Total Visits

Tuesday, 14 October 2014

Tuesday 14th October:- Super Tuesday for English Question? IPPR Report on Rising English Nationalism and the Conservatives launch their EVEL plans!

Tuesday 14th October:- Super Tuesday for English Question? IPPR Report on Rising English Nationalism and the Conservatives launch their EVEL plans!

All English Democrats will be interested by the Report of the IPPR:- "Taking England Seriously: The New English Politics", to be published on Tuesday, 14th October. The Report shows significant English demand for:- an English Parliament; "EVEL" (English Votes for English Laws), answering the "English Question"; English Independence; and ending the "Barnett Formula". 

The Institute for Public Policy Research research results show that in mid April 54% of the English wanted an English Parliament and 15% supported English Independence. 

Also on Tuesday, at last, a section of the British Political Establishment, which for the last 15 years has been all too happy to see English concerns about England’s rights dismissed, is coming out with a proposal which at least seeks to partly address the democratic representational part of the "English Question". 

The English Democrats welcome the Conservative’s English repositioning as "Sinners come to repentance". We see EVEL as only the start of a political Dutch auction. EVEL, in itself, is only a very little move which constitutionally speaking is unlikely to work very well. Significantly it only starts to answer the least important part (representation) of the English question because it does nothing about providing an English First Minister or Government for all the English only departments which are currently controlled exclusively from the British legislature at Westminster.

The IPPR Report shows the need for the British Establishment to take the "English Question" seriously but their polling was done in mid-April. More up to date polling now needs to be done since the tide of English public opinion has moved on. This is partly in response to witnessing the exploitive, anti-English and self-centred tone of the Scottish Referendum.

An example of this movement is that The Sun on Sunday recently published an ICM poll done in England for The Campaign for an English Parliament which showed 65% for an English Parliament and 40% for English Independence. Even that polling was done before the Scottish 'Vows' by the LibLabCon trio!

A still more recent unscientific poll shows 44% (nearly 10,000 respondents) for English Independence:-

This more recent polling evidence suggests that English support for English Independence may already represent a greater proportion of the whole electorate than the referendum support for Independence in Scotland!

The "United Kingdom" is now therefore at a critical turning point; akin perhaps to the Gladstone Home Rule moment, when Tory intransigence then doomed the long term integrity of the Union. If England is not going to be treated fairly in getting a substantial measure of national home rule, when Scotland gets total Home Rule, then English demand for Independence from the UK will continue to rise.

Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “I welcome the evidence of the Institute for Public Policy that there has been a significant continuing increase in English Nationalism. England is increasingly responding to our calls for English Home Rule. We have also long called for the end of the discriminatory Barnett Formula. English taxpayers’ money should only be used fairly for the needs of our People. If the IPPR’s research had been conducted more recently they would have found even greater growth in English Nationalism.” 

Robin Tilbrook also said:- “I also welcome the fact that even a politician as hostile to English national feelings, as Dave Donald Cameron, who infamously said previously he would not even encourage English people to celebrate St George’s Day since he wanted to be the “Prime Minister of Great Britain and not just England” and who said he would “fight the little Englanders wherever he found them”; Even he has nevertheless been driven by however unworthy motives of political careerism to partially address the English Question.” 

Robin, who is a senior litigation Solicitor with extensive experience of Constitutional Law, continued:- “The English Democrats are confident that, as a solution, English votes for English laws will not work for the reasons set out below in the Annex to this press release, nevertheless David Cameron’s and his Conservative's move will start a dynamic process in which we hope that the British Establishment’s united hostility to England and their attempts to break England up into “Regions” will be ultimately dissolved.”

“David Cameron is a spinner not a conviction politician and his interest in making this move is entirely as part of the political chess game within the Westminster elite.” 

“David Cameron has done this not because he has any genuine conviction about the need to improve English democracy, but as a canny chess move to put Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg into political check. The legislative process will require their Parties to either come out in favour of this move which will damage their Party position in the House of Commons or to oppose it and thus risking a significant political backlash from the 60.4% or 32 million adults in England that identified themselves in the 2011 Census as being English only and not British.”

