Category Archives: english nation

How the Lord Mayor of London undermines Liberalism!

 

What the Lord Mayor of London teaches us about Liberal theory! 

OR

How the Lord Mayor of London undermines Liberalism!


Liberal theory, from John Stuart Mill onwards (and especially in the modern era of ‘Neo-Liberalism’) is based upon the idea that all people are fundamentally the same.  In particular, that everyone’s fundamental nature is to maximise their position in the market-place, as economists put it.  This is the theory that human-beings are “rational economic actors” whose only motivation is to improve their personal position in economic terms – like good economic worker ants!  

I believe this theory to be fundamentally wrong and to be a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature.  

I also believe that this error is important in explaining many of the problems of our country today because it is an error that permeates the thinking of the elite in our society. That is not only the rich elite, but also the political elite, the media elite and the decision-making elite in universities and in most of the key positions of power and influence in our State and in our country. 

This error has led the key policy decision-makers in our society to disregard and disrespect the natural urges of most of our people. 

I started this with headings relating to the Lord Mayor of London.  Above there is a picture of him in all his refinery!  You might ask what is the link?  I think it is this. The Lord Mayoralty of the City of London is the supreme English example of what rich people will do and how far they will go for Status and for Respect within our traditional communities..

In order to be Lord Mayor you have to give up many hours to unpaid work and activity within the City of London Corporation as an Alderman and as a Sherriff.  There is also a three year stretch, in the run-up to and in the year of being Lord Mayor, in which you have no time for any paid work.  During this time you would have to be fully focussed on your ceremonial roles in the City of London hierarchy.  Also even when in office as Lord Mayor, you will have virtually no real power, nor will any of it will gain you any economic advantage.  Indeed a generally held estimate for the cost of being Lord Mayor is that it costs at least £500,000!

In “Liberal” theory of course all this activity is completely irrational.  In fact, so irrational as to be almost utterly inexplicable.

This of course vividly demonstrates that ‘Liberal’ theory is wildly adrift from the reality of human nature because in fact rich people getting involved in such activities are perfectly rationally focussed on the acquisition of status and respect within our traditional communities.

Across the Nation many other people chose other ways of getting such communal status and respect. For example in most English counties there is an equivalent office of High Sherriff.  Also there is the whole “Honours System” in which many people struggle to get OBEs or Knighthoods, etc. 

The oddity is that rich people do not understand that their own urges for status and respect and community are perfectly normal not only for them, but also for everybody else as well!  

Therefore the same rich people are very often perfectly happy to justify low paid, low status and insecure jobs for “ordinary people” and they try to justify this hypocracy using ‘Liberal’ economic arguments.  Such people really should not be as surprised as they apparently are when most of our people don’t like the outcome! 

We need a new politics with a new economic model which does give proper status and respect to our own people in our own most natural and very traditional community, namely our Nation, I mean those people who do all the “ordinary” jobs which are nevertheless, of course, so very necessary to the proper functioning of our society and to our collective English culture and prosperity.  

My New Year message therefore is that we English Nationalists need to focus more on reforms that give English People a justified pride and self-respect as citizens, and as fellow members of our Nation, as well as a fair reward for fair labour.  Also we should focus on attacking the dogma on “economic efficiency” which currently excessively rewards big business and bankers and ‘Liberal’ British Establishment politicians!

ENGLISH ETHNICITY – LABOUR’S VIEW

ENGLISH ETHNICITY – LABOUR’S VIEW

As various Labour commentators have pointed out, Labour has been moving away from its traditional core support amongst the English “white working class” to instead focussing on its new support amongst the ‘Rainbow Alliance’ of big city based multi-culturalists and internationalists.

Michael Dugher, who was the MP for Barnsley East, confirmed this in an interview with the New Statesmen in 2015 when he said he was perturbed by Labour’s failure to connect with the white working class population it used to represent, “Working class voters are not core vote anymore – you saw that in Scotland, you saw that in England”. 

The New Statesmen also reported that Dugher refers repeatedly to English identity:- “In parts of my constituency, they do fly the flag.  And they are right to be proud of it.  It’s as much about their pride and identity as it is a cry for help”, he says.  “When they fly that flag, they say I am proud of this country, I am proud to be English, I am proud of where I come from; but also, we haven’t gone away, and we deserve a voice, too.”

Interestingly Mr Dugher also said that Labour’s Scottish MPs “wanted to operate in Scotland without any reference at all to the impact on England.  Every time they talked about further devolution, the English and the Labour Party were excluded from that conversation.” 

