The BBC reported yesterday that the Scottish Nationalist party and Plaid Cymru (the party of Wales) have threatened legal action over their exclusion from the TV debates agreed between the leaders of the unionist parties, that is Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative. We understand that instead they will be offered their own debates within Scotland and Wales respectively. If so, should not one or more of the main debates be reserved for England? But unlike Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland there is no-one elected by the people of England who has the authority to speak for them because there is no English national Assembly or Parliament
The Westminster Parliament - in which MPs from all the British countries and the Province of Northern Ireland sit- is not only responsible for UK reserved matters but also for English domestic matters. If the UK debates are to be on reserved matters rather than English domestic matters, there is nothing left to be debated separately in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland since their devolved assemblies/Parliament deal with their domestic matters.
The Conservative leader, David Cameron, is reported to have said: "I have always believed in live television debates. I think they can help enliven our democracy, I think they will help answer people's questions, I think they will crystallise the debate about the change this country needs." Which country, Mr Cameron? Britain is a state consisting of three countries. Is he going to debate UK matters only or English matters as well?
The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, told the Daily Mirror: "I relish the opportunity provided by these debates to discuss the big choices the country faces. Choices like whether we lock in the recovery or whether we choke it off; whether we protect the NHS, schools and police or whether we put them at risk to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy few." Again, we might ask: which country please? From Mr. Brown’s statement, we must assume that he intends to debate English domestic matters, such as the English health service, English schools and police since the Westminster parliament has control over those matters only in England.
It will be important to discover from the debates whether the LibLabCon 'unionist' parties will be presenting different policies on domestic matters for their Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament members to pursue in the devolved territories. We need to know whether those policies would be more advantageous than those proposed for England.
The Campaign for an English Parliament will be monitoring what these so-called unionist parties propose and will note any comparative disadvantage proposed for the people of England.
Contact:
Scilla Cullen CEP Chairman Tel: 01438
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
Fight against British Racism – Fight against racism directed against England and the English
Thursday 24 December 2009
Monday 14 December 2009
ARE THE BRITISH BRINGING BACK SLAVERY - COMPULSORY SERVICE FOR ENGLISH YOUTH
In April the British Prime Minister (MP for Scotland’s Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency) announced (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7995652.stm) plans to force all English children, (but not those of his own constituents because he only has control over England in this matter), to carry out at least 50 hours of community service before the age of 19. He was quoted word for word without correction: “It is my ambition to create a Britain ( England ) in which there is a clear expectation that all young people will undertake some service to their community, and where community service will become a normal part of growing up in Britain ( England ).
He also said the community work would be linked to a “clear system of accreditation” meaning that children who refuse to take part in the slave labour would fail or marked down in their Citizenship exams.
Now this government’s higher education minister for England , David Lammy, has said that a national (only applies to England ) civic service should be in the next Labour manifesto. In addition (English) university students would be required to carry out 100 hours of community service in recognition of the subsidy the state pays towards their education - estimated at £8,000. The £450m cost of the scheme would be funded by levying interest on student loans English students already leave university with twice the debt of British students from Wales and Scotland because they are, uniquely, obliged to pay top-up fees and are subsidised less by the British government than other British students who are extensively subsidised by their own national governments.
One surmises that these proposals will not be in the manifesto they publish for Scotland but only that published for ‘ Britain ’, which means England . Let us hope that this never comes to fruition since Labour is unlikely to win a general election. Nevertheless we are told that The Conservatives have proposed a six-week national service scheme for youngsters in the summer after their GCSEs. If the Conservatives form the next British government they will also only have power over English youth in this matter.
However, as unlikely as it is that his proposals will ever come to anything, this Prime Minister will ask, via his party’s manifesto, the voters of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath in Scotland to elect him, so that he will be able to compel English children to carry out unpaid “voluntary” work by making it a compulsory element of the English school curriculum.
Mr Lammy has backed this call for a national army of volunteers (sic) to help the UK economy out of recession. Because of devolution this measure will only apply to England but it is clearly stated that it intended to help the whole of the UK including Scotland and Wales . Yet another example of how England ’s people are expected to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the so-called Union . Indeed, is this one of the benefits for England that the Unionist LibLabCon parties are always telling us we enjoy?
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqShXo7H-XE
He also said the community work would be linked to a “clear system of accreditation” meaning that children who refuse to take part in the slave labour would fail or marked down in their Citizenship exams.
Now this government’s higher education minister for England , David Lammy, has said that a national (only applies to England ) civic service should be in the next Labour manifesto. In addition (English) university students would be required to carry out 100 hours of community service in recognition of the subsidy the state pays towards their education - estimated at £8,000. The £450m cost of the scheme would be funded by levying interest on student loans English students already leave university with twice the debt of British students from Wales and Scotland because they are, uniquely, obliged to pay top-up fees and are subsidised less by the British government than other British students who are extensively subsidised by their own national governments.
One surmises that these proposals will not be in the manifesto they publish for Scotland but only that published for ‘ Britain ’, which means England . Let us hope that this never comes to fruition since Labour is unlikely to win a general election. Nevertheless we are told that The Conservatives have proposed a six-week national service scheme for youngsters in the summer after their GCSEs. If the Conservatives form the next British government they will also only have power over English youth in this matter.
However, as unlikely as it is that his proposals will ever come to anything, this Prime Minister will ask, via his party’s manifesto, the voters of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath in Scotland to elect him, so that he will be able to compel English children to carry out unpaid “voluntary” work by making it a compulsory element of the English school curriculum.
Mr Lammy has backed this call for a national army of volunteers (sic) to help the UK economy out of recession. Because of devolution this measure will only apply to England but it is clearly stated that it intended to help the whole of the UK including Scotland and Wales . Yet another example of how England ’s people are expected to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the so-called Union . Indeed, is this one of the benefits for England that the Unionist LibLabCon parties are always telling us we enjoy?
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqShXo7H-XE
Friday 11 December 2009
NO SMOKE WITHOUT FIRE
Yesterday (10 December), Jack Straw vetoed releasing the minutes of a 1997 Cabinet Ministerial Committee Meeting on Devolution to Scotland and Wales and the English Regions. He stated that releasing the information would be ‘against the public interest’, citing the doctrine of collective responsibility, although the disclosure had previously been approved by the Information Commissioner on June 23rd 2009.
According to the Ministry of Justice, this is only the second time since the Freedom of Information Act was introduced in 2005 that a request granted by an Information Tribunal has been vetoed – out of 160,000 requests. The previous occasion the veto was imposed was in February 2009 in respect of the disclosure of the minutes of two cabinet meetings leading up to the Iraq war.
What is Jack Straw and the Ministry of Justice so concerned with concealing? What was said in a meeting about devolution that was so dangerous that it can’t be made public? What deals were done to break up England and preserve the dominance of Scottish politicians? The English public has a right to know.
This meeting, twelve years ago, led to an asymmetric devolution settlement which is to the great disadvantage of England. The Campaign for an English Parliament believes that action must be taken to deliver a fair and democratic constitutional settlement for England. Lift the veto, Jack, and let us in on the decisions you made.
David WILDGOOSE
Vice-Chairman Campaign for an English Parliament
According to the Ministry of Justice, this is only the second time since the Freedom of Information Act was introduced in 2005 that a request granted by an Information Tribunal has been vetoed – out of 160,000 requests. The previous occasion the veto was imposed was in February 2009 in respect of the disclosure of the minutes of two cabinet meetings leading up to the Iraq war.
What is Jack Straw and the Ministry of Justice so concerned with concealing? What was said in a meeting about devolution that was so dangerous that it can’t be made public? What deals were done to break up England and preserve the dominance of Scottish politicians? The English public has a right to know.
This meeting, twelve years ago, led to an asymmetric devolution settlement which is to the great disadvantage of England. The Campaign for an English Parliament believes that action must be taken to deliver a fair and democratic constitutional settlement for England. Lift the veto, Jack, and let us in on the decisions you made.
David WILDGOOSE
Vice-Chairman Campaign for an English Parliament
Tuesday 8 December 2009
CEP: Would a Tory Government bring in a needs-based formula to replace Barnett?
Professor David Bell of Stirling University has analysed the impact on Scotland of the Welsh Assembly's Holtham Commission report into a needs-based funding formula to replace the out-dated Barnett Formula.
Writing in The Scotsman Prof Bell warns that a move to a needs-based formula could lose Scotland £4.5 billion a year of Treasury funding.
"If its calculations were put into practice, it would have dramatic effects on the Scottish budget," Prof Bell says. "The size of the block grant from Westminster to Holyrood would shrink substantially. Instead of the Scottish grant being 20 per cent higher per head than in England , the margin would shrink to 5 per cent.
"At current spending levels, this would mean a cut of around £4.5bn in Scotland 's annual grant from Westminster ."
During the House of Lord's Select Committee on Barnett, former Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland (1995 to 1997), Lord Forsyth, revealed that in order to guard Scotland 's interests he was counselled against a needs-based formula.
The advice I was given when I was Secretary of State is do everything you can to avoid a needs-based assessment being implemented by the Treasury because the Treasury believe that it will enable them to reduce Scotland's budget by between £2.5 and £4 billion.
Given the possible implications for Scotland , what is the likelihood of a future Conservative Government implementing a needs-based replacement of the Barnett Formula? Would the Tories replace Barnett with a system that is fair to ALL the British nations or would they continue to bribe Scotland to remain in the Union ? The CEP believes that the people of England , whose taxes subsidise the UK , have a right to know.
David WILDGOOSE
Vice-Chairman, Campaign for an English Parliament
0114 274 6191 cep@skein.co.uk
8 December 2009
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
Song for St. George's Day by Resistance 77
http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/entertainment/Undefined-Headline/article-869549-detail/article.html
Writing in The Scotsman Prof Bell warns that a move to a needs-based formula could lose Scotland £4.5 billion a year of Treasury funding.
"If its calculations were put into practice, it would have dramatic effects on the Scottish budget," Prof Bell says. "The size of the block grant from Westminster to Holyrood would shrink substantially. Instead of the Scottish grant being 20 per cent higher per head than in England , the margin would shrink to 5 per cent.
"At current spending levels, this would mean a cut of around £4.5bn in Scotland 's annual grant from Westminster ."
During the House of Lord's Select Committee on Barnett, former Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland (1995 to 1997), Lord Forsyth, revealed that in order to guard Scotland 's interests he was counselled against a needs-based formula.
The advice I was given when I was Secretary of State is do everything you can to avoid a needs-based assessment being implemented by the Treasury because the Treasury believe that it will enable them to reduce Scotland's budget by between £2.5 and £4 billion.
Given the possible implications for Scotland , what is the likelihood of a future Conservative Government implementing a needs-based replacement of the Barnett Formula? Would the Tories replace Barnett with a system that is fair to ALL the British nations or would they continue to bribe Scotland to remain in the Union ? The CEP believes that the people of England , whose taxes subsidise the UK , have a right to know.
David WILDGOOSE
Vice-Chairman, Campaign for an English Parliament
0114 274 6191 cep@skein.co.uk
8 December 2009
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
Song for St. George's Day by Resistance 77
http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/entertainment/Undefined-Headline/article-869549-detail/article.html
Monday 9 November 2009
DAVID CAMERON MAY FAIRLY BE ACCUSED OF DOUBLE STANDARDS: ONE FOR WALES, A VERY DIFFERENT ONE FOR ENGLAND
Addressing the issue of the demand being made in Wales for a referendum to be held among its people for the Welsh Assembly to have law-making powers equivalent to those enjoyed by the Scottish Parliament, Mr David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, speaking on Friday November 6th, said he would support it if the Welsh Assembly voted for it. 'It is a very significant statement,' the National Council of the Campaign for an English Parliament has declared. 'We welcome it. The very foundation stone of our cause is that the three historic nations of this island should stand in the same relationship to the United Kingdom Parliament and to each other. Unless and until that happens, the Union is severely constiutionally unbalanced and tainted by gross unfairness and discriminatory inequality. One nation, Scotland, should not have advantages within the Union denied to Wales and England. That situation naturally suits Mr Gordon Brown who was the driving force behind the 1998 Devolution legislation because it favours his country. However, such narrow nationalistic bias is no way to run a Union of nations.
'Mr Cameron is aware that whether or not such a referendum may take place is a decision reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. He is aware that the UK Parliament can only consider it if it is backed by two thirds of the Welsh Assembly members. That is a high obstacle to clear. To date Mr Brown's party has fiercely opposed it. Mr Hain, an MP for a Welsh constituency though not a Welshman but a South African, who was the Welsh Secretary till he had to resign the office when facing charges of abusing the Commons regulations regarding his financial affairs, has spoken against it. It is a strange state of affairs where Mr Brown to achieve Scottish devolution made the outcome of the 1998 devolution referenda dependable on a simple majority but made such a fundamental demand as this for Wales possible only if a two thirds majority is achieved. The Celtic brotherhood is obviously a rather wobbly and unreliable assocation. However, if Mr Cameron keeps to his word on attaining the Prime Minister's office, which after his retreat from his promise of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is now always a matter of some doubt, it might encourage Conservative Party Welsh Assembly members to vote for it.
'However', states the CEP National Council, 'Mr Cameron has never shown the same concern for England. Scotland was given a referendum about having its own parliament and self-rule in all matters of state internal to it; Wales was given a referendum about having its own assembly, though, as Mr Brown saw to it, with far less powers. Mr Cameron would now support a referendum for Wales to get the powers the Scots have if two thirds of its assembly vote for it. But he opposes England having its own parliament whatever its powers. He opposes England having a referendum on the matter. His attitude is one of gross unfairness and discrimination. Until and unless the three nations of this island stand in the same relationship to the Union Parliament and to each other, it is an unfair, discriminatory and dangerously unbalanced Union'
Contacts:
Michael Knowles
CEP Unit.Media Tel: 01260 271139 email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
'Mr Cameron is aware that whether or not such a referendum may take place is a decision reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. He is aware that the UK Parliament can only consider it if it is backed by two thirds of the Welsh Assembly members. That is a high obstacle to clear. To date Mr Brown's party has fiercely opposed it. Mr Hain, an MP for a Welsh constituency though not a Welshman but a South African, who was the Welsh Secretary till he had to resign the office when facing charges of abusing the Commons regulations regarding his financial affairs, has spoken against it. It is a strange state of affairs where Mr Brown to achieve Scottish devolution made the outcome of the 1998 devolution referenda dependable on a simple majority but made such a fundamental demand as this for Wales possible only if a two thirds majority is achieved. The Celtic brotherhood is obviously a rather wobbly and unreliable assocation. However, if Mr Cameron keeps to his word on attaining the Prime Minister's office, which after his retreat from his promise of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is now always a matter of some doubt, it might encourage Conservative Party Welsh Assembly members to vote for it.
'However', states the CEP National Council, 'Mr Cameron has never shown the same concern for England. Scotland was given a referendum about having its own parliament and self-rule in all matters of state internal to it; Wales was given a referendum about having its own assembly, though, as Mr Brown saw to it, with far less powers. Mr Cameron would now support a referendum for Wales to get the powers the Scots have if two thirds of its assembly vote for it. But he opposes England having its own parliament whatever its powers. He opposes England having a referendum on the matter. His attitude is one of gross unfairness and discrimination. Until and unless the three nations of this island stand in the same relationship to the Union Parliament and to each other, it is an unfair, discriminatory and dangerously unbalanced Union'
Contacts:
Michael Knowles
CEP Unit.Media Tel: 01260 271139 email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
Thursday 29 October 2009
FUTURE OF ENGLAND CONFERENCE
THE FUTURE OF ENGLAND?
A MAJOR CONFERENCE BEING HELD BY THE CEP TAKING PLACE IN ROOM 10 IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 18TH 5pm to 7pm (SAME DAY AS THE OPENING OF PARLIAMENT) WITH FOUR DISTINGUISHED WRITERS AND CAMPAIGNERS.
