EngLeave.eu – watch “Brexit the Movie” to get England out of the European Union !
EngLeave.eu – watch “Brexit the Movie” to get England out of the European Union !
At last the people of England will get the opportunity to vote on whether to remain in the EU or leave in the 2016/17 referendum. Its been a long time coming and we can be grateful that we are able to put our case for withdrawal. There is no doubt that David Cameron will try to secure some cosmetic changes to a number of EU treaties or at least some changes that will enable him to convince the public that it is worth staying in; which he clearly wants to do. However whatever cosmetic changes he manages to make it is clear that the relentless march to ‘ever closer political union’ will continue to proceed. We need therefore to make a strong case for withdrawal and demonstrate that as a nation we are better out than in. We need to demonstrate the benefits to the people of England of complete withdrawal.
The ‘Yes Campaign’ have already started to promote a scaremongering scenario in which the consequences of leaving would be disastrous for our country. The following myths promoted by the Yes Campaign will no doubt be peddled constantly over the next year or so and therefore its important to address these myths and be able to refute them.
We are grateful to the ‘Better Off Out’ group for their work on these issues.
One common objection to leaving the EU is the argument that England would lose three million jobs. As Better Off points out England would not cease trading with the EU. It would maintain trade with the EU via a UK/Free Trade Agreement. It is a little known fact that the EU sells much more to us than we sell them. According to Better Off: ‘In 2009 there was a trade deficit of £34.9bn; in 2011 it was nearly £50bn. In a bizarre, hypothetical scenario if trade were literally stopped with the EU, the UK would lose 3 million jobs which are dependent on trade with the EU. The EU however would lose 4 million jobs, so it would be nonsensical for them not to trade with their biggest customer’
The Lisbon Treaty also states quite clearly that the EU must make trade agreements with countries which leave the EU!
It is often said by the ‘Yes’ campaign that England would be excluded from trade with the EU by tariff barriers. This is nonsense. The EU has up to 53 trade agreements with countries which overcome such tariffs and at present is in the process of negotiating a further 74.
Another objection to withdrawal is the argument that England cannot survive economically outside the EU in a world of trading blocs. This is a somewhat odd argument given that Japan, which is the worlds 3rd largest economy is not in any trading bloc! In any case the EU is not the economic area in which most of the worlds economic growth is taking place. According to Better Off Out; the ‘EU’s share of world GDP is forecast to decline to 15% in 2020, down from 26% in 1980’. It makes sense therefore to establish trading relationships with countries outside the EU such as the former Commonwealth countries.
As Better Off point out; ‘Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU, yet they export far more per capita to the EU than the UK does; this proves that the EU membership is not a prerequisite for a healthy trading relationship’ It must also be stated that England’s trading relationships are largely outside the EU with countries such as the USA and Switzerland.
We often hear that if we leave the EU England will have to pay £billions to the EU but have vey little influence whilst having to put in place all the EU’s regulations. The UK only has 8.4% voting power in the EU anyway which does not enable it to have any real influence. The UK has 73 MEPs which represents a small minority in the European Parliament with its 751 MEPs. Every time a new country joins the EU there is a further decline in the UK’s influence.
There have been repeated claims that the EU has had a positive impact on the British economy. In fact fishing, farming, postal services and manufacturing have already been devastated by the EU. There is no question that being a member of the EU costs billions of pounds and lost jobs. It has also been claimed that Britain would lose much needed foreign direct investment if we left the EU. However this is simply not true! Again from Better Off ; ‘In a 2010 survey on the UKs attractiveness to foreign investors, Ernst and Young
Found Britain remained the number one Foreign Direct Investment destination in Europe owing largely to the City of London and the UKs close corporate relationship with the US. EU membership was not mentioned at all in their table of key investment factors, which were: UK culture and values and the English language; telecommunications infrastructure; the quality of life; stable social environment, and transport and logistics infrastructure’ .
Many from the ‘Yes’ Remain in the EU Campaign argued that Britain will lose all influence in the world by being outside the EU. However Britain has an impressive ‘portfolio of power’ which includes membership of the G20 and G8 nations. We also have a seat on the Security Council and seats on the International Monetary Fund. As Better Off states; London is the financial capital of the world and Britain has the sixth largest economy. The UK is also in the top ten manufacturing nations in the world.’
In fact it could be argued that the EU is preventing the UK from increasing its influence!