More recently the New Statesman, on the 19thSeptember 2018, in an article headed:- 

“How the decline of the working class made Labour a Party of the bourgeois left.  Progressive politics in the 1990s turned away from class politics and solidarity in favour of group identities and self-realisation”

The article written by Professor Jonathan Rutherford makes the same point, in a perhaps more intellectualised way, as follows:-

“The future of British politics will be about the nation state of England, the union of our four nations, and their democratic and economic renewal. It will be about the renascence of the everyday life of work and family. Yet the problem for the left is its domination by an older political generation that lost faith in the idea of the nation, is sceptical about the future of work and doesn’t seem to believe in the family.

Throughout its history, the Labour Party has embodied the paradox of being both radical and conservative, and so it has played a vital role both in maintaining the traditions of the country and shaping its modernity. These dispositions are not party political. They are qualities of mind and character that are woven into the fabric of our English culture. In the words of John Stuart Mill, one demands the uprooting of existing institutions and creeds; the other demands that they be made a reality. One presses new ideas to their utmost consequences; the other reasserts the best meaning and purposes of the old. England’s paradoxical nature is embedded in our constitutional settlement.

Yet with the decline of the industrial working class and the growing influence of a professional middle class, Labour has lost its conservative disposition. Some will claim this is positive: the party is now more left-wing. But this misunderstands the nature of the change. Labour has become a more bourgeois liberal party, and it risks becoming a party in society but not of it.

Over the decades, progressive politics has believed in continuing social improvement and change without end. Its neglect of the human need for belonging – of the value of home and cultural familiarity, and of economic security and social stability – has created a bourgeois left that is deracinated. Its cosmopolitan liberalism and moral relativism have left it poorly equipped to address the questions now confronting its own children about the nature of adulthood, and the meaning and purpose of life, and how we can live it well.

Cosmopolitan liberalism

Cosmopolitans believe that their obligations to others should not be confined to fellow national citizens, but extended to include all of humanity. Yet in committing to everyone as part of a universal humanity, we commit to no one and nothing in particular.

Under the influence of this abstraction, progressive and left politics in the 1990s turned away from class politics and solidarity in favour of group identities and self-realisation. It rejected forms of membership that make a claim on people’s loyalty. The particularist loyalties of the nation state and inherited national customs and traditions divided individuals from their shared humanity. Among the more radical, this repudiation extended to their own white English ethnicity. A mix of white guilt and post-colonial politics delegitimised English culture as imperialist and racist, and by default those who value it.

Labour needs to make changes that are deep and far-reaching. It has to break out of its socially liberal heartlands in the public sector and metropolitan areas. It needs to bridge the faultlines dividing both the country and Labour’s own electoral coalition – social liberals vs social conservatives, towns and country vs cities, young vs old, north vs south, England vs Scotland.”

Here is a link to the original article>>> https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/09/how-decline-working-class-made-labour-party-bourgeois-left

These observations on the direction of travel that Labour is headed in are interesting and increasingly obvious when you consider the sort of things which you hear Labour politicians saying and see when Labour activists are filmed.  For instance just look at some of the delegates at their recent conference!

The question that arises of course is whether the growing gap between Labour, as it now is, and the direction it is headed in, will lead to a permanent divorce between it and the traditional English “white working class”? 

There is a Labour group which I have mentioned before, founded by the, former Labour Cabinet Minister, John Denham, called the English Labour Network.  They were represented at Labour’s Party Conference and one of their keynote speakers, Hackney Labour Councillor, Polly Billington, was talking about her English identity and “the need to separate Englishness from ethnicity”. 

The idea of Labour being able to redefine Englishness in such a way that it was wholly separated from its ethnic heritage is laughable and demonstrates the grave difficulty that Labour would have in trying to bridge the gap. 

This is especially so when you factor in that the Labour network and Polly Billington have had a lot of flack from Labour activists.  In effect the Party claimed that it is racist even to mention England and the English! 

Not only do many Labour activists not like the idea of England, but they are opposed to the idea of any nation or anynation state. 

It is difficult to see how those people could possibly be reconciled to any attempt to represent the interests of English people and of the English nation! 

The English Democrats manifesto explains Englishness as:-

3.17.1 It is common for those who assert their English identity to be challenged in a way that would be considered insulting if directed elsewhere. To avoid misunderstanding, and to meet the demands of those who are hostile to any assertion of Englishness, we have set out below what we mean by the English. 

