The birth of the Albion Alliance

225albion This post is timed for 11:03 a.m. on November 11th, 2009.

The Albion Alliance is a non aligned pressure group of like minded patriots, coordinating with all other likeminded groups in the UK, thoroughly sick to death of what’s happened to our nation in the past decade and tired of having no voice to effect change or to affect the policies being pursued at Westminster.

We are a cross-party, grassroots movement wishing to rebuild a solid foundation for the future of our country – a foundation built on freedom, self determination and sheer common sense, with loyalty to this country and its people being above party politics.

This is not a political party, so no one needs to leave any party – providing they are in alignment with the stated policy – that our primary purpose is to remove Labour from office, closely followed by a referendum on our membership of the European Union as it is currently constituted. From those two policies, all others will later flow.

To achieve this we need:

1. Many signatories to Albion Alliance and the simplest way to do this is to subscribe to the mailing list yourself and then to contact as many people as possible whom you feel are likeminded or who could help with this process;

2. Write to your local MP or candidate from your party, asking if they agree with this policy or not and if not, why not, also suggesting they carry our logo on their campaign literature;

3. Get in behind us by using the forum, offering suggestions, offering time and even contributing financially [we will have a link up in the sidebar in the next two days].

This differs from other internet groups in that it is specifically designed to expand its base into a large pressure group and to push MPs by means of many activities which will appear in the News Section of the site – we are quite proactive in this and will support all other groups which are also trying to achieve this – we are not competing but linking to all such groups and individuals and hoping they will do the same.

But first things first:

1. Please read Ian Parker-Joseph’s explanation of Albion Alliance in Why we need this alliance;

2. Subscribe to the mailing list;

3. Spread the word because only in numbers can we achieve what we need to for the future of this land.

[UPDATE: within minutes, there are eight signatories – hopefully this will continue through the day and the next days.]


The text of Ian’s letter:

Numerous opinion polls tell us that 70% of the voting public want a referendum on the EU.

Over the past 40 years Britain has been led, against the wishes of its people, into a political union by a discredited political elite without so much as a single vote on the issue from the public. The last time the public were consulted, in 1975, it was for a simple trading partnership called the EEC. No-one has agreed to a political union where the law of this land will be made by unelected officials in a far off land.

We believe that the forthcoming General Election should be the catalyst that forces that referendum. A referendum that simply asks the public:

“Should the United Kingdom remain in a political union with the other member states of the EU. Yes or No?”

In order to force this issue to the top of the agenda, not in another 5 years, but as a priority for any incoming government, we will be asking every PPC to unreservedly commit to putting the country before party by signing up to the principles laid out in this Albion Alliance.

We are not asking any PPC to abandon his or her own party, nor to set up a party in opposition, but to simply put the people whose votes they are asking for, and their country, before all else, irrespective of the Party Whip.

When they become a signatory to the Albion Alliance, they are pledging to force this referendum, they will be asked to carry the Albion Alliance logo on their campaign website and literature, so that you the voter will know that if you vote for this candidate, they have pledged to granting the public that all important voice on the future of these Islands, a United Kingdom, a land once known as Albion.

The public will then know when they are making that all important decision on who to vote for, a vote for a PPC who is pledged to the Albion Alliance means a candidate who is committed to a referendum, where we hope to find a majority of A.A. MP’s across all political parties once the election is over. Such an alliance would also consider policies that are likewise mutually compatable and can be agreed with the members.

I have already made that pledge, and I urge you to write to your current MP, and then to all the PPC’s intending to stand for election in your constituency urging them to make the pledge to the A.A., The Albion Alliance.

Thank you.

Ian Parker-Joseph
Leader, Libertarian Party UK & PPC Torfaen

21 comments for “The birth of the Albion Alliance

  1. November 11, 2009 at 13:13

    With James and his colleagues, I feel some even strong sympathy with their concerns over UK membership of the EU, with current status lacking democracy and being arguably not in the best interests of the UK, let alone when extended by the EU’s seemingly ever-present desire for “ever closer union”.

    However, I must object to the simplicity of the proposed referendum: “Should the United Kingdom remain in a political union with the other member states of the EU. Yes or No?”

    In addition to its simplicity, of which more below, there is the term “political union”. This is another of the sort of terms much loved by politicians, as it can mean more or less what the user wishes it to mean, even though listeners interpret it in many different ways: pretty much a “cast iron” definition.

    Returning to the issue of over-much simplicity, I have already commented on: A Very British Dude and Archbishop Cranmer. However, I’ll list my 5-choice referendum again.

