political idea or movement. It has no significant political party, no public intellectuals, no cultural movement or institutions.  Unless by nationalism you simply mean loving your country and hoping it will succeed and prosper – but on that basis, Ruth Davidson, most Scottish Tories and the whole of Scottish Labour are Scottish nationalists: which rather begs the question of what the SNP are!

 

People blame Brexit on English nationalism, but its leaders like Boris Johnson, Daniel Hannam, Michael Gove and Nigel Farage are British politicians who speak, not about England, but about Britain. They certainly have an Anglo-centric world view – only a Johnson who equates Britain and England could talk of ‘1000 years of history’ – but he tells Telegraph readers ‘it’s time to believe in our Greater Britain’.  

 

In short, it is wrong to equate Britain’s English ruling elite with the people of England.

 

The second problem group is with a different part of the elite. The anti-patriotic, cosmopolitan, British and definitely not English. Predominant in the media, much of politics, the business elite and academia, they disparage English identity as racist and xenophobic; blame the crime of empire exclusively on the English despite the enthusiastic participation of Scotland, Wales and at least some parts of Irish society in it. They, of course, are disproportionately found on the left and within Labour.

 

By dismissing English voters and English interests as English nationalism they aim to avoid engaging with England at all. They often claim that UKIP is an English nationalist party. Yet, the collapse in support for UKIP is not reflected in any fall in the strength of English identity. UKIP was a temporary home for English votes, not an expression of English interests. Brexit was a cry of pain from people who were not listened to, not people seeking a new imperial glory.


Of course, it is no coincidence that England and the English provided the bulk of the Leave vote. Only England – lacking a parliament or any national institutions of its own – has not had the chance to reimagine itself as a 21 stcentury nation in the way as Wales, Scotland and even Northern Ireland have had a chance to do as a result of democratic and constitutional changes.


And unlike the other devolved nations, the state has played no role in the development of national English identity. Some on the left like to contrast a civic, democratic Scottish identity with an ethnicised Englishness. But where did this come from? The differences between Scotland and England in attitudes towards minorities, immigration or the degree to which identities are ethnic can be greatly overstated – there is much less difference than most people think. But the different images owe a great deal to the active involvement of political leaders and the national (and also the UK) state in promoting the idea of a civic identity.

 

Nothing like that has happened in England. Neither the UK government nor the Opposition talks about England or plays any role in promoting an inclusive English identity.

 

From all of this, we can begin to see what our political strategy should be


Firstly, Labour should take a leading role in reinserting England in the national conversation. Yesterday (7 thJanuary) a plan was launched for the NHS, but in sharp contrast to what would happen in Wales and Scotland, little mention was made of the fact that it was for the English NHS. Nor did Labour’s response.

 

We have a national education service. For which nation? Clearly not for the devolved nations where they have their own policies. If it is a national education service for England, why don’t we want to say the name?

 

Secondly, Labour needs to have its own English identity, in our material, in our language, in actually celebrating St George’s Day, not just tweeting about four new bank holidays.

 

Thirdly, we need to grasp the need to England to have a national political identity including, in my view (this is not ELN policy) some form of English Parliament, or real EVEL within Westminster.

 

Fourth, we need to understand that it is the UK government that makes England such a centralized nation, and the UK government that concentrates resources and energy on London. Labour needs to go way beyond current commitments to devolve power with England – not as an alternative to English governance but as an integral part of it.

 

Finally, a Labour government should be willing to act, as the Scottish and Welsh governments do, in using the state to promote a patriotic, yet diverse and inclusive English identity.

 

None of this should be too difficult. But it would make a real difference.

 

(Here is a link to the original >>> http://www.theoptimisticpatriot.co.uk/post/182240412323/english-identity-and-labour)


Angela Merkel: Nation States Must “Give Up Sovereignty” to New World Order!

Angela Merkel: Nation States Must “Give Up Sovereignty” to New World Order

The report below about Angela Merkel’s speech in November nicely encapsulates the so-called “Liberal Democratic” view of the idea of the State and of the idea of the Nation.  This is particularly where she denies the validity of the idea of “the People” and also where she seeks to undermine the sovereignty of Nation States, saying instead that “the People are (merely) individuals who are living in a Country, they are not a group who define themselves as the People”. 
This is very much the view of so many of the members of the British Political and Media Establishment who in their hearts have long rejected the idea of the Nation.  As a result of Brexit they have been forced out into the open and their deep-seated hostility to the nation state and national popular democracy has been so pitifully exposed. 
These people are a threat to our Nation, which is all the more serious because of their position within the Establishment. 
The Roman orator and statesman, Marcus Tullius Cicero once vividly described the threat of such people also said:- “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”
We need to work harder to ensure that there is a genuinely patriotic party able to challenge these people as part of the system.