3.17.2 The English can be defined in the same way that other nations are defined. To be English is to be part of a community. We English share a communal history, language and culture. We have a communal identity and memory. We share a ‘we’ sentiment; a sense of belonging. These things cannot be presented as items on a checklist. Our community, like others, has no easily defined boundaries but we exist, and we have the will to continue to exist.”

Whilst English “ethnicity” is not the only criteria for Englishness, it has the right to be recognised not just from a moral point of view, but also from a legal point of view. Refusal to recognise English ethnicity and to discriminate against people expressing it, or displaying it, is illegal and contrary to the Equalities Act 2010 and other equality legislation;  As the BBC found when it tried to sack an English Rugby reporter from its Scottish team because the Scots didn’t like a sassenach reporting on their rugby!  
 I refer of course to the ground-breaking case of Mark Souster against BBC Scotland.  This case upheld as embedded in the Law the legal principle that the English are a distinct “racial group” within the UK!

Polly Billington and the English Labour Network are of course applying the classic Fabian doctrine of “Adopt and Adapt”.  I shall be interested to see how they adopt and adapt their way out of the English having the legal right to be recognised as an ethnic group! 

This right is in addition to the legal findings in favour of English Nationalism and English National Identity. 

So no Polly, Englishness can’t be re-defined into multiculturalism by you or your group or by Labour generally!

FORMER LABOUR CABINET MINISTER CALLS FOR AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT

FORMER LABOUR CABINET MINISTER CALLS FOR AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT
John Denham, the former Labour Cabinet Minister, who since leaving Parliament has become a Professor of English Identity and Politics at Winchester University and who has been leading a campaign for Labour to take England and the English nation much more seriously instead of dismissing both as symptoms of racism, has recently given a speech setting out where he now is on the issue of English nationalism.  Here is the link to his speech >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zun7oTXMNPg&feature=youtu.be
You will see he does now call for an English Parliament although he hasn’t as yet got a separate electoral system for it.  He is thinking that this can develop as a process of reform, rather than move straightaway to a full separate English Parliament. 
I don’t think that this halfway separate parliament is a constitutionally viable proposal. I also understand that the Constitution Unit of University College London also don’t think that that is a viable option.  It is nevertheless an important step in the right direction for such a senior Labour figure to call for an English Parliament. 
John Denham has of course been lambasted by the Left and by various others supposedly on the Right, who in fact turn out to be anti any element of Englishness (often because of their own ethnic origins).
The other key point which John Denham makes that is worth considering is that he thinks that the failure to allow a proper voice for the English Nation has led to people who are basically English nationalists but perhaps in many cases haven’t fully realised it, to have, in psychological terms, “transferred” the object of their frustrations from the real cause which is the British Political Establishment, on instead to the EU.  He suggests that this “transfer” has therefore led to the Brexit vote.

Mr Denham then goes on to suggest that those Unionists who were most involved blocking any proper expression of Englishness are to a large extent responsible for the Brexit vote.  That is an interesting ironic thought!

