Total Visits

Sunday, 19 October 2014

The English do not want England divided up to suit politicians

Daily Telegraph reports on IPPR findings

The Brit/Scot Telegraph journalist Iain Martin writes below about a key finding of the IPPR report. Here is the link to that report >>>

This finding is that there is virtually NO popular or democratic demand from the English People for any form of devolution which involves the break up of England.

There is however a clear agenda from the British Establishment, as well as from the EU, which calls for England to be Regionalised. Fortunately for the English nation they can't agree on the details!

The purpose of the Establishment agenda is clear as Charles Kennedy let slip when he said, while he was Leader of the Liberal Democrats back in 1999, that he supported Regionalisation because "in England Regionalisation is calling into question the idea of England itself".

As English Nationalists the real question about the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is:- Should we accept that England must be broken up to allow the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish to feel comfortable and unthreatened by alleged English dominance?

An example of this thinking is what Jack Straw said when he described the English as "potentially very aggressive, very violent" and also claimed "that the English had used their "propensity to violence to subjugate Ireland, Wales and Scotland".

OR should we, as English Nationalists, loudly, forcefully and uncompromisingly say that we would prefer the UK to be broken up rather than allow England to be broken up?

I know where I stand on this issue. United England first, second and third! Where do you stand?

Here is Iain Martin's article:-

The English do not want England divided up to suit politicians

By Iain Martin

While Gordon Brown was burbling on in the Commons yesterday about the constitution, and in his usual fashion taking no responsibility whatsoever for the mess he helped cause, a fascinating report was being discussed elsewhere.

The Future of England Survey was produced by constitutional specialists and is based on in-depth polling on attitudes.

It is worth reading it in its entirety, particularly now that all manner of schemes are being suggested by politicians for the creation of regional government in England in the wake of the Scottish referendum. Whatever the merits of such proposals, and the need for some larger cities to be given the powers that booming London enjoys, the report makes clear that there is almost no enthusiasm on the part of English voters for the country being divided up into regional assemblies.

It looks as though English voters grasp what Gordon Brown and some of his Labour colleagues cannot. England is a country. Even with regional government – which isn't going to happen – there would still be English laws on justice, education health and so on, which voters understandably do not see as the business of MPs sent by the Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish.

The option which attracts most support, which avoids the creation of a new and expensive English parliament, is some form of English votes for English laws in the Commons.
As one of he authors of the report, Professor Charlie Jeffrey of Edinburgh University, puts it:
"People in England are not just reacting against their ‘others’ in Scotland and the EU. They are also searching more positively for an institutional recognition of England that can express their concerns better than the current political system, which submerges the representation of England within the wider UK’s institutions in Westminster and Whitehall. From the various alternatives, the most preferred one is – as David Cameron now seems to have recognised – English votes on English laws in the House of Commons."

With some compromise by all parties at Westminster, with new protocols and cooperation with the devolved assemblies and the Scottish parliament, such an arrangement is perfectly workable, as I explained here.

The risk now for Labour, as it bizarrely allows its position to be dictated by Brown and the other Scots who spoke so loudly in the Commons yesterday against English votes for English laws, is that it ignores a critically important development. That is the emergence of a distinct English identity requiring constitutional recognition. If the party continues down this path – with the direction dictated by Scots – it is not inconceivable that in time it could come to be seen as innately anti-English. Some Labour MPs in England see the danger, even if the party leadership does not.

A more self-confident UK Labour party would recognise the English demand for fairness in a new constitutional settlement, accept English only votes in the Commons and set about winning a majority of seats in England again.


  1. The conclusion of the IPPR report is that Ukip (in spite of its name and its policies) is seen de facto as the English nationalist party by English voters. Perhaps, the English Democrats should approach Ukip with merger proposals for them to combine as the 'English People's Party' (EPP). It is clear that while the strength of the argument lies with the English Democrats, the momentum, numbers and money are with Ukip.

    1. Farage will probably not like the idea and he is also a full-on multiculturalist. Perhaps because he is of Hugenot descent and a scion of the City of London, he appears to have no real feeling for the Anglo-Saxon heritage which is so essential to our identity. He will not even talk to Geert Wilders or Marine Le Pen and would probably avoid the Danish People's Party as well with its pledge to preserve Denmark's historic national identity. As you know I support the name the English People's Party but the English people are largely those whose ancestry goes back a thousand years or more. This will not be attractive to Farage who likes to be shown surrounded by faces from Afro-asia rather than those of the Anglo-Saxons. The English People's Party recalls the Venerable Bede's "A history of the English Church and People" i.e a Christian Anglo-saxon people not the colonising millions of the last 60 years from beyond Europe's shores.

  2. EVEL is better than nothing, but only a full English parliament and independence for England will do in the long term.