Here is the report about Angela Merkel’s comments:-

Angela Merkel: Nation States Must “Give Up Sovereignty” To New World Order by Tyler Durden

“Nation states must today be prepared to give up their sovereignty”, according to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who told an audience in Berlin that sovereign nation states must not listen to the will of their citizens when it comes to questions of immigration, borders, or even sovereignty.
No this wasn’t something Adolf Hitler said many decades ago, this is what German Chancellor Angela Merkel told attendants at an event by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Berlin. Merkel has announced she won’t seek re-election in 2021 and it is clear she is attempting to push the globalist agenda to its disturbing conclusion before she stands down.
“In an orderly fashion of course,” Merkel joked, attempting to lighten the mood. But Merkel has always had a tin ear for comedy and she soon launched into a dark speech condemning those in her own party who think Germany should have listened to the will of its citizens and refused to sign the controversial UN migration pact:
“There were [politicians] who believed that they could decide when these agreements are no longer valid because they are representing The People”.
“[But] the people are individuals who are living in a country, they are not a group who define themselves as the [German] people,” she stressed.
Merkel has previously accused critics of the UN Global Compact for Safe and Orderly Migration of not being patriotic, saying “That is not patriotism, because patriotism is when you include others in German interests and accept win-win situations”.
Her words echo recent comments by the deeply unpopular French President Emmanuel Macron who stated in a Remembrance Day speech that “patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism [because] nationalism is treason.”
The French president’s words were deeply unpopular with the French population and his approval rating nosedived even further after the comments.
Macron, whose lack of leadership is proving unable to deal with growing protests in France, told the Bundestag that France and Germany should be at the center of the emerging New World Order.
“The Franco-German couple [has]the obligation not to let the world slip into chaos and to guide it on the road to peace”.
“Europe must be stronger… and win more sovereignty,” he went on to demand, just like Merkel, that EU member states surrender national sovereignty to Brussels over “foreign affairs, migration, and development” as well as giving “an increasing part of our budgets and even fiscal resources”
(Here is the original report >>> https://www.kas.de/veranstaltungsberichte/detail/-/content/-das-herz-der-demokratie- )

Brexit has reopened two constitutional conflicts which must be resolved

In the heats of the Brexit battle between the elitist and undemocratic Remainers and the few Brexiteers in Parliament there is an occasional glimpse of the wider constitutional implications.  The article below on the Conservative Home website, which describes itself as “the home of Conservatism”, is such a glimpse and deserves wide circulation. 

 

Those who support what Professor Matthew Goodwin of Kent University is calling “National Populism” will, like me, support unconditionally the idea that our People are the ultimate sovereignty. 

 

Supporters of so-called “liberal democracy” may talk about popular sovereignty, but they want it channelled through systems which prevent the majority of the People’s Will being even expressed, let alone enacted. 

 

A good example of that mind-set is the Right Honorable Ken Clarke MP who regularly says that the EU Referendum was merely an opinion poll, which is only “advisory” for MPs, rather than an expression of popular sovereignty which must be put into effect by the political system to be legitimate.  In short you could say that liberal democracy is in effect an open conspiracy against popular democracy! 

 

Once we are clear about that division we populist democratic nationalists can be more focussed and consistent in our attacks on the short-fallings of the British Political and Media elites in their attempts to shelter behind the ornate structures of British Liberal Democracy. 

 

Below is the article.  What do you think?

 

Jonathan Clark: Brexit has reopened two constitutional conflicts which must be resolved

 

The British have, typically, little interest in constitutional law. Unlike the French, who regularly rewrite their constitution in revolutions or attempts to prevent revolutions, the British tend to assume that little changes and that all is well. Alas, the constitutional problems accumulate nevertheless. Dominic Grieve was right in a recent Commons debate to say that there are areas of the British constitution that need clearer definition. But what exactly are they? Why is the Brexit question so difficult to resolve through the familiar Westminster machinery?

 

The big issues of constitutional conflict are so fraught because they happen in legal grey areas, in which agreement and definition have never emerged. Today there are two such major areas, though many minor ones.