Robin Tilbrook
The English Democrats
FaceBook Profile:
Party Tel: 0207 242 1066
Twitter: @ RobinTilbrook
Party Website:
English Democrats' FB Page:!/
Chairman's FB
Key facts about the English Democrats
The English Democrats launched in 2002.
The English Democrats are the English nationalist Party. We campaign for a referendum for Independence for England; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for the Cross of St George to be flown on all public buildings in England; and we support a YES vote for Scottish Independence.
The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru. The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include:- in the 2004 EU election we had 130,056 votes; winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council in 2009 and also the 2012 referendum; in the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000; we won the 2012 referendum which gave Salford City an Elected Mayor; in 2012 we also saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; and in the 2014 EU election we had 126,024 votes for a total campaign spend of about £40,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK).


English Votes for English Laws (“EVEL”) is a Westminster focussed political gimmick not a constitutionally valid solution to the “English Question” and cannot work for the following reasons:- 

1. If EVEL is introduced without legislation it would probably be merely a procedural Convention, without the force of law. It is much easier for politicians to change Conventions than to repeal Acts of Parliament. 

2. EVEL does not address who governs England (The English Question) and would lead to a situation whereby a non-English Minister could propose legislation but be unable to speak or vote in support of it. The Prime Minister (“PM”) appoints Ministers for English Departments. These appointees may be, and have been, from parts of the UK that are devolved and such Ministers are thus unaccountable to those whom their policies and actions affect. Similarly a PM can, and has had, control of all English matters even though they do not affect his own constituents. 

3. EVEL does not address the issue of who scrutinises and revises laws for England. Uniquely in the UK it is only English domestic law that is passed to the House of Lords, many of the members of which are not from England. 

4. (As in 1964) EVEL will create problems if a government is elected without a majority in England, in any such case the UK government would find it very difficult to pass legislation on matters that only affect England and would be impelled to break the EVEL Convention. 

5. EVEL will not provide a voice for England either with regard to “Reserved matters” concerning, for instance, the distribution within the UK of Treasury funds nor in international fora such as the British/Irish Council or the EU. In contrast, each of the devolved administrations has both UK Secretaries of State and also Ministers within the devolved Executives to champion the interests of their citizens in these meetings and to influence the outcomes in their own countries’ favour. 

6. All Members of Parliament (“MPs”) at Westminster should be elected equally across the UK to represent their constituents in the UK Parliament. EVEL will create two classes of MPs in Westminster. However since devolution Westminster MPs do not equally represent their constituents in all matters as they should do. There are now two categories of MP with reference to devolved matters; accountable and unaccountable. Some are accountable to the electorate that voted for them in all matters and some are not, namely those that..


  1. Robin

    This is good news but I think we are going to have to use the Equality Act 2010 to force the government to deliver an English Parliament. With 45% of English now supporting independence we can see change


  2. This EVIL (sorry! EVEL) thing just won't do. For a start, these people sit in what the 1707 Act of Union refers to as "the British Parliament". So there is no such thing as an English M.P. because there is no English Parliament. They are British M.P.s. sitting for English constituencies, in the British Parliament.
    Then, there's the Scots ( 22 that I know about) and the Welsh (at least 5) M.P.s who sit for English constituencies. Their votes could hardly be described as "English".
    And then, there's the Welsh and Northern Irish M.P.s (sitting for Welsh and Northern Irish constituencies,) who will continue to be permitted to vote on English matters. (It seems that only Scottish M.P.s are to be excluded.)
    There are also several M.P.s whose ancestry isn't even British, let alone English, but who sit for English constituencies.
    The issue is simply that these people are all Brits. "No man can serve two masters;" we are told in the Good Book. He cannot serve "Britain" AND England. These so-called "English" M.P.s will ALWAYS put the interests of "Britain" ahead of those of England.
    If EVEL is a step in the right direction, it is minuscule. Hopefully, our apathetic comatriots will wake up to this sooner, rather than later.

