Sunday, 29 January 2012
This last week has been a momentous one for the English Democrats and for the Cause of democratic English nationalism.
We had both a great victory in democratising the leadership of one of Labour's heartlands, Salford, and also validation, from a Labour Think-tank, that the rise of English Nationalism is now unstoppable.
Having either happen would have been very welcome but both together is a quantum leap! Also the national background to these two developments was the start of Alex Salmond's 1,000 day drive towards Scottish Independence and the ending of the UK. This will be a time in which the media will be increasingly interested in hearing the voice of moderate and reasonable English nationalism. This is already starting, as was shown by my BBC News interview on Tuesday evening and 5 Live on Wednesday morning and various newspaper interviews.
I have already written about the IPPR report but here is our Press Release about our Salford result:-
English Democrats' David slays Salford Labour’s Goliath!
Today the English Democrats are delighted to announce that our nationwide campaign for directly elected Council Leaders (aka Mayors) for every local authority in England has borne its first fruit - despite an increasingly desperate and dishonest campaign by the Salford Council Labour Party.
Salford is the first local authority where we collected the required 5% of the electors’ signatures (c. over 8,500) to trigger a referendum to give the voters of Salford the chance to change their Council’s leadership, from the old back-scratching and buggins’ system, to one of democratic election by all the voters. The result was, out of 31,091 votes cast, 17,344 were in favour of an elected Mayor and 13,653 were against. Therefore in May there will be an election for Salford’s first directly elected Council Leader.
Stephen Morris, our North West Chairman and Salford Mayoral Campaign Organiser said:-
“This result, where the turnout was quite similar to the usual turnout in Council elections, showed that even Salford Labour Party’s usual supporters have turned against it! I am now looking forward to bringing Mayoral Referendums to Bolton and Wigan as soon as possible.”
Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said:-
“This is a fantastic day for local democracy in England and shows that the way is open to achieving a better and more transparent leadership in local authorities across England. We would like to get everyone more actively involved in local politics and we believe we will succeed in doing so, if they can see that the old one party local political machines are being replaced by Mayoral elections which give the electorate a real choice!”
“Even David only needed a little stone to bring Goliath crashing down! Now our Party will redouble our efforts in collecting signatures to trigger further referenda the length and breadth of England”.
Contact: Robin Tilbrook, Chairman, The English Democrats,
Party Tel No: 02072421066
Party Website: www.englishdemocrats.org
Personal Blog: RobinTilbrook.Blogspot.com
Friday, 27 January 2012
Yesterday I attended a packed (standing room only) meeting at the IPPR’s plush London offices. The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) is a leading Labour think tank. The meeting was addressed by two professors and two politicians, Simon Hughes for the Lib Dems and John Denham for Labour and was chaired by a journalist from the Guardian. David Davies MP had been asked to come but backed out citing “constituency reasons”.
The purpose of the meeting was to consider the IPPR’s report called “The English finally barked: understanding the new politics of Englishness”. The results of this report fully justified (and more) my predictions in my previous blog article. Below is the IPPR’s press release.
The report, even though it is written by our political opponents, is a real milestone in the development of the English Nationalist cause. This is in part because it is designed to tell the British Political and Media Establishment that they can’t ignore us any more – except at their peril!
There will be interesting times ahead!
"More now feel ‘English’ than ‘British’ in England
UK Parliament and Westminster parties are failing to represent the English
Voters living in England have become more assertively ‘English’ and place much greater emphasis on their English rather than their British identity, according to a major new report on Englishness from the think tank IPPR and Cardiff and Edinburgh Universities, published today. The report warns that political parties have to address ‘the English Question’ in its own right, regardless of what happens in Scotland, or risk a major backlash.
The report is based on the results of the Future of England survey – the only major survey in this area conducted in England since the formation of both a coalition government at Westminster and the election of a majority SNP administration in Holyrood. Uniquely it compares how attitudes in England have changed over time and how they compare with other European countries.
It shows that:
The number of voters in England who believe that Scottish devolution has made the way Britain is governed worse (35 per cent) has doubled since 2007.
The English believe they get a raw-deal from the devolved settlement, with 45 per cent of voters in England saying that Scotland gets ‘more than its fair share of public spending’ – the number agreeing with this has almost doubled since 2000. Meanwhile 40 per cent of voters in England say that England gets ‘less than its fair share’ of public money.
More than half (52 per cent) say that Scotland’s economy benefits more than England’s from being in the UK, while less than one in four believe England and Scotland’s economies benefit equally.
While support for Scottish independence remains low - only 22 per cent say Scots should go it alone – the English strongly support the view that the current devolved settlement should be reformed. At fully 80 per cent, there is also overwhelming support in England for ‘devolution-max’ (full fiscal autonomy) for Scotland, with 44 per cent agreeing strongly. 79 per cent say Scottish MPs should be barred from voting on English laws, with an absolute majority agreeing strongly with that proposition.
The report finds that having initially been content to continue to be governed themselves by an unreformed set of UK institutions at Westminster, support for the status quo has now fallen to just 1 in 4 of the English electorate. 59 per cent say that they do not trust the UK government to work in the best long-term interests of England.
Voters in England appear to support introducing distinct governance arrangements for England but are currently divided between support for ‘English voters on English laws’ and an ‘English Parliament’ (combined support for these two options is 54 per cent).
The report shows that the proportion of the population that prioritise their English over their British identity (40 per cent) is now twice as large as that which prioritise their British over their English identity (16 per cent). The English are not rejecting Britishness outright and retain a dual sense of identity, but in recent years they are increasingly choosing to emphasise their English over their British identity. This phenomenon is consistent across England's diverse regions (including London) and across all social and demographic groups – with one exception provided by ethnic minority voters. However the report also points to tentative evidence of a growth in English identification within ethnic minority communities.
Dissatisfaction with devolution and the current structures for governing England are felt more strongly among those with a strong sense of English identity, a group that represents a growing proportion of the population.
Polling presented in the report shows that English voters have little faith in the ability of the political parties to stand up for the interests of England. More felt that none of the parties stands up for the interest of England than did those supporting either of the main political parties.
‘I do not think that any party stands up for the interests of England’ = 23%
Labour = 21%
Conservatives = 20%
Don’t know = 15%
UK Independence Party = 9%
Liberal Democrats = 4%
British National Party = 4%
English Democrats = 2%
Green Party = 2%
Nick Pearce, IPPR Director, said:
“English identity is on the rise and it is increasingly expressed in terms that are resentful of the devolution settlement. But that doesn't mean that Englishness is not capable of an open and inclusive political and cultural voice, within a reformed United Kingdom.
“Our mainstream political parties need to embrace Englishness, take it seriously, and find new ways of giving it political expression. It is not something to be feared or abandoned to those on the margins of right wing politics.
