Total Visits

Showing posts with label brexit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label brexit. Show all posts

Thursday, 28 April 2022

Nick Timothy, Theresa May’s Chief of Staff, exposes Boris’ real policy of increasing mass immigration!


 

Nick Timothy, Theresa May’s Chief of Staff, exposes Boris’ real policy of increasing mass immigration!

 

In the article below in the Telegraph, which is explosive, Nick Timothy explains just what Boris and his Government have been up to in trying to dramatically increase the amount of immigration into the country.

 

It seems that without any democratic mandate to do so and without any publicity or any honesty, Boris and his circle have been working on trying to undermine the real Will of the People, of not only of England, but also of the United Kingdom, to restrict mass immigration. 

 

Read the article.  Here is the link to the article >>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2022/04/24/brexit-supposed-take-back-control-immigration-hasnt/

 

And here is the full text (as it is behind a paywall):-

 

Brexit was supposed to take back control of immigration. It hasn’t


Britain's new points-based system is designed to keep numbers high. When the public realise, there will be trouble

From the application of human rights laws to the analysis of statistics, immigration can be a complex subject, and the public debate about it can be deeply dishonest. But most of us ought to be able to agree some common-sense principles.

From bringing skills and enterprise to adding to the cultural capital of the country, immigration can bring great benefits, but in large numbers can also bring great challenges – so the flows must be controlled. This control needs clear laws, strong enforcement and tough but intelligent border security. Decisions ought to be made not in the interests of foreign nationals, immigration lawyers or supranational organisations, but the British people. And the decision-makers themselves must be politicians, directly accountable to those who elect them.

There is of course huge scope for disagreement in the practical implementation of these principles. We can differ over the extent of the need for foreign workers, for example, when there is a dire lack of technical and vocational education and training for people already living here. We can argue about the desirability of allowing colleges and universities the right to sell long-term immigration, not just education, to hundreds of thousands of foreign students.

Regardless of such differences, it is difficult to deny that our immigration system is failing, despite Brexit and the end of free-movement rules.

We are yet to see meaningful post-Brexit immigration statistics. In 2020, thanks to the pandemic, net migration fell by 88 per cent to just 34,000. In 2019, net migration was 271,000 – high, but not unusual for the past couple of decades, when the number has been known to exceed 300,000. We can already see from the number of visas issued that immigration is about to soar again, probably to record highs.

Comparing 2021 to 2019, work visas (239,987) are up 25 per cent, family visas (280,776) are up 49 per cent, and student visas (432,279) are up 52 per cent. More than a quarter of foreign students are Chinese, but the number of Nigerian students is up 415 per cent, Pakistani up 256 per cent and Indian up 164 per cent.

This enormous increase in immigration is not happening by chance. Even as the Government ended European free-movement rules after Brexit – a decision driven, pollsters agree, by concerns about sovereignty, democratic control and immigration – Boris Johnson demanded a more liberal policy.

Work permits were unlimited, and the definition of “skilled work” was watered down. The shortage-occupation list was extended to allow the recruitment of foreign workers in yet more trades. Employers were no longer compelled to seek workers from the resident population before recruiting from overseas. A salary threshold, supposedly set to ensure only high-skilled immigration, was set at £25,600 and for some workers only £20,400. Foreign students – whatever their qualification – were given the right to stay and work in Britain at the end of their courses.

And a new framework was established. The points-based system, the Government likes to point out, is inspired by the Australian model, which focus groups tell them is widely believed to be tough. But while Australia is uncompromising on illegal immigration, its policy on legal migrants has been liberal for decades, with its per capita immigration higher even than ours. Just as Australia’s points-based system was created to increase immigration, so is the British one. Our numbers will keep going up.

A points-based system surrenders the very principle of control. When migrants want to come to Britain, if they have the requisite number of points they simply win the right to come. And the principle of control – the very promise of Brexit, remember – will be further eroded by trade deals the Prime Minister is negotiating. In India last week, Johnson signalled his agreement with further liberalisation for Indian workers and claimed, despite probable record immigration this year, “we’re short to the tune of hundreds of thousands [of workers] in our economy”.

This is not true. But then, of course, the debate about immigration has never been honest. Advocates of mass immigration pretend we have always been “a country of immigrants” and engage in countless forms of evasion and sophistry. Some say the numbers are irrelevant and all that matters is control. Others insist that the public simply want the system to work, even as they oppose every reform to make it work. Most common, however, is those who pay lip service to the notion of overall control, while opposing control in every visa route going. In practice, they claim that each application is of vital national interest.

