Campaign for an English Parliament

The CEP are planning on touring around England prior to the General Election in a "Battle Bus". That will raise a few eyebrows.

Check the CEP blog for details.

And it looks as though the English Democrats are planning something similar.

The latest CEP press release tackles the Church of England's inclination towards ignoring England's national day.

What the response of the bishops indicates is that the great majority of them share with both UK Government and the UK Establishment an attitude of disdain towards England, their country, the country of which they are the Established Church, an attitude of disdain towards English patriotic sentiment, something never found in Scotland, Wales and Ireland, an attitude not just one of indifference towards a sense of national identity and belonging, but also of hostility towards England itself as a distinct nation -their nation despite themselves. They are in England but not of it. Hostility towards the concept of Englishness runs very deep within the UK Government and Establishment to which the bishops belong.

It didn't always used to be that way.

"The Church of England is the most venerable and the most influential of all the factors which have gone into making English history and English character. Broadly and deeply planted in the land, mixed up with all our manners and customs, one of the main guarantees of our local government, and therefore one of the prime securities of our common liberties, the Church of England...is part of our history, part of our life, part of England itself." - Bishop George Bell

Given the attitude of the Church of England towards England the nation - with the honourable exception of John Sentamu - I think disestablishment and a name change is long overdue.

The latest CEP Press Release quotes me:

The Campaign for an English Parliament has noted that last Wednesday's vote on a third runway at Heathrow Airport was won for the Government by MPs elected outside England. English constituency MPs rejected the third runway by a margin of 20 votes but a phalanx of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs trooped through the lobby to win the day for the Government, overturning, in the process, the democratic will of England.

According to one Labour rebel a “tearful and dewy eyed” Prime Minister had called wavering Labour MPs into his office to tell them that losing this vote would “de-stabilise the Government and de-stabilise the markets”. In the event 52% of English MPs voted against the Government, 48% with the Government. But MPs elected outside England were a different matter altogether, of these MPs only 29% voted against the Government, with a whopping 71% supporting the building of a new £13bn runway on top of the ancient English village of Sipson.

Across the country the general public opposed the third runway by a margin of 13% (YouGov), so English MPs appear to be better reflecting public opinion than non-English MPs who fly in the face of it. So why the disparity? The Constitution Unit at University College London may have the answer. Between May 2005 and June 2007 CU researchers analysed data from almost 500 votes in the House of Commons. It revealed that Scottish Labour backbenchers rebelled in an average of 1.8% of votes, compared to an average of 3.4% for their English counterparts and 1.9% among Welsh MPs.

According to the Constitution Unit the “most significant factor” in explaining this phenomenon is that Scots MPs vote through unpopular Government measures that do not apply north of the Border because they face no external pressure from their constituents or local party.

“It would be wrong to suggest that Scottish electors do not care about the issues surrounding the Heathrow debate”, said Gareth Young, in a message to CEP members, “but we have to recognise that they elect a Minister to the Scottish Parliament to represent them on Transport, Planning and the Environment (planning is a devolved matter); so a Scottish Westminster MP looking to advance his career by voting with the Government can be reasonably sure that his constituents will disregard his voting record on these matters.

“There is the small matter of the Barnett consequentials too, Scotland stands to rake in up to £130 million from this, to spend on whatever they want without the interference of English MPs.

“The presence of non-English MPs in the parliament that governs England not only allows them to foist unpopular measures on England, but also helps to stabilise an unpopular and unwanted government; compromising England's right to pick the government of its choosing, and lessening our chances of kicking out a government that we don’t want.”

In the CEP's Summer "Think of England" magazine Frank Field offers up a condensed version of his Chancellor's speech to the University of Hertfordshire:

the English Question and immigration are intricately linked in two significant respects. Both issues are still no go areas for most major British politicians. Both issues feed the BNP vote.

According to Frank, not only should the democratic unfairness be addressed, but action is also required because "the English Question is being taken up seriously by the BNP". As regular readers will know I have been warning about the BNP's attempts to leap aboard the English bandwagon for a considerable time, and as my recent post on the English Democrats showed my concerns in this direction don't appear to have been shared by all. In fact the English Democrats appear to see a benefit in the far-right joining the English cause.

