Open letter to the English Nationalists

Green and pleasant land?

Wyrdtimes wrote, in comments on another post:

If enough people want an English parliament we will get one. Last survey on the subject had support at 68% in favour.

Let’s come back to surveys a bit further on, something which have been the bane of anti-EU forces as well.  For now, let’s look at how to achieve that goal.  There are steps:

1.  We must not fallout with each other in any disagreement over the steps or the method.  If a groundswell of people bombard the MSM, block roads, make themselves heard, I’ll be joining you and such things have happened before, when the English finally say, “Enough.”

2.  I think we need to see the obstacles though, this time around.  Hitler was easy enough in the sense that we didn’t have the legal obligations to Europe at that time and the people were far more as one in the face of the perceived threat.  Not this time round.

Christopher Brooker wrote a piece in The Telegraph, on Saturday, entitled “Brussels has broken our power to rule” and in it, he wrote:

The latest findings of Eurobarometer, the EU’s own polling organisation, show that less than half its citizens now believe it is a “good thing”. In many countries, its popularity is at record lows, and only 19 per cent see the EU as “democratic” (in Britain, Finland and Latvia this is as low as 10 per cent).

If that were so, then people are beginning to wake up to the monster hovering over us.  He goes on:

Also now on the table are the EU’s options for imposing its own taxes, the front-runner being a tax on financial transactions to which Britain, as a world financial centre, would contribute 70 per cent, more than 300 billion euros a year. Britain and the City will also be hit hardest by the EU’s seizure of control over the regulation of financial services.

Our Chancellor, George Osborne, has just conceded the EU’s right to “supervise” the contents of national budgets, taking away much of a power Parliament has exercised for centuries.

Britain also seems likely to lose what remains of the EU budget rebate won by Mrs Thatcher, putting up our yearly contributions to the EU by another £3 billion – even though, for every £1 we get back from Brussels for our farmers, we already hand over £2 to farmers in other countries.

Note the use of “Britain” and not “England” in the article.  These things, Tally, Wyrdtimes and all the other Nats, is what we’re up against.  Before backing that up, a quick look at what commenters said to that article:

No, the only chance is that grassroot Tory party workers and activists FORCE their MPs and Party to make a referendum on membership.  Ironically , Nick Clegg actually suggested this around the time of the second Irish vote on “Lisbon” ….his view was ignored at the time and I’m not sure if he really meant it or not. [Dwayne]

… and:

As I posted elsewhere on this blog, if UKIP ever posed a serious threat to the EU project, it would be subverted, co-opted and vasectomized before it could do any serious harm.  This is what has happened already to the Conservative Party and it is happening as we speak to the Tea Party movement in America.

You will not beat the EU or the corruption of British politics by peaceful means.  It’s very sad, but I’m afraid this is the reality you must confront. [Jono]

Which brings us back to square one and what many Nats are saying.  The difficulty we have among ourselves is that while the Nats are focussed on what bastards the Home Countries are to us and how they’re playing us like a violin, so the EU is also doing, only on a scale vastly dwarfing that which goes on within our Home Countries arena.  For a start, we are talking regionalization, already voted against by the English but having crept in again by the back door.

Would you devote just a little time to this article, on which agencies control us.  Here is a sampler:

Community agencies

A Community agency is a body governed by European public law; it is distinct from the Community Institutions (Council, Parliament, Commission, etc.) and has its own legal personality. It is set up by an act of secondary legislation in order to accomplish a very specific technical, scientific or managerial task.

At present, the European Community agencies are:

Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (at planning stage)
Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA)
Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA)
European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (FRONTEX)
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop)
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
European Environment Agency (EEA)
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (EUROFOUND)
European GNSS Supervisory Authority (GSA)
European Institute for Gender Equality
European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)
European Medicines Agency
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA)
European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA)
European Railway Agency (ERA)
European Training Foundation (ETF)
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT)

Common Security and Defence Policy agencies

Agencies have been set up to carry out very specific technical, scientific and management tasks within the framework of European Union’s Common Security and Defence Policy.

At present, these agencies are:

European Defence Agency (EDA)
European Union Institute for Security Studies (ISS)
European Union Satellite Centre (EUSC)

Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters agencies

Another group of agencies has been set up to help the EU Member States co-operate in the fight against organised international crime.

At present, these agencies are:

European Police College (CEPOL)
European Police Office (EUROPOL)
The European Union’s Judicial Cooperation Unit ( EUROJUST )

Executive agencies

Executive agencies are organisations established in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 (OJ L 11, 16.1.2003) with a view to being entrusted with certain tasks relating to the management of one or more Community programmes. These agencies are set up for a fixed period. Their location has to be at the seat of the European Commission (Brussels or Luxembourg).