It is easy to make it sound reassuring. Who could reasonably oppose skilled workers coming here to contribute? But under the points-based system, skilled workers are not only astrophysicists: they might also be bricklayers. Who could oppose the brightest and the best coming to use their talents here? But the majority of foreign students attend institutions outside the Russell Group of top universities. Three quarters of the increase in student visas from 2019 comes from applicants to lower quality universities. All have the right to work here afterwards, whatever their qualification and whatever their job.

Supporters of mass immigration might not care. Every day that these policies continue, they get what they want and conclude that they will win in the end. But nobody has ever made the argument for such rapid population change and won an election. And this includes the Prime Minister, who has no mandate for the policies he is pursuing. His manifesto promised “overall numbers will come down … we will ensure that the British people are always in control”.

The British people have good reasons for wishing to remain in control. They know, from bitter experience, the costs of mass immigration. They know the problems caused by rapid social change, stark cultural divides, pressure on infrastructure and public services, housing shortages and high rents, job displacement and the suppression of wages.

When they realise, having voted to take back control, that the PM has given it away, the Tories will find there will be hell to pay.

 

 

 

Sunday, 13 December 2020

WHAT 2020 HAS SHOWN US ABOUT THE BRITISH STATE

 

 

WHAT 2020 HAS SHOWN US ABOUT THE BRITISH STATE

 

It is worth reminding ourselves that 2020 started off with a newly elected Boris Johnson Government enthusiastically making noises that they were a patriotic, libertarian, pro-Brexit Government, that had thrown off the years of Brexit betrayal under the lacklustre (Conservative) Theresa May. 

 

What a difference a year makes!

 

2020 has revealed Boris Johnson’s Government as a Government that has planned Lockdown whilst misleading people that they were going to show common-sense.  Instead of following our Constitution and our Parliamentary traditions they have used deceitful tactics to roll out a raft of highly authoritarian, ministerial diktats which have, without any proper parliamentary debate or democratic mandate, stripped away our rights as citizens.  This has all been done under the traditional tyrant’s cry of “Necessity”!

 

Even Brexit has not been properly honoured.  Instead we have what is little more than Brexit In Name Only (BRINO!).

 

Also far from controlling mass immigration Boris’ Government has been actively persecuting those who have highlighted illegal immigration on boats coming over from France.  The British Government has then housed 10,000 or more of them, in 3 and 4 star hotels across England!  Far from making any serious attempt to deport them!  The Government has also quietly made it easier for migrants to come here who will inevitably immediately claim our Welfare Benefits.  They have done this by dropping the minimum income requirement on bringing over a spouse. 

 

The Government is also now demanding the building of 12m houses over English countryside to house all those migrants who have already come here! 

 

All this at a time when the Government’s incompetent handling of Lockdown has crashed our economy and driven the national debt up far beyond what it was after the Second World War!

 

Turning from politics to the Law, here the transformation of the British State from an ostensible Liberal Democracy into an openly Police State has been as dramatic as what has happened at the political level, but with even less acknowledgement in our dishonest and deceitful Mainstream Media!

 

The 23rd March came and went with Boris’ dishonest claim that he was locking down the country when he had no power to do so.  This was superseded by a raft of Regulations brought under the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 after Parliament had been brow-beated into passing the Coronavirus Act 2020 on the basis that it was an emergency (although at nearly 370 pages it is obvious that it had been months in the preparation) but without declaring a “State of Emergency”.

 

The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 was also side-lined, as that would have meant that Parliament had some supervisory role over what Ministers were up to. 

 

Instead the wholly undemocratic and, on all traditional principles, unlawful approach has been of using a 1984 Act which was primarily about controlling diseased goods and individuals coming in through the docks, instead to Lockdown the whole of England (N.B. the British Government does not have direct authority over Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) and thus avoid parliamentary scrutiny.

 

In England slowly some Judicial Review challenges started to come forward, the most high profile of which is the Simon Dolan case, which has raised over £400,000 as a fighting fund on their Crowd Justice Appeal.  The English Democrats also issued a Judicial Review. 

 

Unfortunately the Simon Dolan case only argued that the Regulations were beyond the powers granted in the Act (ultra vires) and that the Regulations were in breach of the rights protected under the European Convention of Human Rights.  In the end the Human Rights Act claims failed entirely.  This was partly because Simon Dolan is a multi-millionaire who lives in Monaco and therefore wasn’t personally affected by the removal of Human Rights in England.