“There are those that fear that an engagement with a debate about England and Englishness will weaken the union, but the truth is the opposite. The longer this debate is ignored, or worse, denied, the more likely we will see a backlash within England against the UK."
Richard Wyn Jones, Professor of Politics at Cardiff University and co-author of the report said:
“Despite the exhortations of successive governments that have focused exclusively on Britishness, it is clear that at the popular level it is Englishness that resonates most. Not only that, but there is strong evidence that English identity is becoming increasingly politicized. The more English a person feels the more likely they are to be dissatisfied with the way that the UK is being governed post-devolution, and the more likely they are to support the explicit recognition of an English dimension to their country’s politics. Even if the form that this English dimension should take has yet to fully crystallize in the electorate’s mind, this is arguably at least as much a failure on the part of the political class to lead a public debate on this increasingly important issue.”
Notes to Editors
IPPR’s new report –The dog that finally barked: England as an emerging political community - is available in advance from the IPPR press office and will be available to download from: http://bit.ly/IPPR8542
The report is part of a major research collaboration between the Wales Governance Centre (Cardiff University), the Institute of Governance (Edinburgh University) and IPPR.
All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. The total sample size was 1,507 adults and fieldwork was undertaken between 27 July and 2 August 2011. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+). A boost sample was included for London: the total sample size was 750 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 27th July - 2nd August 2011. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all London adults (aged 18+)."
Saturday, 21 January 2012
I am looking forward to the IPPR's event this Thursday (the 26th): "The dog that finally barked: The new politics of Englishness" http://www.ippr.org/events/54/8436/the-dog-that-finally-barked-the-new-politics-of-englishness.
In preparation, we have been treated to a series of tantalising and carefully orchestrated leaks by this very media savvy (and connected!) Labour Think-tank; for example, on the BBC's Today programme, Professor Richard Wyn Jones outlined their main findings explaining that there seems to be a growing "politicisation of English identity". The following link will replay this very interesting interview >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9678000/9678426.stm
and there has been this:-
and especially this article, by the Director of the IPPR, Nick Pearce:- "Learning English: what Gladstone and Disraeli have to teach us about the English question". Here is the link >>> http://www.ippr.org/?p=636&option=com_wordpress&Itemid=17
in which Nick Pearce says:- "79 per cent of voters in England believe that Scottish MPs should be barred from voting on English-only laws. Importantly, support for reform in this area was even greater among the growing proportion of the population in England who emphasise their English over their British identities, suggesting evidence of the politicisation of Englishness."
I must congratulate the IPPR on their media tactics (and connections). They really are milking this event for all that it is worth!
Nevertheless I am looking forward to hearing their findings, with some anticipation after my introductory discussion with Guy Lodge, their 'Politics and Power' Associate Director, which I wrote about on the 3rd of January: The "growing sense of Englishness is becoming politicized"! Here is the link >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.com/2012/01/growing-sense-of-englishness-is.html
As someone who, for over a decade, has been an actively campaigning English nationalist, I have had the benefit of innumerable relevent conversations. I wonder then if I can therefore predict these YouGov/ IPPR findings? Well here goes!
My predictions are:-
First: I expect that people in England will be shown to be becoming increasingly very likely to identify themselves as having English National Identity. On the stump, I would say that I increasingly rarely come across people who consider themselves to be "British" (until we get onto passports or benefits etc.
If I am right in this prediction, it will confirm that the official attempt to indoctrinate "Britishness" and the official anti-Englishenss have both failed. The English Democrats and the non party lobby group, the Campaign for an English Parliament, can then take some credit for having, almost unaided, kept the sacred flame of Englishness alive!
Second: I expect that this IPPR/YouGov survey will show that those people who identitfiy themselves as "English" are increasingly wanting to see changes to the British constitution to give a proper voice to English National Interests.
However I would expect that these people will not be very clear about exactly what remedy they currently seek. This lack of clarity isn't very surprising because the British Political Establishment's main tactics so far have been either:-
1/ to lie, to try to conceal their desire to break up England into "Regions"; or
2/ to try to bamboozle us to "dissolve our petty (Englishness) into the greater European whole"; or
3/ to try to trick us to accept some unworkeable House of Commons voting wheeze ("EVEL") as a placebo.
None of these will prove, in the end, to be acceptable to a resurgent English nationalism but, at present, I suspect, that many English people are deceived and they are therefore likely to be unclear as to exactly what reforms they want.
If I am right in this prediction then both the English Democrats and the CEP have got some work to do yet to get the call for an English government and Parlaiment firmly established.
Third: I expect, for somewhat the same reasons, that English people will, currently, be very confused as to which Political Party to support. I expect that the largest proportion will be suspicious of, and just grumbling about, all Parties, and also one of the other larger proportions will be those who admit that they don't yet know which Party to support.
Then there will be sizeable proportions who are still deceived by Labour, or by the Conservatives, or by the Liberal Democrats, or by UKIP.
I have been lobbying YouGov to include the English Democrats as a possible voting option on their Opinion Polls and, if I have been as successful as I believe, then people will have been asked in this poll, for the first time, if they will be considering voting English Democrats.
We have to recognise that we are still much younger, much less wealthy and have much less brand recognition than the Greens, the BNP and UKIP. I therefore suspect that we can only expect to be at 1% or 2% but, as the media wakes up to a realisation of the potential political strength of English nationalism and as we get more coverage, I expect that we will leapfrog over all those minor British Nationalist parties like UKIP, the NF and the BNP and also over all those minor Internationalist Left parties like Respect, the Greens and the SWP.
All in all I predict that next week will be a great week for English Nationalism.
Also I predict the start of great things for the English Democrats - if we can improve our brand recognition and get English people to stop grumbling that "They" should do something - rather than us all together getting on with doing it ourselves! That is our challenge but we can accept it with a more determination when we know whether the opinion polls confirm that our own People are with us!
We need more volunteers and we need more money but our Cause is right, our Cause is just - and it has the increasing support of the English Nation!
Friday, 20 January 2012
It now appears that, after months of delay, that the English are to be snubbed and unrepresented on the Government's West Lothian Question Commission. The West Lothian Question ("WLQ") is that, deliberately opaque, phrase used by the British Establishment to talk about the 'English Question' without mentioning the "E" word.
As the Daily Telegraph's Philip Johnston explains it:-
"It was in 1977, during the devolution debates in the Commons, that Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP for West Lothian, asked: “For how long will English constituencies and English honourable members tolerate honourable members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on British politics, while they have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?” Enoch Powell, in the same debate, gave Mr Dalyell’s puzzle the status it now enjoys: “We have finally grasped what the Honourable Member for West Lothian is getting at,” he said. “Let us call it the West Lothian Question.”