At present, these agencies are:

Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)
European Research Council Executive Agency (ERC)
Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI)
Executive Agency for Health and Consumers (EAHC)
Research Executive Agency (REA)
Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA)

EU Agencies located in Member States

Flag of Austria
Flag of Belgium
Flag of Denmark
Flag of Finland
Flag of France
Flag of Germany
Flag of Greece
Flag of Hungary
Flag of Ireland
Flag of Italy
Flag of Lithuania
Flag of Luxembourg
Flag of The Netherlands
Flag of Poland
Flag of Portugal
Flag of Spain
Flag of Sweden

EURATOM Agencies and bodies

These bodies are created to support the aims of the European Atomic Energy Community Treaty (EURATOM). The purpose of the Treaty is to coordinate the Member States’ research programmes for the peaceful use of nuclear energy, to provide knowledge, infrastructure and funding of nuclear energy and to ensure sufficiency and security of atomic energy supply. At present these bodies are:

EURATOM Supply Agency
Fusion for Energy.

EU Law

Here is a summarized outline of specifically how the EU formulates policy which we slavishly follow:

Following the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, the first pillar of EU law has been satisfied, subsumed into the Treaty on the EU (TEU) and into the renamed Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU). Such treaties provide primary law within all 27 member states.

As the Lisbon Treaty as subsumed allows for self amendment, there will be no more treaties of this kind, only International Agreements that will now be negotiated and sealed by the EU, and former National treaties that will be adopted and form part of the TEU and TFEU, an example of which can be found here.

All other law, in the parlance of the EU, is called Secondary Legislation … the three most important elements of secondary legislation [being] Regulations, Directives and Decisions:

Secondary legislation comprises the binding legal instruments (regulations, directives and decisions) and non-binding instruments (resolutions, opinions) provided for in the EC Treaty, together with a whole series of other instruments such as the institutions’ internal regulations and Community action programmes.

1.3.2. Regulation
1.3.3. Directive
1.3.4. Decision

It is important to note that the European Commission, an unelected body, has the power to make law using the methods above without recourse to either the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers. The UK Parliament, our MPs, now only create on their own initiative something in the region of 15% of the laws that pass through Westminster. All other laws and Statutory Instruments are in furtherance of laws that have been made in Brussels using the methods above.

Even opinions and recommendations are far more than that, in the hands of Cameron and Osborne, Blair and Brown because Westminster has been the most craven of all the talking heads in adopting EU “suggestions”.  Our government and agencies throughout the UK, including the entire civil service, has actually leapt onto the Health and Safety and Diversity provisions with great gusto.

Hence you have a situation where in Italy, they will follow their own tradition of the Questura to sort out everything from police matters to vetting visas, contrary to EU recommendations but over here, we follow the letter of the EU law.

Courtesy WfW, this post from the NYT blog, in which Georgie Osborne said:

We welcome the creation of architecture at the European level that can coordinate national supervision,” Mr. Osborne said in Brussels, where he was meeting with fellow European Union finance ministers.

*&^%*$#*@&* !!!!  And that’s only what’s going on at the top.  Dotted throughout our own community are quislings happy to sign over our nation and its right of self-determination to Brussels, if it will mean peace and security plus that fuzzy, warm equality and diversity, so beloved of the soft-left.  It won’t mean that, of course, it will mean the opposite – command and control over every aspect of our lives but how can we tell that to people who have the vision before their eyes?

In all key posts throughout the former UK, there are now Common Purpose graduates, ready to “lead beyond authority”, should the natives get uppity about the agenda.  By natives, I mean the English Nationalists who’ll be first in the firing line.  Lads, we just don’t know what we’re really up against.  There is a substantial proportion of the population, sadly, who will not support this aim but will turn us in to the authorities, them armed, us not.

The bottom line

The bottom line is that we have a hell of a lot more difficult job getting an English Parliament set up because our government has enthusiastically signed away all bar 15% of our right to self-determination.  I’m afraid the English Nats can’t ignore this because it is not a specifically English matter, in their eyes.

Toque said his disagreement with me was that I wanted to use the Witanagemot to push anti-EU matters.  The Lord above wept.  What England?  Where now?  Where is it?  In all practical matters, from defence through to the NHS, where is England anymore?  It’s been sold out.

Please check out this IPJpost:

The Centralised planning of Economy, Innovation & Research

From that NYT article again, The finance ministers agreed on Tuesday to create agencies overseeing insurance, banking and market trading, as well as a European Systemic Risk Board. Gosplan all over again.