• George Monbiot (Guardian newspaper and environment campaigner)
• Peter Facey (Director: Unlock Democracy)
• Paul Kingsnorth (author of 'Real England: The Battle against the Bland')
• David Wildgoose (vice-chairman The Campaign for an English Parliament)
• Chair: Scilla Cullen
It is eleven years since the 1998 devolution legislation. Scotland and Wales now have their own Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. They have forged ahead since, re-creating and expanding their own distinct national identities and achieving major benefits and advantages for their peoples. But England has got nothing from devolution. Why should English students pay tuition fees and emerge from university laden with debt while Scottish students don't? Why should Welsh people pay no prescription charges while English people do? England still has no constitutional existence of its own and no national institution of any kind as 'a forum where the concerns of the nation can be debated' (the Welsh White paper). England is disadvantaged. The situation is gravely unjust to the people of England. Scottish MPs can now take part in legislation that concerns England only, can even be ministers of departments which deal only with England, without being accountable to any electorate. The Union is dangerously unbalanced. There are massive cultural, environmental and political issues involved. From many angles the people of England are being left out and overlooked. It is a situation that cannot continue. Nor should it. The Union should be a Union of equals or it is no Union.'
We are looking for an open debate. We want your contribution.
Anyone wishing to attend please phone Scilla Cullen (CEP ChaIrman) on: 01438 833155 or email: scilla.cullen@dsl.pipex.com
NOTE - THERE WILL BE A PROTEST HELD IN PARLIAMENT SQUARE FOR 1 HOUR DURING THE AFTERNOON FROM 2-0PM UNTIL 3-0 PM PLEASE ATTEND
A MAJOR CONFERENCE BEING HELD BY THE CEP TAKING PLACE IN ROOM 10 IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 18TH 5pm to 7pm (SAME DAY AS THE OPENING OF PARLIAMENT) WITH FOUR DISTINGUISHED WRITERS AND CAMPAIGNERS.
• George Monbiot (Guardian newspaper and environment campaigner)
• Peter Facey (Director: Unlock Democracy)
• Paul Kingsnorth (author of 'Real England: The Battle against the Bland')
• David Wildgoose (vice-chairman The Campaign for an English Parliament)
• Chair: Scilla Cullen
It is eleven years since the 1998 devolution legislation. Scotland and Wales now have their own Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. They have forged ahead since, re-creating and expanding their own distinct national identities and achieving major benefits and advantages for their peoples. But England has got nothing from devolution. Why should English students pay tuition fees and emerge from university laden with debt while Scottish students don't? Why should Welsh people pay no prescription charges while English people do? England still has no constitutional existence of its own and no national institution of any kind as 'a forum where the concerns of the nation can be debated' (the Welsh White paper). England is disadvantaged. The situation is gravely unjust to the people of England. Scottish MPs can now take part in legislation that concerns England only, can even be ministers of departments which deal only with England, without being accountable to any electorate. The Union is dangerously unbalanced. There are massive cultural, environmental and political issues involved. From many angles the people of England are being left out and overlooked. It is a situation that cannot continue. Nor should it. The Union should be a Union of equals or it is no Union.'
We are looking for an open debate. We want your contribution.
Anyone wishing to attend please phone Scilla Cullen (CEP ChaIrman) on: 01438 833155 or email: scilla.cullen@dsl.pipex.com
NOTE - THERE WILL BE A PROTEST HELD IN PARLIAMENT SQUARE FOR 1 HOUR DURING THE AFTERNOON FROM 2-0PM UNTIL 3-0 PM PLEASE ATTEND
Thursday 8 October 2009
Campaign for an English Parliament protests at West Midlands Regional Grand Committee
Members of the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP) in Shropshire
and the West Midlands attended the inaugural meeting of the
grandly-titled but pointlessly ineffectual Regional Grand Committee for
the West Midlands last night (8th October) to protest at its existence.
Like the vast majority of English people, the Campaign for an English
Parliament opposes the damaging regionalisation of England and instead
believes that England should be run by an English Parliament.
CEP members held up a 12ft banner and waved placards as MPs arrived at
Sandwell College Campus at Smethwick. Several passing motorists stopped
to read the placards and many of them stuck up their thumbs and honked
their horns in support.
Despite the Conservatives saying that they would boycott these regional
grand committees and pledging, in their party conference this week, to
unravel Labour's regionalisation, seven Conservative MPs turned up to
the meeting. Had they not attended, the Labour MPs that attended would
have failed to meet the minimum number required for the meeting to go ahead.
These regional grand committees are Gordon Brown's preferred form of
government for England and are supposed to be Labour's answer to the
national parliament and assembly they created in Scotland and Wales.
British ministers have described them as bringing democracy closer to
the people. To think that the people of England will accept this sham
as the future of their country is an insult.
Stuart Parr
National Council Member
Campaign for an English Parliament
07973 296118
The Devolution Acts of 1997/98 were and are a deliberate attempt by the EU and New Labour to destabilise the British Nation State and deny England its nationhood
The Devolution Acts of 1997/98 revoked the Act of Union, revoked the concept of one British Nation with one legislative body of government and revoked the principle of representative democracy. It unbalanced the Union by placing England, Scotland and Wales each in a different relationship with the Union and each other, and it institutionalised discrimination against the people of England.
By virtue of their national institutions Scotland and Wales have a distinct and separate political and constitutional existence and nationhood, England however alone does not constitutionally exist and is denied its nationhood.
The Devolution Acts of 1997/98 abolished representative democracy as the untouchable 1st principle of government. By what is understood to be the West Lothian issue British MPs elected in Scotland can be both ministers and legislators, even Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Home Secretary in English matters without being answerable in elections for their actions in those matters to ‘any electorate,’ either in Scotland or England.
England having no parliament has no separate representation of its own to defend its interests against such people and instead has to rely on its British MPs in the UK parliament who are subject to their political party whips to speak up for it, and who has ever seen or will ever see, or can imagine Labour and Conservative MPs sitting in English constituency seats combining to defeat and bring down their respective governments.
Regional government being offered England by the British is not the same type of regional government that has been given to Scotland and never could be, so what England is being offered in devolution is a government re-organisation program run by quangos that gives them more centralised control and us the people less local democracy and at the same time denies the people of England an English identity.
David Cameron said that he was going to abolish regional government if his Conservative Party won the next general election yet his MPs rushed all the way from their party conference in Manchester to attend this quango meeting at Sandwell College. It appears he and his Conservative Party can be no more trusted than Gordon Brown and his New Labour Party.
John Stanhope
NC Member for West Midlands
Campaign for an English Parliament
01902 630110
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
and the West Midlands attended the inaugural meeting of the
grandly-titled but pointlessly ineffectual Regional Grand Committee for
the West Midlands last night (8th October) to protest at its existence.
Like the vast majority of English people, the Campaign for an English
Parliament opposes the damaging regionalisation of England and instead
believes that England should be run by an English Parliament.
CEP members held up a 12ft banner and waved placards as MPs arrived at
Sandwell College Campus at Smethwick. Several passing motorists stopped
to read the placards and many of them stuck up their thumbs and honked
their horns in support.
Despite the Conservatives saying that they would boycott these regional
grand committees and pledging, in their party conference this week, to
unravel Labour's regionalisation, seven Conservative MPs turned up to
the meeting. Had they not attended, the Labour MPs that attended would
have failed to meet the minimum number required for the meeting to go ahead.
These regional grand committees are Gordon Brown's preferred form of
government for England and are supposed to be Labour's answer to the
national parliament and assembly they created in Scotland and Wales.
British ministers have described them as bringing democracy closer to
the people. To think that the people of England will accept this sham
as the future of their country is an insult.
Stuart Parr
National Council Member
Campaign for an English Parliament
07973 296118
The Devolution Acts of 1997/98 were and are a deliberate attempt by the EU and New Labour to destabilise the British Nation State and deny England its nationhood
The Devolution Acts of 1997/98 revoked the Act of Union, revoked the concept of one British Nation with one legislative body of government and revoked the principle of representative democracy. It unbalanced the Union by placing England, Scotland and Wales each in a different relationship with the Union and each other, and it institutionalised discrimination against the people of England.
By virtue of their national institutions Scotland and Wales have a distinct and separate political and constitutional existence and nationhood, England however alone does not constitutionally exist and is denied its nationhood.
The Devolution Acts of 1997/98 abolished representative democracy as the untouchable 1st principle of government. By what is understood to be the West Lothian issue British MPs elected in Scotland can be both ministers and legislators, even Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Home Secretary in English matters without being answerable in elections for their actions in those matters to ‘any electorate,’ either in Scotland or England.
England having no parliament has no separate representation of its own to defend its interests against such people and instead has to rely on its British MPs in the UK parliament who are subject to their political party whips to speak up for it, and who has ever seen or will ever see, or can imagine Labour and Conservative MPs sitting in English constituency seats combining to defeat and bring down their respective governments.
Regional government being offered England by the British is not the same type of regional government that has been given to Scotland and never could be, so what England is being offered in devolution is a government re-organisation program run by quangos that gives them more centralised control and us the people less local democracy and at the same time denies the people of England an English identity.
David Cameron said that he was going to abolish regional government if his Conservative Party won the next general election yet his MPs rushed all the way from their party conference in Manchester to attend this quango meeting at Sandwell College. It appears he and his Conservative Party can be no more trusted than Gordon Brown and his New Labour Party.
John Stanhope
NC Member for West Midlands
Campaign for an English Parliament
01902 630110
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
Wednesday 7 October 2009
CEP RESPONSE TO DAVID CAMERON
David Cameron, speaking at the Conservative Party Conference, has suggested that there be an annual "Council of the Nations" with the aim of "keeping the family of the UK together". [1]
This is a laudable aim, however the question remains, "Who will speak for England?".
Certainly not David Cameron. After all, he has already repeatedly made it clear that he "does not want to be Prime Minister of England". [2]
So does this suggested "Council of the Nations" mean that the Conservatives will finally start to treat England with the respect due as a full member of the "family of the UK"?
Will our nationhood finally be acknowledged?
Or does his vision of a "family of the UK" mean continuing to treat England as if she were some mad Mrs Rochester [3], an embarrassment to be locked up in the attic and ignored?
David Wildgoose, vice Chairman CEP, mobile 07906 551417
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/wales_politics/8290611.stm
[2] http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/conservativeparty/David-Cameron-sticks-to-the.4550421.jp
[3] From the novel "Jane Eyre" by Charlotte Bronte
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
This is a laudable aim, however the question remains, "Who will speak for England?".
Certainly not David Cameron. After all, he has already repeatedly made it clear that he "does not want to be Prime Minister of England". [2]
So does this suggested "Council of the Nations" mean that the Conservatives will finally start to treat England with the respect due as a full member of the "family of the UK"?
Will our nationhood finally be acknowledged?
Or does his vision of a "family of the UK" mean continuing to treat England as if she were some mad Mrs Rochester [3], an embarrassment to be locked up in the attic and ignored?
David Wildgoose, vice Chairman CEP, mobile 07906 551417
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/wales_politics/8290611.stm
[2] http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/conservativeparty/David-Cameron-sticks-to-the.4550421.jp
[3] From the novel "Jane Eyre" by Charlotte Bronte
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
Sunday 4 October 2009
2000 Labour Party delegates applauded the negation of the English Democratic Tradition
Wednesday, 30, Sep 2009 12:00
2000 labour party delegates got to their feet in Brighton in the county of Sussex to applaud the repudiation by Gordon Brown of the very fundamentals of England's democratic tradition.
Yesterday afternoon the delegates to the Labour Party Conference -Cabinet Ministers, MPs, Peers, Party officials and 2000 delegates from across the United Kingdom got up and clapped and shouted their approval as Gordon Brown, MP for Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath in Fifeshire in Scotland, announced measure after measure of new legislation for England, and only for England, in defiance of the very fundamentals of what the people of England founded their parliament for 800 years ago.
The CEP National Council has circulated its membership with a statement on this matter.
'Gordon Brown announced new legislation to place new teenage mothers in hostels rather than council houses; to provide free personal care for the very elderly in their homes, to limit pub opening hours, to control broken familes unable to control their children, to bring in additional controls on wild disruptive youngsters, to provide 250,000 free childcare places and to delay the introduction of ID cards. Very many people will indeed agree with these measures. That is not an issue that the CEP as such involves itself with. The CEP is concerned with democracy for England. When England gets its own parlament, its parliament will concern itself wholeheartedly with the welfare of the people of England.
'These measures concern matters which affect England only. The fundamental nature of English democracy as founded with the English Parliament in the 13th century and developed by the people of England over the past 800 years is that it is representative democracy. Law makers are accountable to the people who elect them. They are elected to be their representatives in their parliament. But Brown is not elected by any English voters. He is not accountable to any English voter for any of these specific measures. His action, and the conference applause for it, is a repudiation of this most fundamental aspect of the English democratic tradition.
CEP Media Unit. Tel: 01260 271139 Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
2000 labour party delegates got to their feet in Brighton in the county of Sussex to applaud the repudiation by Gordon Brown of the very fundamentals of England's democratic tradition.
Yesterday afternoon the delegates to the Labour Party Conference -Cabinet Ministers, MPs, Peers, Party officials and 2000 delegates from across the United Kingdom got up and clapped and shouted their approval as Gordon Brown, MP for Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath in Fifeshire in Scotland, announced measure after measure of new legislation for England, and only for England, in defiance of the very fundamentals of what the people of England founded their parliament for 800 years ago.
The CEP National Council has circulated its membership with a statement on this matter.
'Gordon Brown announced new legislation to place new teenage mothers in hostels rather than council houses; to provide free personal care for the very elderly in their homes, to limit pub opening hours, to control broken familes unable to control their children, to bring in additional controls on wild disruptive youngsters, to provide 250,000 free childcare places and to delay the introduction of ID cards. Very many people will indeed agree with these measures. That is not an issue that the CEP as such involves itself with. The CEP is concerned with democracy for England. When England gets its own parlament, its parliament will concern itself wholeheartedly with the welfare of the people of England.
'These measures concern matters which affect England only. The fundamental nature of English democracy as founded with the English Parliament in the 13th century and developed by the people of England over the past 800 years is that it is representative democracy. Law makers are accountable to the people who elect them. They are elected to be their representatives in their parliament. But Brown is not elected by any English voters. He is not accountable to any English voter for any of these specific measures. His action, and the conference applause for it, is a repudiation of this most fundamental aspect of the English democratic tradition.
CEP Media Unit. Tel: 01260 271139 Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
Friday 25 September 2009
THE BBC IS A GOVERNMENT TOOL BIASED AGAINST ENGLAND
The BBC is now fully engaged without misgivings in the promotion of Scotland's culture, history, national pride and national identity. It hasn't just adapted itself to Scottish devolution, it is now playing a very pro-active part in its development and expansion. In itself there is no harm in that. However, the BBC is not doing the same for England even though English licence payers provide 85% of the BBC's income, indeed of the financial resources available to BBC Scotland.
On Tuesday September 22nd from 8 to 9pm BBC 4 presented a very informative and absorbing account of the life of Robert Bruce, his resistance to English rule, his victory over both Edward 1st and Edward 2nd of England, his achievement in establishing the independent kingdom of Scotland. The programme was presented by the strongly patriotic Oliver Neil of 'Coast' fame with his usual very admirable articulation and clarity. It had the added fascination of revealing, indeed it focussed on, the crucial part played by Scotland's Catholic hierarchy in support of Robert Bruce and in achieving Scottish independence.
'However', says Michael Knowles head of the CEP Media Unit, in his email bulletin to members, 'there is much more to this than meets the eye. The programme wasn't just history. It was history narrative with a purpose. There was balance, of course there was. Oliver did not spare Robert Bruce with his strictures. The cruelty and brutality of the man were unsparingly exposed. However, the fundamental theme wasn't Robert Bruce. The fundamental agenda was Scotland, its history, its resistance to England, its declarations, its role and its meaning for the Scottish people of today, a Scottish people now facing the choice about to be presented to it by its own Scottish government of remaining in a union with the same England that was as defined in relation to Scotland in the 13th century as it is today. That was what this programme was explictly about. It merits a second showing in order to enable viewers to perceive its agenda.
'I am not critical of the BBC presenting this sort of programme which is just one part of a much bigger BBC series on Scotland. There are many very good reasons to use the licence fee to promote national identity and a sense of patriotism, and to provide education -in a most fascinating and gripping way- in the history of Scotland. Indeed, BBC Scotland now exists primarily to promote Scotland and things Scottish.