To call something a “question” conjured up those great issues that once preoccupied parliamentarians, like Schleswig-Holstein or, more pertinently, the Irish Question. But this was never really the West Lothian Question – it is the English Question. How does England fit into the post-devolutionary settlement? This has been ignored,"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/9017866/Amid-the-talk-of-Scottish-independence-its-now-time-to-answer-the-English-Question.html
So after many months of procrastination the Government has now announced the membership of its West Lothian Question Commission (or McKay Commission as it may come to be called). There are six Commissioners. Here are potted biographies of them:-
Sir William McKay KCB (Chairman)
Sir William entered the service of the House of Commons in 1961 and was Clerk of the House from 1998 to 2002. Since retirement, he has served on a large number of bodies that consider complex legal and constitutional matters, including the Legal Questions Committee of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and as an observer on the Law Society of Scotland's ruling Council.
Sir Geoffrey Bowman KCB QC
Sir Geoffrey Bowman was called to the bar in 1968 by Lincoln's Inn, of which he is now a bencher. From 1971 to 2006 he was a member of the Parliamentary Counsel Office, which is responsible for drafting government Bills and facilitating their passage through the Westminster Parliament. He was First Parliamentary Counsel (head of the Office) from 2002 to 2006. He has considerable experience of legislative drafting, Parliamentary procedure and constitutional matters generally.
Sir Emyr Jones Parry GCMG
Sir Emyr is the President of Aberystwyth University. He is the former British Permanent Representative to the United Nations and former UK permanent representative on the North Atlantic Council (NATO). From 2007-2009 he chaired the All Wales Convention.
Professor Charlie Jeffery
Professor Jeffery has held a Chair in Politics at the University of Edinburgh since October 2004 and is currently Head of School of Social and Political Science and Vice Principal for Public Policy at the University. He directed the Economic and Social Research Council's research programme on Devolution and Constitutional Change from 2000-7. He was a member of Council of the Economic and Social Research Council from 2005-11. He has been advisor to the House of Commons Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the EU Committee of the Regions, the Commission on Scottish Devolution and the Scotland Bill Committee of the Scottish Parliament. He is a member of the Politics and International Studies sub-panel for the 2014 Research Excellence Framework and chairs the Political Studies Association of the UK.
Professor Yvonne Galligan
Professor Galligan is the Director of Research on Governance and Public Policy at Queen's University, Belfast. She is also the Director of the University's Gender Initiative and of the Centre for the Advancement of Women in Politics. Professor Galligan has written extensively on questions of political and parliamentary representation.
Sir Stephen Laws KCB QC
Sir Stephen Laws was called to the Bar in 1973. He joined the Civil Service in 1975 and transferred to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel in 1976. Sir Stephen was First Parliamentary Counsel from 2006 to 2012. Sir Stephen's career in the Civil Service has involved being an adviser to different Governments on Parliamentary and constitutional matters, as well as responsibility for the drafting and procedural handling of Government Bills at Westminster.
You will notice that only two of these six are arguably English. Both of these are as British and as Establishment as it is possible to be! They are both retired “First Parliamentary Counsel” i.e. top ranking civil servants whose legal work is both the drafting of government bills and advising Whitehall Ministers etc., and the Committees of the Houses of Commons and Lords as the Bills progress through Westminster’s legislative process.
Also consider the Commission's government-imposed Terms of Reference:
"To consider how the House of Commons might deal with legislation which affects only part of the United Kingdom, following the devolution of certain legislative powers to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales."
NB no mention of the word "England"
We can therefore be absolutely confident that none of the Commissioners will have any interest whatsoever in the English Nation, English Nationalism or even in democratic fairness for England.
The Government’s approach is now self evidently to delay any recommendations until at least 2015 and even then they are seeking recommendations that will have the minimum impact on the way Westminster currently operates.
However I have a message for Ministers and for their West Lothian Commission – the English are awakening and when fully roused they will not be happy with Westminster or Whitehall which have betrayed the trust placed in them to be fair to England and to the English Nation! And this McKay Commission will not appease us one bit!
Tuesday, 17 January 2012
Click the picture to read the Colchester Gazette report from today's paper
I suspect that Eddie Bone will win his case, not least because the North Essex NHS Trust’s “Head of Human Resources” admitted, in the witness box, that she thought that the English were not a recognised racial group under the Equalities Act! Idiotic big mistake!
She was told off by the Judge who said:- “Of course the English are covered! Just like the Scottish, Irish, Welsh and Congolese!” The Judge then sent her out to consider the error of what she had just said.
However, whatever the outcome of this case, it does show that the Workers of England Union are a serious Union willing to fight tooth and nail for their members and are truly worthy to be recommended. Personally I do recommend this Union wholeheartedly.
Their contact details are:-
Workers of England Union
17 Nelson Road
Essex CO3 9AP
Tel: 01206 766899
This is an extract from Roy Jenkins' autobiography (click to read the text)
The extract tells a significant tale about Monmouthshire's status but one of our members, the late Elwyn Jones of Abergavenny, told it in much more detail:-
History of Monmouthshire
Ambiguity over Welsh status
Monmouthshire's Welsh status was ambiguous until the relatively recently, with it often thought of as part of England. The entirety of Wales was made part of the Kingdom of England by the Statute of Rhuddlan, but did not adopt the same civil governance system, with the area of Monmouthshire being under the control of Marcher Lords.
The Laws in Wales Act 1535 integrated Wales directly into the English legal system, and divided it into several counties. Monmouthshire, as part of England, was created by this Act (which gave it two knights of the shire rather than one as in the other Welsh counties). However, the Laws in Wales Act 1542 specifically enumerates the Welsh counties as twelve in number, excluding Monmouthshire from the count.
Despite this integration of Wales into England, the word "England" was still taken to exclude Wales in many contexts. The Wales and Berwick Act 1746 ensured that in legislation passed subsequently that Berwick-upon-Tweed and Wales into "England".
Despite this, Monmouthshire was often associated with Wales. The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica unambigiously described the county as part of England, but notes that 'whenever an act [...] is intended to apply to [Wales] alone, then Wales is always coupled with Monmouthshire'. Most Acts of Parliament included Monmouthshire as part of England, for example the Local Government Act 1933 listed both the administrative county of Monmouth and county borough of Newport as part of England, but in the rare event that an Act of Parliament was restricted to Wales, Monmouthshire was usually included. For example, the creation of the Welsh Office in 1964 explicitly included Monmouthshire. Another typical example was the division of England and Wales into registration areas in the 19th century — one of which, the "Welsh Division", was defined as including "Monmouthshire, South Wales and North Wales".