 

Also it was because the Government has adopted the tactic of regularly changing the Regulations, so that by the time any case gets to court, the Regulations that are being challenged have long since been overtaken by other newer Regulations.  Many of these newer Regulations are remarkably similar to the previous Regulations but not quite identical!  They are thus avoiding judicial scrutiny too!

 

The Simon Dolan case was allowed to be heard by the Court of Appeal. It failed on the ultra vires point which, on the traditional legal analysis, should not have failed, but the Court of Appeal has produced a Judgment which has endorsed the power of Ministers to make fundamental alterations to citizens’ rights without the need to go to Parliament, based entirely on ministerial diktat. 

 

This is a Judgment that would not have been out of place in mid-1930’s Germany, at which time German Judges were confirming that the powers granted to the Reich Chancellor under the Enabling Act meant that he could re-write any law and that it was lawful for him to do so. 

 

It is therefore not inaccurate to say that the Court of Appeal has endorsed a wholly new constitutional understanding of the nature of the British State.  It no longer a Parliamentary Liberal Democracy, but instead a Police State, in the traditional definition of a Police State.

 

This is particularly true when you couple the Dolan Judgment with the way that the police have actually been behaving on the streets. 

 

The police have regularly made clear, when they are dealing with any protest that challenges the new order, that they do not care whether what they are doing is legal or illegal.  They say that they are focussed on doing is enforcing the orders that they have been given.  Police Officers have thus shown themselves to no longer be that traditional English idea of the police as Officers of the Law, but instead they are now merely paramilitary state enforcers, as is vividly reflected by the transformation of their uniforms!

 

Where does that leave those of us who are not happy with the Globalist, International, Multi-culturalist, Europhile, Authoritarian (but fundamentally incompetent) British Political Establishment? 

 

Well firstly there are still legal challenges going on.  The English Democrats’ Judicial Review challenge was over the original Lockdown Regulations and as the Dolan case was proceeding to hearing in the Court of Appeal, the High Court didn’t give us permission to proceed even though we did have the good additional points of pointing out that what was being done was unconstitutional, which had been missed by Simon Dolan’s lawyers.

 

Our Party’s National Secretary and Greater Manchester Mayoral Candidate, Stephen Morris, together with other Lockdown sceptic activists have continued the challenge by issuing a further Judicial Review dealing both with the more up to date Regulations and also raising the constitutional arguments.  We need to bring all these arguments to court to give the courts the final chance to redeem themselves and to uphold our constitution.

 

Given that, since Tony Blair’s Government, you cannot become a judge without having to “demonstrate a life time’s commitment to Equality and Diversity”, it maybe that this will not succeed, but it would be wrong of us not to try to use purely legal means to challenge the authoritarianism of this Government. 

 

Many people ask me what other options are available for us.  One of the ways in which the Government has been trying to enforce Lockdown is by way of fixed penalties by the police.

 

If you are not fully observing whatever the current Rules are regarding Lockdown in your area, then they can demand your name and address.  You are required to do so and, if you do not, they can then arrest you. 

 

I have noticed that there are some people who are falsely claiming that the “Common Law” allows them to refuse to give their name and address.  This is simply nonsense.  What in fact you are triggering is Section 25 of the Police Criminal Evidence Act which gives the police the right to arrest you.  Instead what should be used is Option 2 of the fixed penalty notice, which is to take it to court. 

 

In 1942 the Kent miners, of the Betteshauger Colliery used this tactic very effectively.

 

Here is what the Dover Museum website has to say about this:-

 

“Betteshanger was the only pit to strike during the Second World War. The colliers reason for striking was over allowances for working a difficult seam because the conditions changed from week to week. This resulted in three union officials being imprisoned and over 1000 men being given the option of a fine or hard labour. The authorities were keen to suppress the strike: there was a danger that it could spread to other mines and the Government could not afford such a strike in the middle of a war. All but nine of the miners refused to pay. In the face of having to find prison spaces for 1000 men, the government decided to take no action and released the three imprisoned officials”

 

Here is a link to their website>>>

https://www.dovermuseum.co.uk/Exhibitions/Coal-Mining-in-Kent/History/Betteshanger-Colliery.aspx

 

It is also worth reminding ourselves about what Ghandi’s tactics on civil disobedience which were outstandingly successful at undermining the greatest Empire that ever existed!  Here is some interesting comments about that:-

 

“How to Fight Back, the Gandhi Way

 

Wondering what we can do, now that we’re facing the prospect of being in lockdown in all but name until Easter? Professor Ramesh Thakur, a former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations and a long-standing sceptic who’s written numerous articles attacking lockdowns, has a suggestion: take a leaf out of Gandhi’s book. As Professor Thakur points out, there is a considerable body of scholarship that shows nonviolent protest – civil disobedience – is more politically effective than violent protest, with the road to Indian independence being a case in point.