LABOUR’S DEVIOUS DAN JARVIS AND HIS DODGY DEVOLUTION DOSSIER

LABOUR’S DEVIOUS DAN JARVIS AND HIS DODGY DEVOLUTION DOSSIER
In the best Blairite traditions, the EU Remainiac, Dan Jarvis, who ironically is the MP for the strongly Leave constituency, Barnsley Central, got his debate on Yorkshire devolution last Wednesday afternoon in the Westminster Hall annex to Parliament.  Here is a link to the record of that debate from Hansard >>>
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-01-09/debates/A258E72B-52AF-4DC3-9513-3AE8AF89AF03/YorkshireDevolution
It is lucky for Dan Jarvis that the debate took place in Westminster Hall rather than on the floor of the House of Commons, as then he might be in trouble for misleading the House of Commons. 
In the debate he said:-
“Barnsley and Doncaster made their voices heard. Some 85% voted in favour of a wider Yorkshire deal, 
The marching orders are thus: go back to the Government and get the deal the people want.
It is absolutely right that we listen to what the people have told us”
“My constituents were very clear about what they were voting for—a wider Yorkshire deal—because they believed that that would be in their economic interests.”
“Indeed, if we are prepared to ignore an 85% majority, what does that say about the state of our democracy?”
“They were very clear in what they said, and it would be wrong for them to be ignored”
“I do not say for one moment that Yorkshire and the Humber should be a special case, but I do believe—I make no apologies for stating it in these terms—that it is a special place. There is something special about what John Sentamu described this morning as God’s own county.  There is a huge strength in our diversity. If we could create an arrangement that brought together 5.3 million people into an economy bigger than 11 EU nations, we would truly be a force to be reckoned with, not just in this country but around the world. In the far east—China, Japan or wherever—people know about Yorkshire.”
Mr Jarvis is referring not to a “democratic” vote, like a referendum or an election, but to what would normally be called a consultation.  (Here is a link to a report on this >>>http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2017-12-21/barnsley-and-doncaster-voters-overwhelmingly-in-favour-of-one-yorkshire-devolution-plan/).  This consultation only offered two options, neither of which were very attractive to any patriots.  The options were a South Yorkshire Region, based around Sheffield, or alternatively a “One Yorkshire” Region.
Since the last thing that Barnsley and Doncaster people want is to be dominated politically by Sheffield it is not surprising that many of them voted for their county to be the devolved body. 
Even so out of a total electorate of Yorkshire and the Humber region of 3,835.075 only 41,952 “votes” have now been made for “One Yorkshire” devolution. 
In Barnsley, 40,280 residents took part in the “community poll” – that’s 22.4% of the electorate. Of those, 34,015 (84.9%) chose “One Yorkshire”, while 6,064 (15.1%) opted for Sheffield City Region.
Meanwhile in Doncaster, 45,470 residents voted – a turnout of 20.1%. Of those, 38,551 (84.7%) came out in favour of “One Yorkshire”, with only 6,685 (14.7%) preferring “Sheffield City Region”.
For Mr Jarvis to talk about 85% as if that was of the whole electorate and to make remarks about democracy, can only be sensibly described as disingenuous and deceitful.  The total number of people who participated in the consultation was only 85,750, the total number people who voted for “One Yorkshire” devolution was 72,566.  That is not only less than 85% of the consultations but also is just over 1% of the electorate of Yorkshire and Humberside!
It is also interesting, when considering Dan Jarvis’ deviousness and disingenuousness, to pick up the way he jumps from talking about the county of Yorkshire, which even so is not all the historic county of Yorkshire to “Yorkshire and the Humber”.  Yorkshire and the Humber is of course the name of the EU “Region” which includes North Lincolnshire, but does not include, for example, Middlesbrough. 
In doing this he, of course, gives his game away.  He as discussed in the previous article on this blog, is not a patriot or even a Yorkshire nationalist but is a “Europeanist” or Europhile who is looking at ways to try to break up the integrity of not only the UK, but also England, in continuing to push for Regionalisation, as per the EU’s Regionalisation project. 
Mr Jarvis not only has no care for our Nation in pursuing this project, but also he would appear not to even care for his own constituents in Barnsley Central, since if England was in fact effectively Regionalised there would be every chance that the politicians of each “Region” would be wanting to hang onto all the tax take of their “Region” and this would be very likely to mean that there would be a dramatic reduction in the Government subsidy to people in Yorkshire. 
Again Mr Jarvis is deceitful in his use of the statistics as to what way Yorkshire stands on the level of subsidy, since he quotes a comparison to UK subsidies and thus the vastly inflated subsidies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland under the Barnett Formula rather than looking at the average level of Government spending across England only.
The other thing about Mr Jarvis’ focus on devolution for Yorkshire and Humber is that he and his other “Europeanists” do not seem to have learnt from the fiasco of their attempt to try and entrench Regional Assemblies in “Yorkshire” and in the “North East”.  It was the very fact that the proposed regionalisation for Yorkshire was not the traditional county but instead the EU Region of Yorkshire and the Humber which led to the proposal for Yorkshire and the Humber being so unpopular that John Prescott did not even try to have a referendum there, but instead went for the only “Region” where he thought he had any chance, which was the “North East”.  Even then his proposal utterly flopped at the ballot box – getting only 29% support!
As it says in Proverbs, Chapter 26, Verse 11:- “As a dog that returns to his vomit, so is a fool who repeats his folly”.  So can we say to devious Dan “Ay up lad! Sup up!?”
Here are all the comments which Mr Jarvis said in the debate which I found to be “interesting”. 
What do you think? 
Here they are the extracts from his comments:-  “All of us here have a responsibility to work co-operatively together to best serve the interests of our region. 
A constructive way forward for a future devolved settlement for Yorkshire
people of Barnsley and Doncaster made their voices heard. Some 85% voted in favour of a wider Yorkshire deal, 
The marching orders are thus: go back to the Government and get the deal the people want.
It is absolutely right that we listen to what the people have told us.
The status quo is not delivering. People are disillusioned, and they have a right to feel that way.
Not only do the people of Yorkshire receive an income that is 80% of the national average, but they also receive £300 per head less in terms of public spending, 
Secretary of the State to send the strongest signal of intent to the north of England that they are listening to what people are saying, and are prepared to make decisions that best serve those people’s interests.
This Friday in York, the coalition of the willing—leaders from across our area—will meet to reaffirm their support for the wider Yorkshire proposal.
I do understand why people in our region are disillusioned and angry.
We need a new economic and political settlement that involves genuine devolution of political and economic power that will spread prosperity and opportunity to towns and counties of all regions.
The solution must be as ambitious as the challenge is profound. That is why I believe that a wider Yorkshire deal is the way forward. By working together across the whole of our county and, like in the west midlands, not being confined to just one city, we would have the collective clout and the brand reputation to co-operate and compete not only with other parts of the UK, but with other parts of the world.
My constituents were very clear about what they were voting for—a wider Yorkshire deal—because they believed that that would be in their economic interests.
Could not have agreed more. Both nationally and internationally, a single Mayor would provide the single voice required to unlock the much-needed new investment. That is critically required in areas such as our transport system.
A wider Yorkshire combined authority directing investment decisions and using its purchasing power to negotiate
Devolution is about more than just transport infrastructure. It is about accessing funding for skills and training, building affordable homes, and preserving our unique culture, countryside and heritage by working together, harnessing our talents, combining our energies and maximising our influence, all of which is in reach.
The sense of place, community and belonging that comes from identifying with Yorkshire is, in many ways, our greatest asset. 
That will take more time, so first we need an interim solution not only to preserve the goal of a wider Yorkshire deal,
Indeed, if we are prepared to ignore an 85% majority, what does that say about the state of our democracy?
They were very clear in what they said, and it would be wrong for them to be ignored, not least because the Secretary of State was right when he told the Local Government Association that the driving force behind devolution is the desire to bring decision making to a more local level. 
This is not a political argument, in the sense that there is cross-party support.
As part of the coalition of the willing, some people have said to me that we should press for a wider Yorkshire settlement earlier than 2020,
I do not say for one moment that Yorkshire and the Humber should be a special case, but I do believe—I make no apologies for stating it in these terms—that it is a special place. There is something special about what John Sentamu described this morning as God’s own county.  There is a huge strength in our diversity. If we could create an arrangement that brought together 5.3 million people into an economy bigger than 11 EU nations, we would truly be a force to be reckoned with, not just in this country but around the world. In the far east—China, Japan or wherever—people know about Yorkshire. It means something to them, and it means something to us. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put in place an arrangement that could be really meaningful for the people we represent, and I very much hope that we will not miss out.
Where there is political will to make changes, it should be entirely possible to do so”.

