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 !
The Cabinet Office refused to spend what they claimed was £9 million on an information booklet for the Police Commissioner Elections which was recommended by the Electoral Commission, but instead it is set to waste £9 million on a booklet of propaganda for the European Union about which the Electoral Commission has stated as:- “We don’t think the government should have done it, but it’s not illegal,” and that:- “Electoral Commission recommended that the Government should conduct no taxpayer funded advertising”.
Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said that:- “In September 2015 I wrote to ask the Government to do a Mayoral style booklet for the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections and wrote that:
“the Government has neglected to properly consider and apply the Electoral Commission’s conclusions in their report dated March 2013 that there must be a Mayoral style booklet delivered to each elector. Please could you let me know what you are proposing to do to sort out this mess?”
On the 29th February 2016 David O’Gorman of the Cabinet Office’s Elections Division replied to me stating that despite:-
“the Electoral Commission’s recommendation to provide printed booklets of candidate election addresses there are no plans to provide the booklets to all eligible households in May 2016, given it is estimated that to do so would cost up to £9m.”
Robin Tilbrook continued:- “So it is now crystal clear that this is a government which refused to spend £9 million on a Mayoral style booklet which was recommended by the Electoral Commission to enable the Police Commissioner elections to be conducted fairly. Instead it is determined misuse that £9 million to try to unfairly skew the results of the EU referendum. This is directly against the Electoral Commission’s advice. This is a striking illustration of the rottenness at the heart of the British Government and, as the old saying goes:- “A fish rots from its head”!”
The English Democrats,
Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP
Tel: 01277 896000
Mobile : 07778 553395
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.
I believe in England!
The English Cross of St George flag, displayed with increasing frequency!
Why does England need to remain in constitutional union with nations who do not treat us as equals but who exploit us? These British nations are under-populated but repeatedly press for more immigration to England; nations which ignore the England’s huge contribution (over 80%) to the UK preferring to dwell on their much lesser contributions!
Why does England need to remain in political union with states who discount our interests, who disregard the density of England’s population and, instead, funnel illegal migrants through EU countries enabling them to enter England illegally? France, Spain, Sweden, Germany, Finland, Poland and Italy all have more territory than the UK. Romania, and Greece, each have more land than England.
One need only recall the ‘wine lakes’, ‘butter mountains’ etc to be aware that the EU has been discredited for decades. Now we have population turbulence fanned by the EU’s ‘freedom of movement’ dogma! Funny how Belgium and Luxembourg are largely unaffected by the EU’s dangerous policies.
I believe in England! I also believe that remaining within the UK on present terms and remaining a member of the EU is is increasingly harmful to England and her people. We need to extricate ourselves as soon as possible if we are to survive.
SUPPORT THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS ~ PUTTING ENGLAND FIRST!
Robin Tilbrook, English Democrats Leader
So great is the British establishment’s fear of English national identity that it seeks to suppress it whenever and where ever possible by any means it can. We can observe this, for example, in its treatment of the English Defence League (EDL) which it contrives to discredit by characterising it as violent.
On each occasion that the EDL organises a march or demonstration, unionist gangs such as “Hope not Hate” and “Unite Against Fascism” are permitted to mount simultaneous counter-marches which we are expected to believe are spontaneous expressions of indignation, and which invariably culminate in violent clashes. Inevitably, the EDL is blamed for these disturbances and it is EDL activists who are arrested, thus tarnishing the English EDL!
British Conservative MP William Hague (supported by the now discredited British Labour MP, Jack Straw) once said in a BBC Radio Four broadcast: “English nationalism is the most dangerous of all forms of that can arise within the United Kingdom, because England is five-sixths of the population of the UK.” Indeed, Straw (then Home Secretary) himself said that the English had used their “propensity to violence to subjugate Ireland, Wales and Scotland” on the Radio 4 programme “Brits”. The broadcast was examining what it now means to be British.
Dangerous to what? Dangerous to the British establishment and the British union of course! The nation of England, accommodating 85% of the UK’s population, is the mainstay of the British state. Even so, England and the English are too often (mis)represented as Britain and British.