But Professor Thakur has a particular form of civil disobedience in mind, one perfected by Gandhi and still used in India to this day. Here’s the gist of it:

‘Jail Bharo Andolan’ is one technique of civil disobedience. It literally means ‘Fill the prisons movement/agitation’. It’s a deliberate, coordinated campaign to subvert a law or regime by courting arrest and imprisonment in numbers that physically clog the courts and overwhelm the prisons. The fact that those imprisoned are normally law-abiding citizens adds greatly to the authorities’ embarrassment…

So to those looking for what you can do: protest peacefully in large numbers, have several rungs of leaders to take the place of any who are arrested, be unfailingly polite and charmingly courteous to police officers and judges, refuse to pay fines in favour of court appearance and trial, and after the court has delivered its verdict go to prison rather than pay fines to overwhelm the prison system until the justice system breaks down.

It requires sacrifice, courage and steadfastness to refuse obedience to the dictates of a discredited and despised government. The dissenters must be prepared to accept the legal consequences, including imprisonment. But if you don’t fight for freedom, get ready to lose it.”

 

So although the British State may have given itself undemocratic, authoritarian powers over the People of England, but I would say to Boris “who do you think you are kidding Mr Johnson, if you think that old England’s done?” - and we don’t even need a Dad’s Army to fight off this attempt! 

 

We do however need keen supporters and activists to help us fight in the coming elections in May 2021!

 

 

 

Tuesday, 17 March 2020

SPEECH – SPRING CONFERENCE 2020



SPEECH – SPRING CONFERENCE 2020


Thank you to all those who have been involved in organising today – you know who you are!

Thank you all also for coming to our Spring Conference here in the lovely and historical English City of Shrewsbury and helping us to fully takeover this hotel!

Thank you also Ladies and Gentlemen for ignoring the mainstream media’s hysteria and scaremongering over the Coronavirus. 

Ladies and Gentlemen I just want to confess that not even my own wife would claim that I am very sympathetic! 

The other day she was telling me that as a result of her cancer treatment pills she has got tinnitus, which is a constant ringing in her ears, and so she could not hear what I was saying.  I said that I had an old friend of mine who had tinnitus who I thought had got cured. 

So she immediately took my phone and texted my friend.

Here is what the text says:-  “Robin was just mentioning over our romantic pub lunch that you used to suffer from tinnitus and now it's gone. I now suffer from this, it must be all the political talk!! I just wondered  how you got better?”

We got his text back:- “Hi Claire, firstly I'm most flattered that one of my myriad afflictions should be a talking point during your romantic lunch, but I'm afraid that tinnitus is still very much with me. Just a kind of white noise/background  hiss which I've sort of got used to. So if you come across something that helps do let me know, and sorry to learn of a fellow sufferer!  Partners aren't always as sympathetic as they might be, which is something you may experience..Batten down the hatches..and all the best”

So I responded:-  “Oi! what do you mean about lack of sympathy? I just told her to stop moaning and pay attention!”

So you can see Ladies and Gentlemen that there is no use coming to me if you have got a cough!

Also Ladies and Gentlemen I am not sure if you heard the rumour, that has been going around on social media, that the famous actor and dancer, John Travolta, went into hospital, about this time last week, with a temperature saying that he thought that he had got Coronavirus but after testing him the doctors said that it was not Coronavirus – it was “Saturday Night Fever”!

I am sorry Ladies and Gentlemen but our National Party Secretary, Stephen Morris, insists that I always tell a terrible joke!

So Ladies and Gentlemen let’s have a “2020” vision look around the world at what is going on which seems likely to make a difference for England, the English Nation or for the the only campaigning English Nationalist party – the English Democrats.

On the subject of Coronavirus clearly we do not know how much disruption is going to be caused by government reaction to it – just look at Italy and China!