Being a part of the diocese of Llandaff, Monmouthshire was included in the area in which the Church of England was disestablished in 1920 to become the Church in Wales.
The question of Monmouthshire's status continued to be a matter of discussion, especially as Welsh nationalism and devolution climbed the political agenda in the 20th century. The Wales and Berwick Act was repealed in regard to Wales in 1967 under the Welsh Language Act 1967. The Interpretation Act 1978 provides that in legislation passed between 1967 and 1974, "a reference to England includes Berwick upon Tweed and Monmouthshire".
The issue was finally clarified in law by the Local Government Act 1972, which provided that in legislation after 1974 the definition of "Wales" would include the area of Monmouthshire.
The English Democrats Party have expressed an intention to stand in the 2007 Welsh Assembly Elections in Monmouthshire with a view to 'Letting Monmouthshire Decide' whether it wishes to be part of Wales or England.
The Murky Transfer from England to Wales
Monmouthshire did not exist before 1535, however Monmouth as a town did exist and was documented in the Domesday Book as being part of England.
The 1535 Act (During the Reign of Henry VIII) was made because of the lack of law and order in the Welsh border areas from Mold to Chepstow which were ruled by the “Marcher Lords” – basically this lad was a no-man’s land between Wales and England.
The Act created the counties of Monmouth, Brecknock, Radnor, Montgomery, and Denbigh and annexed the remaining border area to the counties of Shropshire, Gloucester and Hereford – hence the Welsh place names there - so it is therefore not surprising that the Welsh language was in use in the border country.
In that Act Section Three - notes four, five and six - and all of Section Four – especially note six - refer to everything in the county of Monmouthshire being done according to this ‘Realm of England’ and to the subjects and inhabitants of Monmouthshire to be ‘bound and obedient to the King, Justices, Council, laws, customs ordinances and statutes of this Realm of England, in like manner and form as all King’s subjects within every shire of this Realm of England’.
Sections five, six, seven and eight refer respectively to Brecknock, Radnor, Montgomery and Denhigh as parts of the country of Wales, however, Section 36 states that until three years after the end of that Parliament, the King shall have the power to ‘repeal, revoke and abrogate’ the whole, or any part of the Act.
Section two of the 1542 Act, states that Wales will comprise of 12 counties - the eight old counties of Glamorgan, Carmarthen, Pembroke, Cardigan, Flint, Caernarvon, Anglesey and Merioneth and four new ones - Radnor, Brecknock, Montgomery and Denbigh over and besides the county of Monmouth and the other parts of Wales annexed to Shropshire, Gloucester, and Hereford.
Section five of the Act states that sessions will be held in every of the shires of Wales and then names the 12 above with no mention of Monmouthshire The 1933 Local Government Act lists the English and Welsh counties and the county boroughs and places Monmouthshire in the English county list and Newport in the English borough list.
The pre 1974 Ordnance Survey maps also place Monmouthshire in England and correspondence with them will confirm this.
Correspondence with the Welsh Office will also confirm that Monmouthshire was a part of England prior to 1974.
Confusion over this matter has been caused over generations by misleading statements made and repeated by prominent statesmen and politicians for reasons known only to them, taking advantage of the fact that many residents of Monmouthshire were unable to read and write.
When the 1972 Local Government Act was being dealt with in committee, 3 MP.s with no political connections to Monmouthshire, Brynmor John (Pontypridd),George Thomas(Cardiff West), (later Speaker Thomas) and Gibson Watt (Hereford),on the 14 March 1972 constructed a paragraph that would achieve the transfer of Monmouthshire to Wales from England by stating “including the areas of Monmouthshire and Newport in the new counties of Wales.”ie. the 12 old counties would be replaced by 8 new counties,South Glamorgan.,Mid Glamorgan.,West Glamorgan. ,Dyfed, Powys,Gwynledd, Clwyd and Gwent. They omitted to reveal that Gwent was almost entirely the English county of Monmouthshire. The committee comprised of 36 MP.s,but no M.P.s from Monmouthshire,or Newport, were on that committee.
The effect of that sentence was revealed to Parliament four months later at 5 minutes to midnight, 20.July 1972.,by George Thomas, Gibson-Watt and Ray Gower (Barry). The”debate” was over in less than one minute including Gerald Kaufman (Manchester Ardwick) statement “Am I to take it that an Act of annexation of such magnitude is to be carried though a sparsely attended House of Commons on the nod at 5 minutes to midnight on the same basis as Europe has annexed England,I wish to voice my protest.” The Bill had the Third reading less than 18 hours later before going to the Lords and then receiving Royal Assent. There is no record of the 5 M.P.s representing Monmouthshire,and Newport,Messrs Kinnock,Foot,Abse,Hughes and Stradling-Thomas speaking one word for or against, if they were present. As the paragraph was prepared 4 months earlier and there is evidence that indicates they knew about the paragraph, they could have, during those months, informed us what was being proposed, held public meetings, consulted their constituents and held a referendum, but they did not, and have not given any explanation for their inaction. There is no trace in Hansard of any protest that they were not aware of that paragraph prior to 20 July 1972. That transfer to Wales was the most momentous thing that happened in Monmouthshire’s history going back 430 years, and the most important thing that the 5 MP.s presided over during their careers as MP.s. The fact that they spoke not one word, for or against, in Parliament and did not make us aware of what was about to happen, is an abuse of the trust that should exist between M.P.s and their constituents.
When Welsh devolution was proposed in the county, there was repeated visits from the Prime Minister,his deputy, senior members of all political parties, MP.s ,and Trade Union leaders, months of radio and television interviews, numerous articles in national and local newspapers. That was to transfer a few administrative powers from the UK to Wales, but when it was proposed to transfer an English county, with its population of 400,000 to Wales, there was not a whisper from the constituency MP.s or Parliament. What can be said to justify the actions of 4 MP.s, with no political connections to Monmouthshire and Newport, being allowed to override all democratic procedures by misleading statements in committee and in the commons, resulting in the transfer of Monmouthshire and Newport.
Northern Ireland, The Falklands,Channel Isles and Gibraltar have all been told they will not be transferred without a referendum.
The fact that the 1972 Act of Parliament was required to transfer Monmouthshire to Wales again confirms that it was an English county - if it was already in Wales no Act would have been required.
(Born an Englishman in Monmouthshire)
Monday, 16 January 2012
A time of plenty -
Great Yarmouth 1948, fisher-girls sort out the herring catch
I have been sent this article by a member of the Party. It makes a lot of good sense to me (although I would talk more about English than British!) Here is the article - what do you think?
How the politicians betrayed Britain's fishermen
'Twas down where fisher-folk gather,
I wandered far from the throng,
I heard a fisher-girl singing,
And this refrain was her song .......