  3. It is just a couple or more decades since the English knew who they were and thought of themselves as English, from Berwick on Tweed to Barnstaple and from Carlisle to Canterbury. But mass immigration has now so fragmented the country and separated us the one from the other that we are losing a sense of affinity with one another. This has been deliberate and has paved the way for regionalisation. After all, no Englishman in the hinterland has any affinity any longer with London. Even the BBC has admitted that it is no longer in England.
    As house prices there have now been so inflated that you need to earn £100,000 a year to own anything more and more native English will leave and more and more money laundering foreigners or asylum seekers will fill the void. Hopefully, they will fall flat on their faces it they attempt regional assemblies as they did in the north east but they are now so adept at manipulating and brainwashing the English, as they would with an EU referendum and did the EEC referendum that anything is possible. United we stand, divided we fall, what is left of us.

    Meanwhile, Italy is at boiling point with a massive demonstration yesterday in Milan against what they are calling an invasion. Having destroyed Libya, Syria and large areas of the Middle East the New World Order is on part two of their plan to flood Europe with the ensuing thousands of asylum seekers. They are landing in Italy if they do not drown first. But to prevent this happening the Italians are sailing out to rescue them from their sinking hulks and make sure they are given from the bankrupt Italian state what the natives are not getting.
    This is an invasion that began in Europe 60 years ago and shows no sign of stopping until indigenous Europe is gone. One placard said No alle mosche. No to mosques.

    The infintely sensible Ron Paul with his institute for peace and prosperity was speaking on the Larry King show on RT the other evening. All his interviewers seem to love him as he just says the common sense things that we are all thinking. He is for a peaceful multipolar world in which trade and peace will prevail but is up against the "war party" in Washington and in Westminster. Of Hillary Clinton he says she will just do the same, constant wars to benefit the Fed which Paul wants to abolish.

    Anyhow, one interesting thing that emerged was that Paul is an adamant supporter of secession and for pieces of countries to break away when their freedom has been removed by totalitarian central government of the sort practised now by the US and the EU thanks to the bankers' New World Order. He was behind Scottish independence and probably would support English independence as well. Time to talk to him and get him over Robin. He believes the Ukraine should split, the Kurds should have their Kurdistan and that states should be able to secede from the Union in America. A very bright chap, a doctor, a Texan and a libertarian, he would have been opposed to Abraham Lincoln for the southern states could already see what was coming in America, the precursor of what they have today. These people now control the United Nations to the benefit of Israel which is never ever censured. As a libertarian he believes in the American constitution which these people have perverted or abandoned for their own ends. So freedom is in the air and we do not want to be just regions of what is truly becoming the European Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; a marxist monster with no democratic identity and controlled by the rich 1% bent on the total destruction of thousands of years of European identity and our hitherto homogeneous homelands. The revolution is coming, it is just a matter of when.

  4. EVEL is about as much use as a chocolate teapot! As I understand it ,only Scots are to be excluded, so Welsh and Irish will continue to vote on English matters and the so-called "English" M.P.s are merely British M.P.s sitting for English constituencies. A significant number of these are Scottish or Welsh, (27 that I know about.)
    So, the debate is about whether to build half a dozen new nuclear power stations in "Britain" to reduce our dependence on imported energy. Planning is a devolved matter so they would not receive planning permission to be built in Scotland. So these eysores would have to be built in England - in the Peak District, the Yorkshire Dales and other such sparsely populated places. It's time to vote. The Scottish M.P.s repair to the bar and the "English" M.P.s left behind repair to the lobbies. They all vote "Yes", because they don't give a tinker's cuss about England; these power station monstrosites will be "good for Britain".
    So, No! EVEL is not better than nothing. It's neither better nor worse. The British agenda will prevail, regardless. An English Parliament and First Minister is the minimum requirement.
    Cameron talked about "fair and balanced". HA! He also talked about "time for millions of English voices to be heard". HA! "Fair and balanced" means the same deal for England as for Scotland or it doesn't mean Jack.

    1. The French have been lecturing the Germans on getting rid of their nuclear power stations and relying on green energy more and more. This is more expensive to produce and the profits of the two major German energy companies have plumeted.
      As for the French, I heard their nuclear power plants were leaking into the Rhone. I am not suggesting we want nuclear everywhere; I would prefer the green variety but based on tidal rather than wind power. As for Scotland they are going to have more and more hydro-electricity and tidal plants. Have just read that Askrigg in Wensleydale got their electricity from the Ure with a millwheel in the 1930s. Why aren't more places doing that?

      Of course computerisation is meant to save the trees through getting rid of paper - Finland is in a mess because of this and Russian sanctions - but we are using twice as much electricity.
      Don't believe a word that Cameron says. As for his spat with Barroso it is all for show and to win the election from UKIP.
      After the election he won't keep a single promise he has made.
      The Tories will never stop immigration either as the housebuilders are major contributors to their party funds and they want a permanent housing shortage.

    2. The other day, the amount of electricity generated by wind turbines in this country overtook the amount generated by nuclear. Admittedly the circumstances where special, but it shows how things could be. As it is we will be taxed to the hilt to pay the French and the Chinese to build nuclear power stations here. The Germans are no fools.