'However, the English licence payer provides 85% of the BBC licence income. Yet there is no BBC England. The BBC admamantly refuses even to contemplate one. Its bias against England runs deep. It will not contemplate making such programmes, inspired by a similar political and educational zeal and patriotism, about England -its history and its culture. It is the most influential cultural power and influence in the UK. It should use its power in a balanced way. This island of ours consists of three distinct and ancient nations. Politically and culturally it is now returning to its historic roots. That is the time we live in. It is a tide that cannot be turned back. As it stands at present, the BBC is an agent for distortion when it should be a main agent, possibly the main agent, for a fair and balanced development of the forces about to shape this island's future.'
Michael Knowles CEP Media Unit. Tel: 01260 271139 email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
Fight against British Racism – Fight against racism directed against England and the English
On Tuesday September 22nd from 8 to 9pm BBC 4 presented a very informative and absorbing account of the life of Robert Bruce, his resistance to English rule, his victory over both Edward 1st and Edward 2nd of England, his achievement in establishing the independent kingdom of Scotland. The programme was presented by the strongly patriotic Oliver Neil of 'Coast' fame with his usual very admirable articulation and clarity. It had the added fascination of revealing, indeed it focussed on, the crucial part played by Scotland's Catholic hierarchy in support of Robert Bruce and in achieving Scottish independence.
'However', says Michael Knowles head of the CEP Media Unit, in his email bulletin to members, 'there is much more to this than meets the eye. The programme wasn't just history. It was history narrative with a purpose. There was balance, of course there was. Oliver did not spare Robert Bruce with his strictures. The cruelty and brutality of the man were unsparingly exposed. However, the fundamental theme wasn't Robert Bruce. The fundamental agenda was Scotland, its history, its resistance to England, its declarations, its role and its meaning for the Scottish people of today, a Scottish people now facing the choice about to be presented to it by its own Scottish government of remaining in a union with the same England that was as defined in relation to Scotland in the 13th century as it is today. That was what this programme was explictly about. It merits a second showing in order to enable viewers to perceive its agenda.
'I am not critical of the BBC presenting this sort of programme which is just one part of a much bigger BBC series on Scotland. There are many very good reasons to use the licence fee to promote national identity and a sense of patriotism, and to provide education -in a most fascinating and gripping way- in the history of Scotland. Indeed, BBC Scotland now exists primarily to promote Scotland and things Scottish.
'However, the English licence payer provides 85% of the BBC licence income. Yet there is no BBC England. The BBC admamantly refuses even to contemplate one. Its bias against England runs deep. It will not contemplate making such programmes, inspired by a similar political and educational zeal and patriotism, about England -its history and its culture. It is the most influential cultural power and influence in the UK. It should use its power in a balanced way. This island of ours consists of three distinct and ancient nations. Politically and culturally it is now returning to its historic roots. That is the time we live in. It is a tide that cannot be turned back. As it stands at present, the BBC is an agent for distortion when it should be a main agent, possibly the main agent, for a fair and balanced development of the forces about to shape this island's future.'
Michael Knowles CEP Media Unit. Tel: 01260 271139 email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
Fight against British Racism – Fight against racism directed against England and the English
Monday 21 September 2009
A council tax freeze in Scotland, a council tax hike in England
The background to the announcement by the Finance Secretary to the Scottish Parliament John Sweeney that householders in Scotland will have their council tax bills frozen until 2012 raises fundamental questions about justice and fairness and the whole point and purpose of the Union.The background to it is a £210 million deal to be funded by England’s taxpayers which has been worked out between the Scottish Parliament and the UK Treasury headed by Alistair Darling, MP for Edinburgh South West and supervised by Gordon Brown MP for Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath. In England meanwhile council tax bills are set to rise by almost £50 for an average property next year in order to plug a £2.5 billion black hole in local authority finances caused by the economic downturn. An economic downturn caused in large part by the policies of both men.
There are two basic issues here,‘The English taxpayer is as much a member of the British state as any Scot and should therefore be treated equally. We look to our government for fairness. Why is it not forthcoming? Mr Brown signed the ‘Scottish claim of Right’ in March 1989 in which he and 300 other Scottish politicians signed an oath pledging to put the interests of their own Scottish nation before that of any other nation. Is he and Mr Darling exploiting their control of UK finances, 85% of which are produced by the English population, to provide a better deal for Scotland?
‘Secondly, where are our English MPs? They are elected by their English constituents to represent their interests. Yet they are always as silent as the grave on matters like this. By the time of the London Olympics Scottish families will be paying the same amount of council tax as they were in 2007. In England it may even have doubled. The injustice is beyond comprehension.’
At its September meeting in Birmingham on Saturday the 19th the CEP National Council confirmed its arrangements for the meeting ‘The Future of England’ in the House of Commons on November 18th, the day of the Queen’s Speech at which matters such as this will be discussed.
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
There are two basic issues here,‘The English taxpayer is as much a member of the British state as any Scot and should therefore be treated equally. We look to our government for fairness. Why is it not forthcoming? Mr Brown signed the ‘Scottish claim of Right’ in March 1989 in which he and 300 other Scottish politicians signed an oath pledging to put the interests of their own Scottish nation before that of any other nation. Is he and Mr Darling exploiting their control of UK finances, 85% of which are produced by the English population, to provide a better deal for Scotland?
‘Secondly, where are our English MPs? They are elected by their English constituents to represent their interests. Yet they are always as silent as the grave on matters like this. By the time of the London Olympics Scottish families will be paying the same amount of council tax as they were in 2007. In England it may even have doubled. The injustice is beyond comprehension.’
At its September meeting in Birmingham on Saturday the 19th the CEP National Council confirmed its arrangements for the meeting ‘The Future of England’ in the House of Commons on November 18th, the day of the Queen’s Speech at which matters such as this will be discussed.
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
Saturday 19 September 2009
The role of an English Parliament
'The role of an English Parliament, which is now firmly on the UK political agenda, will be to focus minds on England's future as a distinct nation. It will come about because Scotland and Wales enabled by devolution are now re-establishing and re-creating their own separate identities, legislation, and cultures within the United Kingdom and the European Union. The more the two of them become separate and distinct, the more England does too and the more this island returns to its roots as three historic nations.
This is the message sent to the CEP membership by its National Council as the three main political parties prepare for their annual conferences following on the TUC conference and the new political year of 2009-10 begins, to conclude within 9 months with the General Election.
'The National Council has fully endorsed the statement of one of its members, Gareth Young from Brighton in Sussex, about what the role and purpose of the Campaign is. 'Our task,' writes Mr Young, 'is to foster a strong and confident English culture in which all the people of England take pride, making it more likely that newcomers from whatever faith and background can have confidence in it too.' Mr Young was thinking of the stresses and strains of England's society as it deals with the current depression, the appalling increase in unemployment especially among those under 25 years of age, the lack and the cost of housing for young couples , the threats to England's beautiful natural heritage and the stresses created by the modern juxta-position of different cultures. 'An English parliament and proper recognition of our one nationhood is a cornerstone of this,' he stated.
In its message the National Council re-asserted two of its basic principles which are of incalculable importance in our times. 'By English the CEP means anyone and everyone who lives in England, for whom England is home and future, regardless of origin, ethnicity, religion and politics. We are one nation. And the CEP expects everyone to live by the principle, achieved over centuries of hard struggle and bitter experience, as the bedrock of our English way of life, that democracy allows, indeed encourages, dissent and debate, yet demands that we all submit to the rule of law as laid down for all by Parliament. England is one community, one people, in which everyone should regard their fellow Englishmen and women as their family, their neighbours, sharing the same fortunes and misfortunes, the same land and the same weather, the same air and the same shores -their common land, their common shores, their common present and future. No one group should strive for advantage. Everyone should value what is good throughout society. England expects, and rightly expects, that each one of us, no matter what our background or religion or politics might be, works for the common good of all. That is what an English Parliament is about'.
Contact:
Michael Knowles CEP Media Unit.
Tel: 01260 2711239 Email: michael-knowles@ tiscali.co. uk
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
No written constitution or any other major constitutional changes should be seriously discussed until the people of the United Kingdom have been given a chance by referendum to decide whether they want to stay in or come out of the European Union because that is fundamental to any decisions we have to make, and it effects the very existence of the nation state.
This is the message sent to the CEP membership by its National Council as the three main political parties prepare for their annual conferences following on the TUC conference and the new political year of 2009-10 begins, to conclude within 9 months with the General Election.
'The National Council has fully endorsed the statement of one of its members, Gareth Young from Brighton in Sussex, about what the role and purpose of the Campaign is. 'Our task,' writes Mr Young, 'is to foster a strong and confident English culture in which all the people of England take pride, making it more likely that newcomers from whatever faith and background can have confidence in it too.' Mr Young was thinking of the stresses and strains of England's society as it deals with the current depression, the appalling increase in unemployment especially among those under 25 years of age, the lack and the cost of housing for young couples , the threats to England's beautiful natural heritage and the stresses created by the modern juxta-position of different cultures. 'An English parliament and proper recognition of our one nationhood is a cornerstone of this,' he stated.
In its message the National Council re-asserted two of its basic principles which are of incalculable importance in our times. 'By English the CEP means anyone and everyone who lives in England, for whom England is home and future, regardless of origin, ethnicity, religion and politics. We are one nation. And the CEP expects everyone to live by the principle, achieved over centuries of hard struggle and bitter experience, as the bedrock of our English way of life, that democracy allows, indeed encourages, dissent and debate, yet demands that we all submit to the rule of law as laid down for all by Parliament. England is one community, one people, in which everyone should regard their fellow Englishmen and women as their family, their neighbours, sharing the same fortunes and misfortunes, the same land and the same weather, the same air and the same shores -their common land, their common shores, their common present and future. No one group should strive for advantage. Everyone should value what is good throughout society. England expects, and rightly expects, that each one of us, no matter what our background or religion or politics might be, works for the common good of all. That is what an English Parliament is about'.
Contact:
Michael Knowles CEP Media Unit.
Tel: 01260 2711239 Email: michael-knowles@ tiscali.co. uk
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
No written constitution or any other major constitutional changes should be seriously discussed until the people of the United Kingdom have been given a chance by referendum to decide whether they want to stay in or come out of the European Union because that is fundamental to any decisions we have to make, and it effects the very existence of the nation state.
Wednesday 16 September 2009
CEP welcomes the swelling recognition of the distinct identity and nationhood of the people of England
David Horspool's new book 'The English Rebel', (Viking Press 2009) recounting the history of fifteen hundred years of English radicalism, from the the time of the Abbess Hilda of Whitby down the centuries to the Peasants' Revolt and the Levellers to the present day and the opponents of the Poll Tax, has been warmly welcome by the Campaign for an English Parliament.
'This book speaks only of English men and women,' says Veronica Newman the Campaign's secretary in her August message to the CEP membership. 'It describes how radical and revolutionary the people of England has been and is. It asserts by implication that England is a separate and distinct nation within the United Kingdom.
'This book reclaims for the people of England the sparkling identity that is distinctly theirs. We must not forget how the BBC has used its dominant media position for the last 80 years to deny to England its existence and identity as a distinct and separate nation within the United Kingdom. This book celebrates England's glorious tradition of rebels which iculturally and politically has changed the whole world. It celebrates The Peasants' Revolt which asked that most revolutionary question: 'When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?' Colonel Rainsborough at a meeting of his fellow Levellers at St Mary's church in Putney during the Civil War making the statement which has reverberated ever since: 'Really I think that the poorest he that is in England has a life to live as the greatest he'. Thomas a Beckett challenging the unjust rule of a king even unto death. Robin Hood forced off his land into the greenwood. The Pilgrimage of Grace from the North marching with the banners in defence of their religous faith. The Suffragettes embracing imprisonment for women's rights. The Magna Carta in defence of basic freedoms which has been recognised and revered throughout history ever since.
'There have been of great noteworthy rebels through all human history,' says Veronica Newman. 'But this book is about English men and English women as a distinct people, not about anyone else. We have all been brought up in a society where the British political and cultural Establishment, particularly the BBC and characters like the present Prime Minister Gordon Brown, have done their level best to deny any recognition of England. But this book celebrates the English. The English are the people of England, anyone and everyone for whom England is their home, their future and their childen's future. This book is one of many statements now being made, now being shouted out loud and clear, that we have our own history and our own identity, constantly being reinvigorated and renewed, a distinct and vibrant part of the rich fabric that is the world.
'This book speaks only of English men and women,' says Veronica Newman the Campaign's secretary in her August message to the CEP membership. 'It describes how radical and revolutionary the people of England has been and is. It asserts by implication that England is a separate and distinct nation within the United Kingdom.
'This book reclaims for the people of England the sparkling identity that is distinctly theirs. We must not forget how the BBC has used its dominant media position for the last 80 years to deny to England its existence and identity as a distinct and separate nation within the United Kingdom. This book celebrates England's glorious tradition of rebels which iculturally and politically has changed the whole world. It celebrates The Peasants' Revolt which asked that most revolutionary question: 'When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?' Colonel Rainsborough at a meeting of his fellow Levellers at St Mary's church in Putney during the Civil War making the statement which has reverberated ever since: 'Really I think that the poorest he that is in England has a life to live as the greatest he'. Thomas a Beckett challenging the unjust rule of a king even unto death. Robin Hood forced off his land into the greenwood. The Pilgrimage of Grace from the North marching with the banners in defence of their religous faith. The Suffragettes embracing imprisonment for women's rights. The Magna Carta in defence of basic freedoms which has been recognised and revered throughout history ever since.
'There have been of great noteworthy rebels through all human history,' says Veronica Newman. 'But this book is about English men and English women as a distinct people, not about anyone else. We have all been brought up in a society where the British political and cultural Establishment, particularly the BBC and characters like the present Prime Minister Gordon Brown, have done their level best to deny any recognition of England. But this book celebrates the English. The English are the people of England, anyone and everyone for whom England is their home, their future and their childen's future. This book is one of many statements now being made, now being shouted out loud and clear, that we have our own history and our own identity, constantly being reinvigorated and renewed, a distinct and vibrant part of the rich fabric that is the world.
Saturday 12 September 2009
What If
As the date of the second election on the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty by Ireland draws ever nearer bringing with it the possibility of a yes vote, it seems inconceivable that not one national daily newspaper or any other media source has highlighted the effects of a yes vote, and especially with all the troubles in Afghanistan how it could directly affect British foreign and defence policies.
If the Irish vote yes to the Lisbon Treaty it gives the green light for the EU to create its own president and foreign minister, a foreign minister who will be able to make foreign policy without a full British veto, and scraps 55 national vetoes outright, bringing up the question of how long the EU will allow us to go on acting in our own interests and how long we will be able to maintain our own separate position within NATO.
How can our government plan for and justify billions of pounds of English money being spent on our armed forces when there is a grey area on who will decide where those forces will be deployed and even brings into question whether we will be in sole command of them.
Although the British have usually supported American policies and looked on America as a friend, the same cannot always be said of the EU whose pressure must already be being felt; add an EU President and an EU Foreign Minister and its odds on the EU will put a strain on that relationship and all the talk on our future in Afghanistan or anywhere else for that matter could be taken out of our hands?
No written constitution or any other major constitutional changes should be seriously discussed until the people of the United Kingdom have been given a chance by referendum to decide whether they want to stay in or come out of the European Union because that is fundamental to any decisions we have to make, and it effects the very existence of the nation state.
David Cameron must be made to give us a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty whether the Irish vote yes or no.
If the Irish vote yes to the Lisbon Treaty it gives the green light for the EU to create its own president and foreign minister, a foreign minister who will be able to make foreign policy without a full British veto, and scraps 55 national vetoes outright, bringing up the question of how long the EU will allow us to go on acting in our own interests and how long we will be able to maintain our own separate position within NATO.
How can our government plan for and justify billions of pounds of English money being spent on our armed forces when there is a grey area on who will decide where those forces will be deployed and even brings into question whether we will be in sole command of them.
Although the British have usually supported American policies and looked on America as a friend, the same cannot always be said of the EU whose pressure must already be being felt; add an EU President and an EU Foreign Minister and its odds on the EU will put a strain on that relationship and all the talk on our future in Afghanistan or anywhere else for that matter could be taken out of our hands?
No written constitution or any other major constitutional changes should be seriously discussed until the people of the United Kingdom have been given a chance by referendum to decide whether they want to stay in or come out of the European Union because that is fundamental to any decisions we have to make, and it effects the very existence of the nation state.
