UKIP

I thought about patriotism. I wished I had been born early enough to have been called a Little Englander. It was a term of sneering abuse, but I should be delighted to accept it as a description of myself. That little sounds the right note of affection. It is little England I love. And I considered how much I disliked Big Englanders, whom I saw as red-faced, staring, loud-voiced fellows, wanting to go and boss everybody about all over the world, and being surprised and pained and saying 'Bad show!' if some blighters refused to fag for them. They are patriots to a man. I wish their patriotism began at home... - J.B. Priestley

Wales Online carries some interesting comment from Alan Trench in an article titled Why Eurosceptics are not (always) Little Englanders. Trench argues that the Conservative's fresh commitment to the Union, in spite of their continued failure in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, stems from two Tory anxieties:

1. Dissolution of the Union would result in further integration of the Union's constituent parts into the EU
2. Dissolution of the UK would diminish England/Britain's international prestige and influence (no seat of the UN Security Council for England alone).

Mr Trench said the strategy of fighting seats in all parts of the UK had "bombed".

But he is adamant that Euroscepticism within Tory ranks is a key reason why the party remains determined to keep the UK together, despite the failure to advance in Scotland or win any seats in alliance with the Ulster Unionist Party in Northern Ireland.

He said: "It's one of the things people don't give enough attention to when they are trying to understand the Conservative party... All the evidence is Euroscepticism is one of the defining threads of the modern Conservative party."

During his lecture in Cardiff hosted by the Institute of Welsh Affairs, he said: "I think part of what's going on in this is if you are a serious Eurosceptic you are talking about Britain - the UK - being able to stand for itself on the world stage."

The United Kingdom has a population of more than 62 million, of which England accounts for just over 51 million - significantly less than Germany (81.8 million), France (65.4 million) and Italy (60.2 million), and only just ahead of Spain (46 million).

In other words, without the UK, England would be a midde-sized European nation which happened to have a few nuclear submarines. Would Japan (127.4 million people) see the UK as a peer or a pretender to be a great power?

It is essentially the contrary argument to that laid out by Robin Harris in The Rise of English Nationalism and the Balkanisation of Britain.

I tend to agree with Trench that Eurosceptic thinking is important in the debate over the British Question. The Tories are not 'Little Englanders' in the true sense of the phrase, they are anything but. I would say that the Tories want to keep Britain together because they are 'Big Englanders' or 'Greater Englanders' for whom Britain - or more correctly Westminster - is a device for projecting power and retaining sovereignty. They are what Chris Bryant refers to as the Anglo-British in his 2003 paper "These Englands, or where does devolution leave the English?":

I prefer to associate the Anglo-British not with an Anglocentrism whose epicentre is London, but rather with those in all regions and all classes in England for whom the difference between being English and being British, is, for the most part, unclear, unimportant and/or irrelevant. Many of them would see nothing amiss in the title of Clive Aslet’s Anyone for England? A Search for British Identity (1997). They inhabit an Anglo-British England.

The Anglo-British do not notice when an institution or person associated with England performs a British function. For example, it goes unremarked that the Bank of England is the central bank for all Britain, or that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the primate of the Church of England, crowns the sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Nor do countless references to ‘England’ which should have been to ‘Britain’ grate on the English ear. Walter Bagehot’s famous The English Constitution (1964 [1867]), for example, does not strike the Anglo-British as mistitled. Similarly, it is the 900-year continuity of the parliament at Westminster – originally English, later British – that enables Rebecca Langlands (1999) to speak of the English core of the British state.

The Anglo-Brits are also people who say 'British schools' or 'this country' - instead of 'English schools' or 'England' - when they are talking about Education policy in England; they are people who tolerate the fact that non-English MPs vote on English matters, even though they can see it is undemocratic. The Anglo-British are everywhere but I do think there is a class and age bias. The Anglo-Brits are particularly prevalent amongst the upper classes and the privately educated, and they're also more likely to be older (at least in my experience). However, they're not just confined to England or the upper echelons of society. Scots like Gordon Brown are Anglo-British in their understanding of Britain, which is why he uses an English narrative and English values to try and forment a sense of Britishness. But it's amongst Tories that you find the classic unreconstructed Anglo-Brit, Englishmen for whom the sun never sets, and for whom 1707 and 1801 marked the creation of a new Greater England, a colonial expansion. Yes it was a shame about the Empire, but chin up lads, stiff upper lip and all that...We still have Scotland and part of Ireland, ungrateful bastards though they are. Tally ho! What, what.

It's the Anglo-British 'Big Englanders' - rather than Little Englanders - who oppose an English parliament and a federal Britain. Robert Key is one such Tory:

One thing that is absolutely clear is that we should make every possible attempt to ensure that this House remains the Parliament of England. I do not wish to see any other Parliament established anywhere calling itself an English Parliament. That would be appalling and would go against 1,000 years of our history.

Mark Pritchard is another:

I am afraid I do not support your campaign as I feel it will play into the hands of European federalists by breaking up the United Kingdom, even more than Labour have done already. I think that there would be many in the European Commission and elsewhere on the Continent who would be delighted at seeing the United Kingdom become nothing more than a country of regions - a type of “divide and rule” concept.

I know that the CEP has the best interests of England at heart, but I don’t think that an English Parliament is the way to deliver these interests.

Liam Fox another:

I think our national identity is being stripped away in order to prepare us for being engulfed by those who wish to see Britain merely as a region in a European superstate. I believe our integration has already gone far enough and I will resist any moves to diminish British sovereignty in any way, shape or form.

