SCOTTISH TRANS RIGHTS AND THE FUTURE OF THE UNION

 

 SCOTTISH TRANS RIGHTS AND THE FUTURE OF THE UNION

 

Joshua Rosenberg KC is one of the leading legal affairs journalists and his sub- stack articles are usually worth reading from a lawyer’s point of view.  However like many practicing lawyers he is quite a literalist about legal issues and does not seem to be able to give much insight into the political moods behind the process of legislation.  He has however written an interesting article which does set out the mechanics of the situation very well.  For those who do not get his sub-stack here is the text:-

 

“Scottish gender recognition: who decides?

 

Members of the Scottish parliament voted by 86 votes to 39 on 22 December to approve the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. That completed what the parliament calls stage three of its legislative journey, the equivalent of a third reading at Westminster. But the bill needs royal assent before it can become law.

Members of the Scottish parliament applaud the vote on 22c December

The Scottish bill would amend the Gender Recognition Act 2004 as it applies in Scotland. By removing the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, the bill would make it easier for trans people who were born in Scotland or who live there to obtain a gender recognition certificate. It also lowers the minimum age for applicants to 16 and reduces the time required for the applicant to live in an acquired gender from two years to three months — or six months for those aged 16 and 17. There is also a three-month reflection period.

A section 35 order?

However, the UK government may try to stop the bill becoming law. Alister Jack, the secretary of state for Scotland, said on 22 December:

We share the concerns that many people have regarding certain aspects of this bill and, in particular, the safety issues for women and children.

We will look closely at that, and also the ramifications for the Equality Act 2010 and other UK-wide legislation, in the coming weeks — up to and including a section 35 order stopping the bill going for royal assent if necessary.

Before looking at section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998, it’s helpful to consider the history of this provision.

The Royal Commission on the Constitution, which reported in 1973, envisaged that UK ministers would retain a power to block legislation passed by a devolved administration:

However unlikely this may be, circumstances could arise in which a veto would have to be considered, whether to ensure compliance with international obligations, or to safeguard some other essential British interest, or to prevent adoption of policies considered to be inconsistent with the maintenance of the essential political and economic unity of the UK.¹

That approach was followed by the Labour government when it introduced devolution legislation in 1998.

Sections 28 to 33 of the Scotland Act 1998 deal with the powers of the Scottish parliament and rulings that may be given by the UK Supreme Court on its legislative competence. The Scottish parliament cannot legislate on matters that were reserved to the UK parliament under the devolution settlement.

However, as the UK government explained in explanatory notes at the time the Scotland Act was passed, there are certain limited circumstances where the UK government can exercise a policy control or veto over what legislation is enacted by the Scottish parliament, even although it is within its competence.²

[Section 35] defines what those circumstances are.

The thinking behind section 35

To understand the thinking behind section 35, it’s a good idea to look at the parliamentary debates on what became the Scotland Act.

In the Commons on 12 May 1998 (at column 267), the then secretary of state for Scotland Donald Dewar said:

We have a situation in which there is a division of responsibility as between reserved and devolved powers. If one takes a simplistic view, one might say that the writ of the Scottish parliament runs in devolved areas and that there will be reserved areas with which the Scottish parliament cannot meddle and where its writ does not run…

However, the world of politics and of legislation is not as neatly divided as that — there are no exact demarcations or neat barriers that cannot be crossed — so legislation in a devolved area of responsibility will often have implications for reserved areas and reserved functions…

Almost any legislation in Scots private law could have an impact on reserved powers, Dewar suggested. Without further protection, it would be too easy to challenge acts of the Scottish parliament.

I was not prepared to take the rather narrow view that, if there were a reaction, that legislation would probably be called incompetent or would be open to challenge. We therefore sought a balanced way to ensure that the competence of the parliament — its range of responsibilities — would be exercisable and at the same time would not give rise to abuse.

We have struck an important balance in the clause. The secretary of state will have recourse to the power, but it will be subject to a number of important safeguards. The first is that he or she must believe that there would be an adverse effect on the operation of an enactment as it applied to reserved matters. Secondly, the reasonableness test is built in. There is also the important safeguard that if the power is to be used, a majority in this house must be in favour, and that would not be given lightly.

An important safeguard… is that the decision would be open to judicial review. In my view, it would be open to judicial review in the Scottish courts. The courts would have to consider the adverse effects of such an order and apply the reasonableness test…

I stress that the process of government is a process of negotiation and discussion; it is a matter of bilaterals and discussions at an official level… Common sense dictates, consensus emerges and agreement is reached 999 times out of 1,000.

Later, Dewar confirmed:

The judicial review would be taken in the Court of Session in Scotland. It would be a challenge from Scotland and would be dealt with by the Scottish courts.

The bill was amended before it was debated in the House of Lords on 28 July 1998. Lord Sewel, for the government, explained (at column 1391) what the provision would do:

While, for the Scottish parliament to have a workable legislative competence, its legislation for devolved purposes needs to be able to have ancillary effects upon reserved matters, the government recognise that there need to be safeguards in cases where acts of the Scottish parliament could have adverse effects on the law as it applies to reserved matters. For example, legislation about housing or local taxation could possibly have an impact on the operation of social security legislation.

Clause 33 [which became section 35] therefore empowers the secretary of state, by order, to prevent a Scottish bill from being submitted for royal assent in certain circumstances…

These powers of intervention are of course meant to be long stops. Their use would require to be justified and would be liable to be scrutinised by judicial review. The amendments establish a series of tests which limit the extent to which legislation by the Scottish parliament can affect reserved matters. But the powers of intervention provide essential balance to ensure that there is a sensible outcome in relation to reserved matters.