Indeed, Scots in particular are placated to the extent of being given a significantly disproportionate share of British Exchequer funding and England’s natural majority undemocratically is nullified by various stratagems. One of the latest “wheezes” is the notion dreamt up by the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon aided and abetted by Plaid Cymru’s Leanne Woods (too much oestrogen here perhaps?) that any referendum on the question of Britain’s continued EU membership should be decided by the majority of votes in each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This would mean that a majority of the 40 million voters in England would be trumped by a majority of the 6 million voters elsewhere in the UK but there has not been one peep from Cameron and the British Parliament rejecting this anti-England tactic!
Against this anti-democratic and anti-English background it should not be really surprising that, once again, British broadcasters have contrived to exclude an expressly England presence and English voice. Yes, 7 party leaders have been invited to participate in these so called “TV Election Debates” of whom merely 3 are actually MPs whilst 2 of the others are leaders of parties which promote the interests of approximately 11% in aggregate of the UK’s voters.
Yes, Scotland and Wales are to be represented by Nicola Sturgeon and Leanne Woods respectively, neither of whom are themselves MPs, nor are UKIP’s Nigel Farage and the Greens’ Natalie Bennett, of course!
So, who is to represent the interests of England and the English? Not Cameron, nor Miliband nor Clegg . . . the very idea is laughable.
It would seem that the English Democrats who promote the 53 million people of England are simply too dangerous, and so, English Democrats’ leader Robin Tilbrook is being excluded.
Could it be that Robin would appear far more statesmanlike than any of the other party leaders despite the fact that two of them (Cameron and Clegg) are cloaked, so to speak, with the trappings of office. Clearly the risk posed by including the English Democrats leader in televised debates is just too dangerous to take. After all, it would give English Democrats a prominence the British establishment is desperate to avoid, especially now that the Union is disintegrating before our eyes.
Due to the unprincipled incompetence of Messrs Clegg and Miliband led by Cameron (whose dad came from Aberdeen), the result of the 2014 Scotland Referendum was rendered questionable by their eleventh hour interference in the Referendum Campaign together with many other British MPs who travelled at public expense to Scotland to promote a ‘No’ vote. The interference included the ‘vow’ to Scotland of more powers and financial provision for which those leaders had no electoral mandate.
The supreme irony is that, having arranged a referendum in Scotland which excluded the other parts of the UK most importantly England, British MPs then involved themselves directly in it. Had they not rashly interfered with the Campaign in Scotland, the result would now be regarded as being indisputably decisive! Now, we have the spectacle of the SNP’s Sturgeon and Salmond being able to broadcast courtesy of the BBC (and other broadcasters) about how they intend to exercise power via the British Parliament over England’s interests but without the only politically active English nationalist party being given a similar opportunity to represent and safeguard England’s interests. This might be British justice, but it certainly is not English fair play!
Our so called ‘representative democracy’ is unrepresentative of the vast majority of British electors and is as rotten as the Palace of Westminster which itself is now crumbling and in need of radical restoration due to the prolonged neglect of its inadequate incumbents.
The ‘England Constituency’:
The English Democrats are the only party putting the interests of the vast majority of the UK’s people first – the 84% who live and work in England.
We oppose mass, uncontrolled immigration to England (which accommodates over 90% of immigrants) and campaign for an effective points system based on the Australian and Canadian models. England needs a stable and sustainable population, not an ever-increasing one.
We seek withdrawal from the EU following a referendum for which we will campaign for a ‘Yes’ vote. The English Democrats have long campaigned for an English Parliament but now campaign for a referendum on dissolving the Union. A successful campaign on dissolving the Union would enable the two objectives of securing a separate parliament for the people of England and leaving the EU to be reached.
English Democrats favour a market economy but not an unrestrained market economy. A healthy economy is a mixed economy. Our manufacturing sector should be expanded in order to halt the trend towards an over-reliance on service industries. We campaign for English jobs for English workers, and for more effective education in furtherance of this.
English Democrats support not only the rebuilding and repair of the West Country’s infrastructure (including roads, railways, bridges, and flood defences), but also extending them. The nature of the terrain in the West country, especially Cornwall, makes increased use of helicopters and other air transport more cost-effective.
English Democrats oppose fracking as being too dangerous for a small, heavily populated land such as ours. The mining of tin, coal and clay were once features of the West country’s economy. With advances in technology, we support a review of these activities to ascertain their viability in contemporary conditions and mindful of climate change considerations (minimising carbon emissions etc).