The Tories prefer to avoid the issue of the EU, and so for this reason it is UKIP politicians who we turn to for an honest description of Eurosceptic Conservative thought on the subject of devolution. The following is taken from a letter from Jeffrey Titford, UKIP MEP and former Tory, again in opposition to an English parliament:

From our point of view, there is little point in establishing an English Parliament, while we remain members of the European Union. In fact, to do so would be to play into the hands of the EU, which is quite happy to see the United Kingdom broken up. We can only enter into sensible debate on this issue, after Britain has left the European Union.

This UKIP view of devolution is embellished by Derek Clark MEP, again in a letter opposing an English parliament:

We see the UK as a sovereign nation independent of the political construction known as the EU but otherwise co-operating with the countries of Europe. I believe that this view is shared by the majority of people in the UK. What is happening is a deliberate destabilizing process by the EU with the active support of both this government and previous ones. As a result all sorts of movements have sprung up in support of one view or another. Frankly the campaign for an English parliament can only help to assist the break up of the UK and further the cause of the EU agenda.

It's not only in the field of politics that the Anglo-British rear their ugly heads. Dave Richards of the English Football Association provides a classic example of Anglo-Brit thinking:

"It's time for a British boss, somebody who understands our passion, belief and commitment. There's no distinction between English and British."

Incredibly Richards made this statement in the context of advocating Martin O'Neill as the next England manager whilst opposing a foreign manager of the England team. For Anglo-Brits the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is simply - England writ large (at least to all English intents and purposes, they are rather more tactful when addressing a Scottish audience). It is the thinking of these people that is the greatest obstacle to English home rule - to them British sovereignty is English sovereignty.

David Cameron is another Anglo-Brit, as Trench notes:

Mr Trench was struck by Mr Cameron's commitment to the union in a December 2007 speech in Edinburgh in which he said in a "choice between constitutional perfection and the preservation of our nation, I choose our United Kingdom".

The academic said: "That was the first time I noticed a Conservative leader come up with a reason to support the union... What he said was the importance of the union was it was part of the UK's wider standing in the world."

The Anglo-Brits have a very whiggish interpretation of Britishness. Devolution is an asymmetry that can be tolerated and explained because sovereignty remains with the Imperial Parliament. In that way the unbroken continuity of English/Anglo-British sovereignty is preserved. Tradition, continuity and incremental progress are more important than democracy. For these Anglo-Brits it would almost be preferrable for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to be allowed to whither on the English vine and drop off rather than contemplate a federalism by which Westminster's sovereignty is diminished but an entity named Britain remains. They would internalise the managed decline of Empire by treating Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as colonies - as peripheries to the English centre - rather than undergo a radical re-imagining of the centre that disturbs their narrative.

I don't hold out much hope for a federal Britain. I see the future of Britain as one of 'managed decline' in which Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland claim ever greater powers from Westminster. The only way this will be averted is by the decline of the Big Englander and the rise of the Little Englander. In this respect I think demographics are on England and Britain's side, the youth of Britain being far more comfortable with the multi-national nature of Britain than is the post-war baby-boomer generation.

We Little Englanders do not necessarily view Westminster as a benign force for civillisation and progress; we talk of the Norman Yoke in the same breath as mention of Westminster; we sing Jerusalem instead of God Save the Queen or Land of Hope and Glory; and we view our politicians as corrupt and elitist, and invariably British.

According to Steve Uncles, UKIP offered the English Democrats leader, Robin Tilbrook, the deputy leadership of UKIP.

At the English Democrats National Council, 2010 Elections de-brief on Saturday in Nottingham - it was revealed that desperate UKIP offerred the English Democrats National Chairman Robin Tilbrook, the "Deputy Leadership of UKIP" if Robin, stood down all the English Democrats candidates during the 2010 General Election Campaign, and closed down the English Democrats party.

With English Democrats comfortably beating UKIP in the more established English Democrats areas, like Doncaster, Dartford, and Raleigh, it is not surprising that UKIP are resorting to such desperate measures.

If you compare the TV Performances of Robin Tilbrook and "Screaming" Lord Pearson, it is not surprising that UKIP would want Robin Tilbook as part of their team.

Fortunately, Robin Tilbrook has no intention of changing from an English Nationalist to a British Nationalist.

Had Tilbrook not invested so much of his own money in the English Democrats I imagine that he would have bitten their hand off and attempted to change UKIP policy on The British Question from within.

John Osmond at the Institute of Welsh Affairs relates that the Speaker’s Conference of 1920 was able to agree on the areas in which devolved legislatures should be established:

On this last point the crucial agreement was that the principle of nationality should be fundamental and so the Conference decided that England should not be divided. In short, therefore, the Conference opted for a British federation , made up of England, Scotland, Ulster and Wales.

It seems that Speaker Lowther himself favoured what is today UKIP's solution: Dual Mandate MPs.

...another explanation why the Speaker’s Conference led nowhere, was that it failed to agree on whether the devolved legislatures should be directly elected. Suggesting that the territories should be represented by Grand Committees of their MPs meeting in Cardiff, Edinburgh, Belfast, and London Speaker Lowther explained:

“The more I considered the proposal of one supreme and four independent legislatures, the less I liked it. The confusions that might arise, the multiplicity of elections, the novelty of five prime Ministers and Cabinets of probably divergent views, the enormous expense of building four new sets of Parliamentary buildings and Government offices and providing all the paraphernalia of administrations, frightened by economical soul.”

It's the dual mandate MP solution to the West Lothian Question that these days gets certain Tories the sack. The Conservative Party being smart enough to understand what UKIP cannot: There is no going back; the Scots will not abolish their MSPs.

Read on and comment here.

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.