 

The first is the question of sovereignty: where does ultimate authority reside? It is many centuries since any significant number of people claimed that it resided with the person of the monarch alone. But the decline of that image was followed by the growing popularity of another, ‘the Crown in Parliament’, that is, the monarch, the Lords and the Commons acting together. This image never went away, but was upstaged by the doctrine of the lawyer A. V. Dicey (1835-1922) that ‘Parliament’ (meaning, increasingly, the House of Commons) was sovereign. Yet from the Reform Bill of 1832 into the 20th century, successive rounds of franchise extension strengthened another old idea, that the ultimate authority lay with ‘the People’, however defined.

 

From 1973, when the UK joined the EEC, it slowly became evident that the answer was ‘none of the above’: ultimate authority lay with Brussels. Parliament rubber-stamped increasing amounts of secondary legislation from an evolving super-state. In 2019, departure from the EU would remove that layer of command. This prospect inevitably reopens an old debate, which had never really been settled: was Parliament or the People finally supreme? Its re-emergence reminds us that Dicey’s doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty was the opinion of one commentator only. That opinion partly corresponded to contemporary practice, partly not.

 

Today, the tide is everywhere running in the opposite direction. Deference and duty daily fade; the key word everywhere is ‘choice’, and this means the choices of the many, not just the few. The transformation of communications places steadily more power in the hands of a steadily more educated, better informed ‘People’. But this trend has been matched by another, seen across the West in recent decades and at all levels: in increasingly complex societies, the executive has everywhere grown more powerful vis-a-vis the legislature. Political scientists have largely ignored this tide, but it has swept forwards nevertheless. It means that two powerful social forces now collide. Across western democracies, ‘ordinary people’ find means of complaining that they are ignored by elites who ‘just don’t get it’; elites decry ‘populism’ and exalt the opinion of ‘experts’, expressed to within one decimal point in forecasts of outcomes 15 years hence.

 

This collision reopens a second, equally old, question. What is a Member of Parliament: a delegate, or a representative? Edmund Burke famously outlined the case for the second: MPs, once elected, represent the nation as a whole; they owe the nation their best judgment; they are in nobody’s pocket. But another idea is just as old, and equally honourable: MPs are sent to Westminster by their electors to redress the electors’ grievances, and are accountable to them. Against Burke, we can set another intellectual, Andrew Marvell, MP for Hull in 1659-78, who was paid by his constituents and regularly reported back to them. Understandably, Burke’s high-sounding doctrine proved the more popular among MPs. But after he framed it, his constituents in Bristol threw him out for favouring Irish commercial interests over theirs, and he represented thereafter only his patron’s pocket borough.

Both ideas in their pure form are unacceptable. But how the balance between the two is to be struck can never be quantified or defined, and a crisis like the present makes the impossibility of a definition clear. ‘The People’ voted by 52 to 48 for Leave, and a larger percentage now says ‘just get on with it’; but about five-sixths of the House of Commons are for Remain.

 

Among Conservative MPs, something under 100 are evidently for Leave; of the other 200 or so, over half are on the Government payroll in one capacity or another, and more would like to be. So profound a dissociation between elite and popular opinion is rare. Worse still, public opinion polls and the growing practice of referenda quantify the problem as never before; the issue is easily expressed in binary terms (Leave or Remain); and the arguments have been fully rehearsed. Other countries show similar problems of relations between the many and the few, but in the UK these are brought to a focus. Since the constitution has failed to resolve them, public debate is full of expressions of elite contempt for the ignorant, prejudiced, xenophobic, racialist populace on the one hand; of popular contempt for the self-serving, condescending, out-of-touch Establishment on the other.

 

Before 1914, Conservative peers making technical points over a budget were manoeuvred by Lloyd George into a constitutional confrontation that could be memorably summed up as ‘Peers versus the People’. In this clash, the peers could only lose. Now, the Remainers have been manoeuvred into a constitutional confrontation that, if it goes much further, will be labelled ‘Parliament versus the People’. In such a conflict it can only be Parliament that will lose. In that event, the damage would be considerable.

 

These great questions of constitutional definition are seldom solved; rather, the issues are defused by building next to them a new practice. The present challenge is to accommodate that new arrival in the political arena, the referendum, and to turn it into a clearly specified, moderate, and constructive institution, as it is in Switzerland. Those concerned about daily policy should think again about a subject, once salient in university History departments but now everywhere disparaged: constitutional history.