As a disease however, it certainly doesn’t seem that it is going to be nearly as bad an epidemic as the Spanish flu epidemic in 1919, just after the First World War, which is thought to have killed 80 million people worldwide. 

This looks more like a particularly bad but ordinary flu. 

Flu routinely kills many hundreds of thousands of people every year around the world.  People who have, as the doctors keep telling us, “underlying health problems”. 

Most people catch flu, or apparently this virus too, either by being in a confined space where someone with flu is sneezing and they breathe in some of that mucus spray, or even more likely from shaking hands with someone with flu, who has just sneezed or coughed into their hand or even fiddled with their nose and then touching their own eyes, nose, or mouth before washing their hands. 

So Ladies and Gentlemen remember to be careful to wash your hands.  I think, in the circumstances, we all should be quite open about doing that.

Coronavirus does however look like it is going to have a big impact on the world economy, partly because of the hysterical way in which it is being dealt with.

Maybe the result will be that globalism and internationalism will be less popular as people are having it vividly demonstrated that, the more interconnected the world becomes, the quicker disease and invasive species and, for that matter, criminality, will cross borders. 

Ladies and Gentlemen we are living in a moment in history when the downside of globalisation is made more apparent to people than it usually is.  This may be an opportunity for the case for economic nationalism to be more carefully considered.

The Chinese economy will struggle to recover quickly from the kind of drastic shutdown that has been imposed there and it may be that the heavy handed way in which the Chinese Communist Party has dealt with this crisis will encourage more Chinese people to challenge its stranglehold on power in China. 

President Trump must certainly be hoping that that will be the case! 

Although I did see a disturbing report that the Chinese Government and police have been using the crisis to dramatically increase IT surveillance.  We must be on our guard that the British State doesn’t try to do likewise!

By the time that we are having our Autumn Conference we will know who the President of the United States will be for the next four years. 

From the abysmal way in which the Democrats have been handling their presidential candidate selection process, it is looking pretty good for President Trump being re-elected. 

Turning to domestic politics, did you notice the way that, on the BBC’s Question Time last week, Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for English Health was talking as if he had jurisdiction over Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish health when talking about “our Nation” and “our Country”.  Did you notice he was never once challenged even by the Scottish, Fiona Bruce?

Well Ladies and Gentlemen, however much ignored by the BBC, the Mainstream Media and the British Political Establishment, the “English Question” will simply not go away until it has been properly answered.  Ladies and Gentlemen it’s one of our roles to make sure of that!

But Ladies and Gentlemen getting back to our 2020 vision of our politics. 

So far as the Conservative and Unionist Party is concerned, Boris is still in his “honeymoon” period and despite the constant sniping and carping by the BBC etc., they won’t be able to make a dent in his popularity until towards the end of this year when we can see how much of a betrayal of Brexit his actual deal with the EU is going to be.

Ladies and Gentlemen I read an interesting article on ‘UnHerd’ recently trying to explain Boris’ approach to speechmaking and arguing. 

It was UnHerd: “The two faces of Boris Johnson”

Here are some extracts:

The PM's classical education instilled a rhetorical world view well-suited to our times
Boris Johnson may not strike you as a master of rhetoric. He seems to shrink from, rather than rise to, big set-piece speeches and tends to affect a kind of embarrassed shuffle. When they do come, his sentences rush out in staccato dribs and drabs, and he pauses after each one as if awaiting praise for having managed to utter it. Barack Obama he is not.
And yet, in terms of understanding what is going on behind those darting blue eyes, and predicting what we might expect in the months and years ahead — now that he has nominally delivered on his pledge to ‘get Brexit done’ — you could do worse than read up on the rhetorical tradition of the classics that dominated his education.

The rhetorical world view, descended…from (the Roman poet) Ovid, sees people as changeable and contradictory like the universe they inhabit; they are the sum of their outward performances rather than possessing a single inner truth.

Young men in the ancient world were educated in rhetoric in a way that would be unrecognisable today — learning massive passages for recital, taught to speak with equal conviction on either side of a question and to become masters of ad-libbing and stylistic flourish. The aim was to win at all costs. Very few modern paths of education are even comparable, but Boris Johnson’s journey through Eton, Literae Humaniores at Balliol, and the Oxford Union is probably the nearest equivalent. Footage of him reciting huge chunks of Homer from memory certainly calls it to mind.