LEFTISTS DON’T UNDERSTAND EITHER DEMOCRACY OR NATIONALISM!


LEFTISTS DON’T UNDERSTAND DEMOCRACY OR NATIONALISM


I recently had this exchange of views on Twitter with a Leftist troll:-

Robin Tilbrook 
What are British Laws when there are several jurisdictions in the UK? look at >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10
The Difference between the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England Explained

“Chris” 
British Laws are the collective laws of the UK over which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction.

Tilbrook‏ Jan 24

Not so. It isn’t a proper “Supreme Court” like the US one. It has jurisdiction over the parameters of eg Scots’ Devolved Powers

“Chris” Jan 24 
think you need to do a bit more research on their jurisdiction. Either way, UK Supreme Court, not of E&W, so British correct

Tilbrook Jan 24 
As a litigation solicitor, I suspect I know more about the “Supreme Court’s” jurisdictions than most. http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/brexit-befuddled-and-be-judged.html …

“Chris” Jan 24 
As a member of a fascist group, I suspect you’re more blinded by ideological hatred than anything else, but there we are.

Robin Tilbrook‏ Jan 24 
Not true and shows what a hypocrite you are, being that you are the one who is blinded.

“Chris” 
so, despite your profile, you’re not a member of a far right party with fascist beliefs?

Robin Tilbrook‏ 
The English Democrats are:- “Not Right, Not Left, Just ENGLISH!”

“Chris” 
Are you even English? Have you had a DNA test? How long have your family been in this country? Do you test members?

Robin Tilbrook‏ 
Now who is being the Nazi?

“Chris” 
Pointing out the absurdity of your ideology. Personally, I’m proud of my mixed background – Norman, Anglo-Saxon, Irish

Whilst it would be hard to summon much sympathy for “Chris”, as an individual, in fact he does express, albeit “through a glass, darkly” the commonly held Left-wing confusion between Racism, Nationalism, Nazism and Democracy.