    1. Clive, you have made an interesting point about divided loyalties. Apparently a member of parliament has stood down from his position as special aide to a minister because he was going to vote "no" in the recent non-binding vote about recognizing Palestine as a nation state. The reason he gave was that he had a large number of Jews in his contsituency.
      Are they Israelis or are they British? The recent battles between Kurds and the Islamic State in Hamburg have shown what really happens with diversity. As regards Israel, if the rest of the EU follows us and Sweden and Israel feels cornered then they might yet resort to the Samson option which they have mooted. If they think they are going down then they will take the rest of the world with them!! More psychopaths I'm afraid.

      As soon as I read the achronym Evel then I, too, thought of Evil.
      Robin has very accurately described Mr Cameron who was absent from the recent vote as he is an avowed Zionist. What I fail to understand is how the entire cabinet abstained, surely half of them were Liberal Democrats? Are they all Zionists or are they under the Zionist pressure coming from Mr Cameron? I would be interested to know how Mr Milliband voted?

      And I would be interested to know how Tony Blair voted as I remember him being interviewed about Gaza and four times he refused to answer who he thought was to blame. He gave the impression that he was not a genuine peace envoy - he barely dares to go there - but Tel Aviv's man and of course he is receiving money from Goldman Sachs Bank as an advisor.

      Mr Blair is undoubtedly now, being a billionaire, one of the one per cent who own 48% of the world's wealth, the totalitarian Marxist oligarchy. But so must also be Messrs Cameron, Clegg and and Osborne. The UK has now the greatest increase in the gap between rich and poor in the world.

      As for poor old Tony, apparently somebody, now undergoing a secret trial ( why?), has finally caught up with him and Cherie.
      I would like to say to GCHQ - who now watch us more than the NSA watches everybody that it was nothing to do with me.

      Tony's response seems to have been to decry extremism and call for respect. He seems to ignore the fact that his illegal war in Iraq has led to the massive growth in islamic extremism and the emergence of the Islamic State with the help of the 1%.

      But as far as extremism is concerned, what can be more extreme than the planned genocide of an indigenous people, the English and then to ensure that they are not able to defend themselves via the UN by moving the goalposts. If you want to see an extremist then look in the mirror, Mr Blair, as you are one of the oligarchy aiming at world financial and political hegemony - brown shirted fascism whether it calls itself the New World Order or the Marxist International and with the simple aim of European genocide for your own financial gain, for reasons of personal power being a psychopath through and through and relying on Marxist fascism whilst trying to claim it is socialism. But then if you are a socialist, Tony, then so was Louis the 16th. Actually, I should imagine you rather see yourself as another Sun King.

  3. (a bit of a "p.s." )One of the (many) problems with the Westminster elite is that they cannot see past the ends of their elite little noses! They cannot envisage government of this country without their 650-strong elite club, with its 850-strong next-door-neighbour. With fifteen hundred Commons and Lords we have about fifteen times as many central government politicians per head of population than the U.S.A., yet the standard objection to an English Parliament is that there would be another teir of politicians. Yes there would. That was the case when the Scottish and Welsh ones were set up. (But that was all right!)
    What they can't face up to is that with a proper devolution settlement for England - a Parliament and First Minister - Westminster would need to be trimmed right down, or may even become an irrelevance and be scrapped altogether. (Marvellous!)

  4. Most significant is the poll showing 44% in favour of English independence, which is amazing given that most people do not even know that there is a party, i.e., the English Democrats, which is caling for just that. This is the big stick for the EDs to use against anti-English/pro-UK (the clue is in the name) Ukip.

  5. Hi folks,

    My post is quite long, so because there are character limitations on posts I will post then reply as a way of getting it all in so it’s coherent and hopefully understandable. Hope it works. It might take a while for you to see the full post. There are two parts.