>>>https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2018/12/jonathan-clark-brexit-has-reopened-two-constitutional-conflicts-which-must-be-resolved.html

 

Conservative political dishonesty over Brexit

Conservative political dishonesty over Brexit
As I made clear in a previous article I think that many members of the Parliamentary Conservative Party are making the error of thinking that their dishonesty over Brexit is going to be quickly forgotten just like all their previous lies to the electorate.  I think that they are making an order of magnitude error in thinking that this is the case. Brexit is the first time that the public had really focussed on a political issue for many decades. 
It is perhaps worth recalling that David Cameron of the Conservative Government promised repeatedly to implement the outcome of the referendum.  This was not least in the booklet which Cameron used £9m of taxpayers money to print and distribute to every elector in the UK promising to implement the outcome of the referendum.  Instead almost immediately after the referendum he and Osborne resigned. 
The Conservative Parliamentary Party, after a period of unprecedented backstabbing and careerist manoeuvring managed to choose two candidates for leadership, Andrea Leadsom and Theresa May, both of whom it seems lacked any personal leadership qualities whatsoever. 
The forgettable Andrea Leadsom when subjected to some nasty criticism over her comments about having children giving her motivation to do the best for the country, apparently spent the weekend in tears before giving up her leadership challenge (and was ironically rewarded by being made the Minister in charge of waterworks and floods!).
Theresa May was then anointed as Leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister on the back of promising to implement Brexit with her opaque slogan of “Brexit means Brexit”.  Since then we have been treated to a series of broken promises on top of her longstanding track record of claiming to support reducing immigration to the tens of thousands, when in fact allowing the largest influx of immigrants since Blair swamped us with millions of Eastern Europeans! 
Here are just some of Theresa’s whoppers (with acknowledgment to Guido Fawkes):-
“She broke her promises on calling an election and not triggering Article 50 until the UK had an agreed strategy – two decisions that the history books will not look upon kindly. She promised to put Dexeu in charge of the negotiation and make sure a Brexiteer was doing Brexit – that didn’t happen. She promised not to raise taxes – tax rises are coming in the autumn to fund her NHS splurge.
“There should be no general election until 2020.” General election: 8 May 2017.
“There should be no decision to invoke Article 50 until the British negotiating strategy is agreed and clear.” Article 50 triggered: 29 March 2017. Cabinet Brexit strategy agreed: 7 July 2018.
“If before 2020 there is a choice between further spending cuts, more borrowing and tax rises, the priority must be to avoid tax increases since they would disrupt consumption, employment and investment.” NHS spending increase, funded by “us as a country contributing a bit more [tax]” 17 June 2018.
In her 2017 party conference speech May made the promise again: “With our economic foundation strong – and economic confidence restored – the time has come to focus on Britain’s next big economic challenge: to foster growth that works for everyone, right across our country. That means keeping taxes low.”
“I will therefore create a new government department responsible for conducting Britain’s negotiation with the EU and for supporting the rest of Whitehall in its European work. That department will be led by a senior Secretary of State – and I will make sure that the position is taken by a Member of Parliament who campaigned for Britain to leave the EU.” Theresa May takes personal charge of Brexit talks: 24th July 2018.
“Now is not the time for me to set out my full negotiating principles – that will come later.” Not sure people would have inferred two years later.
“I will dedicate my premiership to fixing this problem [housing]…
 as Prime Minister I am going to make it my mission to solve this problem. I will take personal charge of the government’s response, and make the British Dream a reality by reigniting home ownership in Britain once again.” We’re on our second Housing Secretary this year, a damp squib of a housing policy and silence from May…
“The Conservative Party can come together – and under my leadership it will.” (sic!)
You can see why Tory members might have quite liked her promises to stay true to Brexit and not raise taxes are disillusioned now! Who isn’t?

Here is a link to the original article>>> https://order-order.com/2018/07/26/theresa-mays-promises-to-tory-members-then-and-now/

ARE THE CONSERVATIVES MAKING AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ERROR OVER BREXIT?

 
ARE THE CONSERVATIVES MAKING AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ERROR OVER BREXIT?
It is commonplace amongst political commentators that the voting public is not interested in politics and does not spend much time thinking about it.  In fact the best example of how this has been explained that I have come across over the years was a commentator who said that the public only see politics out of their “peripheral vision”.  If somebody actually manages to get the public to look directly at them then politically that is a game changer. 

So this means that the current parliamentary parties of the British Political Establishment and, in particular, the Conservative Party, which I want to talk about in this article, have lived their whole careers, up until the Brexit vote, in at most the peripheral vision of the voting public.  This has always meant that as long as politicians are looking as though they are going to say the right things whenever they come into view in the public’s peripheral vision, the public’s gaze flicks away from them and they are allowed to get on with it unchecked.

It is because of this lack of attention that the public does not hold Establishment Politicians properly to account and does not put any serious effort into thinking critically about the politicians that are being elected.  This is the situation in which the current generation of parliamentarians have grown up and in which they have developed their careers.