Over at the British Democracy Forum, English Democrat, Steve Uncles, states that "I think it's great [that] 3 Different Flavours of English Nationalists are Standing in Elections this year", whatever flavour of English Nationalism they represent. One of the flavours to which he refers is the distinctly racial England First Party, with whom Steve Uncles has met, and whose policies include:

• Repatriation of all immigrants to their lands of ancestral origin
• Capital punishment for all murderers
• Restoration of the gibbet, stocks and whipping post for serious violent offenders, paedophiles, sex pests and drug dealers.
• The abolition of the Islamic faith and demolition of all mosques

When questioned as to whether he supports the restoration of the gibbet Steve Uncles jokes, "It's a printing error, I believe they want to still be able to get their giblets so they can make Chicken Soup!".

It's not just the England First Party, Steve Uncles also invites British National Party members over to English nationalist forums for the purpose of debate. Debate about what exactly? The answer may be revealed by the breathless excitement with which another English Democrat, David Lane, announces that the BNP are discussing a name change to the English National Party (ironically a name registered to the EDP themselves):

The English effect is happening !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Both UKIP and the BNP are debating changing their names on their respective web sites.

THIS IS A QUOTE FROM A BNP FORUM

"Controversy is not the purpose of this thread.

For several reasons I think the BNP should change the Party's name to the English National Partry.

Scots, Irish and Welsh quite rightly have their own Nationalist Parties which are acceptable, even to the Establishment. But these Nationals are also British. Whenever anyone mentions British Nationalism it is as though the Black Death has returned. I have no idea why Scots, Welsh or Irish Nationalism is ok but not 'British'. For much the same reasons I think we should have an English Parliament. The 'other' Brits can sit in our Parliament but not vice versa. It would not only ruff the collars of those politiciams who hate the English, it may also be attractive to voters. Also, in an English Parliament, 'British' people would not be able to sit in it."

===============================================
Looks like British is out and ENGLISH is in, both UKIP and BNP are now debating name changes !!!!!!!!

In case you missed it I draw your attention to:

"Also, in an English Parliament, 'British' people would not be able to sit in it."

As I have highlighted previously, it is the belief of the BNP that an English parliament should contain only the ethnic English, hence the quotes around the word British.

In an article on the English Democrats News blog Steve Uncles recognises that the BNP are adopting English nationalism for pragmatic reasons and suggests that a change of name and loyalty would be beneficial to them:

The failing BNP along with failing UKIP realise the English Nationalism is the only viable alternative political view point.

The problem these Unionist parties have is that they don't have England or English in their name - the English Democrats is the only way forward.

And it gets worse. In this email to a fellow English nationalist Steve Uncles suggests infiltrating the English Independence Party to affect a merger with the English Democrats:

What about infiltrating the English Independence Party

After all, you could claim that you have "fallen out" with the English Demcorats, as we don't have a policy of English Independence.

You may also be able to vote out/demand their silly immigration policy is scraped, as a reason for joining, and then vote to merge with the English Democrats after this is achieved.

It would then give us an angle on what is going on, with a possiblity of neutralising them.

I guess that Martin, and Alan may also be interested.
(English Democrats special forces?)

We may have our different views, but we are all trying our best for England.

What-do-ya-think ?

Steve

The silly immigration policy to which Steve refers is the encouraged repatriation of "post-WW2 non-European mass immigrants to return to their countries of origin, culture and extended families" to "restore a SINGLE, EXCLUSIVE ENGLISH CULTURE as a basis for government policy". Silly indeed, but why would he want to incorporate these people into the English Democrats Party; is support for an English parliament his only criteria?

In addition the EDP have also written to England's Parliamentary Party to suggest a merger, and they are completely obsessed with both UKIP and Veritas, with their one notable scalp being the defection of the West Dorset UKIP branch to the EDP. An obsession that led Dr Richard North to observe that:

English Democrats, by the way - superficially attractive - is, inter alia a sink hole for little Englanders. Some of the names I recognise as trouble-makers from UKIP days, people whom UKIP was fortunate to lose when they deserted to Veritas and who have since found refuge in their final bolt-hole as the Kilroy party falls apart.

The EDP will doubtless take pride in such an attack from a unionist political opponent (even if he is, like them, Eurosceptic). But what if North has a point, what if all this courting of fringe parties is populating the English Democrats with a load of undesirables, with dubious motives, from the fringes? And what if the perception that the English movement is populated with such people is preventing it from becoming a mainstream movement?