David Cameron must be made to give us a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty whether the Irish vote yes or no.
Friday 28 August 2009
‘England little more than a centrally governed colony'
THE CEP HAS WELCOMED THIS RECENT, THOUGH INDEED VERY BELATED, RECOGNITION BY DR. TONY TRAVERS OF THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS OF ENGLAND’S CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL SITUATION COMPARED TO THE DEVOLUTION STATUS OF SCOTLAND,AND WALES.
Dr. Travers, director of the LSE esearch Centre, is the foremost English expert on local government matters, esteemed very highly and consulted constantly by Whitehall, the media and his fellow academics. His recent article ‘We must support Scotland’ (Local Government Chronicle Aug.29th ’09) which deals with the Megrahi affair, has highlighted its constitutional implications for the UK and what it means for England.
‘For the people of England,’ he writes, ‘the revelation that a Scottish politician can make such a life-and-death decision with massive international ramifications serves to point out how privileged the Scots now are within the UK’s so-called constitution. The 50 million English and their elected local institutions have nothing like the devolved power of the five million Scots or three million Welsh. Scotland may now be a nation free to decide its own justice policy, but England remains little more than a centrally governed colony’
‘It is to be welcomed that Dr Travers has now had this insight into the implications for England of the 1998 Devolution legislation,’ Michael Knowles of the CEP National Council has stated. ‘It is precisely what the CEP has been saying for the past 11 years. Regretably however, Dr Travers like many traditional British-minded academics still thinks of English devolution in terms of regionalism, even though the people of England’s overwhelmingly rejected the measure in the 2004 referendum. It is still their mind-set. As George Orwell noted over half a century ago there is a immense pool of English intellectuals who are strangely uncomfortable in their English skin.
‘The next four significant mental break-throughs for academics like Dr. Travers is first the recognition that Devolution 1998 was given to nations qua nations, as is explicit in the text of the legislation.The second is to make themselves intellectually and culturally comfortable with being English, which is what they are, just as the Scots and the Welsh are comfortable with their national identity. Over 60 years ago George Orwell wrote about the strange phenomenon of an immense pool of English intellectuals who feel uncomfortable in their English skin. The third is to recognise that England cannot be balkanised without immense damage and divisiveness. As Will Hutton wrote in 2001 ‘regional assemblies will a veritable witches’ brew of internecine rivalries’. The fourth is an open mind to the introduction of a new Union in which the three historic nations of this island will stand in the same relationship to the UK government and to each other’.
Contacts:
Michael Knowles.
CEP Media Unit. Tel: 01260 271139. email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
__._,_.___
Dr. Travers, director of the LSE esearch Centre, is the foremost English expert on local government matters, esteemed very highly and consulted constantly by Whitehall, the media and his fellow academics. His recent article ‘We must support Scotland’ (Local Government Chronicle Aug.29th ’09) which deals with the Megrahi affair, has highlighted its constitutional implications for the UK and what it means for England.
‘For the people of England,’ he writes, ‘the revelation that a Scottish politician can make such a life-and-death decision with massive international ramifications serves to point out how privileged the Scots now are within the UK’s so-called constitution. The 50 million English and their elected local institutions have nothing like the devolved power of the five million Scots or three million Welsh. Scotland may now be a nation free to decide its own justice policy, but England remains little more than a centrally governed colony’
‘It is to be welcomed that Dr Travers has now had this insight into the implications for England of the 1998 Devolution legislation,’ Michael Knowles of the CEP National Council has stated. ‘It is precisely what the CEP has been saying for the past 11 years. Regretably however, Dr Travers like many traditional British-minded academics still thinks of English devolution in terms of regionalism, even though the people of England’s overwhelmingly rejected the measure in the 2004 referendum. It is still their mind-set. As George Orwell noted over half a century ago there is a immense pool of English intellectuals who are strangely uncomfortable in their English skin.
‘The next four significant mental break-throughs for academics like Dr. Travers is first the recognition that Devolution 1998 was given to nations qua nations, as is explicit in the text of the legislation.The second is to make themselves intellectually and culturally comfortable with being English, which is what they are, just as the Scots and the Welsh are comfortable with their national identity. Over 60 years ago George Orwell wrote about the strange phenomenon of an immense pool of English intellectuals who feel uncomfortable in their English skin. The third is to recognise that England cannot be balkanised without immense damage and divisiveness. As Will Hutton wrote in 2001 ‘regional assemblies will a veritable witches’ brew of internecine rivalries’. The fourth is an open mind to the introduction of a new Union in which the three historic nations of this island will stand in the same relationship to the UK government and to each other’.
Contacts:
Michael Knowles.
CEP Media Unit. Tel: 01260 271139. email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
__._,_.___
Monday 24 August 2009
History in the making
Scotland entered the world stage as an independent nation when it ignored the UK and US Governments and freed Lockerbie bomber Abdel-baset Ali al Megrahi. The grounds Scotland gave for the bombers release prove not only that there are major differences between the Scottish and UK Governments domestic policies, but more importantly it appears that the boundaries of devolution are not stopping Scotland interfering and affecting matters reserved to the UK Government, in this case British foreign policy. Surely with the possibility of international repercussions if we still have a Union there is no way Scotland could have been allowed to release the bomber without the consent of the UK Government even if the matter was devolved, which brings up the question, did Gordon Brown actually give authorisation for it or is it what it seems a British embarrassment?
Perhaps this will bring home the realities of devolution to all those English doubters who think that devolution has been and is the saviour of the Union, when it is obvious it has given power to the factions that want to tear the Union apart and is turning bit players into international celebrities.
There is no way back now in reversing the devolutionary process and before animosities start getting to the stage of forcing separation instead of calling for a referendum on Scottish independence after the next general election, all four countries should be calling for a referendum on the creation of a new British Federal State and new ways of working together.
It takes courage to stand up for your beliefs and especially so if that belief is contary to that of the worlds superpower, and in that respect SNP's Kenny MacAaskill can either be seen as a Scottish hero or a Scottish fool and only time will tell.
Perhaps this will bring home the realities of devolution to all those English doubters who think that devolution has been and is the saviour of the Union, when it is obvious it has given power to the factions that want to tear the Union apart and is turning bit players into international celebrities.
There is no way back now in reversing the devolutionary process and before animosities start getting to the stage of forcing separation instead of calling for a referendum on Scottish independence after the next general election, all four countries should be calling for a referendum on the creation of a new British Federal State and new ways of working together.
It takes courage to stand up for your beliefs and especially so if that belief is contary to that of the worlds superpower, and in that respect SNP's Kenny MacAaskill can either be seen as a Scottish hero or a Scottish fool and only time will tell.
Sunday 16 August 2009
England must not forget its Peterloo
This piece is taken from LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal the full article can be read at
http://links. org.au/node/ 1206
The 1819 `Peterloo' massacre: class struggle in the Industrial Revolution
By Graham Milner
August 16 in Lancashire was a lovely summer day with a cloudless sky and a hot sun shining. There was a confident, cheerful and festive atmosphere as the contingents gathered and prepared to march. Bands played, and the beautiful banners, woven and embroidered with great care, were unfurled. Oldham's banner was of pure white silk, emblazoned with the inscriptions: ``Universal Suffrage, Annual Parliaments -- Election by Ballot', and ``No Combination Acts: Oldham Union''. Saddleworth's was jet black, with the inscription ``Equal Representation or Death'' in white over two joined hands and a heart. One of the banners carried by the Stockport contingent read: ``Success to the Female Reformers of Stockport''. Many red caps of liberty were carried.
When all the contingents had arrived and assembled in the centre of Manchester, something like 12 per cent of the population of the county of Lancashire, and over half that of its industrial south east were present. It was the largest assembly England had ever seen.
As soon as all the contingents had filled St. Peter's Field, to the point where, according to a contemporary report, people were packed in so tightly that ``their hats seemed to touch'', the area was ringed by 1500 troops with cannon. No one in the crowd, least of all the organisers, suspected that an attempt to physically disperse the meeting was planned. Meetings such as this, even if smaller and without the same evident discipline and organisation, had been held many times before up and down the country. The ensuing massacre was completely unexpected and unprovoked, and met with little organised resistance. The city magistrates had even gone to the lengths in their preparations for the massacre of employing scavengers to remove every stone, brick or possible missile from the field and surrounding streets, so that the meeting's participants were thus left entirely without defence.
Barely had Henry Hunt, the main featured speaker, begun to address the meeting when mounted troopers of the yeomanry charged the hustings to arrest him and others on the platform. At first the crowd, which had not been aware of the presence of the troops, did not panic and Hunt shouted: ``Stand firm, my friends: there are only a few soldiers, and we are a host against them.''
But as the yeomanry, many of whom were drunk, charged with sabres drawn, slashing and cutting their way through the crowd and trampling and crushing many people, chaos and panic gripped the field. According to witnesses cited in Joyce Marlow's account The Peterloo Massacre, the yeomanry, having tasted blood, went berserk. They dragged the speakers and organisers from the hustings and would have killed Hunt had he not been quickly whisked away to jail. The yeomanry continued to slash and cut indiscriminately at men, women and children alike, while smashing wagons and platforms, and tearing the banners and the caps of liberty.
The regular cavalry then moved onto the field to complete the work. Hundreds more people suffered serious injuries from the slashing sabres and flying hooves, or were smothered under piles of falling bodies. Ten minutes from the first charge it was all over. Samuel Bamford, the Lancashire poet, described the scene
...the field was an open and almost deserted space. The hustings remained, with a few broken and hewed flagstaves erect, and a torn and gashed banner or two drooping; whilst over the whole field were strewed the caps, bonnets, hats, shawls and shoes and other parts of male and female dress; trampled, torn and bloody. The yeomanry had dismounted -- some were easing their horses' girths and some were wiping their sabres.
Many more people were killed and maimed as the troops continued to ``disperse'' the crowd through surrounding streets. That night one person was shot dead and several injured in clashes between soldiers and crowds of angry workers.
The government's attitude was made clear by its total endorsement of the massacre. The Prince Regent, then disporting himself on his yacht, made it known through Sidmouth what great satisfaction he had derived from the magistrate's ``prompt, decisive and efficient measure for the preservation of public tranquillity''. Despite repeated and widely voiced demands for one, there never was an official inquiry into the Peterloo massacre.
Wave of anger
An immense wave of anger swept across England in the wake of the massacre. The mass movement for reform was not appreciably set back by the Peterloo massacre. A huge crowd estimated by the conservative Times at 300,000 lined the streets of London to greet Hunt after his release from jail. Meetings were spurred all over England by the events at St. Peter's Field, especially in the north-east counties, where more than 50,000 miners marched into Newcastle from surrounding districts. Loyalist [pro-government] forces in this area began arming, and the pitmen took up arms to defend themselves. In the months of October and November, according to Edward Thompson, workers across the country stocked pikes and other weapons to defend themselves and their meetings. Drilling, and armed demonstrations, were reported in Newcastle, Wolverhampton, Wigan, Bolton and Blackburn.
Divisions within the radical movements's leadership between constitutionalists and revolutionaries were not resolved, and this crisis of leadership, combined with renewed government repression and an economic upturn brought this early phase of mass working-class struggle to a close. The events in Manchester on August 16, 1819 however, will remain forever inscribed in the collective memory of the international working class. Shelley's poem ``The Masque of Anarchy'' was written just after Peterloo and its final stanza carries the fighting sentiments of thousands of workers:
Rise, like lions after slumber.
In unvanquishable number!
Shake your chains to earth like dew,
Which in sleep had fallen on you!
Ye are many -- they are few!
[Graham Milner is a member of the Socialist Alliance in Perth, Western Australia.]
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
http://links. org.au/node/ 1206
The 1819 `Peterloo' massacre: class struggle in the Industrial Revolution
By Graham Milner
August 16 in Lancashire was a lovely summer day with a cloudless sky and a hot sun shining. There was a confident, cheerful and festive atmosphere as the contingents gathered and prepared to march. Bands played, and the beautiful banners, woven and embroidered with great care, were unfurled. Oldham's banner was of pure white silk, emblazoned with the inscriptions: ``Universal Suffrage, Annual Parliaments -- Election by Ballot', and ``No Combination Acts: Oldham Union''. Saddleworth's was jet black, with the inscription ``Equal Representation or Death'' in white over two joined hands and a heart. One of the banners carried by the Stockport contingent read: ``Success to the Female Reformers of Stockport''. Many red caps of liberty were carried.
When all the contingents had arrived and assembled in the centre of Manchester, something like 12 per cent of the population of the county of Lancashire, and over half that of its industrial south east were present. It was the largest assembly England had ever seen.
As soon as all the contingents had filled St. Peter's Field, to the point where, according to a contemporary report, people were packed in so tightly that ``their hats seemed to touch'', the area was ringed by 1500 troops with cannon. No one in the crowd, least of all the organisers, suspected that an attempt to physically disperse the meeting was planned. Meetings such as this, even if smaller and without the same evident discipline and organisation, had been held many times before up and down the country. The ensuing massacre was completely unexpected and unprovoked, and met with little organised resistance. The city magistrates had even gone to the lengths in their preparations for the massacre of employing scavengers to remove every stone, brick or possible missile from the field and surrounding streets, so that the meeting's participants were thus left entirely without defence.
Barely had Henry Hunt, the main featured speaker, begun to address the meeting when mounted troopers of the yeomanry charged the hustings to arrest him and others on the platform. At first the crowd, which had not been aware of the presence of the troops, did not panic and Hunt shouted: ``Stand firm, my friends: there are only a few soldiers, and we are a host against them.''
But as the yeomanry, many of whom were drunk, charged with sabres drawn, slashing and cutting their way through the crowd and trampling and crushing many people, chaos and panic gripped the field. According to witnesses cited in Joyce Marlow's account The Peterloo Massacre, the yeomanry, having tasted blood, went berserk. They dragged the speakers and organisers from the hustings and would have killed Hunt had he not been quickly whisked away to jail. The yeomanry continued to slash and cut indiscriminately at men, women and children alike, while smashing wagons and platforms, and tearing the banners and the caps of liberty.
The regular cavalry then moved onto the field to complete the work. Hundreds more people suffered serious injuries from the slashing sabres and flying hooves, or were smothered under piles of falling bodies. Ten minutes from the first charge it was all over. Samuel Bamford, the Lancashire poet, described the scene
...the field was an open and almost deserted space. The hustings remained, with a few broken and hewed flagstaves erect, and a torn and gashed banner or two drooping; whilst over the whole field were strewed the caps, bonnets, hats, shawls and shoes and other parts of male and female dress; trampled, torn and bloody. The yeomanry had dismounted -- some were easing their horses' girths and some were wiping their sabres.
Many more people were killed and maimed as the troops continued to ``disperse'' the crowd through surrounding streets. That night one person was shot dead and several injured in clashes between soldiers and crowds of angry workers.
The government's attitude was made clear by its total endorsement of the massacre. The Prince Regent, then disporting himself on his yacht, made it known through Sidmouth what great satisfaction he had derived from the magistrate's ``prompt, decisive and efficient measure for the preservation of public tranquillity''. Despite repeated and widely voiced demands for one, there never was an official inquiry into the Peterloo massacre.
Wave of anger
An immense wave of anger swept across England in the wake of the massacre. The mass movement for reform was not appreciably set back by the Peterloo massacre. A huge crowd estimated by the conservative Times at 300,000 lined the streets of London to greet Hunt after his release from jail. Meetings were spurred all over England by the events at St. Peter's Field, especially in the north-east counties, where more than 50,000 miners marched into Newcastle from surrounding districts. Loyalist [pro-government] forces in this area began arming, and the pitmen took up arms to defend themselves. In the months of October and November, according to Edward Thompson, workers across the country stocked pikes and other weapons to defend themselves and their meetings. Drilling, and armed demonstrations, were reported in Newcastle, Wolverhampton, Wigan, Bolton and Blackburn.
Divisions within the radical movements's leadership between constitutionalists and revolutionaries were not resolved, and this crisis of leadership, combined with renewed government repression and an economic upturn brought this early phase of mass working-class struggle to a close. The events in Manchester on August 16, 1819 however, will remain forever inscribed in the collective memory of the international working class. Shelley's poem ``The Masque of Anarchy'' was written just after Peterloo and its final stanza carries the fighting sentiments of thousands of workers:
Rise, like lions after slumber.