Of course, as I put into the exchange, many Leftists, like “Chris”, are not interested in engaging in a sensible discussion about these matters. Their only purpose is to use what they think are ‘nasty’ words to smear people who they regard as political opponents. For this purpose Nationalist, Fascist and Nazi are all interchangeable, even if that usage tells you nothing about the real meaning of those words or the differences of political outlook that these words encompass.

We should try to be more sensible than “Chris” and have a look at the meanings of these words. Let’s start with “Democracy”. The word “Democracy” derives from the ancient Greek word for the rule of the “Demos” which means “the People”.

As regards the modern movement for democracy, whilst there were strands of it in the English tradition, which burst forth into full bloom in the foundation of the United States, the real impetus for much of democratic development comes from the French Revolution. The Revolutionaries talked of the “People” aka le Peuple”, and “liberté, égalité, fraternité”. The Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars overturned the assumptions, practices and politics of most of Europe.

The history of the remainder of the 19th Century and quite a bit of the 20th Century can be referred back to the forces of Democracy and Nationalism which had been unleashed by the French Revolution and by Napoleon.

In particular Democracy and Nationalism were seen by people as two sides of the same coin. Nationalists wanted to see their national group and its interests properly represented in Governmental systems and the “Nation” was seen as the same thing as the “People”. The rule of the “People” was thus expanded to be the rule of the “People of the Nation.”

One of the things we see in the modern world is that where a state occupies territory over which there is no concept of a single nation, it is impossible for that state to be democratic.

It is also worth observing that while nationalism and democracy have a large overlap there are of course versions of nationalism which are undemocratic, such as Fascism. Fascist leaders tended to claim that they were doing what the people of the nation wanted or was in their interest. Nevertheless Fascism was always opposed to representative parliamentary democracy.

Nazism and Fascism are basically both heretical offshoots of Marxist/Leninism. I would remind everybody that in 1932 Hitler made a well publicised speech in which he stated:-

We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions. 


And of course Hitler’s Party’s proper name translated into English, was the “National Socialist German Workers Party”. 

Where Hitler departed from the basis on which nationalism had previously proceeded was in his ideology that there was an objective “Aryan” race the struggles of which are the basis of history. This is an idea in some respects similar to the Marxist delusion of there being an objective class, the “International Proletariat”. It’s also perhaps not all that surprising that Hitler wasn’t a German nationalist since he was after all Austrian!

Before we leave the subject of Democracy and Nationalism it is perhaps worth considering what Count Klemens von Metternich said in the early 19th Century about the Italian nationalist movement. He said:- 

“The word “Italy” is a geographical expression, a description which is useful shorthand, but has none of the political significance the efforts of the revolutionary ideologues try to put on it, which is full of dangers for the very existence of the states which make up the peninsular”.

So comprehensively has that early 19th Century Statesman’s view of Italy been swept aside that I have met quite a few people who think that Italy has always been a nation! That Italy is a single nation state going back to ancient Rome.

It is worth remembering that Mussolini’s political objective was partly to try to bolster a sense of Italy being an united nation state, when in fact Italy had only become united in 1863 and the First World War had tested the idea of Italy almost to destruction. But he then went on to found the first nationalist movement which was not avowedly democratic i.e. the Fascists.

On the other side of the concept of representative democracy we have the emerging idea of “Liberal Democracy”, which “Chris” mentioned. 

In England “Liberal Democracy” was really formed on the ideas of, amongst others, John Locke. The right to vote and to hold office was mostly dependent on owning property and therefore on being somebody with a stake in society. It was after all only in the late 19th Century in England that the right to vote was no longer limited to those people with property. Even until the 1960’s those who served on juries had to be rate payers and therefore householders.

Liberal Democracy’s roots therefore are not in Nationalism. 

We have seen this very clearly in the outcome of the Brexit case, in which most of the judges have firmly stated that legally the terms of the constitution is not a “Democracy” in which the “People” would be the sovereign body. Instead the Judges ruled that the “Crown in Parliament” is “Sovereign”, the “People’s” view therefore merely advisory. This is the position of Liberal Democracy clearly expressed.

Nationalists and Democrats on the other hand would say with one voice that it is the “People” that should be “Sovereign” not the Crown in Parliament. Both would also say that Parliament, the Monarchy, Councillors, Local Government, etc., should be seen as all merely the institutions by which the Peoples’ Will is expressed.

As we are seeing the development of Brexit is exposing one of the great divides in the world!