I’m not going to even start on the social agencies which will control social propaganda in our country.  So I come back to the comment by the stalwart Wyrdtimes, with the heart of oak:

An English parliament is far more likely to give us a referendum on the EU than the “UK” parliament.  Personally I think an English parliament is just about the only way out of the EU.

I dearly wish that were possible but … how?  Given that no leader at all is pushing it and given the post above which summarized some of the myriad ways we are now controlled, how will an English Parliament come about?

And Christopher Brooker again:

Of course, if we still had the power to run our own country, this crisis in the NHS and much else besides could be sorted out within months, But since our Government seems quite happy to continue handing over even more powers to this crazy system, there is nothing we can do about it – until eventually the whole lumbering, labyrinthine, unaccountable, undemocratic mess implodes under the weight of its own contradictions.

You make your voice heard on the streets and you’re in the slammer for hate crimes, maties.  Our own police force, acting under instructions and regulations from Brussels, comes to ensure you do not continue to destabilize the new state.

There it is.

_________________

Recent posts in this area, on this blog, have been:

The Witanagemot and England
English Parliament

… and elsewhere:

#   INDEC, the new surveillance, courtesy IPJ

36 Responses to “Open letter to the English Nationalists”

  1. Wolfie September 13, 2010 at 10:08 Permalink

    Currently the bars and coffee houses of Spain are buzzing with discussion of this news item :

    http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/343501,stop-roma-expulsions-immediately.html

    It seems that the EU elite not only want to remove a country’s sovereign right to protect its borders but also to flood them with toxic and criminal foreign migrants.

    There are stronger feelings amongst the wider public of the member states than the press would have us believe.

  2. sackerson September 13, 2010 at 10:18 Permalink

    James, that’s a lot of words for “run away!”

  3. sackerson September 13, 2010 at 10:22 Permalink

    Wolfie, if you can’t beat ‘em… Elddis offer caras from under £11k to motor homes at £32k – £35k. Why sit still and be a target for the government?

  4. 13th Spitfire September 13, 2010 at 10:48 Permalink

    Interesting as always James. Though I have lost all faith and hope in the tory party and I hope people are abandoning them i droves like they are the LibDems. Rudyard Kipling now there was a man of this word, perhaps a tad jingoist but at least he believed:

    It was not part of their blood,
    It came to them very late,
    With long arrears to make good,
    When the English began to hate

    They were not easily moved,
    They were icy willing to wait
    Till every count should be proved,
    Ere the English began to hate.

    Their voices were even and low,
    Their eyes were level and straight.
    There was neither sign nor show,
    When the English began to hate.

    It was not preached to the crowd,
    It was not taught by the State.
    No man spoke it aloud,
    When the English began to hate.

    It was not suddenly bred,
    It will not swiftly abate,
    Through the chill years ahead,
    When shall count from the date
    That the English began to hate.

  5. James Higham September 13, 2010 at 11:43 Permalink

    Wolfie and Sackers – yes indeed.

    13th Spitfire – I know exactly what you mean and what Kipling meant. It’s those quiet voices, even and low, which those bozos in Brussels or in the Home Countries do not understand or believe possible.

    In Doyle’s His Last Bow, leaving aside the issues with the story, political and literary, there is a moment near the end:

    Later in the story, the reader is invited to gloat over the continuing discomfiture and humiliation of the arrogant German, including the bald threat of his being handed over to be lynched by English villagers with the event being later commemorated in a pub being named “‘The Dangling Prussian”.

    The question is how many of us feel that way now and how many are of the brave new world, equality and diversity type. The last GE had the sides evenly matched, although many vote Labour and Tory by rote, with little thinking involved in it

    There was a reader I once had, Andrew Scott and he thought the EU was a pretty good thing, despite everything which had been written by so many, of which this post now is but one infinitesimal part.

    What is the percentage of Andrews in these islands? Where do those percentages fall? What percentage is there of us? Are there enough of us to count?

  6. Toque September 13, 2010 at 13:10 Permalink

    Not that it matters, since the Witanagemot is defunct, but – and I don’t know how many times I have to say this before it sinks in – the Witanagemot Club was a club for everyone who supports an EP irrespective of whether they are pro or anti-EU. So it would have been divisive and against the spirit of the club to campaign on another cause.

    I happen to agree with a lot of what you say about the EU, but the bottom line is that we will have an EP whether Westminster wants it or not, and whether the EU wants it or not, if enough of us demand it. Wyrdtimes is correct. The EU is an obstacle, not a roadblock, to achieving a referendum on an EP.