This rhetorical education produces a very particular kind of person:
“Rhetorical man is an actor; his reality public, dramatic. His sense of identity, his self, depends on the reassurance of daily histrionic re-enactment… His motivations must be characteristically ludic, agonistic. He thinks first of winning, of mastering the rules the current game enforces. He assumes a natural agility in changing orientations. He hits the street already street-wise. From birth, almost, he has dwelt not in a single value structure but in several. He is thus committed to no single construction of the world; much rather, to prevailing in the game at hand.”

Such high-minded literary theory may seem a long way from today’s No 10, but it lends credence to the notion that when, say, Boris Johnson writes one column in favour of Brexit and another column against it before coming to a decision, it is not simply an act of cynicism.

But in a political context, his rhetorical world view is proving spectacularly well matched to the times.

The ability to be two things to two different people may sound duplicitous to our modern ears; to rhetorical man it is the highest accomplishment. But which viewpoint is really more deluded?

In a similar vein, Boris’s success at the general election was to appear, simultaneously, pleasingly jingoistic and anti-establishment to Brexit voters, and liberal and sensible enough to Tory remainers. Was this a trick, or just good politics? Who else but a Janus-faced leader could have brought together a coalition so deeply divided?

So the message Ladies and Gentlemen is – when listening to Boris make a speech, or reading one of his articles, or give an interview – relax and treat anything said as a performance devised to win – a bit like you would listen to an actor in a play!

Turning to Labour:-

Labour have got their leadership elections at the moment in which it looks quite possible that Keir Starmer might be going to win. 

Keir Starmer is a “full on” Remainiac who said in their recent leadership debates that he did not rule out campaigning for a Labour Government under him to re-join the EU.

Labour generally has not learned the lesson that the English Labour network has been trying to tell them that they need to be more patriotic and pro-English.

Or the lesson General Election should have shown them about the unpopularity of political correctness and multi-culturalism. 

This was shown vividly when Trevor Philips, the anti-racism campaigner and Labour’s former appointed Head of the Racial Equality Commission, who was suspended from the Party for commenting on the existence of Pakistani Muslim Child Rape Gangs. 

That was said to be Islamophobic! 

Nobody who wishes Labour ill should be unhappy about that decision! 

Just listen to this extract from the Charges that have been brought against him to get a flavour of the attack upon him and their denial of the truth.

Draft Charge
Mr Phillips (the Respondent) has engaged in conduct prejudicial and/or grossly detrimental to the Party in breach of Chapter 2 Clause L.8 of the Labour Party Rule Book 2019 by engaging in conduct online which:

a)    May reasonably be seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on race, religion or belief:
He has said:-

·       Item 5 – “But the most sensitive cause of conflict in recent years has been the collision between majority norms and the behaviours of some Muslim groups.  In particular, the exposure of systematic and longstanding abuse by men, most of Pakistani Muslim origin in the North of England”

That Ladies and Gentlemen is a charge against him!

What about:-

“A group of Germany’s five million or so settled Muslim migrants had, for some reason, suddenly and inexplicably decided to run amok and that to some Muslim men in Germany, basic norms of decent behaviour are irrelevant”
“she asserted that it was ‘improper’ to blame recent migrants; but then advised women in public to stay at least an arm’s length away from possible attackers – presumably with men of Arab or North African appearance in mind.  It has since emerged that the German’s are not alone in experiencing this kind of cultural conflict”.
    
Another:-

b)    May reasonably be seen to involve Islamophobic actions, stereotypes and sentiments;

·       Item 3 – “Muslim communities are not like others in Britain and the country should accept they will never integrate, the former head of the equalities watchdog has claimed”.
“He told a meeting at the Policy Exchange think tank in Westminster on Monday that Muslims ‘see the world differently from the rest of us’.”

          Or:-

·       Item 4 – “the unacknowledged creation of a nation within the nation, with its own geography, its own values and its own very separate future”

          Or:-

·       Item 5 – “At a recent conference of Muslim scholars, I had the privilege of addressing a hundred or so people at a leading British University.  Most of the audience were Muslims themselves.  The event took place just a few days before Remembrance Sunday. I noted that just three people in the room displayed a poppy, myself, a (white) journalist and one Muslim attendee.  Raising the point, I could see the incomprehension on the faces of those without poppies; they weren’t meaning to offend, but as a group, they couldn’t see why they should”.


Now spare a thought for the Liberal Democrats! 

They were crushed in the General Election so badly that their Leader, Jo Swinson, who only a few weeks before had been boasting about her being a potential Prime Minister, in the event she actually lost her seat!