England “God’s first borne of the Nation states of the Earth”

I was recently asked to speak at the Redbridge Rotary Meeting.  Rotary have a strict policy that speeches are not to be party political and I was asked to talk about key dates and developments in English history which caused the political constitution in England to develop in the unique way that it did and thereby led to many of the key developments which brought the modern world into existence. 
Here are the key points that I referred to in my speech:-
Ladies and Gentlemen of Redbridge Rotary many thanks for inviting me to speak to you today. 
A few months ago I happened to meet and get talking to your colleague, Tony Betts, about the uniqueness of English history.   He said that he thought you would be interested.  So thank you Tony for my invitation here today to talk about English history and how our unique constitution developed.
As G K Chesterton said “What can they of England know who only England know” and so I do find that sometimes people who haven’t travelled much say that there is no difference about England and it has no culture. 
The thing is Ladies and Gentlemen that in English schools now, English history is barely taught and certainly not taught in a way which allows our school children to understand how our constitution developed as a result of events in our history. 
Let me tell you what I think is a symptomatic story.  My daughter is interested in history and when she was doing her GCSE’s I happened to ask what she had been studying.  She said history.  So I asked what about.  She said Hitler.  So I said oh that’s interesting so who was the greatest mass murder in human history?  She immediately said Hitler.  So I said no Mao Tso Tung – 95 million. She looked a bit crestfallen so I said so who is the second greatest mass murderer in human history?  She said Hitler again a bit hesitantly.  So I said no Joe Stalin – 55 million.  I then asked who was the third greatest mass murderer in human history?  She was very hesitant by now and asked me was it Hitler so I said yes. 
Although this story is not about English history it does show both the bias which our children are subjected which edit out historic truths that are inconvenient to the Left and also that there is no teaching of any understanding of how things fit together.
So what I propose to do is to concentrate on how English history fits together and focus on the key dates in the development of that unique entity called:- “the English Nation” and its Nation State:  “England”. 
To illustrate how unique England is I would point out that one historian called England “God’s first borne of the Nation states of the Earth”. 
So here goes Ladies and Gentlemen.
412    Legions depart
          End of Roman Britain
The rise of the Heptarchy – settlement/conquer by Angles, Jutes and Saxons
664    Synod of Witby – Culmination of the Roman Catholic mission founded by StAugustine
731    Venerable Bede – Book:- Historica Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum
793    Viking’s first raid
20.11.869   Martyrdom of St Edmund – Patron Saint of English as a people
878    Alfred the Great burns cakes.  Alfred wins a first great victory against the Vikings at Eddington
          His Military reforms
880’s  His publication of English Bible
886    His creation of London as a burgh
890    His promulgation of his law code in English
12.7.927     King Athelstan – English unity – at Eamont
1066  Edward the Confessor (Patron Saint of English Monarchy)
         
        William the Conqueror calls himself: “Basileus”.
1189  “Time Immemorial” “Basileus”  (Death of Henry II) Customary law basis of Common Law (a unique English contribution).
1215  Magna Carta – the King uniquely subjected to the Rule of Law
Re-promulgated as manifesto by William Marshall and Henry III
1222 St George’s Day 23rd April adopted (Patron Saint of England)
1265  First British Parliament in Westminster Abbey Chapter House.  We can see the spot on Westminster Abbey wall where Henry III ran out of money!
Edward I uses Parliament to raise more tax for his wars
1333  Battle of Halidon Hill.  First of three great victories of Edward III.  Berwick on Tweed finally settled in England.
1461  Towton etc. – Slaughter of much of medieval nobility
1485  Bosworth – Wars of the Roses ends
1517  Martin Luther posts 95 theses on church door in Wittenberg
         
1535  Reformation – Tudor Monarchy apparently very dominant but parliament is the mechanism by which even the religion of England is ordered to be changed (and later back and forth).
1535  Official Bible printed in English
1536 Act of Union with Wales
1603  Scottish King inherits English Crown.  James I of England 6th of Scotland tries to get English Parliament to agree to United Kingdom and fails
1642  Civil War
1649  Charles beheaded
          England declared a Republic and Commonwealth
1689  Glorious Revolution – Bill of Rights
          Crown in Parliament is Sovereign.  Keystone of legislative constitution as set out in Miller (Brexit) case by LCJ.  NB. Not the sovereignty of the People!
1707  Union of Parliament – Scotland
1721 Emergence of Prime Ministerial government
          England uniquely was the first Industrial Revolution
1801  Union – Ireland – Union Jack complete
1832  Great Reform Act – Parliament begins to increase the rate of legislation
1922  Ireland – Irish Free State – Irish citizens can move here freely and vote here as citizens
1937  Republic of Ireland created
1945 Post war phenomenon of two party rule.
1998  Devolution of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but uniquely nothing for England except now EVEL e.g. Hunting Act for England only – SNP blocked it.
What do you think?  Is English constitutional history more unique than you thought?