In unvanquishable number!
Shake your chains to earth like dew,
Which in sleep had fallen on you!
Ye are many -- they are few!
[Graham Milner is a member of the Socialist Alliance in Perth, Western Australia.]
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
Saturday 15 August 2009
First Mayor to be elected from an English Political Party in the News
Published Date: 13 August 2009 IN THE SHOREHAM HERALD
By Ian Hart
I THINK the phrase goes something like "a new broom sweeps clean", and I'm indebted to Ellis Rodda for bringing my attention to the following tale.
On his first morning as mayor of Doncaster, Peter Davies cut his salary from £73,000 to £30,000, and on the same morning he closed the council's in-house newspaper for "peddling politics on the rates".
Mayor Davies is now pressing ahead with plans he hopes will see the number of town councillors cut from 63 to just 21, saving local taxpayers £800,000.
Mr Davies has said: "If 100 senators can run the United States of America; I can't see how 63 councillors are needed to run Doncaster."
He has withdrawn Doncaster from the Local Government Association and the Local Government Information Unit, saving another £200,000, citing both bodies as "all talk, no action".
The subject of twinning has also come under the microscope.
"Doncaster is in for some serious untwinning.
"We are twinned with probably nine other places around the world and they are just for people to fly off and have a binge at the council taxpayers' expense."
The mayor's chauffeur-driven car has been axed and the driver given another job within the local authority.
Mr Davies was elected in May, under the banner of the English Democrats, a party that wants tighter immigration curbs, an English parliament and a law requiring every public building to fly the flag of St George.
He has also promised to end council funding for Doncaster's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History Month.
He says: "Politicians have got completely out of touch with what people want.
"We need to cut costs, I want to pass on some savings I make in reduced taxes and use the rest for things we really need, like improved children's services."
So the million dollar question, the view of a right wing homophobic northerner, or the voice of reason?
Or simply someone who has said enough is enough and got in a position to make changes?
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
By Ian Hart
I THINK the phrase goes something like "a new broom sweeps clean", and I'm indebted to Ellis Rodda for bringing my attention to the following tale.
On his first morning as mayor of Doncaster, Peter Davies cut his salary from £73,000 to £30,000, and on the same morning he closed the council's in-house newspaper for "peddling politics on the rates".
Mayor Davies is now pressing ahead with plans he hopes will see the number of town councillors cut from 63 to just 21, saving local taxpayers £800,000.
Mr Davies has said: "If 100 senators can run the United States of America; I can't see how 63 councillors are needed to run Doncaster."
He has withdrawn Doncaster from the Local Government Association and the Local Government Information Unit, saving another £200,000, citing both bodies as "all talk, no action".
The subject of twinning has also come under the microscope.
"Doncaster is in for some serious untwinning.
"We are twinned with probably nine other places around the world and they are just for people to fly off and have a binge at the council taxpayers' expense."
The mayor's chauffeur-driven car has been axed and the driver given another job within the local authority.
Mr Davies was elected in May, under the banner of the English Democrats, a party that wants tighter immigration curbs, an English parliament and a law requiring every public building to fly the flag of St George.
He has also promised to end council funding for Doncaster's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History Month.
He says: "Politicians have got completely out of touch with what people want.
"We need to cut costs, I want to pass on some savings I make in reduced taxes and use the rest for things we really need, like improved children's services."
So the million dollar question, the view of a right wing homophobic northerner, or the voice of reason?
Or simply someone who has said enough is enough and got in a position to make changes?
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
Tuesday 4 August 2009
WHY WE NEED AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT
When Tony Blair’s government decided to take the initiative and head for Europe with the introduction of the Devolution Acts of 1998, there is no doubt that it did so because his government was dominated by Ministers elected from the Scottish and Welsh constituencies who saw European policies as the means of re-establishing their own countries separate political identities and nationhood.
Every nation has a right to govern themselves under their own laws; it is what makes a nation, and is the difference between self government and subordination, between self respect and self contempt, quoted Eurosceptics when it was proposed that the United Kingdom should join Europe’s superstate.
The Scots agreed but the nation they were talking about was the Scottish Nation and its position within the Multi- Nation British State, and when they moved into their new law making Scottish Parliament that boasted control over their own domestic policies they rejoiced in gaining their first move towards Scottish independence. Land of our fathers sang the Welsh; a forum for the nation they cried when Devolution 1998 gave them an assembly which recognised Wales and their Welsh Nationhood, and they dance in the streets of Northern Ireland now that the people have found peace in the resurrection of their own parliament.
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT ‘DEVOLUTION 1998 WAS DECIDED ON NATIONHOOD’
We too have a right to govern ourselves, we too have an identity separate from a British identity, and we too have a right to a parliament that will recognise England and England’s Nationhood. Why should we be the only nation not gaining anything from devolution, the claims made by the other three nations of the United Kingdom can be echoed by our claims, what applies to Scotland and Wales equally applies to England, and it is unjust and unfair that the English Nation should remain the only one subjugated entirely to British rule.
Young people for more than a millennium have been making the ultimate sacrifice in defending England’s shores for the sake of freedom and democracy, and young people are still doing so today in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ask the Scotsman what he is fighting for and he can say Scotland, ask the Welshman and the Irishman what they are fighting for and they can say Wales and Ireland, but what about the English what can we say, what are we fighting for. They tell us (the English) we are fighting for Britain and fighting to stop Islamic terrorists destroying our country, yet they are openly inviting and giving these people a free passage into England, giving them all our free health and welfare benefits, houses and jobs, and when we catch them the British are refusing to kick them out. How much longer are our English mothers going to continue to let their sons fight for this British double-cross, are the British worth fighting for, and how much longer can we and they go on supporting a British Government that recognises the sacrifices made by the Scotsman, the Welshman, and the Irishman, but denies the same to the Englishman?
At the recent Olympic Games they did it again; they recognised the Scottish, Welsh and Irish medal winners with separate celebrations, while ours went unrecognised and were claimed by the British, and every government form or document denies an English identity.
Since Labours Devolution Acts of 1998 England our homeland is no longer our own, our nationality is not recognised, our country no longer has any political or constitutional existence, our culture is being denied us and our language is being infiltrated by that of every other nation on the globe. While our English soldiers fight for British interests abroad the British are trying their hardest to destroy the nation they identify with at home.
Compare this to the devolved nations of Scotland and Wales who now have a parliament and the responsibility for their own nation’s ‘Education and Training’ programs, and consider British lies when they say it is us the English not them who are trying to break up the Union and its British identity.
The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly is the political and constitutional recognition of their Scottish and Welsh National Identities.
Through the school curriculum all children in Scotland and Wales are now being reared and educated to have strong Scottish and Welsh identities and knowledge of their Scottish and Welsh history and heritage; the Welsh language is now being taught in their schools. (Britishness is only being taught in English schools)
Similar ‘Sports and Art’ programs backed up by a BBC TV Scotland and a BBC TV Wales and their own tourist boards are promoting their distinct Scottish and Welsh cultures, (There is no BBC England or English tourist board) and the Scots have honoured their St. Andrew by giving their nation a day’s holiday. (No St. George’s holiday for England)
Scottish culture is being promoted also through education and training courses that encourage students into university by not asking them to pay ‘Top up Fees’ of £3000 + a year like the British ask of the English, and their part time students earning less than £18,000 are getting a £500 grant towards their £800 a year course fees as Scotland moves from a system of loans to
grants. (English students get nothing)
The devolved nations are also allowed to promote their own separate identities through labelling, especially food items, a lot of which now promote Scotland and Wales by supporting their national flags, controversially in England the ‘Dairy Crest’ company last year re-branded their ‘English Country Life’ butter’ as ‘British Country Life’ butter amid a fanfare of adverts featuring Jonny Rotten taking the mickey out of us English. The French have a big stake in Dairy Crest, and last year 2008 when they bought the butter brand outright they did the name change with British approval. Recently we have been told that the England football Team will be re-branded with the British identity ‘Team GB’ in 2012 in time for the Olympics.
Never mind the ‘West Lothian Question’ or the ‘English Question’ which question the right of the British to rule only on England’s Domestic policies, the British have now set up their own quango type government to do it.
England is now being governed by MPs elected from Scottish constituencies which include the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and an assortment of seven peers from the House of Lords, not one of them is answerable to the English electorate and 7 of them can’t even be questioned in the House of Commons. If it wasn’t so serious the whole thing could be seen as a joke?
Why should England be the only country made to suffer the consequences of being ruled by these proven British untrustworthy, lying, cheating, corrupt fraudsters, so called Honourable MPs who despise us and treat us with contempt?
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q1) The Westminster Parliament has 529 MPs elected from England’s constituencies; don’t you think England has enough representation?
A1) MPs elected to the Westminster Parliament are British MPs not English MPs and they owe their loyalty to the British State as a whole not to the individual nations within it. MPs elected to national parliaments however like Scotland and Wales are full of members who owe their loyalty to their own nation; a nation’s interest often conflicts with that of the State.
Q2) Do we really need any more MPs surely we have got enough already?
A2) Regardless of cost England needs its own parliament in order to establish constitutionally and politically its identity and nationhood. British MPs elected from English constituencies have failed and are failing to put the interests of the people of England first, and instead are supporting the British political interests of their party.
With England controlling its own Domestic Policies on par with Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland the role of the British Parliament would be significantly changed along with its workload; there would be no need for any significant increase in MP numbers if the number of MPs to an English Parliament could be matched by a similar reduction in the number of British MPs representing England in the UK Parliament.
Q3) Will the English Parliament need to be a separate parliament or could it be a parliament within a parliament made up from existing members of the British UK Parliament?
A3) An English Parliament must be a completely separately elected parliament with its own separately elected EMPs, a national parliament, a parliament elected solely to represent the interests of the people of England like that given to our other home nations. Suggestions by all the main British political Parties that England’s Domestic Policies and interests are best served only if they are looked after by British MPs in the UK Parliament does not hold credence, if that were true it would be true also for Scottish, Welsh and N. Irish Domestic Policies and interests and there would have been no need for devolution, which clearly it wasn’t. British MPs owe their loyalty to the UK British State, and what they are asking us to believe is that this British loyalty can be switched on and off according to what time of the day or what day of the week it is instantly an English Bill arises in the UK Parliament. Try telling that to a Manchester United supporter at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon when they haven’t got a game, and ask them to switch their support to Liverpool who have.
Q (4) It is said that if England was given its own Parliament the United Kingdom would have to look at becoming a Federal State, and that being the case, the sheer geographical size of England being 4/5 of the UK’s land mass and the size of its population would make England dominant and make a federal UK unstable and lead to its break up.
A(4) While the British believe an English Parliament would see the end of the Union, the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP) believes it is vital to saving the Union. The specific point on England’s dominance and size making a federal UK unstable should be seen as a red herring along with the one about millions of pounds being needed for extra MPs if England gets an EP, and can be demonstrably exposed as nonsense by referring to the examples of the USA, Canada, and India. There are 60 Californians to every Alaskan, 70 bodies in Ontario for every person in Prince Edward Island, and 111 inhabitants of Utter Pradesh for every person in Goa. In fact, England has dominated the Union for 300 years and devolving power to England would not increase its ability to dominate the Union but would have the opposite effect and reduce it; England would now only be in charge of looking after its own domestic policies and could not interfere with those of the other nations, who could not interfere in England’s or in each others.
Q5) Would a new building be required for the English Parliament and if so where would it be sited?
A5) Moving at least one of the parliaments the British or the English to central or northern England would bring about the biggest transfer of employment, political, cultural and media power and activity, in all of England’s history. Such a decision would not harm the capital, as such an event would save London and the South East from self destructing due to its success, but that decision would have to be decided by present MPs and the constitutional committee, or through a British Convention.
Q6) The present policy regarding England’s devolution from all the main political parties centres around some type of Regionalism in preference to giving England a parliament, what are your views on these regional policies?
A6) For all their supposed good intensions it is a fundamental weakness of the regionalists’ argument that they seek to deny national government and constitutional recognition of nationhood to the people of England. It is one thing to argue for regionalism, but to argue that the nation of England should be denied national government because of it is quite another. An English Parliament would be able to take over the work performed by the regions in the EU, providing England with a stronger unified voice and force than the individual regions in applying for EU structural funds, currently the English regions apply separately for funds and are therefore in direct competition with one another. With London and the South East undoubtedly able to shout the loudest the poorer regions such as those in the North are in danger of losing out; an English Parliament would therefore not only be a stronger lobbying force in the UK and the EU but it would be better placed to distribute the funds more evenly across England.
Q7) How would an English Parliament effect England’s immigrant population?
A7) An English Parliament would do for England’s immigrants what it has done for Scottish and Welsh immigrants; in the first place it would allow all immigrants living in England with a British qualification to identity themselves with England the country in which they live and the indigenous English people they live with, like it has done in Scotland and Wales. The very essence of identifying themselves with the identity of our country would unite England’s people under one banner and an English Parliament would be the centre of gravity around which we could all work together in carving out a new English identity.
Q8) Alun Michael a Welsh MP said in a recent TV interview that if there was a First Minister for England he/she would be more important and have more power than the British Prime Minister?
A8) This is another British redherring; England's First Minister would only have the powers invested in him by the British Constitution and what Alun is inferring is that a state governor in the USA has more powers and is more important than the USA President which is rediclous.
Under the Scotland Act 1998, the Scottish Parliament can make primary and secondary legislation in
Areas not reserved to Westminster or protected from modification
‘Devolved’ responsibilities now controlled by the Scottish Parliament
* Health * Local Government * Social Work
* Education and Training * Housing * Planning
* Tourism * Economic development and financial assistance to industry
* Some aspects of transport, inc. the Scottish road network, bus policy and ports and harbours
* Law and home affairs, inc. most aspects of criminal and civil law, the prosecution system and the courts
* The Police and Fire Services * Natural and Built Heritage * Sports and the Arts
* The Environment * Agriculture, forestry and Fishing
* Statistics, public registers and records
Other Advantages
* MPs in their own parliament and separate MPs of their own at Westminster
* A Secretary of State in the Cabinet
* A Grand Committee made up of all of their MPs
* Their own Select Committee at Westminster to deal with their own affairs
* They can speak up for their own nations in Europe and help shape UK- EU policy
* Have the benefit of Statutory Instruments (UK laws) to be studied by their own institution
* The Scottish and Welsh Development agencies deal direct with their own executives so can tailor things on a national rather than a regional basis
* Although the devolved nations MPs at Westminster have had their workload drastically reduced they have had no pay cut (99% of constituent’s problems now being dealt with by their own parliamentary MSPs)
UK Parliament controlled ‘Reserved Responsibilities’
* The Constitution * Defence and national security * Fiscal, economic and monetary system
* Trade and Industry, including competition and customer protection
* Transport (not particular to Scotland) including railways, transport safety and regulation
* Social Security * Employment * Equal opportunities
* Medical ethics: abortion; human fertilisation and embryology; genetics; xenotransplantation and vivi section
* Broadcasting * the Civil Service * Immigration and Nationality
* Foreign Affairs * Energy: electricity, coal, gas,nuclear energy
Looking at the list opposite of the powers devolved to the national parliaments of Scotland and Wales you soon realise that England does not have National power over anything; all English powers are in the hands of the British, so let’s take a look and compare the health services. While Scotland and Wales have a true NHS and can control their own policies across all of their country England can not, instead England is heading in the direction of privatisation by being subjected to a Health Service run by a British based regionalism system of Primary Care Trusts and Foundation Hospitals, forced onto it by British MPs elected from Scottish and Welsh constituencies who denied forcing it onto their own nations. Half of our hospitals are already out of Ministerial control and it is said all will be by 2012. When the call went out for a massive clean up of English hospitals because of the MRSA outbreaks recently it was pointed out that it is against the law for an elected government or the Dept of Health on behalf of that government to tell Foundation Hospitals what to do, as long as they are financially viable.
National governments like Foundation hospitals above have been given huge sums of tax payer’s money by the British to conduct their own affairs without British interference which has allowed them to adopt differing policies and priorities. Foundation Hospitals are run like businesses and are free to use the market as they see fit in order to hit their targets and remain financially viable, this is seeing huge differences of care across England as each hospital decides its own policy, we are even seeing some of these hospitals paying for and building their own hospitals in other countries, outside of the EU too.