This is the first verse, rarely heard nowadays, of the popular song - Red Sails in the Sunset. Lyrics by Jimmy Kennedy, music by Hugh Williams - 1935
When Edward Heath took Britain into the European Union in 1973, unscrupulous Tory politicians handed over Britain’s once proud fishing industry to Brussels on a plate. The Common Fisheries Policy devised by the EU, is responsible for the destruction of Britain’s fishing industry, with the loss of thousands of jobs and billions of pounds in revenue.
For example, Britain’s annual cod catch fell from 300,000 tonnes a year when Britain joined the EU in 1973 to a low of just 7,000 tonnes in 2007. In 1973 the industry employed about 23,000 fishermen. Today there are less than 12,000 fishermen left.
Britain, as you would expect of an island nation, has a fishing heritage that goes back generations. By 1970, the fishing industries of England and Scotland were among the finest in the world, in technology, efficiency, and quality of produce. Britain was producing over a million tons of fish a year, and was preparing to claim its international right to the resources of a 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around the British Isles. This was the new law of the sea agreed by the UN in 1973.
In 1970, a rise in white fish prices and a resurgence in herring fishing was boosting the prosperity of fishermen and fishing ports. The country’s fishery future looked secure. Then came Britain’s entry into the then European Common Market in 1973, negotiated by Edward Heath.
Hours before Britain was to be admitted, the original six members drafted the notorious addition to the “Acquis Communautaire”. It obliged new members to surrender the control of their waters to Europe, and to agree to “equal access to a common resource” as far as fish was concerned. All new applicants for membership would have to accept the condition, and that has been the case ever since. Despite a stream of subsequent lies and deception that this was not really the case, the government had sold the fishing industry like a pawn to gain entry to Europe. The European Commission then assumed the authority to delegate shares of the fishery resource to member states.
Apart from Ireland, and the existing European maritime states that had nothing to lose and everything to gain, Britain was the only nation in the world to give up that sovereign right to its exclusive 200 mile fishing zone, and accept the principle of ‘equal access' which was made a condition for all EU members.
Years later, Spain’s full entry into the EU Common Fisheries Policy nearly doubled the size of the EU states fishing fleets, and the later entry of the Baltic states increased the size still further. The size of the English and Scottish fleets had to be seriously reduced to accommodate the others.
What had taken British seamen and merchants 300 years to develop, was systematically reduced and destroyed by the EU Common Fisheries Policy in the 35 years from 1975 when measures started to be applied. No other nation in the history of the world has given up its fishing industry to foreign interests like Britain has done.
The Herring fleet set sail, Great Yarmouth 1930s
No state outside the EU has surrendered its 200 mile exclusive fishing zone to another body. Today, the vessels that reap the benefits of the UK marine EEZ are fleets from Spain, France, Denmark, Holland, and the new EU member states of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. In consequence, much of the fish purchased by British housewives, though caught in British waters, are from Continental fishing vessels.
The EU's Common Fisheries Policy imposes a regime of equal access for vessels from all member states in the EU's exclusive fishing zone, 200 nautical miles from its coastline.
Within this zone, member states have a 12-mile zone around their own coastlines within which their own fishing vessels have exclusive rights.
In other words, because Britain is a member of the EU our 200 mile exclusive fishing zone around the British Isles has been reduced to just 12 miles by Brussels bureaucrats. The North Sea, which once ranked amongst the richest waters in the world was, before we joined the EU, Britain’s national fishing waters.
The EU common fisheries policy has created a situation where landlocked nations like Austria have a say in how many fish a seafaring nation like Britain are allowed to catch.
The EU Quota System
Each country in the EU is given a quota of how many tons of fish they are allowed to catch. Each fishing vessel is then handed an individual fishing quota for different types of fish based on scientific data on the health of fish stocks. This leads to millions of tons of fish being wasted every year.
A trawler, for example, may have been given a quota to land 10 tons of cod and 10 tons of haddock. A problem arises when one of those quotas is met but not the other. A trawler that has landed all the cod it is allowed to catch but only half of the haddock, will continue to fish in order to meet its haddock quota. This means any extra cod caught in pursuit of its haddock quota will have to be thrown back into the sea, dead. This damages fish stocks and wastes millions of tons of fish. Catches and landings must be recorded. If a fisherman brings home more than his quota he faces a huge fine.
Surplus fish are thrown back into the sea, dead
Non-EU countries like Iceland have retained booming fishing industries and healthy fish stocks by keeping out competitors, like the Spanish, in a way that membership of the EU’s Fisheries Policy makes impossible.
Devious politicians regarded Britain's fishing industry as small beer, and a pawn well worth sacrificing for other benefits they imagined the European Union would bring.
Since no Parliament can bind its successor, both Labour and the Tories are equally to blame for the sorry mess the fishing industry finds itself in at the present time. But there is no need for us to remain under such grovelling humiliating servitude, since under the democratic principles of our historic constitution we can end the shameful surrender of our fishing grounds, our fishing rights and fish stocks, at any time of our choosing.
Thirty five years of senseless destruction is enough.
The English Democrats will take England out of the EU and re-establish control of our 200-mile exclusive fishing zone. We will then be able to rebuild our fishing industry and ensure the proper environmental management of fish stocks.
Friday, 13 January 2012
There is a significant new opinion poll from Ipsos MORI for “British Future”, December 2011 which has recently been published. Its results are based on 2,320 online interviews with people aged 16+ in Great Britain. The fieldwork took place between 30 November to 6 December 2011. This is however a Great Britain wide survey with more than a quarter of the respondents being from Scotland or Wales.
Question 11 of the poll is as follows:-
"Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have had their own parliament or assembly for some years. Members vote on some issues that affect only their respective countries, for example, on issues about health and education.
Issues affecting England can be voted on by all MPs sitting in Westminster. This means that English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs can vote on issues that are only of relevance to England."
Which one of the following do you think should happen?
We should keep things as they are - 22
We should set up a new English Parliament to decide on
England-only issues - 51
We should do away with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern
Ireland Parliaments and make all decisions in the UK
Parliament at Westminster - 14
Don’t know - 13
I suspect, that if this poll had been within England only, the result would have been closer to 60% supporting an English Parliament - even though its question is phrased in the way likely to achieve the lowest support, by making it about a new English Parliament.
This result would then have been well in line with YouGov’s pre-Christmas poll for 'Prospect Magazine' which showed 63%, of another GB survey, now consider that their National Identity is “English”.
The importance of this latest opinion poll result for us English Democrats, is that more than 50% of England are already in favour of our headline policy - despite the united opposition of almost the whole of the political and of the media class!