Recruitment for recruitment's sake appears to be the raison d'être. One English Democrat correspondent on Political Betting even boasts that he has "converted many BNP voters into supporters of an independent English Parliament and English Democrat voters". He then hopefully adds, "Race does not enter our politics". I'm sorry to be a party-pooper, but if you recruit from the BNP then race will enter your politics.

The England effect, if it does happen, needs to be a cross-party, mainstream and pluralist campaign for English national emancipation; it will not come about from an unholy alliance of ethnic nationalists, eurosceptics and disaffected British nationalists, and it will not benefit from people that are in it for purely pragmatic reasons.

The Campaign for an English Parliament, who will have stalls at the Conservative and Liberal Democrat conferences, tend to focus their attention on persuading the centre-ground of the benefits of a political Englishness. For me it is the CEP's policy that represents the way forward, but regrettably the actions of other English nationalist groups have held the CEP back in that respect.

Frank Field is correct, the English Question and Immigration are linked, but not only in the two ways that he describes. They are also linked in a third way because there is an overlap between civic English nationalists, campaigning for a constitutional Englishness, and ethnic English nationalists primarily concerned with what England can do for them; an overlap that is reinforced by the EDP's attempt to tap into the pool of ethnic nationalism and British nationalism to garner support for their goal of an English parliament. In doing so they make a strategic and ethical mistake.

I reiterate my previous advice to the English Democrats:

There’s a huge centre-ground of people who vote Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat, and it’s those people that the English Democrats need to attract. This won’t be achieved from a position in the gutter. The EDP have never taken my advice on anything (which is why I reluctantly write this article), and perhaps they won’t now, but for what it’s worth here’s my advice: Stop meeting with racists, instead you should fight them; differentiate yourselves from ethnic nationalists in the minds of the public, help show that English nationalism is not soft white nationalism; move yourself out from the fringes, focus on the mainstream; stop poaching from other parties, recruit from your own ranks, and; for all our sakes start preaching the progressive nationalist values that I think you believe in, make those your main focus and people will find common ground with you.

The wisdom of English Democrat, Steve Uncles (I had a good chuckle at this press releases and follow up comment).

English Democrats London Mayoral Candidate - Matt O'Connor, today announced in a press conference close to his "Shock Scot" Campaign Poster at London Bridge Railway station, that he would be launching a new "Hard Hitting" English Parliament Campaign Group in May 2008, directly after the London Mayoral Elections.

He explained that the English Parliament issue is a "Killer Issue" and the established "Campaign for an English Parliament" is virtually invisible to most members of the public,and that's after 10 years of existance, he continued it's difficult to understand what the leadership of the Campaign for an English Parliament have been doing, it's time for a fresh radicle approach to gain justice for England, and maximum publicity for the issue.

He promised to firmly establish the "English Parliament" issue at the very top of the political agenda, once outside the restrictions of an the Mayoral Election Campaign, in a similar way to his Fathers-4-Justice campaign.

"I'll make sure the established politicians can no longer ignore the will of the English people"

The Campaign for an English Parliament recently rejected an offer by Matt O'Connor to speak at their "Future of England Conference" on April 26 in London, as they were afraid it may attract "too much attention".

ENDS

Actually it was the wrong sort of attention they were worried about.

The snub by the CEP in not allowing Matt O'Connor to speak at the "Future of England" conference was not a good move by the CEP, and could have been a key note speech for Matt O'Connor in the London Campaign.

The occassional snipes by some of the CEP bloggers with regards the English Democrats is also something the English Democrats have never responded to, the CEP go over board to quite rightly let other organisations know that the CEP is an inclusive Campaign Group, however some of the bloggers for the very same CEP want to try to imply that the English Democrats is linked to the "Far Right", at any opportunity they have, this is not something that should occur, and is of course totally incorrect.

It is worth remembering that a proportion of those in the CEP are paid up members of the Conservative Party, Labour Party and indeed one bizarre individual chose UKIP instead of joining the English Democrats to stand in a Council Election - difficult to understand ! - these "Party" members have their own agenda.

The current Vice-Chairman of the CEP was the English Democrats Chairman of Oxfordshire for a while, he was approached by and became a Conservative and I believe is trying to get a career as a politician in the Conservative & Unionist at all cost party !

It won't do any harm to have Two Campaigning Groups for an English Parliament.

There was the organisation (and still is) "Families Need Fathers" but this group although government funded never achieved the same publicity as Fathers-4-Justice.