The NHS of Scotland and Wales provides equality of care for all their people regardless of what part of their country people live in, and their hospitals do not have the same restraints put on them as they are all under ministerial control and subsidised by the English tax payer. Besides receiving a huge grant from the British Government to run their own affairs, National Parliaments also get additional payments every year made to them through a formula called Barnet which is based on England’s expenditure, in Scotland’s case alone this formula lets the British give Scotland an extra £12 billion per year more than they give us in England.
National Parliaments first priority is to the nation they serve and not to the British State which they are part of, and this can be seen when we look at their national achievements.
Free Prescription charges
Free Eye Tests
Free Dental Check Ups and reduced charges
Free personal Care in Residential Homes - even if they cross the border into England
Free School Milk - Better school meals being provided by doubling England’s subsidy
Seriously ill patients are able to receive drugs that are denied to English patients even if they are a patient in an English hospital
Trainee nurses kept on an extra year after qualification so that they have the necessary experience to get jobs in the private sector should there be no jobs in NHS
No Hospital Car Parking Charges
No Wheel Clamping allowed anywhere in the country
Their own Students in Universities have fees waived until they are earning over £25,000 per year and no top up fees are paid. (English Students pay £3000/year + in top up fees and leave with debts of £20,000)
Council Tax frozen 2008 and 2009 and has only risen 40% since 1997 (England’s council tax has risen 100% over the same period and increases every year)
Every young person between the ages of 20 and 25 living in England should be aware that their lives are not as important to the British establishment as those lives of the young people of Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland, as Jade Goody found out to her cost. In England you do not get invited for a cervical smear test until you are 25, by then it is too late for any girl unfortunate enough to get it at a younger age as Jade did; in Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland they are allowed to test their young at 20 and also every youngster taking part in sport over 16 years of age in Scotland will also be offered screening for cardiac abnormalities, the cause of sudden death syndrome.
Continuing on the list we can see that the British recognised nations have responsibility for their own housing, planning, and environmental policies, the British can’t force the ECO Towns on Scotland or Wales, or force the extension of airports which they are able to force onto us. Then there is Agriculture and Fisheries, national governments make sure their farmers get their subsidies on time while the British keep English farmers waiting, and the Scottish Fisheries Dept has already made a cut in English fishing quotas along the East Coast. The list goes on, and in every dept the nations are able to protect their people from the sufferance of seeing their domestic policies being decided by the corrupt incompetent fraudsters in the UK British Parliament; from ID Cards, to Road Pricing to bin collections, the national parliaments decide themselves what is best for their people and do not have to accept the wishes of the British Government, and invariably do not.
The British do not wish to recognise England and Englishness because it gives them a problem with their identity, so they are trying to solve it by supplanting the name Britain for England and forcing an invented indigenous British multi-cultural identity on our nation.
The West Lothian Question
Why should MPs elected by the countries of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland into the British UK Parliament be allowed to debate and vote on policies that only apply to England, when British MPs elected by England to the UK Parliament can not debate and vote on policies that only apply to their countries.
The reason they can’t is because these countries have their own parliaments and another set of MPs deciding their policies.
The result of their interference in English legislation has already resulted in England being forced down the road of NHS privatisation with Foundation Hospitals, and also forced our University students to pay Top Up fees, and most recently influenced the stopping of trials by Jury for certain offences.
The English Question
Who rules England – Why should British MPs elected in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland be allowed to be head of English only departments deciding English Domestic Policies when they can not force those same policies onto their own nations that elected them, and one as even made himself Prime Minister.
-----------------------------------------------
We must not forget that our troubles began in 1997 when a gang of Scottish conspirators and Europhiles (Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and the disgraced speaker Michael Martin amongst them) who had signed an oath in 1989 vowing to put the interests of Scotland before that of every other nation (The Scottish Claim of Right) suddenly found themselves in control of a New British Labour Government. These British MPs elected by Scotland promoted themselves to all of the major ministerial posts in government and wasted little time in honouring that oath when in less than a year they complied with EU legislation and began the break up of the United Kingdom and headed for Scottish independence by bringing in the Devolution Acts of 1998.
It must also never be forgotten that although the Welsh and Irish British MPs spoke up for their countries nationhood, England’s elected British MPs elected to represent England failed to do so, and so England’s nationhood was not recognised.
From this day British MPs can not be trusted to put England’s interests before that of their party.
John Stanhope
West Midlands
tel - 01902 630110
Every nation has a right to govern themselves under their own laws; it is what makes a nation, and is the difference between self government and subordination, between self respect and self contempt, quoted Eurosceptics when it was proposed that the United Kingdom should join Europe’s superstate.
The Scots agreed but the nation they were talking about was the Scottish Nation and its position within the Multi- Nation British State, and when they moved into their new law making Scottish Parliament that boasted control over their own domestic policies they rejoiced in gaining their first move towards Scottish independence. Land of our fathers sang the Welsh; a forum for the nation they cried when Devolution 1998 gave them an assembly which recognised Wales and their Welsh Nationhood, and they dance in the streets of Northern Ireland now that the people have found peace in the resurrection of their own parliament.
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT ‘DEVOLUTION 1998 WAS DECIDED ON NATIONHOOD’
We too have a right to govern ourselves, we too have an identity separate from a British identity, and we too have a right to a parliament that will recognise England and England’s Nationhood. Why should we be the only nation not gaining anything from devolution, the claims made by the other three nations of the United Kingdom can be echoed by our claims, what applies to Scotland and Wales equally applies to England, and it is unjust and unfair that the English Nation should remain the only one subjugated entirely to British rule.
Young people for more than a millennium have been making the ultimate sacrifice in defending England’s shores for the sake of freedom and democracy, and young people are still doing so today in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ask the Scotsman what he is fighting for and he can say Scotland, ask the Welshman and the Irishman what they are fighting for and they can say Wales and Ireland, but what about the English what can we say, what are we fighting for. They tell us (the English) we are fighting for Britain and fighting to stop Islamic terrorists destroying our country, yet they are openly inviting and giving these people a free passage into England, giving them all our free health and welfare benefits, houses and jobs, and when we catch them the British are refusing to kick them out. How much longer are our English mothers going to continue to let their sons fight for this British double-cross, are the British worth fighting for, and how much longer can we and they go on supporting a British Government that recognises the sacrifices made by the Scotsman, the Welshman, and the Irishman, but denies the same to the Englishman?
At the recent Olympic Games they did it again; they recognised the Scottish, Welsh and Irish medal winners with separate celebrations, while ours went unrecognised and were claimed by the British, and every government form or document denies an English identity.
Since Labours Devolution Acts of 1998 England our homeland is no longer our own, our nationality is not recognised, our country no longer has any political or constitutional existence, our culture is being denied us and our language is being infiltrated by that of every other nation on the globe. While our English soldiers fight for British interests abroad the British are trying their hardest to destroy the nation they identify with at home.
Compare this to the devolved nations of Scotland and Wales who now have a parliament and the responsibility for their own nation’s ‘Education and Training’ programs, and consider British lies when they say it is us the English not them who are trying to break up the Union and its British identity.
The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly is the political and constitutional recognition of their Scottish and Welsh National Identities.
Through the school curriculum all children in Scotland and Wales are now being reared and educated to have strong Scottish and Welsh identities and knowledge of their Scottish and Welsh history and heritage; the Welsh language is now being taught in their schools. (Britishness is only being taught in English schools)
Similar ‘Sports and Art’ programs backed up by a BBC TV Scotland and a BBC TV Wales and their own tourist boards are promoting their distinct Scottish and Welsh cultures, (There is no BBC England or English tourist board) and the Scots have honoured their St. Andrew by giving their nation a day’s holiday. (No St. George’s holiday for England)
Scottish culture is being promoted also through education and training courses that encourage students into university by not asking them to pay ‘Top up Fees’ of £3000 + a year like the British ask of the English, and their part time students earning less than £18,000 are getting a £500 grant towards their £800 a year course fees as Scotland moves from a system of loans to
grants. (English students get nothing)
The devolved nations are also allowed to promote their own separate identities through labelling, especially food items, a lot of which now promote Scotland and Wales by supporting their national flags, controversially in England the ‘Dairy Crest’ company last year re-branded their ‘English Country Life’ butter’ as ‘British Country Life’ butter amid a fanfare of adverts featuring Jonny Rotten taking the mickey out of us English. The French have a big stake in Dairy Crest, and last year 2008 when they bought the butter brand outright they did the name change with British approval. Recently we have been told that the England football Team will be re-branded with the British identity ‘Team GB’ in 2012 in time for the Olympics.
Never mind the ‘West Lothian Question’ or the ‘English Question’ which question the right of the British to rule only on England’s Domestic policies, the British have now set up their own quango type government to do it.
England is now being governed by MPs elected from Scottish constituencies which include the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and an assortment of seven peers from the House of Lords, not one of them is answerable to the English electorate and 7 of them can’t even be questioned in the House of Commons. If it wasn’t so serious the whole thing could be seen as a joke?
Why should England be the only country made to suffer the consequences of being ruled by these proven British untrustworthy, lying, cheating, corrupt fraudsters, so called Honourable MPs who despise us and treat us with contempt?
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q1) The Westminster Parliament has 529 MPs elected from England’s constituencies; don’t you think England has enough representation?
A1) MPs elected to the Westminster Parliament are British MPs not English MPs and they owe their loyalty to the British State as a whole not to the individual nations within it. MPs elected to national parliaments however like Scotland and Wales are full of members who owe their loyalty to their own nation; a nation’s interest often conflicts with that of the State.
Q2) Do we really need any more MPs surely we have got enough already?
A2) Regardless of cost England needs its own parliament in order to establish constitutionally and politically its identity and nationhood. British MPs elected from English constituencies have failed and are failing to put the interests of the people of England first, and instead are supporting the British political interests of their party.
With England controlling its own Domestic Policies on par with Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland the role of the British Parliament would be significantly changed along with its workload; there would be no need for any significant increase in MP numbers if the number of MPs to an English Parliament could be matched by a similar reduction in the number of British MPs representing England in the UK Parliament.
Q3) Will the English Parliament need to be a separate parliament or could it be a parliament within a parliament made up from existing members of the British UK Parliament?
A3) An English Parliament must be a completely separately elected parliament with its own separately elected EMPs, a national parliament, a parliament elected solely to represent the interests of the people of England like that given to our other home nations. Suggestions by all the main British political Parties that England’s Domestic Policies and interests are best served only if they are looked after by British MPs in the UK Parliament does not hold credence, if that were true it would be true also for Scottish, Welsh and N. Irish Domestic Policies and interests and there would have been no need for devolution, which clearly it wasn’t. British MPs owe their loyalty to the UK British State, and what they are asking us to believe is that this British loyalty can be switched on and off according to what time of the day or what day of the week it is instantly an English Bill arises in the UK Parliament. Try telling that to a Manchester United supporter at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon when they haven’t got a game, and ask them to switch their support to Liverpool who have.
Q (4) It is said that if England was given its own Parliament the United Kingdom would have to look at becoming a Federal State, and that being the case, the sheer geographical size of England being 4/5 of the UK’s land mass and the size of its population would make England dominant and make a federal UK unstable and lead to its break up.
A(4) While the British believe an English Parliament would see the end of the Union, the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP) believes it is vital to saving the Union. The specific point on England’s dominance and size making a federal UK unstable should be seen as a red herring along with the one about millions of pounds being needed for extra MPs if England gets an EP, and can be demonstrably exposed as nonsense by referring to the examples of the USA, Canada, and India. There are 60 Californians to every Alaskan, 70 bodies in Ontario for every person in Prince Edward Island, and 111 inhabitants of Utter Pradesh for every person in Goa. In fact, England has dominated the Union for 300 years and devolving power to England would not increase its ability to dominate the Union but would have the opposite effect and reduce it; England would now only be in charge of looking after its own domestic policies and could not interfere with those of the other nations, who could not interfere in England’s or in each others.
Q5) Would a new building be required for the English Parliament and if so where would it be sited?
A5) Moving at least one of the parliaments the British or the English to central or northern England would bring about the biggest transfer of employment, political, cultural and media power and activity, in all of England’s history. Such a decision would not harm the capital, as such an event would save London and the South East from self destructing due to its success, but that decision would have to be decided by present MPs and the constitutional committee, or through a British Convention.
Q6) The present policy regarding England’s devolution from all the main political parties centres around some type of Regionalism in preference to giving England a parliament, what are your views on these regional policies?
A6) For all their supposed good intensions it is a fundamental weakness of the regionalists’ argument that they seek to deny national government and constitutional recognition of nationhood to the people of England. It is one thing to argue for regionalism, but to argue that the nation of England should be denied national government because of it is quite another. An English Parliament would be able to take over the work performed by the regions in the EU, providing England with a stronger unified voice and force than the individual regions in applying for EU structural funds, currently the English regions apply separately for funds and are therefore in direct competition with one another. With London and the South East undoubtedly able to shout the loudest the poorer regions such as those in the North are in danger of losing out; an English Parliament would therefore not only be a stronger lobbying force in the UK and the EU but it would be better placed to distribute the funds more evenly across England.
Q7) How would an English Parliament effect England’s immigrant population?
A7) An English Parliament would do for England’s immigrants what it has done for Scottish and Welsh immigrants; in the first place it would allow all immigrants living in England with a British qualification to identity themselves with England the country in which they live and the indigenous English people they live with, like it has done in Scotland and Wales. The very essence of identifying themselves with the identity of our country would unite England’s people under one banner and an English Parliament would be the centre of gravity around which we could all work together in carving out a new English identity.
Q8) Alun Michael a Welsh MP said in a recent TV interview that if there was a First Minister for England he/she would be more important and have more power than the British Prime Minister?
A8) This is another British redherring; England's First Minister would only have the powers invested in him by the British Constitution and what Alun is inferring is that a state governor in the USA has more powers and is more important than the USA President which is rediclous.
Under the Scotland Act 1998, the Scottish Parliament can make primary and secondary legislation in
Areas not reserved to Westminster or protected from modification
‘Devolved’ responsibilities now controlled by the Scottish Parliament
* Health * Local Government * Social Work
* Education and Training * Housing * Planning
* Tourism * Economic development and financial assistance to industry
* Some aspects of transport, inc. the Scottish road network, bus policy and ports and harbours
* Law and home affairs, inc. most aspects of criminal and civil law, the prosecution system and the courts
* The Police and Fire Services * Natural and Built Heritage * Sports and the Arts
* The Environment * Agriculture, forestry and Fishing
* Statistics, public registers and records
Other Advantages
* MPs in their own parliament and separate MPs of their own at Westminster
* A Secretary of State in the Cabinet
* A Grand Committee made up of all of their MPs
* Their own Select Committee at Westminster to deal with their own affairs
* They can speak up for their own nations in Europe and help shape UK- EU policy
* Have the benefit of Statutory Instruments (UK laws) to be studied by their own institution
* The Scottish and Welsh Development agencies deal direct with their own executives so can tailor things on a national rather than a regional basis
* Although the devolved nations MPs at Westminster have had their workload drastically reduced they have had no pay cut (99% of constituent’s problems now being dealt with by their own parliamentary MSPs)
UK Parliament controlled ‘Reserved Responsibilities’
* The Constitution * Defence and national security * Fiscal, economic and monetary system
* Trade and Industry, including competition and customer protection
* Transport (not particular to Scotland) including railways, transport safety and regulation
* Social Security * Employment * Equal opportunities
* Medical ethics: abortion; human fertilisation and embryology; genetics; xenotransplantation and vivi section
* Broadcasting * the Civil Service * Immigration and Nationality
* Foreign Affairs * Energy: electricity, coal, gas,nuclear energy
Looking at the list opposite of the powers devolved to the national parliaments of Scotland and Wales you soon realise that England does not have National power over anything; all English powers are in the hands of the British, so let’s take a look and compare the health services. While Scotland and Wales have a true NHS and can control their own policies across all of their country England can not, instead England is heading in the direction of privatisation by being subjected to a Health Service run by a British based regionalism system of Primary Care Trusts and Foundation Hospitals, forced onto it by British MPs elected from Scottish and Welsh constituencies who denied forcing it onto their own nations. Half of our hospitals are already out of Ministerial control and it is said all will be by 2012. When the call went out for a massive clean up of English hospitals because of the MRSA outbreaks recently it was pointed out that it is against the law for an elected government or the Dept of Health on behalf of that government to tell Foundation Hospitals what to do, as long as they are financially viable.