Five reasons for English Independence (of many!)


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

What do you think?

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS COME SECOND IN BATLEY AND SPEN BY-ELECTION!

Here is our press release:-

THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS COME SECOND IN BATLEY AND SPEN BY-ELECTION!


The English Democrats are pleased to announce that our candidate, Therese Hirst, came second in Batley and Spen which is a constituency where the English Democrats have never previously stood. Despite this we easily beat the BNP which had previously stood on many occasions and even once had two councillors in the constituency.

By contrast Labour had hundreds of activists canvassing and campaigning for weeks. They pulled in many of their high profile figures, including Jeremy Corbyn. They even had their Scottish Leader, Kezia Dugdale, come down from Glasgow with a coach load of activists! Labour also spent up to the maximum permitted by-election spend of £100,000, paying up to £5.71 per vote! Even so they had a dramatically reduced vote, despite also their established brand and their longstanding political dominance in Kirklees.

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “I heartily congratulate Therese Hirst on the campaign and on her coming second in the Batley and Spen by-election. It often seemed that the media were resolutely hostile to the English Democrats and to the English Cause, but Therese rose magnificently to the occasion. I was also very pleased that Therese’s response to the election results was to mimic Arnold Schwarzenegger’s famous film comment of “I’ll be back!”

I am looking forward to seeing whether we can beat Labour next time in the General Election when the boundary changes reduce their incumbency advantage and also when their spending is limited to the General Election’s £10,000 maximum!”

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats

Twitter: @RobinTilbrook

Party Website: www.englishdemocrats.org

Party Twitter: @EnglishDemocrat

Supporting VotetoLeave.EU

Key facts about the English Democrats

The English Democrats launched in 2002 and are the only campaigning English nationalist Party. We campaign for a referendum for Independence for England; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for the Cross of St George to be flown on all public buildings in England; and we supported a YES vote for Scottish Independence.

The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and to Plaid Cymru. The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include:- in the 2004 EU election we had 130,056 votes; winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council in 2009 and also the 2012 mayoralty referendum; in the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000; we won the 2012 referendum which gave Salford City an Elected Mayor; in 2012 we also saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; and in the 2014 EU election we had 126,024 votes for a total campaign spend of about £40,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK!). In the 2015 General Election we had the 8th largest contingent of candidates in England. In the October 2016 Batley & Spen, Westminster parliamentary, By-election we came second and easily beat all three British national parties.

What about UKIP?


What about UKIP?

I can’t start answering this question, which relates to the political future of UKIP, without mentioning the legal Latin expression “Functus Officio”.

Functus Officio means a duty completely finished, or to quote from Black’s Legal Dictionary:-

 “Latin: Having fulfilled the function, discharged the office, or accomplished the purpose, and therefore of no further force or authority. Applied to an officer whose term has expired, and who has consequently no further official authority; and also to an instrument, power, agency, etc. which has fulfilled the purpose of its creation, and is therefore of no further virtue or effect.”

The words of the second verse of that great Victorian funeral hymn “Abide with Me” also seems very suitable too. Here they are:-

“Swift to its close, ebbs out life’s little day;

Earth’s joys grow dim; its glories pass away;

Change and decay in all around I see;

O Thou who changest not, abide with me.”

It is however fair that I also mention Nigel Farage’s and UKIP’s highly significant role in getting David Cameron to make what for Dave was the greatest political mistake of his life. That role was in bluffing him into calling a referendum on our continued membership of the EU.

Andrew Marr writing in the New Statesman on 1st July reported that:- 

“According to one of those involved, this all started at a pizza restaurant at Chicago O’Hare Airport at the time of a Nato conference in 2012, when David Cameron and his closest political allies decided that the only way of scuppering Ukip and the Euro-hostile Right of the Conservative Party was to give the British people a referendum.”

We English People, and our Nation, will always owe a debt of gratitude to UKIP and its role in getting us the opportunity to democratically vote to Leave the EU.

But perhaps, rather like an effective catalyst in causing a chemical reaction, in doing all this UKIP may have caused its own destruction.

Of course at this stage it is not clear for sure what the outcome of UKIP’s leadership election is going to be, nor what will be left of their Party once they have finished fighting over its constitutional structure at the emergency EGM which Arron Banks is organising.