The EU is moving towards the UK’s position on cutting regulation and bureaucracy
The Better Off response to this myth is as follows:
EU directives are subject to a ‘ratchet’ effect- i.e. once in place they are highly unlikely to be reformed or repealed.
Less than 10% of Britain’s GDP represents trade with the EU yet Brussels regulations afflict 100% of our economy.
80% of England’s GDP is generated within England so at least 80% need not be subject to EU laws.
In 2006 it was estimated that EU over regulation costs 600bn Euros across the EU each year.
In 2010, Open Europe estimated EU regulation had cost the UK £124 billion since 1998.
Whilst Red Tape savings are not direct cash savings, deregulation would result in a ‘bonfire of regulations’ that could fund either sizeable tax cuts or additional public spending.
The EU has brought peace to Europe
Even now, the EU is only 28 nations of the 47 European nations listed as national members of the Council of Europe.
The forerunner to the EU, the Common Market, didn’t come into existence until 1958, and then only with 6 nations, and yet there was no war between European countries from 1945 to 1956 (except the Hungarian revolution). Whilst peaceful international cooperation is welcomed at all levels, to say the EU is the sole guarantor of peace is an extreme exaggeration that is dishonest in its application. Examples of wars since include Serbia & Croatia, the Balkans and Yugoslavia.
It is NATO, founded in 1949 and dominated by the USA, and not the EU, that has really kept the peace in Europe, together with parliamentary democracy. Both of which are being undermined by the EU.
The former German President Herzog wrote a few years ago that ‘the question has to be raised of whether Germany can still unreservedly be called a parliamentary democracy’. This was owing to the number of German laws emanating from the EU- which he assessed at some 84% of laws.
The break up of Yugoslavia was a major test of the EU’s ability to keep the peace. It was EU interference that helped trigger a major civil war and its dithering contributed to deaths of some 100,000 people. It was only decisive action by the US/NATO forces that stopped the violence. Peace was established by the US-brokered Dayton Agreement.
It is often argued that the EU has been good for English Industry. However as many sources note including the Better Off group:
BRITISH INDUSTRIES SUCH AS FISHING, FARMING, POSTAL SERVICES AND MANUFACTURING HAVE ALREADY BEEN DEVASTATED BY BRITAIN’S MEMBERSHIP OF THE EU.
EU membership costs England billions of pounds (£55 million a day) and large numbers of lost jobs thanks to unnecessary and excessive red tape, substantial membership and aid contributions, inflated consumer prices and other associated costs.
The Common Fisheries Policy has cost UK coastal communities 115,000 jobs (Lee Rotherham, 10 years on)
Britain cannot leave the EU
Technically, Britain could leave the EU in a single day. Legislatively, this would be achieved simply by repealing the European Communities Act 1972 and its attendant Amendment Acts through a single clause Bill passing through Westminster.
If the English people voted to leave in an In/Out referendum or by voting in a party with EU withdrawal on its manifesto, Parliament ought to respect the Will of the People and there would be no justification for delay or obstruction in either House.
However, the process of setting up a replacement UK/EU Free Trade Agreement will take longer, though there would be no need for time-consuming negotiation of tariff reductions if the UK/EU Free Trade Agreement merely replicated existing EU trade arrangements.
In addition, even the Lisbon Treaty’s Article 50 enshrines the right of member states to leave the Union, albeit with strings attached. The same article requires the EU to seek a free trade deal with a member which leaves. Greenland established a precedent for a sovereign nation by leaving the EEC in 1985, and is prospering well outside of it. With Westminster still sovereign (for the moment), it is the British Parliament which will decide how and when the UK leaves the EU.
There is also the second option for England to leave the EU. If the United Kingdom is dissolved then we are automatically out.
The case for staying in the EU is weak and certainly does not serve the interests of the people of England. However the case for withdrawal is very strong indeed and does serve the interests of the people of England.
The English Democrats discuss the potential benefits to the SNP of working with them to promote the Scottish independence agenda.
After the SNP’s historic victory in the 2015 General Election in Scotland, nationalist politicians can reasonably ask – What is the next step in the battle to break-up the UK? (for that is what Scottish Independence amounts to). In particular can Scotland gain independence without the help of England?
Were nationalist parties in Wales and Northern Ireland ever to win similar victories to the SNP in a future General Election, there would still not be enough Nationalist MPs in Westminster to force the break-up of the United Kingdom. 533 out of 650 MPs in Westminster are elected in England, so the arithmetic of UK population means that England always has an overwhelming majority.