National governments like Foundation hospitals above have been given huge sums of tax payer’s money by the British to conduct their own affairs without British interference which has allowed them to adopt differing policies and priorities. Foundation Hospitals are run like businesses and are free to use the market as they see fit in order to hit their targets and remain financially viable, this is seeing huge differences of care across England as each hospital decides its own policy, we are even seeing some of these hospitals paying for and building their own hospitals in other countries, outside of the EU too.
The NHS of Scotland and Wales provides equality of care for all their people regardless of what part of their country people live in, and their hospitals do not have the same restraints put on them as they are all under ministerial control and subsidised by the English tax payer. Besides receiving a huge grant from the British Government to run their own affairs, National Parliaments also get additional payments every year made to them through a formula called Barnet which is based on England’s expenditure, in Scotland’s case alone this formula lets the British give Scotland an extra £12 billion per year more than they give us in England.
National Parliaments first priority is to the nation they serve and not to the British State which they are part of, and this can be seen when we look at their national achievements.
Free Prescription charges
Free Eye Tests
Free Dental Check Ups and reduced charges
Free personal Care in Residential Homes - even if they cross the border into England
Free School Milk - Better school meals being provided by doubling England’s subsidy
Seriously ill patients are able to receive drugs that are denied to English patients even if they are a patient in an English hospital
Trainee nurses kept on an extra year after qualification so that they have the necessary experience to get jobs in the private sector should there be no jobs in NHS
No Hospital Car Parking Charges
No Wheel Clamping allowed anywhere in the country
Their own Students in Universities have fees waived until they are earning over £25,000 per year and no top up fees are paid. (English Students pay £3000/year + in top up fees and leave with debts of £20,000)
Council Tax frozen 2008 and 2009 and has only risen 40% since 1997 (England’s council tax has risen 100% over the same period and increases every year)
Every young person between the ages of 20 and 25 living in England should be aware that their lives are not as important to the British establishment as those lives of the young people of Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland, as Jade Goody found out to her cost. In England you do not get invited for a cervical smear test until you are 25, by then it is too late for any girl unfortunate enough to get it at a younger age as Jade did; in Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland they are allowed to test their young at 20 and also every youngster taking part in sport over 16 years of age in Scotland will also be offered screening for cardiac abnormalities, the cause of sudden death syndrome.
Continuing on the list we can see that the British recognised nations have responsibility for their own housing, planning, and environmental policies, the British can’t force the ECO Towns on Scotland or Wales, or force the extension of airports which they are able to force onto us. Then there is Agriculture and Fisheries, national governments make sure their farmers get their subsidies on time while the British keep English farmers waiting, and the Scottish Fisheries Dept has already made a cut in English fishing quotas along the East Coast. The list goes on, and in every dept the nations are able to protect their people from the sufferance of seeing their domestic policies being decided by the corrupt incompetent fraudsters in the UK British Parliament; from ID Cards, to Road Pricing to bin collections, the national parliaments decide themselves what is best for their people and do not have to accept the wishes of the British Government, and invariably do not.
The British do not wish to recognise England and Englishness because it gives them a problem with their identity, so they are trying to solve it by supplanting the name Britain for England and forcing an invented indigenous British multi-cultural identity on our nation.
The West Lothian Question
Why should MPs elected by the countries of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland into the British UK Parliament be allowed to debate and vote on policies that only apply to England, when British MPs elected by England to the UK Parliament can not debate and vote on policies that only apply to their countries.
The reason they can’t is because these countries have their own parliaments and another set of MPs deciding their policies.
The result of their interference in English legislation has already resulted in England being forced down the road of NHS privatisation with Foundation Hospitals, and also forced our University students to pay Top Up fees, and most recently influenced the stopping of trials by Jury for certain offences.
The English Question
Who rules England – Why should British MPs elected in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland be allowed to be head of English only departments deciding English Domestic Policies when they can not force those same policies onto their own nations that elected them, and one as even made himself Prime Minister.
-----------------------------------------------
We must not forget that our troubles began in 1997 when a gang of Scottish conspirators and Europhiles (Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and the disgraced speaker Michael Martin amongst them) who had signed an oath in 1989 vowing to put the interests of Scotland before that of every other nation (The Scottish Claim of Right) suddenly found themselves in control of a New British Labour Government. These British MPs elected by Scotland promoted themselves to all of the major ministerial posts in government and wasted little time in honouring that oath when in less than a year they complied with EU legislation and began the break up of the United Kingdom and headed for Scottish independence by bringing in the Devolution Acts of 1998.
It must also never be forgotten that although the Welsh and Irish British MPs spoke up for their countries nationhood, England’s elected British MPs elected to represent England failed to do so, and so England’s nationhood was not recognised.
From this day British MPs can not be trusted to put England’s interests before that of their party.
John Stanhope
West Midlands
tel - 01902 630110
Monday 27 July 2009
Carved-up, stitched-up ... Labour's plan for England
WORTH RECALLING
Published: 10 May 2002
IT’S difficult to take seriously a promise of “joined-up” government from a man who can’t manage joined-up sentences.
By getting Two Jags to announce plans for regional assemblies in England, Blair obviously thought he was making us an offer we couldn’t understand.
Because, for all the nonsense about extending democracy and accountability, the new bureaucracies are not what they seem.
As I pointed out on Tuesday, they are specifically designed to break up England into administrative units in preparation for our absorption into a federal Europe.
The regional assemblies correspond exactly with a map drawn up by Brussels for the government of a fully integrated European Union.
Stage One was devolution in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
This is Stage Two.
Stage Three is the abolition of the English counties.
Stage Four is the abolition of England.
To draw parallels with what has happened in Scotland and Wales is deliberately misleading.
These were countries with their own cultures and own identities being handed back limited powers.
If Labour was sincere it would have established an English parliament at the same time.
But Labour hates England and the English. While pandering to Scottish nationalism, Welsh nationalism and blood-stained Irish nationalism, Labour has ruthlessly set about eradicating English identity and undermining our institutions and traditions.
The English are caricatured as a bunch of wicked, backward racists in speeches by ministers and supporting editorials in the fascist Left press.
Instead of bringing communities together, multi-culturalism has been used as battering ram to drive wedges between us.
null
Pledge ... Blunkett
When David Blunkett sensibly suggested making all immigrants learn to speak English and floated the idea of an American-style pledge of allegiance for new citizens he was howled down by the Guardianistas as if he had made the Nuremberg Address.
But then, Blunkett is a rare animal among Labour politicians in that he is prepared to challenge the orthodoxy.
Most of them are careerists prepared to go along with the whole agenda.
Top of that agenda is a policy of divide and rule intended to fragment widespread English resistance to the ultimate goal of full European integration and scrapping the Pound in favour of the euro.
Published: 10 May 2002
IT’S difficult to take seriously a promise of “joined-up” government from a man who can’t manage joined-up sentences.
By getting Two Jags to announce plans for regional assemblies in England, Blair obviously thought he was making us an offer we couldn’t understand.
Because, for all the nonsense about extending democracy and accountability, the new bureaucracies are not what they seem.
As I pointed out on Tuesday, they are specifically designed to break up England into administrative units in preparation for our absorption into a federal Europe.
The regional assemblies correspond exactly with a map drawn up by Brussels for the government of a fully integrated European Union.
Stage One was devolution in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
This is Stage Two.
Stage Three is the abolition of the English counties.
Stage Four is the abolition of England.
To draw parallels with what has happened in Scotland and Wales is deliberately misleading.
These were countries with their own cultures and own identities being handed back limited powers.
If Labour was sincere it would have established an English parliament at the same time.
But Labour hates England and the English. While pandering to Scottish nationalism, Welsh nationalism and blood-stained Irish nationalism, Labour has ruthlessly set about eradicating English identity and undermining our institutions and traditions.
The English are caricatured as a bunch of wicked, backward racists in speeches by ministers and supporting editorials in the fascist Left press.
Instead of bringing communities together, multi-culturalism has been used as battering ram to drive wedges between us.
null
Pledge ... Blunkett
When David Blunkett sensibly suggested making all immigrants learn to speak English and floated the idea of an American-style pledge of allegiance for new citizens he was howled down by the Guardianistas as if he had made the Nuremberg Address.
But then, Blunkett is a rare animal among Labour politicians in that he is prepared to challenge the orthodoxy.
Most of them are careerists prepared to go along with the whole agenda.
Top of that agenda is a policy of divide and rule intended to fragment widespread English resistance to the ultimate goal of full European integration and scrapping the Pound in favour of the euro.
Thursday 2 July 2009
Devolution – The making of Scotland – The destruction of England
Under present European legislation all national governments are required to transfer power down from their own national central government to a lower level – usually the choice is between regional or local government.
This legislation is the basis of any nation’s acceptance of entry into the European Union and it is legislation that our British Government agreed to on behalf of the United Kingdom. (The British State)
While this has not generally been seen to be a major stumbling block for all other nation states across Europe, who already had some form of regional or provincial government, it is however a problem of seismatic proportions for the British here in the United Kingdom because the UK is a multi-nation state and it meant devolving power down to the nations within it, so entry was never certain and a cause of much debate.
In 1997 a gang of Scottish conspirators and Europhiles (Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and the disgraced speaker Michael Martin amongst them) who had signed an oath in 1989 vowing to put the interests of Scotland before that of any other nation (The Scottish Claim of Right) suddenly found themselves in control of a New British Labour Government, and they then wasted no time in honouring that oath when in less than a year they had complied with the EU and brought in devolution legislation that gave their own Scottish Nation political recognition and control over its own domestic policies with a parliament. (Devolution Acts 1998)
Devolution has been good for Scotland is the cry 10 years on, how could it not have been when Scotland for all of those 10 years has had two governments working in its best interests, one of their own in Scotland and one in Westminster, and Scotland now commands 188 MPs and MSPs, a UK Prime Minister and a Chancellor of the Exchequer all putting their interests first, while we the people of England have no separate representation at all, and are having to watch as these Scottish conspirators steal England’s money, deny England and our nation its English identity, break our country apart, sell off our assets, and declare our country England a British European Nation state open to the world for colonisation.
Question - Why do the British say there is no English Nation?
Answer - If they admit to an English Nation the British do not exist
The EU devolution legislation has created two major problems for the British -
The Question of Sovereignty – The Question of Identity
The United Kingdom in its pre 1998 form as the British State could not meet the entry requirements of the European Union, yet the survival of the British and British sovereignty revolves around the continuing existence of a British State.
The United Kingdom had a choice, to devolve power and then fight for sovereignty from inside the EU or come out of the EU altogether, and the Scottish led New Labour Government of 1997 chose the first option, and proceeded to devolve power in a way that gave the most benefit to their own Scottish Nation. But their 1998 Devolution Act did give enough power to the other minor nations for them to establish their own separate political identities.
When it came to devolving power to England and the English Nation the British had a problem with their identity, if England became English they had nowhere to go? So they came to the conclusion that if they wanted to stay in the EU their best chance of survival was to supplant the name Britain for England and force onto England and the English Nation an indigenous British identity.
In this they are having varying degrees of success because they are controlling the media.
It has taken a long time for the English to realise this, but at last there appears to be major signs of an English revival, and the British know it. The English are seeing through the British futile attempts to disguise their demise under offers of English votes on English Matters and their new English pauses for English causes to answer the West Lothian and English Questions and the tide is turning against them.
David Cameron is not calling for a withdrawal from the EU or promising a referendum if the Lisbon Treaty is agreed before a general election. Watch the British voters start jumping ship if the Irish say yes to Lisbon later in the year and it is realised that the Scots are freed from the power that the British are using to hold them in the Union,and watch the Tory lead decline as the English move to the parties that offer them recognition with a parliament when they realise they have been betrayed yet again.
The question then will become which of England’s main British political parties is going to gain the initiative and be the first to abandon the sinking British ship and return to England before being put out of existence by the rising English National parties like has happened in Scotland.
Was it and is it right that the reserved powers kept by the UK British Government from Scotland and Wales should have been and are being put in the hands of MPs whose constituencies are in Scotland and Wales while England has no separate parliament?
There is only one way to save the Union and that means pulling out of Europe
contact -
John Stanhope
01902 630110
This legislation is the basis of any nation’s acceptance of entry into the European Union and it is legislation that our British Government agreed to on behalf of the United Kingdom. (The British State)
While this has not generally been seen to be a major stumbling block for all other nation states across Europe, who already had some form of regional or provincial government, it is however a problem of seismatic proportions for the British here in the United Kingdom because the UK is a multi-nation state and it meant devolving power down to the nations within it, so entry was never certain and a cause of much debate.
In 1997 a gang of Scottish conspirators and Europhiles (Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and the disgraced speaker Michael Martin amongst them) who had signed an oath in 1989 vowing to put the interests of Scotland before that of any other nation (The Scottish Claim of Right) suddenly found themselves in control of a New British Labour Government, and they then wasted no time in honouring that oath when in less than a year they had complied with the EU and brought in devolution legislation that gave their own Scottish Nation political recognition and control over its own domestic policies with a parliament. (Devolution Acts 1998)
Devolution has been good for Scotland is the cry 10 years on, how could it not have been when Scotland for all of those 10 years has had two governments working in its best interests, one of their own in Scotland and one in Westminster, and Scotland now commands 188 MPs and MSPs, a UK Prime Minister and a Chancellor of the Exchequer all putting their interests first, while we the people of England have no separate representation at all, and are having to watch as these Scottish conspirators steal England’s money, deny England and our nation its English identity, break our country apart, sell off our assets, and declare our country England a British European Nation state open to the world for colonisation.
Question - Why do the British say there is no English Nation?
Answer - If they admit to an English Nation the British do not exist
The EU devolution legislation has created two major problems for the British -
The Question of Sovereignty – The Question of Identity
The United Kingdom in its pre 1998 form as the British State could not meet the entry requirements of the European Union, yet the survival of the British and British sovereignty revolves around the continuing existence of a British State.
The United Kingdom had a choice, to devolve power and then fight for sovereignty from inside the EU or come out of the EU altogether, and the Scottish led New Labour Government of 1997 chose the first option, and proceeded to devolve power in a way that gave the most benefit to their own Scottish Nation. But their 1998 Devolution Act did give enough power to the other minor nations for them to establish their own separate political identities.
When it came to devolving power to England and the English Nation the British had a problem with their identity, if England became English they had nowhere to go? So they came to the conclusion that if they wanted to stay in the EU their best chance of survival was to supplant the name Britain for England and force onto England and the English Nation an indigenous British identity.
In this they are having varying degrees of success because they are controlling the media.
It has taken a long time for the English to realise this, but at last there appears to be major signs of an English revival, and the British know it. The English are seeing through the British futile attempts to disguise their demise under offers of English votes on English Matters and their new English pauses for English causes to answer the West Lothian and English Questions and the tide is turning against them.
David Cameron is not calling for a withdrawal from the EU or promising a referendum if the Lisbon Treaty is agreed before a general election. Watch the British voters start jumping ship if the Irish say yes to Lisbon later in the year and it is realised that the Scots are freed from the power that the British are using to hold them in the Union,and watch the Tory lead decline as the English move to the parties that offer them recognition with a parliament when they realise they have been betrayed yet again.
The question then will become which of England’s main British political parties is going to gain the initiative and be the first to abandon the sinking British ship and return to England before being put out of existence by the rising English National parties like has happened in Scotland.
Was it and is it right that the reserved powers kept by the UK British Government from Scotland and Wales should have been and are being put in the hands of MPs whose constituencies are in Scotland and Wales while England has no separate parliament?
There is only one way to save the Union and that means pulling out of Europe
contact -
John Stanhope
01902 630110
Tuesday 30 June 2009
GORDON BROWN’S ‘PROGRAMME FOR ‘BRITAIN’ DEFIES AND DENIES THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF THE ENGLISH NOTION OF DEMOCRACY.
English democracy is representative democracy. The people who make the laws that govern a country must represent the people they govern and be answerable to them. On that basic principle England’s Parliament was founded almost 800 years ago in 1253. Tha
t same principle lies at the heart of English Common Law and the jury system. When Scotland united with England with the Act of Union in 1707, it accepted the English way of democratic government.