    3. My reference to nuclear power stations was an hypothetical scenario to illustrate how so-called "English" M.P.s would behave if called upon to vote on a supposedly "English" issue. They would vote in favour because they are NOT English, but British. Hey-ho!

  5. I've spoken to a lot of UKIP supporters and their views are little different to ours and many want an English Parliament. Even Green Party members want an English Parliament so its hardly a left right issue.

    if EDP and UKIP could work together and form electoral pacts we could defeat lib lab con sooner. They are the parties of the past. apparently in Scotland the SNP are tipped to gain at least twenty seats from Labour. The SNP are now on 40% Scot Labour 19% and Scot Con 20% for Westminster. What a reversal for Scot Labour.


    1. The point is that while Ukip supporters want an English parliament, they are having the wool pulled over their eyes by Farage and the Ukip hierachy.
      English independence and an English parliament cannot be separated, but you won't hear Farage saying that.. There is only one party saying it, and that party is the English Democrats.
      The only way that Ukip and the EDs could work together would be if Ukip dropped 'UK' from their party name, and campaigned for English independence from the UK as well as from the EU..

    2. Joining with UKIP would mean agreeing to the privatisation of the health service and what countryside that isn't covered in high speed rail links, houses, roads to cope with the permanent immigrant invasion being obliterated through fracking.
      However, the oil price scam has now been blown. All these oil wars are to boost the price of fracked American and Saudi oil.
      The Saudis buy the arms from the US and us, the Americans get cheap oil and the money all pours into the New York banking cartel and the City of London. They are fighting in the Ukraine to cut off Russian supplies but their sanctions have meant that the rouble has dropped and Russian oil is cheap - ha ha ha. But now oil is so cheap that the American frackers face not making any money at all - ha ha ha. Neither would ours then so stop the madness now.

      Plus UKIP refuses to work together with the anti-EU and anti-immigration parties on the Continent. There is strength in numbers. UKIP will probably say they are not opposed to multiculturalism and European extinction as most parties of the "far right" are but that does not accord with the views of the majority of UKIP supporters I have spoken to. Time to stop pretending; nobody wants England to have a non-English and probably non-white and muslim majority. I feel very sorry for all the immigrants that have been invited or allowed into Europe and North America and elsewhere in the hithero white world by those who wanted to use cheap labour or for reasons of international socialism or to destroy homogeneous white nations for reasons of personal profit and worldwide hegemony or flawed political ideology. But the hitherto white Christian world is now at the tipping point of extinction and most Europeans have now come to realise this. On the Continent they will go out and demonstrate but here in our English way we are too afraid and are very easily cowed. However, if this were happening in the non-white world - well it would never have got to this, there would have been mass slaughter.

    3. I fear my lengthy comment may have not got through so here are the key points:

      The City of London is now the world-wide centre for money laundering and international crime thanks to deregulation.
      Cameron, Osborne et al all have their snouts in the trough that is the City's corrupt and fraudulent cesspit. I am ashamed even though innocent of all blame.

      Peter Tatchell is appalled at the immigrants climbing the fences in Spanish Morroco being pulled down as they try to storm the EU. All down to the "far right" influencing immigration policy in Europe says Peter. Does he realise that Britain's population has increased by 4m in ten years with no end in sight. 90m by 2066. Plus the best of luck in the future islamic state Peter.

      Occupy Democracy has been booted out of Parliament Square by the government's Stasi police in our post-democratic age. Ironic that they were demonstrating against our corrupt politicians in Westminster.

    4. Oligarchs from Russia, China, the Ukraine and other places are buying up properties in London for tens of millions of pounds and leaving them empty. Cameron tells us that these are just the kind of people we want here. It is increasingly dificult to identify London as an English city, but the nightmare of being swamped everywhere is coming ever closer.
      The Tories have been even worse at stopping the tide than the Labour party was. It is almost as if the Tories' heart is not in it, and that Cameron is simply posturing.

    5. Posturing is what he does best

  6. It is quite clear what is the strategy of all Westminster Parties apart from the Tories and now Ukip : they are desperate to Balkanise England. EVELs will not work for practical reasons but it is probably necessary for it to be tried and failed before the only honest constitutional solution - an English Parliament - is accepted by the Tories.
    The danger is that the next Parliament will result in either a Labour majority because of the scandalous way constituency sizes are weighted to favour Labour and the fact that the Labour vote is more concentrated than that of other parties or much more probably a motley coalition between Labour, the LibDems, Greens and most poisonously the SNP, who could well return 20-30 MPs to the Commons.

    We could find after the general election that a Labour or a Labour led coalition would not only deny England EVEL, but would enforce some form a devolution upon England, most probably by devolving significant powers to greater metropolitan areas such as Greater Manchester .This increase in the complexity of powers in England would emasculate any future attempt at EVEL and by leaving as little as possible of English administration at the Westminster level would make an English parliament an ever more remote possibility.

    1. EVEL is a joke. It is intended to deprive the English of their own parliament. The Tories want an English parliament to be a remote possibility.
      RH156RH, Why are you so soft on the anti-English Tory and Ukip parties?