So if, for example, you take Theresa May, she is a politician who has basically been able to get away with lying about what she stands for throughout her whole political career.  Thus in order to get selected by the Conservative constituency party, any Conservative MP who is not genuinely a Eurosceptic has had to lie to claim that they are a Eurosceptic otherwise they would not get selected by the predominantly Eurosceptic Conservative Party membership.   Once selected, in order to get elected, they have had to continue lying and pretending that they are Eurosceptics, because in most Conservative seats they would not get elected if they said that they were Europhiles. 

Theresa May, for example, when she became Home Secretary, on any objective basis she did an appalling job of being Home Secretary. On almost every promise that she and the two Conservative Governments that she got elected but she failed to deliver on almost any of the policies that had been promised.  The most glaring of which of course is on immigration, where they were elected on promises to keep immigration down to the “tens of thousands”.  In fact, she presided over the biggest influx of mass immigration in the history of England, with, in her last year as Home Secretary, more immigrants arriving in that one year than had come to England in the entirety of the thousand years before 1939!

However whenever the public’s political vision flicked over her, there she was saying that was what she wanted to try and achieve a dramatic reduction in mass immigration.  That was enough to satisfy the public so that their gaze moved on and so no critical analysis was brought to bear in holding her accountable for her actual lack of achievement!

This current generation of parliamentarians might have continued to live out their whole political careers just as previous ones had done, without there being a moment where the public would be willing to make any effort to properly hold them to account.  That would however have been without the Brexit vote! 

As a result of the EU referendum on leaving the EU, the public, for the first time in at least a generation, really focussed on a political question and gave an unequivocal answer based upon the largest turnout that has occurred for decades.  The unequivocal expectation of voters was, and is, that the public’s decision would be implemented.  This is where trouble has occurred for our dishonest and deceitful Remainer MPs, who had comfortably expected to be allowed to continue making decisions that suited them and their agendas without any proper accountability to the electorate for the rest of their careers. 

Theresa May is just one of those parliamentarians who had expected to be able to carry on lying her way out of any inconvenient situation. 

It is in that context that she has dishonestly conducted her own hidden Brexit policy which she unrolled to the startled gaze of her Cabinet colleagues at Chequers. 

Theresa May’s Chequers’ proposal is not only completely contrary to the public’s expectations following the Brexit vote, but is also directly contrary to Theresa May’s Lancaster House speech about her “red lines” when she was still repetitively chanting “Brexit means Brexit”.  Now the public is turning its eyes towards Theresa May and is focussing and so is noticing that she is a dishonest and incompetent Remainer, who is, in Jacob Rees Mogg’s words “a Remainer who has remained a Remainer”.  This is despite the public’s vote and despite her pledge to implement it in her otherwise ill-judged General Election manifesto.

This leaves me somewhat torn between two conflicting feelings! 

For the country, and as a patriot, I think that what Theresa May is trying to do is a travesty and a terrible missed opportunity, but as the Leader of what The Times newspaper was kind enough to call an “insurgent party”, I cannot help but relish the prospect that the parliamentary Conservative Party led by Theresa May could well be now heading irrevocably in a direction in which the public will clearly see that the leadership of the modern Conservative Party is composed of dishonest, incompetent, and unpatriotic Europhiles.

When the public truly realises what the modern Conservative Party leadership stands for, I think it likely that the public will regard them as unfit to hold Government Office ever again. 

It may well be that many of the seventy plus per cent that Professor Sir John Curtice of Strathclyde University has identified as being “Leavers” who have been voting Conservative will decide not to come out to vote for the current alternative Establishment party (i.e. Corbyn’s Labour) but that does not mean that they will vote again for a Conservative Party that has so clearly and now noticeably betrayed the trust that was placed in them. 

The purging of the Conservatives from being a Party of Government is the first step required for a reconstruction of our national politics. 

We need a politics more in line with the two opinion blocks of real voters.  These are for the patriotic, anti-mass immigration, pro-Brexit, pro-traditional values and pro-welfare and NHS nationalists.  Against this block is the internationalist, pro-EU, anti-patriotic, liberal values, pro-mass immigration, individualistic cosmopolitan block. 

The current mishmash of views is one in which the Establishment parties are at cross purposes with most voters.  Most of us like some of what Labour has to say and also some of what the Conservatives have to say but we don’t like all of what either of them have to say.  So, at the moment, voters have the awkward and unappetising choice at elections of having to choose between the least worst party, rather than being able to choose a party they actually fully agree with.  Changing that ladies and gentlemen would be a reform of our politics well worth seeing!