    Seeing as though there are some astute posters here I have some issues I would like to throw out there in the hope that somebody could clear a few things up for me. I wouldn't say they are off topic as they have obvious implications for an English parliament and the realistic power it would harbour.

    As we all know the media (TV/radio) and the internet create an Orwellian cesspit of confusion, so it's hard to make your mind up about certain issues given the selected nuggets of information we are fed.

    The first thing I would like to bring up is the implementation of the Lisbon treaty, which kicks in on the 1st November 2014. Like a lot of important issues at the moment there seems to be a media blackout, so I have found it hard to find somebody who will engage in a conversation—probably because they don't know anything about it, due to the blackout, more than wilful ignorance, I suspect.

    Now, with Lisbon coming into effect does it mean that national governments are effectively obsolete? I've looked on the official EU website today and I can't find the page that outlines the proposals—it seems to have been removed for some reason. Never mind, eh.

    Anyway, I’ve saved a link to a blog stating the areas that will be affected.

    They are:
    Initiatives of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Administrative co-operation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Asylum – Nice: QMV; Lisbon: QMV
    Border controls – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Citizens’ initiative regulations – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Civil protection – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Committee of the Regions – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Common defence policy – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Crime prevention incentives – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Criminal judicial co-operation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Criminal law – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Culture – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Diplomatic & Consular protection – Nice: Unanimity Lisbon: QMV
    Economic & Social Committee – Nice: QMV Lisbon: QMV
    Emergency international aid – Nice: Unanimity Lisbon: QMV
    Energy – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    EU budget – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Eurojust – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    European Central Bank – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    European Court of Justice – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Europol – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Eurozone external representation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Foreign Affairs High Representative election – Lisbon: QMV
    Freedom of movement for workers – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Freedom to establish a business – Nice: Unanimity Lisbon QMV
    Freedom, security, justice, co-operation & evaluation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Funding the Common Foreign & Security Policy – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    General economic interest services – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Humanitarian aid – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Immigration – Nice: QMV; Lisbon: QMV
    Intellectual property – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Organisation of the Council of the EU – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Police co-operation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    President of the European Council election – Lisbon: QMV
    Response to natural disasters & terrorism – Lisbon: QMV
    Rules concerning the Armaments Agency – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Self-employment access rights – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Social Security Unanimity – Nice: QMV; Lisbon: QMV
    Space – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Sport – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Structural & Cohension Funds – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Tourism – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Transport – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
    Withdrawal of a member state – Lisbon: QMV

    1. ...Hmm, that’s a lot, but there are some exemptions, like, taxation and national security, which will not be covered by qualified majority voting. Listing these areas, does it mean that any proposals our political parties promise relating to these issues are essentially lies and/or disingenuous musings? With a general election next year I suspect they will be offering us the Sun, Moon and Stars. For this reason should people be selecting who they vote for next year purely on just their tax and security policies? Am I correct in thinking that policy areas where Veto is removed are areas where the government has no influence anymore and that power has essentially been lost? Will the government just be implementers of EU policy from November? The way I see it, is, they can offer but they can’t deliver, unless it is voted through by the EU parliament. Will they state this when they make their election pledges? I think I know the answer to that one.

      I’ve looked on the EU website this morning and even taxation is up for debate (please see link below. I've removed the http:// as some sites do not allow URLs)

      Now, as we know, Mr Farage and Mr Dave are promising a referendum on EU membership. They will quote article 50, but this also comes under QMV already. Sure, they can hold their referendums, but does it mean anything? If the application is voted down by the other member states, under QMV, we will be going nowhere. Is that correct? Is what Dave and Nige saying, just disingenuous fluff? I suppose, in their eyes, they can still deliver a vote to the British electorate thus keeping their end of the bargain, but it will essentially mean nothing. Shouldn’t they be pointing this out to people? Aren’t they being a bit slippery and dishonest?