‘But the ‘Programme for ‘Britain’ announced yesterday by Gordon Brown in England’s ancient House of Commons is nothing less than outright repudiation of England’s way of democracy’. That is the declaration of the Campaign for an English Parliament. The main proposals of the Programme cover housing, health and education. Not one of them will apply to Scotland because Scotland through its parliament is self-ruling in all matters of housing, health and education. In these three important areas of government Brown is proposing legislation for England only.
Yet Brown is MP for the Scottish constituency of Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath in Fifeshire. He does not represent one inch of England’s territory and not one single English voter. And he is not answerable in any election to any English man or woman. He is the principal legislator for England, yet he does not represent England in any of these very important matters and he is not accountable to any English person.
What is more, when at next year’s General Election he stands for re-election in Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath, because he is not a member of the Scottish Parliament, he is not answerable even to his own electorate for any matter concerning housing, health and education. Our system of government has become twisted and deformed.
In terms of what is most basic to the very meaning of English democracy, to have an MP representing a Scottish constituency making legislation for England in matters on which he was not elected by and is not accountable to any electorate is not just wrong, it is politically and constitutionally perverse.
In the statement of the ‘Constitution Unit’ to the House of Commons Justice Committee in November 2007, what is ‘closest to a complete answer’ to this situation created by the nature of the 1998 devolution legislation ‘is an English Parliament?’
Contact:
Michael Knowles CEP Media Unit
Tel: 01260 271139 Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
t same principle lies at the heart of English Common Law and the jury system. When Scotland united with England with the Act of Union in 1707, it accepted the English way of democratic government.
‘But the ‘Programme for ‘Britain’ announced yesterday by Gordon Brown in England’s ancient House of Commons is nothing less than outright repudiation of England’s way of democracy’. That is the declaration of the Campaign for an English Parliament. The main proposals of the Programme cover housing, health and education. Not one of them will apply to Scotland because Scotland through its parliament is self-ruling in all matters of housing, health and education. In these three important areas of government Brown is proposing legislation for England only.
Yet Brown is MP for the Scottish constituency of Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath in Fifeshire. He does not represent one inch of England’s territory and not one single English voter. And he is not answerable in any election to any English man or woman. He is the principal legislator for England, yet he does not represent England in any of these very important matters and he is not accountable to any English person.
What is more, when at next year’s General Election he stands for re-election in Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath, because he is not a member of the Scottish Parliament, he is not answerable even to his own electorate for any matter concerning housing, health and education. Our system of government has become twisted and deformed.
In terms of what is most basic to the very meaning of English democracy, to have an MP representing a Scottish constituency making legislation for England in matters on which he was not elected by and is not accountable to any electorate is not just wrong, it is politically and constitutionally perverse.
In the statement of the ‘Constitution Unit’ to the House of Commons Justice Committee in November 2007, what is ‘closest to a complete answer’ to this situation created by the nature of the 1998 devolution legislation ‘is an English Parliament?’
Contact:
Michael Knowles CEP Media Unit
Tel: 01260 271139 Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
Friday 26 June 2009
The Campaign for an English Parliament welcomes the result of the Times Populus poll
A special Populus poll for The Times, to mark the tenth anniversary of the first elections to the Scottish Parliament indicated that in England and Wales 41 per cent support the idea of an English parliament.
However, Scilla Cullen, Chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP), addressing a meeting of CEP members, asked why people in Wales were consulted about whether they supported an English Parliament 'The people of England were never consulted whether they wanted an Assembly for Wales or a Parliament for Scotland. Surely it is the people of England, not the Welsh, who should to be consulted if they want an English Parliament?'
'And why,' Mrs Cullen queried further, 'were we not given the figures for England? Clearly if the Times had cared to separate out the figures for England in this matter, the percentage in England supporting an English Parliament was most likely to be higher and in line with other recent polls that return figures of between 60 and 70%.
'We hear ad nauseam,' she said, 'Establishment pundits and the British government telling us that there is “no demand” for an English Parliament, yet again and again when asked, the people of England do want parity with the other countries of Britain. In the three most recent opinion polls their support ranged from 61% to 68%. Clearly the demand in England is at least as high at that in the referendum for the Scottish Parliament, namely 44%, characterised by those same pundits as “the settled will of the Scottish people”, and much higher than the 25% of the Welsh electorate that voted for devolution, and what irony that the present government was elected by just 21.59% of the electorate.
'Nevertheless, the will of the people of England continues to be studiously ignored by the British Political Class. Labour, Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties have set their faces against an English Parliament. They see it as a threat to their power and their whole life-style. We hear that David Cameron has said he will treat the people of Scotland with respect if the Conservative Party is returned to power at the next general election. Will that respect be extended to the wishes of the people of England? The Conservatives tell us that the UK cannot afford an English Parliament. The CEP says that we cannot afford the dubious, excessive, immoral practices and expenses of the members of the British Parliament. An English Parliament will be the golden opportunity to bring in root and branch reform of the corrupt way in which the Union Parliament operates.'
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change
No written constitution or any other major constitutional changes should be seriously discussed until the people of the United Kingdom have been given a chance by referendum to decide whether they want to stay in or come out of the European Union because that is fundamental to any decisions we have to make, and it effects the very existence of the nation state.
However, Scilla Cullen, Chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP), addressing a meeting of CEP members, asked why people in Wales were consulted about whether they supported an English Parliament 'The people of England were never consulted whether they wanted an Assembly for Wales or a Parliament for Scotland. Surely it is the people of England, not the Welsh, who should to be consulted if they want an English Parliament?'
'And why,' Mrs Cullen queried further, 'were we not given the figures for England? Clearly if the Times had cared to separate out the figures for England in this matter, the percentage in England supporting an English Parliament was most likely to be higher and in line with other recent polls that return figures of between 60 and 70%.
'We hear ad nauseam,' she said, 'Establishment pundits and the British government telling us that there is “no demand” for an English Parliament, yet again and again when asked, the people of England do want parity with the other countries of Britain. In the three most recent opinion polls their support ranged from 61% to 68%. Clearly the demand in England is at least as high at that in the referendum for the Scottish Parliament, namely 44%, characterised by those same pundits as “the settled will of the Scottish people”, and much higher than the 25% of the Welsh electorate that voted for devolution, and what irony that the present government was elected by just 21.59% of the electorate.
'Nevertheless, the will of the people of England continues to be studiously ignored by the British Political Class. Labour, Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties have set their faces against an English Parliament. They see it as a threat to their power and their whole life-style. We hear that David Cameron has said he will treat the people of Scotland with respect if the Conservative Party is returned to power at the next general election. Will that respect be extended to the wishes of the people of England? The Conservatives tell us that the UK cannot afford an English Parliament. The CEP says that we cannot afford the dubious, excessive, immoral practices and expenses of the members of the British Parliament. An English Parliament will be the golden opportunity to bring in root and branch reform of the corrupt way in which the Union Parliament operates.'
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change
No written constitution or any other major constitutional changes should be seriously discussed until the people of the United Kingdom have been given a chance by referendum to decide whether they want to stay in or come out of the European Union because that is fundamental to any decisions we have to make, and it effects the very existence of the nation state.
Tuesday 23 June 2009
Rumours say Gordon Brown contemplated putting his head in the gas oven on reading the ‘Calman Report’
LORD CALMAN REPUDIATES THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE LABOUR & LIB-DEM PERSPECTIVE ON ENGLAND.
“ England is a nation with a single political identity”. With those words Sir Kenneth Calman in his Commission report has undermined and rejected the way both the Labour Party and the Lib-Dem Party have regarded England since the devolution legislation of 1998. Both parties have always opposed any constitutional and political measures which would treat England as what it has been for well over a thousand years: a distinct nation. Both parties have supported the balkanization of England into regions. But, says Calman, England must be recognized for what it is, a nation, “with a political identity at least as old as Scotland’s”.
He goes even further. ‘The regions of England do not have the same sort of political identity as Scotland. This fundamental aspect of the Union will always remain, and must not be ignored in its territorial constitution’. The Union set up in 1707 was a union of nations, nothing else. That is in every line of the 1707 declaration and Calman has reiterated that basic fact about it.
These assertions of the Calman Commission are the very last thing Gordon Brown wanted to hear it make. He set up the commission to undermine Alec Salmon’s ‘conversation for Scotland ’. Brown has constantly described the UK as “a union of nations and regions’, with Wales and his own Scotland as the nations and the regions being the very artificial ‘regions’ of England constructed by Brussels. Brown being that sort of Scot has no feeling for England’s distinct history and culture
The CEP has warmly welcomed this statement of the Commission. As the devolution debate takes the Union into new constitutional territory, it is pleased that a Government Commission has formally acknowledged the distinct national identity of England. “A single political identity” is the first and most essential requirement for one's own institution of government.
Michael Knowles CEP Media Unit
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
No written constitution or any other major constitutional changes should be seriously discussed until the people of the United Kingdom have been given a chance by referendum to decide whether they want to stay in or come out of the European Union because that is fundamental to any decisions we have to make, and it effects the very existence of the nation state.
“ England is a nation with a single political identity”. With those words Sir Kenneth Calman in his Commission report has undermined and rejected the way both the Labour Party and the Lib-Dem Party have regarded England since the devolution legislation of 1998. Both parties have always opposed any constitutional and political measures which would treat England as what it has been for well over a thousand years: a distinct nation. Both parties have supported the balkanization of England into regions. But, says Calman, England must be recognized for what it is, a nation, “with a political identity at least as old as Scotland’s”.
He goes even further. ‘The regions of England do not have the same sort of political identity as Scotland. This fundamental aspect of the Union will always remain, and must not be ignored in its territorial constitution’. The Union set up in 1707 was a union of nations, nothing else. That is in every line of the 1707 declaration and Calman has reiterated that basic fact about it.
These assertions of the Calman Commission are the very last thing Gordon Brown wanted to hear it make. He set up the commission to undermine Alec Salmon’s ‘conversation for Scotland ’. Brown has constantly described the UK as “a union of nations and regions’, with Wales and his own Scotland as the nations and the regions being the very artificial ‘regions’ of England constructed by Brussels. Brown being that sort of Scot has no feeling for England’s distinct history and culture
The CEP has warmly welcomed this statement of the Commission. As the devolution debate takes the Union into new constitutional territory, it is pleased that a Government Commission has formally acknowledged the distinct national identity of England. “A single political identity” is the first and most essential requirement for one's own institution of government.
Michael Knowles CEP Media Unit
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
No written constitution or any other major constitutional changes should be seriously discussed until the people of the United Kingdom have been given a chance by referendum to decide whether they want to stay in or come out of the European Union because that is fundamental to any decisions we have to make, and it effects the very existence of the nation state.
Thursday 18 June 2009
Can we trust David Cameron or any of them?
When the MPs expenses scandal exploded onto the scene David Cameron was the first to step up and condemn those MPs of his own party, and quite rightly he is doing what he said he would and those involved are being asked or are volunteering to stand down at the next election. This is what the Tory faithful would expect their leader to do and he should be congratulated for meeting their expectations, but what about us and the rest of the proletariat, how should we view it.
David Cameron is asking Gordon Brown to call a general election, but how can this be a genuine call when he has it in his own hands to force one himself and he is refusing to take it? He could rid his party and parliament of the people said to be bringing it into disrepute right now, which would force the general election he wants because the list is so long, instead he will be using them like Gordon Brown is going to do, to bring in constitutional changes that could be detrimental to us English who are being made to pay their wages for another 12 months, and hoping in that time he gets out of his promise of holding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty as Ireland is expected ratify it in November. To add an insult to our intelligence the respected Times newspaper reported yesterday that when the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, David Cameron will give Tony Blair a free run for the EU presidency.
To his credit David Cameron is trying to form a new grouping in the EU to challenge its policies, but make no mistake, none of the main political parties want to come out of Europe even though its present policy (the one he will try to change) demands the break up of the United Kingdom.
Everyone should consider this and the ramifications for England and the English if England is not given its own parliament in the envisaged constitutional changes due to take place.
We can’t look to Nick Clegg and his Liberals either, they were quick to state some time ago in support of Gordon Brown that they would not support a referendum on Lisbon, but said they would support the one we all want, a referendum on stopping in or pulling out of the EU. Why were they not beating the drum during the recent EU elections when they could possibly have gained an advantage in the polls, they didn’t because like the rest of the main British parties its all a pack of lies, they say it but don’t mean it when it comes to the EU.
We have had two reports presented in the last few days on the effects of devolution, one from the Calman Commission and one from the Justice Committee (Devolution a Decade on); both are very important documents that the Campaign for an English Parliament made submissions too and need serious discussion. How can this take place and how can any written or other constitutional changes be made by this parliament while it contains the stigma of a said dishonest fraternity of fraudsters and fiddlers from across all parties, and how can any written constitution be seriously discussed until the people of the United Kingdom have been given a chance by referendum to decide whether they want to stay in or come out of the European Union, because that is fundamental to any decisions that have to be made, as it effects the very existence of the nation state itself.
Our parliament, once full of honest, honourable and patriotic men and women is now full of people who dishonour their titles and dishonour us the people who have put our trust in them.
If the MPs caught with their fingers in the till wanted to redeem themselves and help to save the Union they should get together and sacrifice their MP status now and force a general election. Honourable people and true Unionists would do just that of course, but how could we ever expect these people to do it.
Cicero Marcus Tullius, born on 3 January, 106 BC and murdered on 7 December, 43 BC:
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”
In or out of the European Union the ‘Campaign for an English Parliament’ demands that the British recognise the political identity of our country England by giving it its own English parliament, on terms equal to those given to the country of Scotland.
John Stanhope CEP West Midlands
David Cameron is asking Gordon Brown to call a general election, but how can this be a genuine call when he has it in his own hands to force one himself and he is refusing to take it? He could rid his party and parliament of the people said to be bringing it into disrepute right now, which would force the general election he wants because the list is so long, instead he will be using them like Gordon Brown is going to do, to bring in constitutional changes that could be detrimental to us English who are being made to pay their wages for another 12 months, and hoping in that time he gets out of his promise of holding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty as Ireland is expected ratify it in November. To add an insult to our intelligence the respected Times newspaper reported yesterday that when the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, David Cameron will give Tony Blair a free run for the EU presidency.
To his credit David Cameron is trying to form a new grouping in the EU to challenge its policies, but make no mistake, none of the main political parties want to come out of Europe even though its present policy (the one he will try to change) demands the break up of the United Kingdom.
Everyone should consider this and the ramifications for England and the English if England is not given its own parliament in the envisaged constitutional changes due to take place.
We can’t look to Nick Clegg and his Liberals either, they were quick to state some time ago in support of Gordon Brown that they would not support a referendum on Lisbon, but said they would support the one we all want, a referendum on stopping in or pulling out of the EU. Why were they not beating the drum during the recent EU elections when they could possibly have gained an advantage in the polls, they didn’t because like the rest of the main British parties its all a pack of lies, they say it but don’t mean it when it comes to the EU.
We have had two reports presented in the last few days on the effects of devolution, one from the Calman Commission and one from the Justice Committee (Devolution a Decade on); both are very important documents that the Campaign for an English Parliament made submissions too and need serious discussion. How can this take place and how can any written or other constitutional changes be made by this parliament while it contains the stigma of a said dishonest fraternity of fraudsters and fiddlers from across all parties, and how can any written constitution be seriously discussed until the people of the United Kingdom have been given a chance by referendum to decide whether they want to stay in or come out of the European Union, because that is fundamental to any decisions that have to be made, as it effects the very existence of the nation state itself.
Our parliament, once full of honest, honourable and patriotic men and women is now full of people who dishonour their titles and dishonour us the people who have put our trust in them.
If the MPs caught with their fingers in the till wanted to redeem themselves and help to save the Union they should get together and sacrifice their MP status now and force a general election. Honourable people and true Unionists would do just that of course, but how could we ever expect these people to do it.
Cicero Marcus Tullius, born on 3 January, 106 BC and murdered on 7 December, 43 BC:
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”
In or out of the European Union the ‘Campaign for an English Parliament’ demands that the British recognise the political identity of our country England by giving it its own English parliament, on terms equal to those given to the country of Scotland.
John Stanhope CEP West Midlands
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