The reality for the SNP is that whilst many of their supporters dislike the English, they may have no option but to seek England’s help if they are serious about breaking up the United Kingdom. Where is this help to come from though? All parties with MPs elected in England are Unionist, even though they all have Scottish versions for electoral advantage. The Conservatives helped the SNP in 2015 by raising the spectre of ‘Labour in alliance with Scots Nats’ as part of their electioneering, but they seem incapable of even modest reforms to Westminster on the West Lothian Question.
There is only one political party in England that has a similar separatist agenda as the SNP, the English Democrats. In 2013 they adopted a policy of complete Independence for England, but left open the question of what would happen to the rest of the UK. They recently held their 13th Annual Conference in Leicester, where we asked some of their senior activists their take on the situation.
Asked why the SNP, do not actively promote the English Democrats, Robin Tilbrook, Chairman stated – “I sometimes wonder whether the SNP does really want Independence. Perhaps it really wishes to continue to receive very substantial subsidies from the English tax payer for as long as possible, and uses its campaign for Independence to give it leverage. I would like to be persuaded otherwise”.
Steve Uncles, Campaign Director pointed out that informal discussions had taken place with Angus McNeil SNP MP, who had been kind enough to attend and speak at a previous English Democrats Conference. We were then hopeful that we could work with the SNP but nothing came of it.
In 2011 an opinion poll by ComRes found 36% of English voters were in favour of independence for England, and that was in the face of years of Unionist propaganda from the media and establishment. A similar result (34%) was obtained in an ICM poll in September 2014.
Derek Hilling, English Democrats National Secretary, who proposed the Independence for England policy at the 2013 Party Conference, said “We are working to translate English opinion in favour of Independence, into real constitutional change for UK. English people are increasingly fed-up with the complaints of the other nations of the UK, who all receive more state-subsidy than any part of England. The English do not look kindly on ingrates, and are unlikely to be generous to them in negotiations about the break-up of UK”.
Robin Tilbrook (Chairman) added, “It is possible that some of the strategy used by Conservatives in 2015 General Election came from conversations I had with Lynton Crosby. The English Democrats want Independence for England, we want to break-up the UK, and we’re prepared to work with anyone to obtain that goal. Perhaps the SNP should apply the same strategy!”.
See more at: Do the SNP really want Scottish Independence?
There are signs of growing awareness in the Major Parties at long last that the main electoral battleground is (as it has always been) England! Consciously or otherwise, this stems from the comprehensive rejection in last May’s general election of all the Major Parties, Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens and UKIP in the second largest of Britain’s electoral regions, Scotland!
Following in July, Chukka Umunna felt moved to call for an English Parliament and a federal UK. SEE: Chuka Umunna calls for English Parliament & Federal UK
Chuka Umunna To Call For An English Parliament As He Urges Labour To Modernise
Yes, England should have her own national Parliament, complete with separate Bill drafting facilities and Executive plus an annual budget of circa £300 billion commensurate with Scotland’s and fixed by the British Parliament. An English Parliament should decide what form local government should take in England just as the assembly in Holyrood decides Scotland’s.
England should be given the referendum she has never had on this matter. Quite simply, we do not need the half-baked gimmick of directly elected mayors and certainly not in the absence of referendums creating the mandate for them!
The Conservative Government purports to be devolving power whilst arbitrarily inflicting austerity, but funding is power and funding is being reduced. Therefore, in reality, the Government is devolving responsibility without the necessary funding (ie power) to discharge those responsibilities; we see this (for example) where local libraries are being run by volunteers because councils, (Conservative dominated) have drastically reduced funding for such services.
One of the biggest, if not the biggest, obstacles to England being given a referendum on the question of whether we should have our own Parliament is the decimation in the number of MPs which would logically follow. Ironically, opponents of a parliament being created to safeguard England’s interests and maintain an inclusive English identity often claim that there would be more politicians when that would not be the case.
Many of us believe that the best chance of saving the union is to create a separate parliament in England within a federal Britain, but the Conservative Party have usually dragged its heels over much needed reform.
The question is: will the Labour Party continue to be as reactionary about England and the English?
Fed up with how England and the English are short changed and treated as fourth class citizens after Scots, Welsh, Irish and ‘Brits’?
Fed up with England always paying the piper but rarely calling the tune?
Fed up with England having to accommodate over 95% of immigrants whilst being lectured that we should take more by Scots, Welsh and Irish whose countries are under populated?