  7. tally September 13, 2010 at 13:19 Permalink

    More autonomy planned for Scotland Wales Northern Ireland and even Cornwall which has been given observer status on the british irish council of which England is not a member of.
    The UK is already disintegrating. Things left as they are means the end of England as a nation. The only thing the eu brigade are scared of is England, but apparently our ultra brit nats meekly claim an English Parliament is not allowed by the eu. incredible.

  8. Toque September 13, 2010 at 13:27 Permalink

    James, let’s turn this argument on it’s head. Why don’t the anti-EU Albion Alliance and UKIP support an English Parliament?

    Instead of nagging English nationalist groups to unilaterally support anti-EU initiatives, why not nag anti-EU groups to unilaterally support an English parliament?

    The fact is that English nationalists tend to get bugger-all support from the anti-EU brigade. Sure there are many individual members of the anti-EU brigade who do support an EP – just as there are many English nats who support withdrawal from the EU – but that support has never been official.

    It’s your contention that English nats need to be EUphobic in order to get their English Parliament. Here’s a thought for you, maybe the EUphobes need to be more pro-English in order to get out of the EU. It works both ways you see. English nationalism has had no support whatsoever from UKIP – on the contrary, UKIP have always been resolutely set against an EP. I’m sure that UKIP’s Britishness prevents many Scots and Welsh voting for them, and I know for a fact that it puts me off voting for them.

  9. James Higham September 13, 2010 at 13:57 Permalink

    In terms of infighting, you have a point, Toque – the English Nationalists get bugger-all support. I am one and can feel that.

    However, in terms of getting the parliament, which has nothing to do with ill feeling over or by the English Nationalists but is a simple, practical matter of realpolitik, I’ve shown above why it is impractical unless there is some sort of miracle.

    Clearly, the English Nationalists have a distaste for EU sceptics but to come back yet again to a practical point, namely HOW to get the English Parliament, given that the EU has these islands tied up [or do you deny all the data in the post?], then I see no answer to that question.

    In order to “turn this argument on it’s head”, which is fine and let’s do that, we still have to answer the question which won’t go away:

    “How can you get an English Parliament if you ignore the way the EU has the former UK tied up and under control?”

    This question still remains.

  10. Toque September 13, 2010 at 14:32 Permalink

    Granted, and the other question also remains: How do we encourage people to take back British sovereignty when they are increasingly more interested in taking back English, Scottish and Welsh sovereignty, with little emphasis on the ‘British’. Are the anti-EU brigade missing a trick by emphasising Britishness above all else when the rest of the population seem increasingly more comfortable with separate national identities?

    As previously stated I don’t see this as a reasonable basis for me and you to have an argument. On balance I think individual English nationalists should be opposed to the EU. However, I also think it is unwise for English nationalist organisations to tie the English nationalist cause to exiting the EU. Frankly I want an English parliament whether we’re in or out of the EU, and you may be surprised to know that there are a number of people who support an EP who wish to remain in the EU. These people are mainly on the left, it has to be said, but their opinion is equally valid and I would not wish to exclude them or lose their support by making the cause of English popular sovereignty an anti-EU cause.

  11. Patrick Harris September 13, 2010 at 16:32 Permalink

    And so it goes, back and forth but always covering the same old valid but by now tired arguments.
    Unless you have just arrived from a distant planet you will know, deep down inside, that talking, whether in red faced argument or cool debate has got the cause nowhere.
    We have been patronised and have had promises made (soon broken without embarrassment) by those that give the impression that they have the interests of the people at heart.
    We all know the problem and the causes of the problem, the only matter up for discussion is “what do we DO”

  12. James Higham September 13, 2010 at 16:36 Permalink

    Post specifically on that in two days [in the morning], Patrick.

  13. IanPJ September 13, 2010 at 17:30 Permalink

    Patrick says: We all know the problem and the causes of the problem, the only matter up for discussion is “what do we DO”

    We try to put it into a legal perspective. Agree what that perspective is, work out a roadmap which will have lots of campaign/battle points and all agree to a unified plan.

    The key to this as I see it however is the EU. It was the UK that joined, it was the UK that signed up to the various treaties including Lisbon, and there is only reference in Lisbon to the UK leaving.

    It makes no allowance for a region to leave, only the UK. So its all in, or all out. England on its own, even with a referendum run by an English Parliament would not be entertained in Brussels. That is the stark legal reality.

    Now, I do support an English Parliament, but not yet. I firmly believe that now is not the time.