Wednesday, 11 January 2012
I had understood that ‘Dave’ Donald Cameron to be an intelligent man. Even intelligent people can get things totally wrong but in this case it really is quite simple, Mr Cameron! If Scotland leaves the United Kingdom of Great Britain necessarily ceases to exist - because the very concept of Great Britain is founded on the fusion of the Kingdom of England with the Kingdom of Scotland!
The Act of Union 1706 is crystal clear. Here is the relevant text:-
THAT THE TWO Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the first Day of May which shall be in the Year one thousand seven hundred and seven, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain;
That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by one and the same Parliament, to be stiled, The Parliament of Great Britain.
That all Parts of the United Kingdom for ever, from and after the Union, shall have the same Allowances, Encouragements, and Drawbacks, and be under the same Prohibitions, Restrictions and Regulations of Trade."
As for Mr Cameron’s remark reported in the Sunday Daily Telegraph “I don’t want to be Prime Minister of England, I want to be Prime Minister of the whole of the United Kingdom”. This is not a new remark for him. I give you a quotation from an article written in 2008 by a journalist, Mark Stuart. “As an ardent Unionist, I was greatly encouraged by David Cameron’s remarks earlier this year, when he took part in a grilling from Yorkshire Post readers. When quizzed by Paul Cockcroft, a member of the Royal Society of St George about introducing a new public holiday to celebrate St George’s Day, Cameron rejected the idea, adding: “I want to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, not just England. I think we’re stronger having England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland united”.
I suggest therefore that Mr Cameron’s real message, for anyone who cares about England, hasn’t changed. Mr Cameron is the sort of politician who isn’t in politics to do something but merely to be somebody and that ambition is against the interests of every English patriot.
Monday, 9 January 2012
Last month I made a call for there to be a proper Judicial Arbitration of the ownership of North Sea oil and gas, as between the respective national boundaries between the English and Scottish Nations.
I called for this in this blog entry, click here >> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.com/2011/12/no-mr-salmond-some-of-its-england-s-oil.html.
I was pleased to see that one of the leading Scottish newspapers, The Courier, reported this call(read the article and the 'interesting' comments here >> http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/Politics/article/19888/english-independence-campaigners-demand-fair-share-of-north-sea-oil.html.)
Then the ForArgyle News reported Mr John Sweeney’s,the Scottish Finance Minister, surprisingly wet response (read the article here >> http://forargyll.com/2011/12/english-democrats-open-question-of-how-much-north-sea-oil-is-really-scotlands/ and on the Global Warming Policy Foundation site >> http://thegwpf.org/uk-news/4668-english-democrats-half-of-north-sea-oil-and-gas-belong-to-england.html).
I am today sending my formal request for an arbitration to Mr Vince Cable, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and here is a copy of the text of the letter:-
Mr Vince Cable MP
Secretary of State for Business,
Innovation and Skills
House of Commons
Dear Mr Cable
Re: North Sea Oil Adjudication
I write on behalf of the currently unrepresented English Nation and as Chairman of the English Democrats, the only Party campaigning for English interests to be properly looked after, to formally request that you set up a Judicial Enquiry to reach a binding arbitration on the allocation of the geological assets, in particular to oil and gas, beneath the seabed of the territorial waters in the North Sea as between England and Scotland.
I further formally request that this arbitration be conducted according to the usual principles of International Law and the Conventions which apply to such allocations, on which basis we provisionally assert that half of the North Sea oil beds and gas are English.
Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and indicate the time period in which you propose to deal with this request. Please note that if your response is unsatisfactory we reserve the right to remove such arbitration from the jurisdiction of the British Government and place it with the United Nations or other competent international jurisdiction.
R C W Tilbrook
Friday, 6 January 2012
This is yesterday's press release for the Workers of England Union:-
"Eddie Bone, a highly qualified nurse and Trade Union shop steward / Representative of a new Trade Union The Workers of England Union is taking North Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust to the Bury St Edmunds, Employment Tribunal alleging that the Trust has failed to take any action to stop anti English bullying and harassment against him in their Colchester based mental health hospital. The Tribunal is set to take place at the Employment Tribunal Service, 100 Southgate Street, Bury St Edmonds, IP33 2AQ today and is scheduled to last to the 12th January 2012.
Eddie Bone is a joint founder of the Workers of England Trade Union, an independent Trade Union that does not financially support the Labour Party. Several members complained at the Lakes Mental Health Hospital in Colchester that serious clinical concerns were not being addressed. Eddie Bone raised the concerns and it is alleged he was then the victim of serious harassment from management at the Hospital and Labour supporting Unison Representatives who objected to the name of his Union containing the word England. These attacks caused Eddie Bone, a qualified nurse with an exemplary record of some 16 years, much distress. Once Eddie Bone’s witness statement has been put in the public domain when he starts to give evidence on the 5th January 2012, it will be available to any journalist who requests a copy. It details anti English racism and serious clinical deficiencies arising from NHS cuts.
Carleton Maflin, General Secretary of the Workers of England Trade Union, said :-“It is our case that this Union Representative has been subjected to more than two years of anti English bullying and harassment for raising serious clinical concerns. The Workers of England Union will always support and protect its members throughout England when highlighting legitimate issues. Racism in any form should not be tolerated in the workplace and the case will test whether North Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust should not have engaged in it and should have protected Eddie Bone from this terrible abuse”.
The Workers of England Union
Cannon House, 17 Nelson Road, Colchester, Essex CO3 9AP
Telephone 01206 766899"
Here is the link to the Union's BBC Newsnight appearence shortly after their launch >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSpjRwMgObk
The Workers of England Union now have a rapidly growing membership and, from the excellent work that I saw yesterday, I can fully understand why!
I attended the Hearing yesterday to support Eddie and to give evidence. Here is my witness statement:-
IN THE BURY ST EDMUNDS
CASE NO: 1500119/2011 & Others
MR EDWARD BONE
NORTH ESSEX PARTNERSHIP
NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
I, ROBIN CHARLES WILLIAM TILBROOK, of Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP, will say as follows:-
1. I am a Solicitor of over 20 years standing and the Principal of Tilbrook’s Solicitors whose practice address is as above. I am a past President of Mid-Essex Law Society, a former Church Warden and Chairman of St Margaret’s, Stanford Rivers, Ongar, Parochial Church Council. I am also a Liveryman and Freeman of the City of London and I am the Chairman and one of the founder members of the English Democrats Party.
2. The purpose of mentioning the status related items in the previous paragraph is to emphasise that the English Democrats Party is a respectable political party, properly registered with the Electoral Commission, which has stood in many elections and won hundreds of thousands of votes. We currently have 6 District/County Councillors and have won the Directly Elected Mayoralty of Doncaster, which is the largest metropolitan borough council in England. The Party constitution is expressly inclusive of all those who support our political aims from whatever background. Our manifesto position is firmly rooted in the modern ideal of the democratic nation state. Our key note policy is the establishment of an English Parliament with our First Minister and our Government with at least the same powers as the Scottish ones, within a federal United Kingdom.