I'd suggest that Matt Man is a better "front man" then Michael Knowles, for an English Parliament Campaign Group however I am sure they will end up working together.

Wry smile from Mike Knowles. Yes, I know it's easy to be wise after the event, but even so it's bloody funny given recent events: Steve Uncles arrested.

From the English Democrats' Forum and the British Democracy Forum comes this dispatch from Steven Uncles, Party Secretary for the English Democrats:

English Democrats London Mayoral Candidate - Matt O'Connor, today announced in a press conference close to his "Shock Scot" Campaign Poster at London Bridge Railway station, that he would be launching a new "Hard Hitting" English Parliament Campaign Group in May 2008, directly after the London Mayoral Elections.

He explained that the English Parliament issue is a "Killer Issue" and the established "Campaign for an English Parliament" is virtually invisible to most members of the public,and that's after 10 years of existance, he continued it's difficult to understand what the leadership of the Campaign for an English Parliament have been doing, it's time for a fresh radicle approach to gain justice for England, and maximum publicity for the issue.

He promised to firmly establish the "English Parliament" issue at the very top of the political agenda, once outside the restrictions of an the Mayoral Election Campaign, in a similar way to his Fathers-4-Justice campaign.

"I'll make sure the established politicians can no longer ignore the will of the English people"

The Campaign for an English Parliament recently rejected an offer by Matt O'Connor to speak at their "Future of England Conference" on April 26 in London, as they were afraid it may attract "too much attention".

ENDS

A dyslexic CEP, just what England needs.

Last Tuesday afternoon Canon Kenyon Wright CBE addressed the English Constitutional Convention in the Stranger's Dining Room at the Houses of Parliament. Pictured here with Mike Knowles (Chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament) who was chairing the meeting.

Kenyon Wright was one of the architects of Scottish devolution. He served as Executive Chair of the Scottish Constitutional Convention (1989-1999), and was a member of the Consultative Steering Group on the Scottish Parliament. He also chairs People & Parliament, which carried out an extensive nationwide survey of the expectations of the people for Scotland and for the new Parliament.

In 1999, Canon Wright was awarded a CBE “for services to Scottish Devolution and Constitutional Reform”, and in 2000 was given an Honorary D.Litt. from Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh, on similar grounds.

Canon Wright and his colleagues on the SCC expected Scottish devolution to be followed by a round of English regional devolution. He was a supporter of devolution to English regions and recently he was working with the new Constitutional Conventions in the English Regions. However, following the rejection of regional assemblies by the people of England he now sees English regional assemblies as "a complete non-starter", and in light of England's "growing sense of national identity" Canon Wright has now come out in favour of a "strong English Parliament, alongside Scotland's and a strengthened Welsh legislature".

Also speaking at the ECC were Mark Gill (Ipsos MORI) who explained to the Convention the methodology and relevance of the recent MORI poll that indicates that 41% of voters support an English parliament.

Looking around the room I could see a number of influential faces that I recognised. I'm pleased to report that Sir George Young MP (the intellect behind English Votes on English Matters) was there, had he taken heed of my recent letter to him? So was Peter Facey of Unlock Democracy, who I recently interviewed on the CEP Blog. Simon Hughes MP turned up for ten minutes, polished off a load of sandwiches and volauvents, and then let himself out without so much as a by-or-leave. A couple of other MPs that I didn't recognise also made their presence known during the Questions and Answers phase of proceedings and I am reliably informed that there were a number of others, from all parties, including several Lords.

Canon Kenyon Wright's speech was extremely well delivered and very well received because it was full of useful tips for the ECC that can be drawn from the experience of the SCC. Following is my transcript of Canon Kenyon Wight's speech to the ECC.

Witness this screenshot from Conservative Home. Very interesting that they should identify the Campaign for an English Parliament as a 'Conservative Movement Campaign'.

The CEP, of course, remains opposed to the Conservative policy of English Votes on English Matters and the Conservative Party remains opposed to the CEP's policy of an English parliament. And as the CEP has always been a cross-party non-partisan venture it's hard to see why it has been identified as a Conservative Movement Campaign.

Devolution to Scotland and Wales was always a Labour campaign, and they did very well out of it; securing a LibDem-Labour coalition government in Scotland, a Labour government in Wales, and; gerrymandering English politics so that Labour's Welsh and Scottish heartlands could unfairly influence English politics.