    The time comes when we as the UK are out, so that we, the UK citizens alone, discuss how the constituent parts of the UK, (England, Scotland, Wales & NI) collectively govern as a federal UK, or give each nation the option to withdraw, become independent or join the EU in their own name.

  14. Toque September 13, 2010 at 17:54 Permalink

    “It makes no allowance for a region to leave, only the UK. So its all in, or all out. England on its own, even with a referendum run by an English Parliament would not be entertained in Brussels. That is the stark legal reality.”

    Yes, but your priority is extricating the UK from the EU whilst the priority of English nationalists is establishing popular sovereignty for the people of England. The concept of popular sovereignty is, I would argue, key to both our causes; you want popular sovereignty for a referendum on the EU and we want popular sovereignty for a referendum on an English parliament and government. In that respect our cause is the same. The institution that denies us our democratic right is not the EU Parliament, it is our own British Parliament: Westminster (whether it does that in contrivance with – or in subservience to – the EU is a moot point, a referendum is in Westminster’s power to grant).

  15. IanPJ September 13, 2010 at 19:29 Permalink

    So we need to find a modus operandi that incorporates both requirements and to pool resources to acquire a joint battle plan.

  16. Patrick Harris September 13, 2010 at 19:57 Permalink

    “Battle plan” versus “road map” the former has my vote mainly because time is running out, I mean, there’s been a middle east “road map” for the last gazillion years.

  17. wonkotsane September 13, 2010 at 20:15 Permalink

    Ian and James, you are forgetting something important: it is England that is EUsceptic, not the celts who bizarrely want to throw off the shackles of the British union that they dominate in favour of a European Union in which they are an irrelevant region. Not only do we need to fight the EU for our independence, we also need to fight our “partners” in the UK. The EU is trying to undermine the UK by regionalisation and the Brits are trying to undermine England by the same method. If we are to get our English Parliament back we have to undermine the UK because we won’t get the celts to give up their beloved EUSSR or the English money they rely on. Promoting the British union is not going to get us an English Parliament or get us out of the EU. I’m an EUsceptic and an English nationalist, a member of UKIP and the CEP and the biggest thorn in the side of the UKIP Brit Nats who I constantly harangue and draw support away from. I can confidently say there are a lot more UKIPpers supporting an English Parliament since I started on the UKIP members’ forum than there were before, it’s a simple matter of common sense.

    England will leave the EU, the UK won’t.

  18. James Higham September 13, 2010 at 20:28 Permalink

    This is where I differ from my AA colleagues because I am for an English Parliament. Ian says later for that and I see his reasons and agree that there ain’t gonna be no English Parliament without being out of the EU – perhaps that’s what Ian meant.

    I can understand conservatives revering the Union Flag, under which many battles were won. Victoria headed Britannia. It would have been nice to keep that going but unfortunately, the Home Countries have abused it.

    This is not to say there haven’t been fabulous Scottish regiments, say. And we can throw in the gurkhas there. Yet it does seem time though, on the grounds that the Home Countries don’t seem interested in the UK, except as a cash cow, for England to go its own way.

    When I refer to the UK and the Home Countries, by the way, I don’t mean all the people – I mean the vocal ones and the government.

  19. IanPJ September 13, 2010 at 20:30 Permalink

    Wonkotsane,

    Fair point. Does anyone know if the latest UGov polls are broken down into regions?

    That would give us a much better picture of exactly what we are facing and should shape how we do things, because I wonder whether the English are prepared to declare UDI and take the EU backlash that would follow.

    I have visions of Hungary, October 1956 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/hungary.htm

  20. tally September 13, 2010 at 20:56 Permalink

    An English Parliament is seen in turn as a eu plot by the ukip and fellow travellers and seen as a threat to the eu by the pro eu brigade. which is it?

  21. wonkotsane September 13, 2010 at 21:19 Permalink

    It’s a threat to the EU – they want an England of 9 regions, whereas an English Parliament is one Parliament for the whole English nation. An English state will be EUsceptic, the British state never will be.

  22. Wyrdtimes September 13, 2010 at 21:47 Permalink

    Ian said “The key to this as I see it however is the EU. It was the UK that joined, it was the UK that signed up to the various treaties including Lisbon, and there is only reference in Lisbon to the UK leaving.”

    This is indeed the key.

    There’s no reference to or future for England in the EU. Only “regions”.

    Our escape route – the only one I can see is an English parliament and English independence. The EU can’t stop this if it’s the will of the people.

    A parliament for England would be a massive blow to the EU. Re-establishing the English parliament should be top priority to anyone who wants out of the EU.