3. I am however aware from my political involvement that there is quite a widespread, pervasive and quite frankly racist anti-Englishness in many official circles. As a solicitor I have taken a professional interest in these types of cases and have no doubt that the applicant herein has been subjected to a campaign of harassment at least part of the motivation for which is anti-English racism.
4. It is now well established in Race Relations law, as it always must have been as a matter of general principle, that discriminatory treatment of somebody based upon their assertion of English Nationality, National Identity and National Origin is contrary to law in exactly the same way it would be for any other racial, ethnic or national group.
5. On behalf of the English Democrats I have fought several such cases and on no occasion has a legal argument contrary to the above points been accepted by the court. As an example of the approach taken by the courts I quote this from the Judgment of His Honour Judge Patrick Maloney QC in one of my cases:-
“As I have already hinted….above, (any attempt to argue a) sharp distinction between one’s race and one’s beliefs may be an over-simplification, at least in an unusual case like the present one. A discriminator may say “I am not employing him because I believe he is a racist”. Fair enough; but if on further inquiry he goes on to say “I believe he is a racist because he is a white man with an English accent and a St George’s flag on his car” then the question of racial grounds is reopened. Put another way, it is as possible to make racist assumptions about other people’s opinions as about, for example, their honesty or intelligence, and discrimination on such a basis would appear to be unlawful. Where the opinions in question are or include nationalist ones, that is ones closely linked to the person’s own perceived national origins or affiliations, the risk of overlap is particularly great.”
6. Knowing this I recommended to the Workers of England Union, for whom I have done some professional work, that an allegation of racial discrimination should be made against the Respondent Trust.
7. Given the type of remarks and behaviour exhibited by management and employees of the Trust, I took the view that the threshold had been well and truly passed to put the onus of proof onto the Trust to prove that its behaviour and the unchecked behaviour of its employees was not discriminatory. Indeed I would say that the more I have read and the more that I have heard about what has happened to the Claimant, the more convinced I am of the institutionalised anti-English discrimination that seems to be inherent in the practice of the Trust displayed towards Mr Bone.
8. Despite my having had some involvement in helping to set up and do some work for the Workers of England Union, nevertheless the Workers of England Union are of course a separate organisation from the English Democrats and I am not personally an officer of the Workers of England Union.
9. I am willing to attend the Tribunal and give evidence and to tender myself for cross-examination.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts in this Witness Statement are true.
Signed………………………… ……… Dated ………………………
Robin Charles William Tilbrook
Thursday, 5 January 2012
Any day now on the doormats of many student hopefuls there will be a letter offering a place at university later this year.
For English students a decision to accept these offers won’t just be a proud moment but also an expensive decision. The evidence now emerging suggests that there has been a significant drop in applications for places;
eg see here >>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8992752/University-applications-drop-by-23000-after-fees-hike.html
Most of the English students who accept will be landed with a bill for £9,000 per year for tuition fees naka Top up fees, courtesy of a government whose millionaire leaders went for free and of a British political establishment which has broken its promises not to introduce such fees, a promise made at one time by all three establishment political parties (Labour first, then the Conservatives and most infamously the Liberal Democrats).
In Scotland, with the benefit of rule by a Party which champions for the Scottish, not only are there no such fees, but also there are still grants available for Scottish students from deprived backgrounds.
To add insult to injury, whilst English students must pay £9,000 a year to attend a Scottish University, any students from other EU countries will go free – courtesy of EU rules against discrimination! The English Democrats are campaigning for democratic fairness for England and we oppose any discrimination against English students.
I have issued a press release saying:- “It is appalling and unfair that English students have been singled out to pay to go to university when Scottish students are to go for free. This is a consequence of no party in Westminster daring to stand up for England and for English interests!”
The English Democrats have been campaigning against Top Up/Tuition fees for years. Here are links to two of our campaigning videos:-
serious >.> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCnFhToPsKA&feature=related
and more jokey >>> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PbibPOjQf-4&feature=related
What do you think?
In mid 2010 I was asked by the blogsite 'Wales Home' to do a guest article questioning Plaid Cymru's effectiveness and credentials as a nationalist party.
Here is the article. What do you think?
Is Plaid Cymru a serious nationalist party?
Bubble — By Robin Tilbrook on June 28, 2010 7:00 am
IT IS a truism that Welsh independence can only come about either with the consent of the English nation or by war! Thankfully there is little sign of any appetite by any Welsh nationalists to achieve a separation of the nations by war. That leaves the consent of the English nation as the only legitimate and viable option for Plaid Cymru.
We might therefore expect to see Plaid Cymru to spare no effort to encourage a greater sense of English nationalism, as it is obvious that a lingering sense of Britishness represents the greatest obstacle to the Welsh nationalist dreams of independence (or even the more modest aim of a full Welsh Parliament). It is worth recalling that as Conservative leader in 2000 William Hague, took part in a BBC Radio 4 programme called Brits in which he said: “English nationalism is the most dangerous of all forms of nationalism that can arise within the United Kingdom, because England is 5/6ths of the population of the UK…Once a part of a united country or kingdom that is so predominant in size becomes nationalistic, then really the whole thing is under threat.”
So if Plaid Cymru is serious, we would expect to see signs that they were not only leading the debate within Wales for independence, but also seeking to encourage the debate by all means available to them within England. In fact, what do we see?
When presented with the opportunity of leading the government of Wales and of having one of their leaders as the First Minister of Wales, Plaid Cymru stayed within their comfort zone by taking a few insignificant seats in the British unionist Labour led Welsh government. It became apparent that unlike the savvy Scottish National Party, which has merely positioned itself as being left of centre, Plaid Cymru had fallen into the trap of actually becoming leftist. So, when presented with such a golden opportunity for advancing their ostensible cause, they refused to take it simply because that would have meant sitting in the same cabinet with some Conservative Assembly members. Thus Plaid Cymru lost the kind of opportunity for the advancement of Welsh nationalism which might not present itself again for a generation.
And instead of campaigning against the Barnett Formula for being what it is, namely a unionist electoral bribe, created with a view to using English taxpayers’ money to bribe Welsh voters to vote for whichever unionist party is in power at Westminster, Plaid Cymru’s Welsh Assembly members are seen actively campaigning for an even bigger hand out!
Last but not least in Wales, when offered the opportunity to campaign for a referendum to decide democratically whether the people of Monmouthshire are Welsh or English, Plaid Cymru remain unwilling to engage in a political debate which might be one of the most significant in getting people on both sides of our national borders to focus on their developing sense of Welshness or Englishness.