The Liberal Democrats had so nailed their colours to the EU mast that it is difficult to see what they have got left. 

Did any of you see the ghastly Liberal Democrat MP, Leyla Moran on Question Time last week?  She is the one who boasts about being a “Pan Sexual”.  She was holding forth in a most self-righteous manner about Boris’ Home Secretary, Priti Patel, having allegedly shouted at somebody.  However Ms Moran was arrested not so long ago at a Liberal Democrat Party Conference, for assaulting her then boyfriend.  What can I say?

Then let’s turn to UKIP.

I think we should all be grateful to UKIP for its long and ultimately successful fight for an EU Referendum.  I do think that UKIP would have struggled, having achieved the referendum, as the public thought that its job was done, even if UKIP hadn’t descended into its increasingly vicious leadership problems.

UKIP had many good people in it and those who can support English patriotism should be welcomed to our Party.

Then turning to the Brexit Party which in many ways was not even technically a party, as it is a Limited Trading Company owned by Nigel Farage.  The £7.5 million which it raised is in effect Nigel Farage’s property. 

Nigel is now talking about setting up a new party which he has claimed is going to be called the Reform Party, but as there is already a Reform Party registered with the Electoral Commission. Also Nigel has managed to thoroughly alienate Katherine Blaiklock, who actually set up the Brexit Party and so actually understood the process of getting a party registered.  I would be surprised if Nigel manages to get anything that actually works as a political party off the ground. 

I also suggest that Nigel’s erratic behaviour over whether or not he was supporting the Conservatives during the last General Election would give many people pause for thought before supporting his next venture.

Then outside of England, the Scottish National Party still seems to be going strong. 

Scottish patriots don’t seem to have fully woken up to the fact that the Scottish National Party is dominated by a woman, and her supporters, who are Internationalist, Europhile, Socialists!

The problem is similar in Wales, with Plaid Cymru.

In Ireland, Sinn Fein might well be in Government in the South if they had been able to put up a full list of candidates in their recent General Election. 

Sinn Fein now are very strange, multiculturalist, Internationalist, standard bearers for the Irish Nation. 

It seems then that Celtic “Nationalism” has gone down the blind alley of Internationalism, Europhilism and Socialism and is also in favour of mass immigration into their countries.

I think this whole weird faux nationalist attitude is best summed up by Nicola Sturgeon in the TV Leadership Debates in the General Election. 

She had previously said that she was embarrassed by the fact that her Party is called the Scottish Nationalist Party.

In the debates she claimed that her ambition for Scotland is for Scotland to become an “Independent, Internationalist, Country” - within the EU!  What can I say?

Let’s now turn to ourselves.  I recently did an interview with David Clews of the Unity News Network which is on YouTube. 

In that interview David said that although he is both Scottish and a passionate Unionist, that he could see that there is a slot on the political spectrum for an English Nationalist party and he thought that we could be that party!

David is a Unionist, and so is not very keen on English Nationalism, but he does see that the present party spectrum simply does not represent English patriotism, which is an increasing view point in England.

The English Democrats have been at the spearhead of this issue for over 17 years and in that time have distributed over 40 million leaflets.  We all know from personal experience that it has been a slow burn for many English people to wake up to but it is now happening!

There are still many many hurdles to overcome, both for our Cause and for our Party but together we can overcome these. 

Where we are on an equal footing with our opponents in an election, we have taken up the 25% of the vote, like we did in Doncaster, so the voting system matters to us as does the spread of votes. 

I am going to argue later that this should focus us on those elections which are on the Supplementary Vote System, like the Police Commissioners and Electoral Mayors.

Parties need money and manpower to fight campaigns. For a year now we have been working on developing our Party’s recruitment and fundraising and have made great strides but there is much more to do but we do.  We can however do so confident in the Justice of our Cause!

Our job is to make the most of our Party and our fight for England and for the English Nation.  Our job is to make the most of it every opportunity, if – to use a phrase from the Brexit campaign – If, we want our country back!

Ladies and Gentlemen do we want our country back? 

Back not just from the EU but also from the Globalists?

Back from the Internationalists?

Back from Big Globalist Corporate Business?

Back from Big Internationalist Trade Unions?

Back from a British Political Establishment which wants to break up England?

Let’s make it happen Ladies and Gentlemen!

Let’s campaign to get England back!

Let’s work hard to make it happen – For England and St George!