      I would have thought that the expansion of QMV and the reduction of Westminster’s powers would be jumped on by UKIP and shouted from the rooftops. But, for me, to point out QMV for these new areas would also point out QMV for article 50 and hence expose UKIPs slightly nebulous withdrawal proposals. Hmmm, I don't think they are being entirely honest with everybody.

      Now, my next issue—another media blackout— is the 'Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership' or TTIP between the EU and the USA. Joining the Lisbon treaty (i.e loss on sovereign power) up with the TTIP we’ll have all these nice new directives imposed on us via the EU and there is nothing we can do about it. I have managed to find a few articles about this but essentially negotiations are being held in secret. Here are some links with http removed again:

      The Guardian states, that this will be a, ‘full frontal assault on democracy.’ I noted that the little information available is through the left wing press. There is nothing from the right. I'm always suspicious of gaining information from one side of the political divide; I find it gives you a slightly corrupted world view.

      …Although the silence from the right is deafening it has to be said.


  6. Very pleased to see Robin on Russia Today talking about this issue.
    Cameron is now in a bit of a hole as he is toning down his promises to the Scots for more devolution in order to appease the English and other constituent nations of the United Kingdom. So the Scots are upset and the English clamouring for redress. Cameron is just trying to keep everbody happy until the next election. But nobody should believe a word he says, anymore than that of Milliband, Clegg or hitherto Blair.
    Have discovered that Milliband did vote to recognize Palestine but did not turn up to speak. With 80% of his party voting for it he could hardly do otherwise or lose his position as leader. I am sure that his Friends of Israel know his true feelings. By the way I have just learned that he is another multi-millionaire Socialist. I thought his father was a lecturer.
    Or are they just taking the money from the New World Order? According to George Barda, who is leading the demonstrations against the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Project in Parliament Square, the mps are all in the pockets and the banks and big corporations as all EU politicians. Hence the secret discussions over TTIP.

    On that point, here is another stick to beat UKIP with; although they are opposed to TTIP but only because it is coming out of the EU, they are all for the full scale privatisation of the NHS in their true Tory fashion.
    I wonder how many of those ex-labour voters who switched to UKIP know this. Time for the EDs to come out and say that the NHS will be safe in our hands and not sold off to American healthcare companies.

    And here's another way we must be shown to differ from UKIP, they are 100% for fracking which will destroy the country completely, what is left of it. Apparently, Middle England is dropping the Tories because of the government's policy on fracking and the EDs must make plain that switching to UKIP will not make a scrap of difference.

    Have just heard a journalist speaking who was with the Syrian rebels for two years. He said that 90% of them want an islamic state so the secular state of Assad will be ditched for sharia. What will happen to the Christians and the Kurds - the latter have a moderate form of Islam?
    As it is the Shia, Assad, Iran and Hezbullah and stopping the Christians being massacred by the sunnis or forced to convert. And the "West" is backing them. Still the Oligarchy wants Chrisianity gone from Europe and North America as well. There are 7m muslims in America and their population is increasing very rapidly. When they are established they have vowed to influence American foreign policy. So what of the Zionist lobby? It seems that White Christian Europe and North America as was will soon be a continuation of the battleground that is the Middle East where Zionism is aiming to have total control over the muslim nations are reduce them to rubble. There are 8m muslims in France who will probably double in a generation to 20% of the French population. Civil War there is already feared so that those who attack islam are given the harshest of prison sentences. A bloody conflict between Europeans and those who have been brought in to dislodge them is now inevitable.
    Either England stands or it will be gone forever. Their aim of destroying the homogeneous nations of Europe is now totally obvious.

    Meanwhile, the Americans are panicking about ebola. Isn't this strange that this has suddenly appeared in mineral rich West Africa as the benovlent Chinese seek to join with the Africans over such issues and sending the plundering Americans and City of London packing?
    America's answer to stop ebola there is to send in more and more troops, probably establishing bases, not to help the Africans but to secure the minerals for the New World Order. And the more they get the Americans scared the more they will scream for the troops to go.
    Once American troops arrive anywhere, they never leave again as in Guantanamo Bay.