There are perhaps some within the Conservative Party that are now realising that an English parliament might be just the barrel over which to bend New Labour and beat their sorry arse. It's a piss poor way to conduct politics, and it ain't gonna help the union, but in a way it would be an entirely justified tit-for-tat measure.

It may just be that, in linking to the CEP, Conservative Home are reflecting their readers views on the subject. A recent poll conducted by the website revealed that 82% of the 1,519 Tory members who took part in the latest ConservativeHome survey favour English and Welsh MPs being given sole control of laws affecting England and Wales.

The same poll revealed that 21% of respondents would favour an independent English Parliament. In the next poll Conservative Home will instead ask what number would favour a devolved English parliament - bringing it in line with CEP objectives.

By linking to the CEP Conservative Home has now gained links from Little Man in a Toque, the CEP News Blog and the Witanagemot Club. Good to see that some Conservatives are supporting the campaign whatever their personal motives might be.

It seems that the chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament agrees with me:

The Campaign for an English (CEP) parliament has said Conservative suggestions to exclude Scottish MPs from votes on English matters are "crazy".

Chairman Michael Knowles agreed the current situation was "extremely discriminatory" against England.

Scottish MPs were "accountable to no-one" on English issues, which "contradicts the basis of parliamentary democracy", he told politics.co.uk.

However, the Tory policy would threaten the continuation of the union, leave Scottish MPs with a further reduced workload and politicise the role of the speaker, who would be responsible for deciding which debates were exclusively English, he said.

Mr Knowles said the only answer was devolution to England, with a reduced Westminster parliament to deal with union wide matters.

Well said Mike. Keep up the good work.

Those of you that follow this blog may have noticed that I support the Campaign for an English Parliament.

The UK Government has granted devolved legislatures to three of the four nations of the United Kingdom so that they can they determine their own policies free of political interference from the other nations of the UK. England, however, is still ruled in its entirety by the UK Government, with Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish politicians drafting our legislation and voting on our laws, despite us English not having any say in the concommitant legisltion in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

It is highly undemocratic. It is unfair. It is leading to constitutional instability and friction between the nations that comprise the United Kingdom.

You may think that an English parliament is an obvious answer, and it is, but the UK Government will not allow the English a referendum on how they wish to be governed. They granted referendums to the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish, who all voted for their own parliaments, but they will not extend this principle of national self-determination to the English.

In a new paper 'The English Question' Britain's self-styled leading constitutional expert, Robert Hazel, explains why:

An English parliament would appear to be a neat solution to the fundamental asymmetry in the devolution arrangements. It would create a federation of the four historic nations of the United Kingdom, each with its parliament enjoying significant devolved powers. It is an idea that was considered by the Speaker's Conference on Devolution in 1919. More recently, it is the solution propounded by the Campaign for an English Parliament, a pressure group founded in the late 1990s in response to devolution in Scotland and Wales. (1) But it is one thing to create such a federation, quite another to make it work. The fundamental difficulty is the sheer size of England by comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom. England, with four-fifths of the population, would be hugely dominant. On most domestic matters the English parliament would be more important than the Westminster parliament. No federation has operated successfully where one of the units is so dominant. Examples are the West Indies federation, in which Jamaica had more than half the population, and the first Nigerian federation and early Pakistan, where in both cases one of the states had more than half the population. In the postwar German federal constitution of 1949, Prussia was deliberately broken up into five or six different states to prevent it being disproportionately large and dominating the new Germany. Although all federations have some units much larger than others, as a general rule among existing federations no unit is greater than around one-third of the whole, to avoid it dominating the rest. If this logic were accepted, England would need to be broken up into smaller units for a federal solution to work--something that is anathema to the Campaign for an English Parliament.

So you see, we English are being denied fair representative democracy, and the right to national self-determination that was granted to their neighbours, because we are too big. Too big for democracy; too big to be consulted by referendum.

The British Parliament at Westminster is often referred to as the 'Mother of Parliaments'. This is a misquotation of John Bright MP who, back in 1865, declared "England is the Mother of Parliaments". England is now being denied parliamentary democracy because Westminster, the 'Mother of Parliaments', is worried that it will become subserviant to the very nation that gave birth to it way back in 1265. It must be the biggest political irony of all time.

Despite the fact that the English have overwhelmingly voted against their nation being broken into federal sub-units (78% to 22%) the UK Government continues down this path with relentless abandon.

So now you know why England cannot have its own parliament and why we must be balkanised into federal sub-units against our wishes.