    I know there are those still attached to the UK but I can’t for the life of me understand why. It’s been one betrayal after another. The UK is part of the problem as far as I’m concerned.

  23. IanPJ September 13, 2010 at 22:10 Permalink

    Wyrdtimes said: Our escape route – the only one I can see is an English parliament and English independence. The EU can’t stop this if it’s the will of the people.

    OK, say I accept this argument. then what.
    What do you mean by independence? Independence from the UK, or independence from the EU or both.

    One of the biggest criticisms of the anti EU brigade is that we fail to think beyond the primary objective. This is a subject that I have given a lot of thought to this over the years, and unfortunately I think that England as a single Nation could not support itself.

    Similarly neither could Scotland, Wales or NI. We all bring unique skills that have kept us together for hundreds of years, and new technologies in more recent years. Oil, Gas, Coal, Steel, a host of other manufacturing, farming, fishing and food production in general, it would take the best efforts of all of us together to get past the years of sanction and trade boycotts that the EU would try to impose upon us.

    Being free will not be enough, people will still have a need to eat, shelter and keep warm and if an English parliament cannot guarantee that, it will have no support when the time comes.

    Not forgetting the legal aspect, this is another reason why the whole UK has to get out of the EU, because we will have to survive before we peacefully settle our political differences between the 4 nations.

  24. britologywatch September 14, 2010 at 07:49 Permalink

    Well, I suppose as a start, people could sign up to Daniel Hannan’s campaign for an EU referendum. If we’re genuine about co-operating and using the most effective means available at any time to achieve our shared goals, then at least it’s worth getting behind this initiative, it seems to me, as DH does have some traction in the media.

    Has the CEP ever tried to organise a nationwide – hand-written, not online – petition in favour of an EP? If not, why not? The signatures of 10% of the adult population of England ought to be enough to at least make the moral case for a referendum and shame the politicians if they stand in the way.

    YouGov have just carried out an opinion poll on how people would vote in an EU referendum, and it shows all ‘regions’ of England, Wales and Scotland in favour of leaving, apart from London, which has a 1% majority in favour of remaining. The opposition is strongest in England; Wales is lumped into a Midlands / Wales region, so I suspect the weaker opposition to the EU in that region reflects more pro-EU sentiment in Wales; however, Scotland, too, is marginally against, which is heartening.

    This relates to what could be a massive problem with an EU referendum: what if England votes against, but the Welsh and Scots vote in favour in sufficient numbers to carry the day for the pro camp? That would be taken as ratification for our continued membership, despite opinion in England. I feel that avoidance of such an outcome is one of the main reasons why the political establishment wants to avoid a referendum at all costs. Such a result would be a huge potential shot in the arm for the cause of English nationalism: if Westminster and Brussels continued to deny the expressed will of the English people, the calls for English popular sovereignty and even independence would start to be heard much more vocally, including in the anti-British establishment Murdoch media.

    Does that mean we could see an EU referendum as a means to establish the principle of English popular sovereignty through the back door, as it were? I’m not sure. The two issues are of course intimately linked, as our continuing membership of the EU is a huge barrier to the establishment of any English-national level of governance; but they’re not reducible to one another. A referendum win for the anti-EU cause would not necessarily advance the cause of English self-government one jot, and you could well imagine that the establishment would dance around ‘re-negotiating the terms of the UK’s membership of the EU’ and submitting those new terms for ratification in a second referendum, without any reference to ‘England’ whatsoever.

    Similarly, if we did get an English parliament as a result of a referendum result in favour, this would most likely be merely a devolved body in the first instance, with ultimate sovereignty and responsibility for external affairs remaining with the British government. English parliamentarians would have to continue pressing the case for English sovereignty over and against Westminster and Brussels – but at least then the two causes would be clearly united. But would those parliamentarians do so? After all, they’d be mainly composed of the LibLabCon.

    So what should the strategy be? I don’t think you can say that the EU referendum has to happen before the English-parliament referendum, or vice-versa. They are both necessary, and we should seize any opportunity that comes along – as well as creating opportunities wherever possible – to press those causes. One thing’s for sure: English popular sovereignty cannot be validated and defended without an English parliament and a referendum respecting English people’s views on EU membership.

    The question is, James, whether you and others like you – let alone the UKIPpers – are really in favour of the principle of English popular sovereignty at all; or whether you continue to see the ‘nation’ that needs to be defended from the EU as Britain / the UK, as sometimes appears to be the case in your writing?