We regard the supply of food as a security matter, and favour greatly increased support for farmers. Moreover, what remains of our beautiful countryside is part of our culture and heritage and, equally important, a calming escape from our sprawling cities and urban areas. It should enjoy the care and protection of the State and not be viewed by ministers as just another asset which can be developed, in cavalier fashion for short term economic gain, to the detriment of people, landscape, wildlife and farming.
We regret the ending of dredging and other systematic flood prevention measures on the Somerset Levels and elsewhere in the West country, and seek permanent schemes enhanced by techniques acquired in the Netherlands.
We are conscious that a long established part of the West country’s life has been a vibrant fishing industry, and would seek to restore that, a task made easier by withdrawal from the EU.
Given the unreliability of Scotland for our Defence needs, we favour restoration of warship production in Devonport and Portsmouth and also re-opening naval repair facilities in Gibraltar. Similarly, we support relocation of other Defence work to Bristol. In addition to the economic benefits to be gained by ‘home supply’, we believe that security is enhanced by ensuring that our Defence requirements are satisfied by being met in England, rather than outsourced to other countries which have different priorities.
This policy alone will have huge implications for eastern Cornwall and west Devon. If a fraction of the £10 billion expenditure on Faslane’s infrastructure is replicated in the greater Plymouth area, the result will be a massive boost to the the West Country’s economy for too long neglected and subordinated to Scotland’s interests. Not only will there be increased opportunities for employment with decent levels of pay to bolster the local economy, but improvements in transport and communications facilities.
English Parliament & Separation:
The English Democrats have long campaigned for an English Parliament and now seek independence for England as a means of achieving this goal. Scotland is free to hold a referendum on separation from England, and England should be no less free to hold her own referendum on this subject.
The English Democrats share the public concerns as to the harm caused to our society by political correctness. We unreservedly reject the self-righteousness of political correctness and condemn the ideology as an evil; its purpose is to stifle debate and is thus incompatible with free speech and a democratic society.
The English Democrats policy here is unequivocal. In the event of English Independence the English Democrats would offer to guarantee the right of self-determination to current British Overseas Territories, such self-determination could include the option of becoming English Overseas Territories which, of course, include Gibraltar.
We believe that Gibraltar may have an increased role to play in England’s Defence arrangements given increasing resistance in Scotland to accommodating our nuclear defence facilities, which could include restoring warship maintenance and repair in Gibraltar’s dockyard facilities. Naturally, such expenditure would enhance Gibraltar’s economy and independence from Spain. The number of provocative Spanish maritime incursions would be significantly reduced if not eliminated.
We will renew efforts to include Gibraltar in any EU aviation legislation or other international arrangements designed to harmonise air traffic control. With the very serious safety considerations in mind, we regard the Spanish Government’s action in vetoing the inclusion of Gibraltar as particularly hostile, even vicious.
ALL EU NOMINATIONS FOR THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS ARE IN!
This is the text of our Press Release:-
The English Democrats are pleased to announce that all 60 of our candidates for the EU Parliamentary Elections, which will be taking place on the 22nd May, have now been accepted as valid nominations by the Regional Returning Officers. The English Democrats are standing in all 9 of the English EU Parliamentary Constituencies which means that the English Democrats have put up a “full slate” of candidates for the second time running.
In the last EU elections in 2009 we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK).
Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats and the Party’s National Election Agent said:- “I am delighted that yet again the English Democrats have managed to stand a full slate of candidates across England. That means that every English voter will have a chance to vote for the English Democrats and for the only genuine English nationalist party. England has been very poorly served for many years by our increasingly ineffectual, self-interested and careerist British Establishment political class. It is time that England was properly represented politically by our own political party now that Scotland has the SNP and Wales has Plaid Cymru, it is time that English nationalism was properly represented too!”
Robin added:- “If just 4% of the electorate vote for the English Democrats then we will get some MEP’s elected. In recent elections our percentages have been increasing in line with peoples increasing awareness of their English national identity. The 2011 Census results showed that over 60%, that is over 32 million people consider themselves to be “English Only” and not “British”. England needs independence from the tired old Union, just as much as Scotland and Wales do!”