In England, we find an almost startling absence of activity by Plaid Cymru to promote their cause. While Alex Salmond and the SNP often make controversial remarks helpfully stirring up English nationalism, do we ever hear Plaid Cymru’s voice? To my knowledge, not once.
Also in England, the Scottish National Party has supported the English Constitutional Convention; The Chairman of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, Canon Dr Kenyon Wright, has even spoken, supported and become a member of the English Constitutional Convention and helped the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP). There has however been no support whatsoever from Plaid Cymru or from Welsh nationalists.
The only English nationalist party comparable to Plaid Cymru, campaigning for an English Parliament, Government and First Minister, with at least the same powers as the Scottish ones, is the English Democrats.
In the EU elections last year the English Democrats stood for the first time across the whole of England and despite our tiny campaign budget got 279,801 votes (more than twice Plaid Cymru’s 126,702). In this year’s General Election we stood 107 candidates (more than Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party put together). So you might think that a serious Welsh nationalist party would be making every effort to help our progress and thereby build a constituency in England that would welcome constitutional change for Wales. Instead Plaid Cymru’s leadership has refused to even meet us.
This is in stark contrast with our friendly relations with the Scottish National Party. We have been pleased to welcome the SNP’s Angus MacNeil MP to speak at a recent Annual Party Conference and our Vice Chairman was welcomed by leaders of the SNP in Edinburgh and her hand was shaken, during a BBC Newsnight programme, by Alex Salmond.
The reason for this refusal, that was given by their leadership, was that Plaid Cymru would not work with a political party that was “Eurosceptic”. This confirmed all my suspicions about Plaid Cymru’s ineffectiveness as a nationalist party for Wales. It would have been impertinent, if they had been genuine Welsh nationalists, to worry about the attitude of English nationalism towards the EU. Also it showed that they were not interested in developing the English dimension to the debate, nor yet again are they willing to step outside their ideologically, hide bound comfort zone, in order to develop their ostensible cause.
When Nigel Farage, one of the leaders of the British nationalist UKIP appeared on Question Time in Wales on 25th February 2010, he was foolishly insulted by Elfyn Llwyd MP, who claimed that Farage’s British nationalist comments showed him up as being “a little Englander”! Mr Llwyd also spent much of the programme cozying up to Labour’s, Peter Hain. Doesn’t Mr Llwyd even know the difference between British and English nationalism?
In the event during the 2010 General Election, far from supporting us in England, Plaid Cymru supported the internationalist, socialist and Europhile, Green Party!
In the coming Welsh Assembly elections, the English Democrats will be standing in the South East Welsh Assembly region where we will continue our campaign for the people of traditional Monmouthshire to have a referendum on a question that only a modern, democratic, nationalist party could pose i.e. do the people of Monmouthshire wish to be English or Welsh? Because the media coverage rules require it, we shall also be standing in the Regional lists throughout Wales on the ticket “English Democrats – for a Proper Welsh National Parliament”. My sincere hope is that either Plaid Cymru will support us in this campaign or that a more effective Welsh nationalist party will emerge.
When a political party acts in a manner which does not further its ostensible agenda and supports other parties which are ostensibly hostile to that agenda, as Plaid Cymru does, I think it is legitimate to raise the question that I have in the heading of this article: is Plaid Cymru a serious nationalist party for Wales and the Welsh Nation? In my view Wales deserves a serious nationalist party, just as England deserves its serious nationalist party and so does Scotland. Scotland and England have theirs but where, oh where is Wales’? I leave you with a proverbial quotation from St Matthew’s Gospel, Chapter 7, verse 20: “By their fruits ye shall know them”.
There were 268 comments - not all friendly! You can see here >> http://waleshome.org/2010/06/is-plaid-cymru-a-serious-nationalist-party/
Tuesday, 3 January 2012
The IPPR is one of Labour's favourite 'Thinktanks' but it is worried! It is becoming aware that the English are waking up!
At the IPPR offices in Buckingham Street, London at noon on Thursday 26 January, it is running a seminar entitled:-
The dog that finally barked: The new politics of Englishness
The seminar will ask:- "Is Englishness now the dominant source of identity for the English? Do the English still believe that Westminster is capable of governing in the interests of all parts of England? How will the English react to further constitutional change in Scotland?"
And we are told:- "Drawing on the most comprehensive examination of English public attitudes towards questions of identity, governance and nationhood this seminar will discuss the extent to which a growing sense of Englishness is becoming politicized and its implications for British politics."
On the panel are Professors Richard Wyn Jones and Michael Kenny who have done the research and two establishment politicians and MPs, John Denham and David Davies.
Dr Guy Lodge, the politcs director of the IPPR tells me that the English Democrats are going to be very pleased with what the IPPR have discovered about the awakening of English Nationalism and he has promised to include me in the discussion. He hopes that Labour and the Conservatives will be so alarmed by the rising English groundswell that they will take steps to draw its sting before it does damage to the British political Establishment!
After the meeting I shall report back on what ideas they come up with!
Here is what the IPPR say about themselves:-
IPPR, the Institute for Public Policy Research, is the UK’s leading progressive thinktank. We produce rigorous research and innovative policy ideas for a fair, democratic and sustainable world.
We are open and independent in how we work, and with offices in London and the North of England, IPPR spans a full range of local and national policy debates. Our international partnerships extend IPPR’s influence and reputation across the world.
We currently have more than 30 research staff working on key policy areas: the future of the economy, reform of public services, family policy, welfare reform, political renewal, climate change and migration.
IPPR North, based in Newcastle and Manchester, specialises in regional economics, localism and community policy.
We publish more than 50 reports each year and our website is a key hub for progressive thinking. Our events programme brings high-profile politicians and leading thinkers to a wide range of audiences.
IPPR is committed to the following objectives:
Combating inequality: Not just through distributing some of the proceeds of growth to the least well off, but by taking active steps to share power, opportunity, income and wealth much more evenly.
Empowering citizens: Not simply by handing down responsibility from the state, but giving people real power, security and resources to shape and control their destiny.
Promoting social responsibility: Not treating people as atomised individuals, but recognising that society is made up of interdependent individuals, who flourish because of the ties and networks that support them.
Creating a fair and sustainable economy: Not only through better regulated financial markets that move away from greed and debt, but through a commitment to a low carbon, less consumerist and more inclusive growth and prosperity that helps alleviate the plight of the global poor and protects the future of our planet.
Revitalising democracy: Not just through sweeping away outmoded practices at Westminster and embracing political pluralism, but by radically transforming democratic processes and establishing new ways of doing politics at local and national levels, in Europe and internationally.