Fed up with being continually dictated to by EU-philiacs?
Well do something positive! Get up out of arm chairs and support the one political party which puts England first, which campaigns to leave the EU and for England to have referendums on both of these issues!
Join the English Democrats and come to our next annual general meeting!
England Coat of Arms
The BBC and other types of state media continue to propagate the Conservative Government’s tawdry and misleading ‘English Votes for English Laws’ (EVEL) policy. A more accurate name for this policy would be ‘English Votes for England’s Laws’ which would tend to draw attention to the difference between England and the English, but that would never do!
This deceitful and dishonest British Government contrives to blur the difference between those of us in England who regard our national identity as English and those who do not! Why on earth would a sane and properly informed English electorate want to elect individuals who subordinate England’s national interests to other national interests.
Cameron & Co do not want voters in England to be conscious that many of his ‘English votes’ will be cast by the likes of Nigel Evans, Liam Fox, Michael Fallon, Michael Gove, James Gray, Ian Liddell-Grainger, Julian Lewis, Eleanor Laing, Pat McFadden, Iain Stewart and other carpetbaggers occupying parliamentary seats in England. Has anyone ever heard Diane Abbott or Keith Vaz or his sister Valerie Vaz publicly declare their national identity as English? What does Rory Stewart and Rehman Chishti and Yasmin Qureshi and David Lammy and Rushanara Ali and Chuka Umunna each regard as their national identity?
What about Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, with the Donald Trump type hairstyle, born in New York City, US passport holder and two part-time jobs with full-time salaries and emoluments; does he regard himself as English?
Regrettably, the deceit does not stop there! Apparently, the ‘English Votes’ bit only applies to the First Reading of England’s Bills. In all succeeding stages (readings) it will be the usual free-for-all in which MPs from the rest of the UK can be involved. Scottish National Party MPs have already complained about being excluded at all and about the process proposed for excluding them.
Uniquely, England’s domestic draft legislation is passed to the Lords for scrutiny and amendment, and the Lords is replete with Scottish, Irish, Welsh and other peers. Indeed, given the unusually large number of redundant ex-Labour MPs from Scotland, we can expect an influx of even more.
Even David Cameron, wanting to appear all things to all men (and women!), is shy of publicly declaring what he regards as his national identity. His numerous comments about Scotland [“being at the heart” of his policies] and Scottishness [“There’s Scottish blood flowing through my veins”] may reasonably be regarded as denoting his distinct leaning in that direction, especially in the absence of any commensurate utterances about England and Englishness!
Those who have the interests, the welfare of England at heart would do well to ponder who should be our elected representatives! After all, there is now a considerable body of evidence that we (who provide the lion’s share of UK’s wealth and resources) are being short-changed! I challenge anyone to cite any matters in which England and the English have been and are treated more favourably than British citizens in the rest of the UK. Experience in recent decades demonstrates that England and the English will not be treated equally or fairly by those in power over us who have other national identities. The Blair and Brown governments and now Cameron’s have denied England national self-determination to extent given to the rest of the UK.
With 59 MPs plus 129 MSPs, Scotland has the equivalent of more than1,300 MPs, but Cameron wants to reduce the 533 MPs in England by 40 or more! Scotland enjoys an ongoing annual budget of £29 Billion. A commensurate budget for England would be £300 Billion per annum, but the Tories are fobbing us off with £30 Billion here and £20 Billion there without any indication of continuity and with the rest of the UK interfering in our affairs.
Current developments in which men are excluded from short-lists diminish democracy. Proposals to introduce other categories of short-lists will further diminish democracy. Aside from this, we may presently vote for whomsoever we wish. It is not ‘racist’ to vote for candidates whom the English regard as representing us and our interests.
I leave readers with two other thoughts:
1. If those in the majority are deemed not to represent so called ‘minorities’, electing such ‘minorities’ simply because they are different will not improve political representation, especially if they do not regard themselves as having English identity.
2. There are two elements to public life;
(a.) To ACT correctly and properly;
(b.) To be SEEN to act correctly and properly. Anyone likely to fail the Mandy-Rice Davies Test is likely to fall short of (b.) and not be seen to act properly.
Those named above are elected to represent constituents in England. To the extent that they treat us less favourably as a nation than the rest of the UK, they will not have acted properly nor, I suggest, be seen to act properly. The British Parliament is corrupt and is in desperate need of cleansing.