Their existence should be sufficient to ensure consultation between Whitehall and Edinburgh so that there may be no need for them to be used. But there should be no doubt that this government will be willing to use the powers of intervention if it became necessary.

What section 35 says

Alister Jack’s reference to a section 35 order clearly envisages an order under subsection (1)(b): he is suggesting he reasonably believes the bill “would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters”.

The UK government is understood to be concerned about the potential impact of people with gender recognition certificates moving from Scotland to other parts of the UK, where where applicants for a gender recognition certificate must be 18 or over and have had a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Jack also appears to be arguing that the bill might breach the Equality Act, which is a reserved matter.

The Scottish government’s justice secretary, Shona Robison, said “the legislation makes no change to the reserved Equality Act 2010 and that principle is enshrined in the bill”.

However, Kemi Badenoch, the UK government’s minister for women and equalities, took a different position:

What next?

It’s clear that the UK government wants the Scottish government to think again. It’s equally clear that the Scottish government is unwilling to do so. So we are facing, for the first time, what ministers believed in 1998 would be a rare occurrence. A more recent Cabinet Office memorandum of understanding confirms that the power to prevent a bill from becoming law is seen “very much as a matter of last resort”:

The UK government and the administration concerned will therefore aim to resolve any difficulties through discussion so as to avoid any action or omission by the devolved administration having an adverse impact on non-devolved matters.

We see from subsection (3) of section 35 that a secretary of state has four weeks from 22 December to decide whether to make an order. Any order would be subject to the negative resolution procedure in parliament.

As Dewar confirmed in 1998, an order made under section 35 can be challenged in the Scottish courts. We can expect the Scottish government and the UK government to disagree over whether the bill would have an adverse effect on reserved matters.

Any section 35 order would remain in force — and Scotland’s gender recognition legislation would remain on hold — unless and until the order is overturned by the courts. Regardless of who won the earlier rounds, you would expect a challenge brought by the Scottish government against the UK government to end up in the UK Supreme Court.

Is there another option?

Section 33 of the Scotland Act allows the UK government — acting through the attorney general or the advocate general for Scotland — to “refer the question of whether a bill or any provision of a bill would be within the legislative competence of the parliament to the Supreme Court for decision”. There is a four-week deadline.

Subsection (3)(c) of section 35 extends the normal deadline if a bill is referred to the Supreme Court under section 33 of the act. The secretary of state has four weeks after the court has delivered its ruling to make an order under section 35.

Since section 33 is mentioned within section 35, parliament must have envisaged a reference to the Supreme Court in the case of a bill that the secretary of state reasonably thinks would have an adverse effect on reserved matters.

So it looks as if the UK government could refer the issue to the Supreme Court instead of making an order under section 35 and waiting for it to be challenged by the Scottish government. Section 32 of the act says the presiding officer must not submit a bill for royal assent until all this has been sorted out.

On the other hand, section 33 is intended to deal with disputes over whether a bill is within legislative competence. The UK government would find it difficult to deny that the Scottish parliament has the competence to pass the gender recognition bill. The dispute is over whether that bill would have an adverse effect on other laws.

That may not be the sort of dispute that section 33 was intended for. On the other hand, the Supreme Court took a very pragmatic approach to its devolution jurisdiction last month when considering the Scottish government’s proposed independence referendum.

If the UK government can choose between being taken to the Court of Session by the Scottish government and referring the gender recognition bill to the Supreme Court itself, which should it prefer?

Obviously, it would be quicker to go straight to the Supreme Court. On the other hand, the UK government may be in no hurry to resolve the issue. The Scottish government would no doubt prefer the question to be considered by the Court of Session.

What would happen to the bill?

If the Supreme Court decides that the gender recognition bill would not be within legislative competence of the Scottish parliament — or if an order is made by the secretary of state under section 35 — section 36(4A) of the Scotland Act provides for the parliamentary proceedings to be re-opened and the bill to be amended.

But then the UK government could start the whole process again.

Statutory construction is difficult at the best of times and this is uncharted territory. I will be happy to update this piece further if I have got anything wrong.

1

Report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution 1969–1973 (the Kilbrandon report 1973), Cmnd 5460, para 765.

2

Emphasis added”

 

As a solicitor experienced in dealing with Judicial Review cases that article, I think, makes clear that there is a real risk attached to challenging this legislation by the “Conservative” Government.  There is a likelihood of the challenge failing and therefore the legislation being upheld by the Supreme Court as being within the powers of the Scottish Parliament. 

 

That leads to a conundrum for the “Conservative” Government.   If they do not challenge it, they will look weak; If they do challenge it and loose the case it will damage their credibility and also further damage the Union. 

 

If the legislation is not upheld then Nicola Sturgeon has a clear argument that the UK constitutional structure interferes with Scottish independence of action.

 

A further interesting development is that Sir Kier Starmer, the Labour Leader, has now come out in favour of extending Nicola Sturgeon’s “Trans” rights throughout the UK. 

 

I am sure in ideological terms this is opportunistic. It is howeveralso worth considering what impact his approach has on bridge building with the SNP.  Starmer is probably calculating that, after the next General Election; in January 2025, Labour may well be the largest party in the Westminster Parliament without having an overall majority and will therefore need to have the support of the SNP to get Starmer into Downing Street!

 

You may ask whether that has any impact on the future of the Union.  I would reply by asking what the electoral politics were behind the passage of the Home Rule Bill for Ireland before the First World War?  The answer is that the Liberals needed the support of the Irish Nationalists in order to retain power and the price of that support was Home Rule!

 

 

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!