    We should have a referendum on that puts UK membership of the EU and/or any other alternative/replacement type of ‘European Club’ firmly into play. I suggest that this is done as follows. There should be a referendum by Single Transferable Vote (STV) with 5 options:

    (i) Continue with full EU membership, as at present and given the Lisbon treaty.

    (ii) Downgrade UK membership of the ‘European Club’ to EFTA membership under the EEA agreement (ie like Norway); this requires partial compliance with some EU law above just free trade.

    (iii) Downgrade UK membership of the ‘European Club’ to EFTA membership under a specially negotiated agreement (ie like Switzerland); this would require much less compliance with EU law beyond just free trade.

    (iv) Downgrade to special EU membership terms for the UK, that differ from those of all or most other members.

    (v) Withdraw totally from the EU, and any other ‘European Club’ currently existing.

    I do not state that the above wording is exactly that which should be used, but certainly these 5 different options should all be available and be clearly expressed.

    The referendum proposed by the Albion Alliance can easily and confusingly be assumed: to put (i) and (iv) into the yes bracket, or to put (i), (ii) and (iv) into the yes bracket, or even to put (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) into the yes bracket. But these are all substantially different things.

    My further suggestion is that such a referendum should be held not more than 2 years after the next general election. Furthermore, the terms concerning options (iii) and (iv) should be established at least 1 year before the referendum. This is to allow sufficient time for the various political cases to be put to the electorate, without yet another round of significant ‘trust us’ by any political party or political leadership or faction.

    Neither of the more polarised groups of political opinion on the EU seem at all keen on having put, this fuller question. But only when the EU situation is fully stabilised will we the UK people have the foundations on which to further improve our democracy and government.

    Without a referendum along these rather complicated lines, we will not have that full stability.

    Best regards

  2. Chris
    November 11, 2009 at 13:27

    James,

    Good work, I will be signing up.. but I have one immediate comment…

    Whilst I personally agree wholeheartedly with:

    “our primary purpose is to remove Labour from office..”

    I think you have immediately stopped many otherwise subscribers.

    Personally I hate Labour, but they have many supporters who also want out of the E.U.. Labour are going, but the alliance will be stronger if it is open to all, regardless of policial party.

  3. November 11, 2009 at 13:42

    Good stuff, but Nigel & Chris make very good points.

    I’d vote for (v).

    • November 11, 2009 at 14:38

      Noted, gents and thanks. We’ll get onto it. We have another issue immediately and it’s our theme. It is encrypted and there are anomalies which did not come out in testing yesterday but with an increase in pages today – they have. We’ve just looked at the technical side and it’s too much work to get round the issues so another theme is indicated. We think we have it but unfortunately, there’ll be 30 minutes of experimentation. Obviously we’d wish to have avoided that but better we do it now.

  4. Ian Parker-Joseph
    November 11, 2009 at 14:49

    Nigel,

    Why complicate something that at this stage need not be complicated. It is a symptom of British politics that complication keeps politics in the realm of super computers and and specialists in white coats.

    This campaign is purposely designed to be simple in order to give the people of Britain a voice.

    Only when they have exercised that voice will the politicians sit up and take notice, it is at the next stage that the alternatives can be brought into play.

    Chris,
    You are quite right. I have written with suggestions to James with regards to the aims. Whilst you and I know that many voters will be voting for the Tories simply because they see this as the only way to remove Labour from power, it is not the intention of the Albion Alliance to change voting intentions, other than to ensure that voters can clearly see that whomever they choose to vote for will publicly give them the pledge to the referendum or not, irrespective of the party whip.

    It is designed to re-assert the voice of the people.

    • November 11, 2009 at 14:54

      We’ll need to hone the wording so that that point is quite clear – that we’re cross-party and not into filching anyone’s voters. We simply want the referendum and a change of administration. We can’t cut it down further than that.

  5. Stephen Almond
    November 11, 2009 at 15:09

    A suggestion:

    If you want widespread support for your alliance, don’t use abbreviations like PPC in your mission statement.
    Us peasants have trouble with that and the closed shop mentality it seems to indicate.

    Good luck,

    Steve

  6. November 11, 2009 at 15:56

    Ian Parker-Joseph (IP-J) writes: Why complicate something that at this stage need not be complicated.

    Well, it is complicated. I’ve stated that and pointed out some of the reasons above. The only reason IP-J gives (in carefully guarded terms) is that of the inadequate intellect of the British voter to come to the ‘right’ decision.

    Why agree to exchange something you currently have, when what it is to be replaced with is unspecified; it’s like agreeing to pay a shopkeeper a certain price, and he’ll let you know after pocketing it what you get for your money. Furthermore what you get in return is to be left to the future decision of some politicians (and especially, presumably IP-J’s camp). Will they really be back with a supplementary referendum, or will they use the ‘call for change’ as reason to do whatever they want? Well, given that the Albion Alliance have not even mentioned a two-stage referendum, let alone unambiguously specified how it will be run, I don’t think I even need to guess.

    In my view, with those 11 words, IP-J has dug himself a hole so big that he’ll have a lot of work getting out of it.

    Best regards

  7. Chris
    November 11, 2009 at 16:23

    James,

    Personally I think that the change in administration would do the same thing – ie alienate a huge tranche of people. Which Labour MP would back a campaign that aims to throw them from office? My suggestion would be to leave the party politics aside and push for the referendum alone.

  8. November 11, 2009 at 16:43

    There are some things here which need to be said. While the wording of the referendum can be looked at closely and should be, the fact is simple – people want a referendum on whether the EU takes over this country and the TPA is a good source on the financial side and AA is very much for that referendum.

    Now, Ian has put his point of view and you, Nigel, have put yours and made some good points. But IPJ is not an admin but the leader of one of the parties in the UK and one of a number who’ll put their own take on the site in the next few days.

    He himself says that this is not a party political group but a pressure group on two issues – the one about the EU membership and the need to implement something about it. Now, Labour have stated categorically that they will not take us out, which is the prime demand of AA.

    I can change the wording but the simple fact is – the whole point of AA is to pressurize all politicians to take a stand on the EU issue. If any Labour people feel that they can vote Labour and also support getting out of the EU [and I just met two of them now in my Labour constitutency], then they’re more than welcome.

    So I really must insist that this pressure group is unequivocally cross-party and so “Labour” will be replaced by “this administration” in the wording. It’s not the people who vote one way or the other who are our issue but those with their hands on power.

    And this is a grassroots thing which is already spreading, even today, from what has happened so far. I do believe we were right to have done it but now we must continue and not let down those who have put their emails down.

    Thanks for all the feedback and every single comment is scrutinized and looked at, I can assure you.

  9. November 11, 2009 at 17:31

    In my view, IPJ is correct: it’s about democratic legitimisation. If the country voted “in” then, teeth gritted, I’d go along with it. It’s the damned duping, double-talk, lawyer speak, bribery and coercion I can’t abide and won’t abide. I maintain that EU membership without democratic legitimisation is ultra vires. I’m even beginning to think about a reluctant change of nationality if I don’t get a vote.

    But any argument about in or out does as you say, carve off groups of people. This is (I hope) a groundswell movement on a single, time-limited issue: the right to choose.

  10. QM
    November 11, 2009 at 18:31

    We really do need to keep it simple at least to a first glance. People need to more or less instantly understand where the Alliance is coming from. The details can no doubt be worked out in the background, but the thing you really need is for the public to realise that Albion Alliance means a referendum on the EU.

  11. November 11, 2009 at 18:48

    I shall advertise it on Facebook now 😉

  12. November 11, 2009 at 21:32

    I’ve just re-posted this at my place, James, and signed up to the mailing list.

    This is not only about removing Labour from office – stop thinking of yourselves. It is NOT complicated – IN or OUT, it’s that simple – you people who are forever objecting to what the population actually wants for the most convoluted reasons – there is a different planet outside the Westminster bubble – perhaps you should try living in it for a change!

  13. November 11, 2009 at 21:36

    I’ve just re-posted this at my place, James, and signed up to the mailing list.

    For those of you trying to pour cold water on this idea, it’s no wonder we’re in the present crock of shit we are forced to inhabit! This is not only about removing Labour from office – stop thinking of yourselves for once. It is NOT complicated – IN or OUT, it’s that simple – you people who are forever objecting to what the population actually wants for the most convoluted reasons – there is a different planet outside the Westminster bubble – perhaps you should try living in it for a change!

  14. November 11, 2009 at 22:55

    Great work James. I shall do my part. Hva to save England whilst it is still England.

  15. November 12, 2009 at 15:00

    Nigel, I concur with Ian P-J’s views. Simplicity is important.

    No, people are not stupid – they are busy; those who are not particularly politically-minded, don’t want to have to trawl through complicated arguments. Most people I know are in precisely that position.