  25. James Higham September 14, 2010 at 08:37 Permalink

    A referendum win for the anti-EU cause would not necessarily advance the cause of English self-government one jot …

    This is true but what it does do is enable the cause of English self-government, which is not currently possible within the EU. It’s a double-edged sword.

    The question is, James, whether you and others like you – let alone the UKIPpers – are really in favour of the principle of English popular sovereignty at all …

    May I quote myself from above?

    This is where I differ from my AA colleagues because I am for an English Parliament. Ian says later for that and I see his reasons and agree that there ain’t gonna be no English Parliament without being out of the EU – perhaps that’s what Ian meant.

    I’ve just been over to the Cross of St George forum, where Egbert took one line from the post above and then pronounced, “I’m not impressed.” I have replied.

    It seems to me that we should be aware of each other’s positions as allies and this comments thread has cleared the air very nicely, with English Nats and anti_EUers both commenting.

    The process can only forward the discussion.

  26. britologywatch September 14, 2010 at 10:37 Permalink

    Fair enough, you do say you favour an EP. But that’s not the same thing as English popular sovereignty. When you talk of the “quislings happy to sign over our nation and its right of self-determination to Brussels”, you seem to be talking of Britain as the nation, not England, because you later refer to the fact that “our government [i.e. the British government] has enthusiastically signed away all bar 15% of our right to self-determination”.

    There seems to be an implied ‘subsidiarity’ – horrid EU word – in how you see the relations between the EU, the UK and England: ‘we’ (the British people as a whole) have to free ourselves first from EU overlordship in order for ‘us’ (or ‘you English nationalists’, alternatively) to have any hope of extracting any degree of autonomy for England from the UK state – on the basis, presumably, that only a reaffirmed sovereign UK state (backed by popular support in a referendum) can stand up to EU hegemony, and that English self-government only ‘means anything’ within the context of the re-found sovereign right of the British people (of which the English are a subset) to govern themselves.

    But the right of the English to govern themselves could be asserted directly against the EU and the UK state, particularly if there were an English parliament in existence to champion that cause. English self-government doesn’t have to be an offshoot of British state sovereignty, as restored from the EU: it can claim authority from the will of the people and the human right of national self-determination. But who, for you, is or should be sovereign? The British ‘nation’-state and / or people, or the English people as a nation?

  27. James Higham September 14, 2010 at 11:37 Permalink

    When you talk of the “quislings happy to sign over our nation and its right of self-determination to Brussels”, you seem to be talking of Britain as the nation, not England …

    I speak of England, BW or more specifically, those within England who seem to have no interest in an English identity, to the extent that they’ll happily see the EU as their new “greater nation”.

    However, the Scots, Welsh and Irish make up a substantial proportion of my readership here and so, in the main, relations are quite good and we’ve had no issues, nor have we discussed politics, other than what I write on the site. If they’re happy to visit, knowing I’m English, then I’m happy to visit them.

    Also, I’m a Europhile, in terms of the ordinary people in Europe. I returned two years ago from over there and loved every moment – I have friends over there and these friends are valuable to me. It’s the EU I diametrically oppose as an excrescence.

    A perfect example is Cassandra, a Dutch lady – I support her campaign for a Dutch identity as much as she supports mine for an English identity and we’re good friends.

  28. IanPJ September 14, 2010 at 13:17 Permalink

    There seems to be a new phrase which has entered this thread now, English popular sovereignty.

    If we look at this whole issue there is a range of options and an ultimate settlement, and some of you are only looking at the end result and forgetting that there must be a journey to be taken in order to get there.

    I am going to try to use an analogy to explain. The UK was a gang of 4 nations, happy for centuries and had a place in the world with a single parliament that made collective decisions.

    It was captured and made prisoner aboard the SS EU, a prison ship. Their aim was to divide and rule, break up the gang of 4 by offering them special privileges of self determination… but only on the ship. The exception was for England, which was seen as the ring leader, for England there was to be a another fate, England was to die, to be hung drawn and quartered, hacked into 9 meaty chunks, what was left of its wealth, economy, power, prestige to be spread around the other gang members whilst it slowly suffered and died. Harnessing its leader in this way made the UK gang ineffectual, no longer respected in the world.

    That is pretty much where we are today. The only escape is the lifeboat. But the lifeboat is too big, it cannot be manned by one crew only, its too wide to reach oars on both sides so a single escapee could only row a single oar, the boat would go around in circles or just drift with the tide, and the master of the SS EU knows this, would be happy to watch as the escaping England just floundered.

    In order to escape, we would need at least 2 crew, one oar each, preferably 4, so the escape would be quicker and have the ability to row in the direction of their choosing.