    We need to pressure the politicians and get healthy debate going. Once that happens, ideas will be distilled and honed to the point where they can be represented by sound bites. That is how complicated issues become mainstream.

  16. November 12, 2009 at 18:05

    Faustiesblog writes: I concur with Ian P-J’s views. Simplicity is important. No, people are not stupid – they are busy; those who are not particularly politically-minded, don’t want to have to trawl through complicated arguments. Most people I know are in precisely that position.

    I agree that simplicity is important; however over-simplicity is a waste of time. People are indeed busy, which is why wasting their time is not a good thing. In addition, by treating them as ‘simple’ one may well alienate them. I, and many people I know, are seriously alienated by much of what currently passes as politics.

    The simple yes/no question on EU membership allows each voter to provide 1 bit (as in binary value) of information. The question I pose, 5 options to be ranked by STV, allows the expression (at most) of 6.9 bits of information (just slightly above that in the free choice of one key on a computer keyboard). Refining somewhat an equally likely choice of the 120 orderings of 5 things (the 6.9 bits), because most choices will occur less frequently through their lack of self-consistent application of common sense, we get somewhere between 2.32 bits and around 5 bits of information conveyed by each voter. I really do believe that most voters are both sufficiently competent and sufficiently motivated to take that much responsibility.

    However, I do agree that it would be a not very good idea to complicate a referendum much more than I have suggested. I also think it is a very bad idea to leave unspecified what the options really are. That is why I have emphasised that the details of options (iii) and (iv) must be defined well before the vote (possibly by the UK alone, but possible in some negotiation with the EU). Without this, there is no simplicity, only increased chance of deceit.

    Furthermore, for that vast majority of voters who have both competence and interest, are they really going to turn out for a referendum that is too incomplete to be meaningful. I doubt it, and (if appropriate and as for my view on existing elections) I will campaign for an official abstention to be on the ballot paper. I repeat my view, that we need a referendum that will satisfy everyone that the question has been properly put; otherwise, there will be no widely accepted closure on the matter.

    Faustiesblog also writes: We need to pressure the politicians and get healthy debate going. Once that happens, ideas will be distilled and honed to the point where they can be represented by sound bites. That is how complicated issues become mainstream.

    There is pressure already, for a referendum. Without a good enough question, the debate will not be healthy. I’m not quite sure what your definition is, for a sound bite, but my definition is ‘debate by the trivial, usually misleading, often purposefully’.

    On that issue, I find this interesting little posting on Faustiesblog: Labour’s doublespeak. I’ve extracted some bits that I think are pertinent to the case being made for just the yes/no question. I’ve selected, and reordered, a subset of the attributes:

    Definition of doublespeak: evasive, ambiguous, high-flown language intended to deceive or confuse. A deliberate, calculated misuse of language.Doublespeak attributes:* limiting, concealing, corrupting, and shutting down thought* making the negative appear positive* pretence at communication* distortion of reality* avoiding or shifting responsibility

    [I hope the layout works passably on James’ blog.]

    The forced yes/no answer is well known to be manipulative, where the questioner chooses the question. Asking between half and one fifth of the fuller question is surely limiting and shutting down of thought; from the comments here, it’s clearly deliberate; it claims a shifting of responsibility to the people, while actually giving them much less than authority and implicitly labelling them as insufficiently responsible for that authority; withdrawal (surely a negation of active involvement) is made the positive answer (rather than using more neutral wording); reducing an already simplified 5-way choice to 2-way (and making it look better or more consultative) is, IMHO at least, a distortion of reality; the totality is more rhetoric than truth: a misuse of language.

    If my views warrant any simple political label, is it not just that of classical liberal. Libertarianism surely calls for (more) free action for the individual, though sometimes wrong. But on this vote, those claiming to be libertarians wish to constrain free action far more than I do. Why?

    Best regards

  17. November 12, 2009 at 18:19

    Before anyone else gets there, I have seen that I am wrong in my accusation of a yes vote meaning withdrawal.

    Apologies for that carelessness.

    I still think yes/no are not good terms for any such vote: there is something of an implicit bias in the answer.

    Best regards

  18. November 12, 2009 at 19:39

    Nigel – we are currently in discussion on this very point but in terms of what AA wants, it is not important at the first stage. The nature of the question is the second issue. Thanks for the considered input.

  19. December 1, 2009 at 21:06

    Post trackbacks and comments to remote blogs automatically with Trackback Submitter! This tool will submit your comments to millions of blogs automatically. Trackback Submitter – the most powerful tool on the planet to submit trackbacks automatically!

Comments are closed.