    As I have said previously, its either all in or all out, there is no option in the treaties to release a region.

    Once we are out, that is when the real politics begin, and the sanctions. The first step would be to regain international recognition, so the options on the table at that point would be limited. The most obvious at this point would be 4 sovereign nations with national parliaments and a UK federal parliament limited in size and structure for overview elements such as defence and international affairs. The creation of an EP inside a federal UK would not change the basic international structure so international recognition should be achievable.

    In that scenario I am very much in favour of an EP, English MPs representing English constituents on English matters. Where matters spill over the borders into Wales or Scotland it would have to go up to the federal UK Parliament, as would issues that affected all 4 countries, similarly with the Scots Parliament and the Welsh or NI Assemblies.

    Or we could have 4 countries trying to go their own way, but as already indicated, I don’t believe any one of them could survive on their own, nor do I think any other country would recognise them, and we would end up like Northern Cyprus.

    Creating and EP before leaving the EU may or may not be beneficial to the overall outcome, that I think is open to debate, but there has to be more open thinking as to where the final outcome will take us.

  29. Wyrdtimes September 14, 2010 at 13:46 Permalink

    @ian

    “and unfortunately I think that England as a single Nation could not support itself.”

    I disagree. The longer England is bled dry by the UK/EU the harder it will be but England can survive and prosper.

    I’m not convinced the EU would block trade with an independent England. The Germans will still want to sell us cars, the French will still want to sell us cheese etc. England is a big market for European goods – to trade block England would be a catastrophe for European business.

    And of course, and independent England would be free to trade as we wished – with the rest of the world.

    Having said that, England can do a lot to become more self-sufficient and we should. we will still require resources and services from the other ex-home nations which wouldn’t be a problem as I imagine the loss of English trade would be catastrophic to them too.

    England can cope. And personally I think that with English taxes spent on England for the first time in 300 odd years we’ll do a lot better than we are right now.

    English independence for me. But parliament first.

  30. jameshigham September 14, 2010 at 16:31 Permalink

    “I’m not convinced the EU would block trade with an independent England. The Germans will still want to sell us cars …”

    For a start, if England were to leave the EU, the EU would collapse – hence its attempts to control the City. The Germans wanting to sell cars has nothing to do with the EU – that’s Europe you’re talking about there – a different other animal.

    The EU is an alien organization, run by Marxists, who impose themselves, squatting like a giant toad, across all the European nations. The EU would most certainly attempt to block trade.

  31. Wyrdtimes September 15, 2010 at 13:14 Permalink

    James – you seem to contradict yourself slightly in that last post. But this is far more important.

    “For a start, if England were to leave the EU, the EU would collapse”

    Hence why English home rule/parliament followed by independence should be top priority to anyone who wants to live free of the EU.

  32. James Higham September 15, 2010 at 14:04 Permalink

    “English home rule/parliament followed by independence”

    No, it can’t happen that way, in that order. That’s what the whole post and many of the comments above were about. You can’t legally get the parliament without the independence first.

    The independence must come first to free us from the legal constraints which the EU has embedded in international law. This happened because our leaders signed away our sovereignty.

    Yes, we could have a cavalier leader say, “To hell with that,” but who would that leader actually be? To have an English Parliament, someone has to actually implement it, set it up in the first place.

    What would the mechanism be? If you know of a mechanism for this to happen, while the EU controls 85% of our former England, please tell me.

    On the other hand, if a majority of, say, 53% [last tainted poll - the actual figure is around 70%] were to vote Out, then the government has no choice.

    Then the only argument becomes English Parliament versus UK Parliament and I would fight on the English side.

  33. Toque September 16, 2010 at 19:16 Permalink

    “and unfortunately I think that England as a single Nation could not support itself.”

    That’s possibly the daftest thing you’ve ever written Ian.

  34. Patrick Harris September 16, 2010 at 20:16 Permalink

    I once asked a businessman, who loved the European Union and all the benefits of belonging, “are you saying that your product is only sold to the Europeans because we are in the European Union, or do you think your product is the best for their needs”?
    I could hear the cogs turning, he replied that he hoped it was the latter.
    England would do well outside the EU in much the same way as Switzerland.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. “Campaign Finance Reform Is on Its Last Legs” North Capitol Street - September 13, 2010

    [...] nourishing obscurity » Open letter to the English Nationalists [...]

  2. Robert Scott Reviews » Magic Article Re-Writer - September 14, 2010

    [...] nourishing obscurity » Open letter to the English Nationalists [...]

Leave a Reply

Please copy the string rdYmq5 to the field below: