Voters oppose Scottish PM

This situation comes as no great surprise:

A majority of English voters think Scottish MPs should be barred from becoming the UK's prime minister, according to a BBC survey.

This is an indication that unequal devolution has worsened people's perception of politics and democracy in general across Britain and especially across England. As the understanding of accountability and mandate by people in post devolution Britain grows we can expect to see this kind of situation get even worse. The sooner something effective is done about it the better.

Confirmed constitutional responsibilities

eGov Monitor reports on the confirmation of the line up and responsibilities at the Department for Constitutional Affairs. The MP responsible for Devolution and Regional Policy is Bridget Prentice MP (Lewisham East) who, when she's not failing to redress the devolution imbalance, enjoys stopping people from smoking, reducing parliamentary scrutiny, advocating the introduction of ID cards, charging English students fees that are not charged to other British students, imprisoning people without trial and banning fox hunting.

Anthem4England

I have a new post up on Anthem4England.

The one department.....

From Iain Dale:

I've just read in the Standard that John Reid described the Home Office recently as "the one Department which can't have a Scot in charge". For those of us living in the real world that out to be so, but in Mr Blair's parallel universe anything's possible. Next he'll be making Margaret Beckett Foreign Secretary.

Quite. Anyone notice how quiet the BBC are being over this issue? Perhaps I missed a news story somewhere from them.

Not good enough Mr. Cameron

David Cameron recently made a speech at The Power Inquiry conference. Read the text here. He quite rightly puts the boot into New Labour's regional agenda but fails completely to mention anything about the unfinished devolution project and the democratic deficit that leaves in the British Union.

Devolution Version 2 to be released

While England waits with growing impatience for it's share of the devolution cake the Scottish are already talking about devolution version 2.0:

Somehow, Labour must come to terms with this new phase – “devolution version 2.0” – and develop policies accordingly. McConnell needs to address the deficiencies in the Scottish democracy, the sections of the Scotland Act designed as a unionist fail-safe against independence. The Scottish parliament must find its own revenue base and be seen to raise more of the money it spends.

England's version of devolution isn't even in the alpha testing stage yet. Rumours have it that the programming team is full of idiots.

The Home Away From Home Office

From The Times:

Such is his aggressive manner that the much-aired West Lothian Question, which highlights the anomaly that lets Scottish MPs vote on English affairs while devolution prevents things happening the other way around, is again likely to come to the fore with Reid at the helm of the Home Office.

It looks like the Home Office has become the Home Away From Home Office.

It's offensive for some reason

From the Sun:

FIREMEN have been banned from flying England’s flag at their station during the World Cup.

Stunned crews were told the Cross of St George could offend ethnic minorities.

If anyone can work out why the national flag might be offensive to ethnic minorities please email me. If anyone can work out why banning the flag might be offensive to, oh I don't know, a whole nation please mail the London Fire Brigade.

Lance Dragon, over on the COSG forums, makes this observation:

These kinds of twats who ban the English flag are making a statement - if you belong to an ethnic minority there is no way you can ever consider yourself to be English even if you want to be.

They are certainly sending out that kind of message, or at least they are in danger of having it interpreted that way.

Scott get's on the case:

Can you think of any other nation in the entire world in which a display of the national flag would be prohibited for fear of causing offence? Is there any society as craven as this one? I am, for once, rendered almost speechless.

No Scott, I don't think that I can. Frankly it's an offensive position to want to prevent the flying of the national flag.

From the comments at Scott's place:

The problem is that the St George's Cross flag was hijacked by hooligan football supporters some years ago and respectable people began to shun it.

Yes, right, and that's the reason why they want to stop it flying. So it won't offend the moderate football supporter.........

John Reid gets the Home Office

So it looks like John Reid has the Home Office. This means he will be making policy in an area that has been partially devolved to the Scottish parliament and, therefore, his policies may not affect his own constituents in the same way that they would affect the people of England. No person eligible to vote in England can use their vote to specifically pass commentary on the performance of this minister in his brief at the Home Office.

Remember, it is not that he is Scottish that is at issue here. What is at issue is mandate and the democratic relationship that he has with the people his decisions and performance will affect.

Also note that the people in his constituency voted for him and yet they will not receive the full benefit of his time in office because they may not be subject to the outcome of some of his efforts.

Holy Grail: Scene 3

I'm thinking about this to support my other T shirt design.

Law, huuuu, what is it good for.......

Via IDD:

Automatic deportation for EU nationals convicted of criminal offences in the UK are specifically prohibited by EU Directive 2004/38, which states that ‘Expulsion orders may not be issued by the host Member State as a penalty or legal consequence of a custodial penalty’. "Article 33 of the directive prevents the automatic removal of those convicted of offences, and whilst it does allow for deportation as a sanction, the blanket use of deportation orders is prohibited by the Directive, which specifically states: 'Justifications that are isolated from the particulars of the case or that rely on considerations of general prevention shall not be accepted'. The Directive entered into force on the 30th April 2006.

This may mean that we will have to treat foreign criminals from the EU differently from foreign criminals from any other country with respect to deportation. Surely if the argument about deportation of foreign nationals holds any water at all it must be true for all foreign nationalities, regardless of whether their home country is part of an expansionist federal political project or not.

In response to this issue, the wider version of which all party politicians seem to be falling over themselves to say how important it is to your average British citizen, Labour councillor Bob Piper says:

I do think you should credit your loony wing in UKIP when you nick pieces from their website Iain.

Yup, I can see the average man in the street nodding his head in approval at that contribution.

Home Office mandate - England's affairs

The Green Ribbon raises an interesting point on the inheritance of the Home Office in any future reshuffle. Remember that home affairs is partially devolved. If the position goes to an MP that does not represent an English constituency it will be a measure of the importance that mandate commands in New Labour.

Let's hope that such a situation doesn't come to pass. It will just raise the temperature within a Union that is already heated by the friction of unequal devolution. Then again, if it does happen it will indicate that the issue is very far below the radar of the British government so maybe a little heating is what they either deserve or require to shame them into some kind of action.

England is in crisis - Christine Constable (EDP) visits the USA

Christine Constable (EDP) tells it like it is to our friends over the pond:

"England is in crisis and America needs to know what’s going on to their good friend across the pond..."

She's just come back from a week long flying tour of the states, lecturing in Universities, speaking on the radio, writing in the papers:

The openness of the press was a refreshing change. OK the quality and the adverts was a pain, but in terms of providing opportunities to speak I found the Americans open, interested and not shy of letting me use the media

The reaction she received was from a public shocked at what is happening:

Members of the public who phoned in were equally shocked about what they heard, and there was a real feeling of pain and sadness that England might, in the not too distant future pass into history. The most poignant aspect was America's disbelief that we could let this happen without even a vote - but this is modern day democracy in England - it does not exist.

Her visit report is available in full on the CoSG forums.

Tesco EIBO branding

Another case of Tesco's English in, British Out branding, garnished with a little St. George's day relish:

Louder

Simon Heffer in the Telegraph:

Realising it was losing this argument, Labour tried to palm us off with regional assemblies. As an intelligent people, we did not fall for that. What we want, and deserve, is an English parliament at Westminster, where English matters are decided solely by representatives of the English people.

Louder

Tommy has the news. Read it here.

Louder

From the Guardian Comment is Free resource, talk about England and devolution:

This position is sustainable only for as long as the English do not know, or care, much about it. My sense is that this is now, slowly but surely, beginning to change. The fact that there is no easy answer to the English Question - or even that some answers may be more troublesome than the question - will not stop it being increasingly asked. Just saying that it is one of life's little anomalies, as Lord Falconer suggested recently, will no longer be enough.

Yes, it is beginning to change. More people are asking what about England?, a question that the government is attempting to answer with a regional agenda. Like I've said before, that's an answer to a completely different question that the awakened have not asked and that's why it will never be accepted as a suitable solution.

Real News Online

This web site looks interesting. Lots of good stuff about the English question.

England, an emerging political force in Europe

Via the COSG forums comes this article:

Tracing through the impacts of Europe within the United Kingdom the European regions neatly classified under the EU NUTS regions are being perceived under the New Labour government’s clumsy efforts at devolution to be dismembering England as a country.

The article goes on to discuss the English Democrats in the main and delivers us the following conclusion:

The difference between the EDP and other British political parties, including the UKIP, is that it is focused on the English who make up majority of the population of the UK. It addresses the evolving and real issues which face the English in particular, without being distracted by Irish, Welsh or Scottish questions. The Conservatives, a Unionist party, has its hands tied by its own dogma, the Labour Party has done most damage to the English and the Liberal democrats have not understood the full significance of the emerging sense of injustice felt by the English. Observers and commentators expect the EDP to gain strength rapidly.

Then he tripped up and fell on his face, my how we laughed

Via Paul Linford I note that Robert Hazell has written the following in the Guardian:

Regional government in England is the only solution that offers an answer to both versions of the English question. It could help give England a louder voice within the union, and help decentralise the government of England. But defeat in the North East referendum in 2004 has raised the bar…

Raised the bar? Like a mediocre hurdler at an Olympic pole vault competition Mr. Hazell responds to the issue with the wrong tools, the wrong approach and a complete inability to grasp how high the bar actually is.

How can multiple regional assemblies address any of the major constitutional issues that devolution has laid bare in the Union? How can, for instance, any regional assembly or group of assemblies contrive to address the advantages in student funding that are enjoyed by Scotland on an English national level?

How can any assembly realistically reduce prescription fees for the English on a national level? I doubt they’d manage it on a local level and even if they did how would they prevent people outside of their region enjoying the benefit via tourism? Would trying to do so even be acceptable? I don’t think so.

There are many, many other issues that imply that Hazell misses the point completely. It’ll be fun watching him trying to jump that raised bar but, when it comes to equality in the Union, we all know that he doesn’t have what it takes.

The English have no loyalty to their own produce – Tesco official

I’ve finally received a response from Tescos regarding their use of Scottish and Welsh flags on Scottish and Welsh produce and the British flag on English produce. Their web site says:

We have dedicated buying teams in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, whose task it is to seek out and develop relationships with suppliers. In the UK, Tesco stocks over 7,000 local products. All products are labelled with the country of origin and, where appropriate, with national flags.

They responded to my question about labelling English produce with the same courtesy with this:

We do not place the English flag on "English" products because we have what we term generic core lines. As Tesco view Scotland & Wales as "Regions" for the purposes of merchandising and to ensure we give the customers in these areas exactly what they expect and want (i.e. Welsh& Scottish people have loyalty to their own products), we like them to know that the products they are purchasing are from their own areas /countries hence the reason for the flag. As I am sure customers can appreciate,it is more difficult to do this because of the sheer size and complexity of areas in England.

Laura Pollock
Tesco Customer Service

Get that. The English do not have loyalty to their own products. One has to assume that the English do have loyalty to British products otherwise why would Tesco bother using the British flag on English produce? Laura also deals in a little trickery with her response by defining Scotland and Wales as regions, the implication being that any food labelling on English products would have to be region based, hence there would be no need of the English flag if Tesco took this approach. This culminates in her statement that it is more difficult to do this because of the sheer size and complexity of areas in England.

And there we were thinking that it was just a matter of putting the English flag on products that were produced in England.

So, in short, you have no loyalty to the produce of your own country so there is no English flag on our products. You do have loyalty to British produce which is why we label our English food as British. The Scots and the Welsh have more loyalty to their national produce than they do to British produce which is why we use their national flags. Oh, and England is big.

I've fired off this to customer.service@tesco.co.uk:

Laura,
I wonder how your English customers feel about your implication that the English have no loyalty to their own products but they do to British products and that England is somehow too big and too complex to be treated with the same courtesy that you afford other British nations?

The cat has been out of the bag for some time now and the English are beginning to notice how politicians and organisations such as yours treat England. We are growing tired of the various excuses we are being given.

Shame! Shame!

From the Times, a disgraceful attempt by the British government to get Welsh and Scottish MPs to interfere in matters which have been significantly devolved to national bodies outside of England:

The scale of government concern was shown when it emerged that Ruth Kelly, the Education Secretary, had met Scottish and Welsh nationalists to try to persuade them to back the timetable motion.

Gareth writes to Lord Falconer of Neptune about this issue.

Hurricane English Backlash

Alfie gets a phone call.

Falconer's interview transcribed

Murky has transcribed Lord Falconer's 'English Parliament' Interview. A difficult task but one that will serve us all well as a reference of eternal embarrasement to the Lord.

Jenkins on Falconer

It's not the guts of the Jenkins article but it's worth quoting I think:

On Friday Lord Falconer, the lord chancellor, blithely announced as if by ukase that the English people would not get equal rights to the Welsh and Scots within the British parliament. Who says? He implied that even to ask was impertinent.

Are they simply very poor at the job?

Get a load of this article from the beeb and ask yourself, in the context of the article, what the by line of the picture of the Angel of the North means:

The North East rejected devolution.

No mention that the rejection was about regional devolution and not devolution for the whole of England, a completely different question.

English in, British out

It’s all about sensitivities you know. Caring, sharing, trying not to offend.

Black sheep are transformed into beautiful rainbows. Rag dolls are arrested for being in possession of certain racial traits. Manufacturers are thrown onto the altar of correctness for refusing to sponsor football teams from nations outside of their own. There’s no need to go on.

The defenders of equality and their allies, the soldiers of sensibility, seem to be doing a grand job of ensuring that they do not waste a single opportunity to point and cry shame at each and every offender and offending remark that even approaches the realm of an individual or a group identity.

Except that there is a flaw running through them. A subtle imperfection which has taken years to notice but now that it has been noticed, ruins what could and should have been something really rather nice.

The flaw is that they are deaf and blind to the English.

It’s as if someone has installed filters over their ears and over their eyes that cut out all ability to recognise the English spectrum. It’s a simple process that goes something like this.

English in … (oo) … British out

“Hello”, you might say. “My name’s George and I’m English”.
“Oh, how simply wonderful”, they might respond, “I’m British too”.

That’s English in, British out and it can be found all over the place. If it’s a new concept to you I urge you to try a small experiment at your convenience just so that you can experience it for yourself. Go into a local Sainsbury's supermarket, walk up to the fruit and veg. section and examine the packaging. You will soon discover two processes at work. The first is the straight through process and goes something like this:

Scottish turnips … [sensibility filters] … For sale, Scottish turnips.

The second process is the one we have already described, EiBo for short:

English apples … [EiBo filters] … For sale, British apples.

The problem for the sensibility brigade is that the EiBo issue actually becomes rather hurtful after a while. Like a splinter that causes an infection. First it’s not there, then you feel a little prick, then it starts to irritate, gets infected and eventually it really, really hurts. You look around but there’s no one there to help. The sensibility brigade don’t even know you exist. They are not tuned into your particular wavelength.

Let me give you another example of how deeply this issue runs. The government is keen on national identity it would seem. So keen in fact that they have decided to find out a little more about it during the national census due in 2011. They will flat out ask you about it but are, unfortunately, suffering deeply from EiBo:

The national Census is to include a question on national identity so people can say if they consider themselves Welsh, Scottish, Irish or British.

Amazing isn’t it. No English. Of course, the reason why this is the case is revealed by this letter:

…there is no such nationality as English as laid down by various acts of Parliament and accession. Persons born in the United Kingdom are citizens of the United Kingdom and are therefore British/English.

And yet the 2011 census will include Welsh, Scottish and Irish, all UK nations.

It’s a disgrace and somewhat confusing given that under the Race Relations Act being English means that you form part of a 'racial group' as defined by 'national origin' (one of the terms used in the Act) [Carine Bakken, CRE]. But you can bet your last £1000 that if you were to try and assert your racial group as defined by your national origin on the census you will be severely punished.

There are no two ways about it. If find it deeply hurtful and ultimately discriminatory. It would be different for me, as a British Unionist (fading as that now is), if the census form was about Britishness. If all constituent nations were treated as being part of the same melting pot. But it is not and it’s all tied up with devolution and the re-birth of the political structures of Wales and Scotland, the same structures that are being denied to England and all who live here.

There is a pledge available on the Internet here. Those brave people who sign it declare:

"I will refuse to fill out the 2011 UK census unless 'English' is included as a nationality but only if 1,000 other English people will too."

I’m not sure that I can sign it for two simple reasons. Firstly I cannot afford the fine that the state will impose upon me. Secondly the state will likely further punish me by removing my privilege to hold a shotgun certificate because I will be showing myself to be a person of questionable standing when it comes to being law abiding. I will be seen to be breaking the law.

There are, however, two things that I can do.

Firstly I will finally join the Campaign for an English Parliament and I will endeavour to do it today. I have been remiss in this and there is no real excuse except that I am not a big joiner of things, usually preferring to take my own path. I hope what I have been doing on this blog has made up for that oversight in some small way.

Secondly I will write to my MP specifically on the subject of the 2011 census form and I will do so in terms of how I feel right now. I feel hurt through prejudice and I have no interest at all if prejudicial hurt was the intent or not or whether the census in the stated form is perfectly legal. It’s the way that I feel and I will make that known to my representative in parliament.

As for the census form I honestly don’t know what I am to do when the time comes for me to fill it in. Like I have said I am not wealthy enough to refuse and am more exposed than most. Perhaps I should look for a new hobby.

News is coming in of a reporting error by the BBC. Story unfolding....

BBC story has been changed to:

The national Census is to include a national ID question so people can say if they consider themselves English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish or British.

ie it now includes English.

Those crazy Beeb reporters.

In other news this story has just been released by Civitas.

Rock, meet hard place, turn the lights off when you are done

Well, it looks like this morning is a quote the Gareth morning. This time it's this astonishing example of clear thinking:

Dear Mr Heald,

The Conservative policy of English Votes on English Matters does not include any provision to stop Scottish MPs being given ministerial portfolios such as health, education, transport and culture media and sport.

Would you explain to me why a Scottish MP should be barred from voting on education bills but should be allowed to head up the Department of Education?

Many thanks,

Gareth Young

I'm a little nervous to be honest. Nervous that we are missing something here and that there is a perfectly good and obvious reason why a policy of EVoEM is compatible with allowing those that cannot vote on their own policies to hold such an office.

Further, if such a minister is barred from voting on such an issue because, basically, it is not within his remit to do so then what does this say about the ministers mandate to affect policy in the specific area at all?

I suspect the answer to Gareth's gloryously impertinent question lies in the reason why the minister should not be allowed to vote on English matters. There is ruination ahead if that answer has anything to do with not having a mandate from the people in areas that have been devolved to other nations in the Union. In fact, the whold notion of having a minister crafting policy and pushing through changes in an area where the Tory party framework recognises that he is not equal to other MP's on the issue is incredible.

(G)ordon (B)rown

Click

Neil says...

...vote (for or against metric road signs), so I did, but only because I care.

He will probably rule with less authority

This is a cracking article from Brian Monteith in the Scotsman:

"How can there be a prime minister who is not accountable to the English electorate yet can choose a Cabinet, introduce legislation and then vote on it when he has no ability to so influence the same matters in his own seat in Scotland?"

This line of attack plays to the growing sense of injustice in England fed by the Conservatives receiving the largest share of the English popular vote but resulting in a majority of Labour MPs being returned, together with the perception that the 25 per cent higher public spending in Scotland is paid for by the English taxpayer.

Should Gordon Brown be Prime Minister?

The excellent preamble to this poll is provided by Gareth:

Gordon Brown seeks to become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, but since devolution to Scotland and Wales the Kingdom is not quite as united as it once was. Opposition parties and constitutionalists have begun to ask whether it is right for an MP elected in a Scottish constituency to become prime minister and form a government to draft and administer legislation concerning only England.

In Scotland the people elect a minister to the Scottish Parliament (MSP) to represent them on matters devolved to Scotland (health, education, transport, culture and sport). They also elect a Minister of Parliament (MP) to represent them at Westminster on 'reserved matters'. The people of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath elected Gordon Brown on these reserved matters. No UK voter, whether they be English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh, elected Gordon Brown to represent them on health, education, transport, culture, sport, or any of the other policy areas that are delvoved to the Scottish Parliament.

Yet should Gordon Brown succeed Tony Blair to become prime minister, he will hand pick a UK cabinet government to govern England and run English domestic policy. He will select which MPs become ministers of English departments - ministers with English portfolios, to run, for example, the English NHS, or the Department of Health to give it its correct name. He will have no such power over the Scottish government that affects his own constituents in Scotland, the people to whom he is democratically accountable. This is the so called West Lothian Question writ large. The majority of people in Scotland and England believe that it is wrong for Scottish MPs to vote on English matters, and whether or not it is acceptable for a Scottish MP to become prime minister is related to this. Please let us know what you think.

Should Gordon Brown be Prime Minister?
	Yes
	No
Free polls from Pollhost.com

No national voice, no national interest

University applications have fallen in England for the first time in six years. It’s no coincidence that this comes at the same time as higher fees are introduced across one country in the Union but not across the others:

Official figures from the University and Colleges Admissions Service (Ucas) show all applications to English universities are down by 3.7%, while applications to Scottish universities are up by 1.6% and to Welsh universities by 0.5%.
The biggest fall - of 4.5% - is amongst English students applying to English universities. By contrast the figure for English students applying to Scotland is up by 1.9%.

Meanwhile drugs available in some Union countries are being denied to patients in others.

Oh no, not that card again

Is Paul Linford really nearly equating the Campaign for and English parliament campaign with saloon-bar racism?:

Although I support the CEP's overall aims I think there is a rather unpleasant and personal overtone to this campaign. It doesn't seem so very far away from the sort of "send the buggers home" saloon-bar racism which still exists in some inner-city areas where racial tensions are high.

I think Paul must be seeing something in the campaign that I have failed to see myself. Unless Paul is referring to the use of the Scottish tae in the image he uses in his posting or, perhaps, the homeward word neither of which I view as hitting anywhere near the mark on the racist barometer.

Granted, there has been the odd sporadic comment made by visitors which I haven't personally liked very much but I do not see that as the campaign. That's just someone commenting upon it.

I have yet to see anyone manage to argue a point against the campaign that actually holds up to close scrutiny by the supporters of equality within the Union. Supporters such as Gareth, one of the authors of the CEP blog.

Paul continues:

Gareth's argument is that until we have an English Parliament, we can't have a Scottish Prime Minister of the whole of the UK, but this seems a bizarre point of view to take if Gordon is the best candidate for PM in all other respects.

Clearly that is not Gareth's argument. We clearly can have Gordon Brown as a PM. Gareth's position is that we shouldn't and it is a position that I agree with.

Let's blow this whole racism issue out of the water. Ask Gareth his opinion of Gordon Brown as a PM if he had been elected to represent a constituency in England. Same old Brown, same place of Birth, same ideas, same everything. Just a different mandate. He would be a prime minister that could represent his constituents on issues such as education and health instead of one that could affect the constituents of every other English MP on those issues but not his own.

You will find his answer enlightening.

It's nothing to do with racism and everything to do with equality.

Apparently commenting upon and trying to answer accusations of near saloon-bar racism is hostile. And dishing out such accusation of near racism isn't?

Now would be a good time to re-visit my 404 - English Parliament not Found page:

The racist card may have been played. Try reinstalling reality.

Two words Brown

Do you remember that old game of hang man where getting the words just right was all that stood between you and an uncomfortable end?

               +------+
               |/     O
               |     /|\
               |      /\
               |
              -+-

Gordon Brown clearly does. Here are another two words that Brown might want to contemplate as he walks up to the scaffold. Devolution. Asymmetrical.

It's that voting time again

Iain Dale is running a poll on the establishment of an English Parliament. Why not pop over and cast a vote.

The End of England solution

Gareth notes and responds to a paper by Robert Hazell of the The Constitution Unit, University College London. Mr. Hazell’s paper effectively suggests that an English Parliament would not be a viable solution to the current constitutional mess in the UK caused by New Labour’s prejudicial devolution settlement where the English are the only people without political representation for their nation as a nation.

Mr. Hazell suggests that this is the case because there are too many people in England for their own parliament and because some other federal nations in history failed to pull off what Hazell considers similar settlements. ”No federation has operated successfully where one of the units is so dominant”, he says.

He is effectively saying that there are so many English people that they should not expect to be treated in the same way as a nation with fewer people. He is also asking the English to look back into history and learn a lesson, that lesson being that these other nations have failed and, consequently, so will you. Don’t even go there. You’re not that good.

His logic is that if we are to accept this history lesson on the terms mentioned we should break England up into smaller units, that way the problems with the unequal devolution settlement will be solvable. Of course the very thing that campaigners for proper political representation for the English want, their own parliament for England as a nation on a par with those given to other nations in the Union, will not be afforded to them. It is a solution that instead of solving the English question makes it a question that is impossible to ask because a united England will no longer in reality exist. Nice solution Mr. Hazell.

Hazell’s suggestion that the English consider history as a reasoned argument against equality is extraordinary. Extraordinary because he fails to do the very same thing when suggesting the End of England solution. I wonder how many lessons lie littered throughout the battlefield of history for Mr. Hazell to pick through. I mean this is not the first time that a nation’s people have been treated unequally in comparison with others. What lessons can history teach us about that? This is not the first time that balkanisation has been suggested or carried through. What lessons can history teach us about that? This is not the first time the demonstrated wishes of a nation have been ignored. There are skeletons everywhere in histories closet.

There is also one premise behind the paper that needs to be outed so we know where everyone stands. That premise is that if we had to choose between the Union and England the Union must take priority even if that means the transformation of England into a collection of regions. That’s what we are talking about and it is a choice that has come about entirely because of New Labour’s handiness with the parliamentary pink slip.

Fascinating really. The UK parliament has devolved issues to the Scottish parliament. It also represents a dominant force in Britain when compared to that very same Scottish parliament. They tell us it’s marvellous and, apparently, completely workable. Yet if the English were to have a parliament it would be too dominant. There’s a word Mr. Hazell ignores. Devolution. Some issues have been devolved to the Scottish parliament. How does Mr. Hazell expect the English to dominate the Scots on properly devolved issues when the UK parliament cannot?

Though it pains me to say this I cannot in all faith resist doing so. There are people who are intent on taking bites out of England and there is a Hazell nut in every one.

The twelve parts of the UK

Honestly, it makes me mad. Furious in fact. Is there no one in our political elite that will refer to England as an actual country or even a single entity? Do they not realise what kind of seeds they are sowing?

I think a period of reflection is in order. I have always considered myself a British nationalist but I am finding it increasingly difficult to affiliate myself with a concept that seems to take so much without giving back anything in the form of recognition for the country that I owe so much to. It's a difficult decision because I make enemies hard. Once set upon a route that I believe is justifiable there is no going back, no reconciliation and it has always proven to end in sadness and bitterness.

I have had a drink and tomorrow is another day but I have to say now, the clear morning head has never made a difference in the past.

Louder and louder

The Social Affairs Unit reports upon the importance of the unfair devolution settlement in Britain citing it as possibly the key issue of the next general election

The West Lothian Question is in part a dummy run for the next election. The very real possibility that Labour may only hold onto power because of Scottish votes is one that has not yet received sufficiently public attention.

Not through want of trying I can tell you that. It will be interesting to see how the BBC copes with ignoring the issue during the next election if it does play a key part as many of us expect.

The new class divide

Ahhh, the privileged few get another opportunity to improve their lot.

The Union Flag in Brown's back yard

Too sweet not to mention:

“I don’t care what Brown says, it is an English flag and I would refuse point blank to put one in my garden — it wouldn’t be long before someone put my windows in.”

Via doctorvee.

There are no brakes on this train

Gareth has a little roundup of some press coverage on the issue of the devolution settlement in the Union. It does seem that the issue that some bloggers have been saying will not go away and will be a major issue of our times are not as crazy or as dangerous to the Union as some might think.

The longer I have been involved in this movement the more English separatist chatter I have heard.

It is a situation that was completely predictable.

People who are not offered equality and who do not feel empowered or listened to in any meaningful way will always tend to loose faith in whatever system they think is failing them. I've always said that the greatest threat to the Union comes not from their ranks but from the ranks of those that refuse to accept that something needs to be done and that something must put the nation of England on the same footing as all the other Union nations.

Gareth is quite right when he says:

We been predicting and warning of this for ages of course, but our leaders failed to listen. The massed ranks of Parliament are always the last to notice the public mood. Well, they're listening now. We've passed being ignored, passed being labelled extremists, passed being labelled dangerous.

We are rapidly getting to the point (and it is astonishing to me how quickly this is happening) where the accelerating gravy train of English nationalism (or British equalitarianism) will become too much for some politicians to resist and too loud for the others to ignore.

That will be the BBC singularity. A point where the issue is so acute that not even the BBC can ignore it.

From then on it will only be a matter of time.

Regional government in East Anglia

Vote, vote, vote.

Via England Expects.

No mandate

Do you want to know more?

Could it be the biggest failure in political judgement of our generation?

Minette Marrin writes:

Scottishness is a nail-biting problem for Brown. Generally speaking most people in England quite like the Scots, even though they seem to hate us. Surveys show we find their accents suggest intelligence and reliability. Politically speaking, however, this easy affection is disappearing fast, as Brown is well aware. Devolution in Scotland and Wales — fought for and introduced by new Labour — has much undermined our common sense of Britishness and fostered instead a new and rather irritable sense of Englishness in the South. Meanwhile Scots feel more Scottish and less British than at any time since 1707, according to some surveys, led astray, possibly, by films such as Braveheart.

I've said it before and I see no reason why I should not say it again; the great threat to the Union is the lack of political representation for England as a nation. As Minette's headline says, England is waking up to the patriot game and the cause is New Labour's unequal British devolution.

I just wonder if it does all go pair shaped for the Union who the chattering classes of the future will blame. I suspect there will be a great deal of harping about how the English caused it and how selfish they were to think of themselves over and above the Union but living, as we do now, in such interesting times it seems pretty obvious where the blame should lie. At the feet of those who thought it at all possible to devolve power to both Scotland and Wales thinking that the English wouldn't notice their unequal treatment or would swallow the regionalisation of their country as a placebo alternative.

How far are you willing to go in your support of the project?

I can’t find the post now but some time back I wrote that regardless of any outcome of a referendum on the EU constitution we would find the thing implemented piecemeal anyhow. It comes as no surprise to me, or probably to anyone else, that this seems to be exactly what is happening:

Far more outrageous would to push ahead with the implementation of the contents of the constitution without popular consent.

Yet this is precisely what you are doing. Look at the number of policies and institutions envisaged by the constitution that have been, or are being, enacted regardless: the European External Action Service, the European Human Rights Agency, the European Defence Agency, the European Space Programme, the European External Borders Agency, a justicable Charter of Fundamental Rights.

In light of this here is a question to those that support closer political and legislative union within the EU:

Do you still lend your support to the project knowing that this is the way it is operating?

The question requires a moderate amount of thought and self reflection to answer because in that answer lies the very essence of where one actually stands politically, democratically and, frankly, personally.

The Complete Idiot’s Guide To Britishness

This is just great. It comes from the yellow swordfish

:

Persecuting Gordon, fun for all

The Birdman writes to Gordon Brown:

Not-so-Dear Gordon Brown,

Do you seriously think we English are stupid?
.....

It's coming in thick and fast

This post from Albion's Seedlings is a cracker. There's a new sport in town and it's called ridiculing Gordon and, though I prefer more challenging sports, it does seem to be very popular. They quote the Guardian:

In an impassioned speech, he [Gordon Brown] made the case for recapturing the union flag as a 'British symbol of unity, tolerance and inclusion'. But despite his best intentions, it is not supranational identities which Britons want to cling to, rather, the more particular identities of Wales, Scotland and, increasingly, England.

and then pass comment:

Calling for Labour Party to feel pride in a British patriotism and patriotic purpose Brown conveniently overlooks the fact that his Labour Party have done more than any other organisation to destroy the concept of Britain.

When you're right you're right.

Today is the day for running out of metaphors. Just go and read it all.

This just in..Flag Hags have a point..Nice people really

Well, well, well. Who would have thought things would kick off so soon? I was expecting it to take another term of government at least before the English democratic deficit reached the stage that it seems to have reached now as reported by the Scotsman. How soon can we expect the likes of the BBC to break ranks with silent MSM in England on this issue? As soon, I suppose, as they start looking at the issue as it really is; a democratic injustice instead of a right wing nationalistic movement by a bunch of flag hags.

The walls are coming down, the peasants are revolting, the cracks are widening, the English are waking up and we are firmly at the yawning stage. Next comes the rubbing of the eyes, the first cup of coffee and the dump that will visit a whole heap of shite on the Labour government's devolution toilet.

Pass the tissue. It’s going to get messy.

Labour has taken England out of Britain

Here is a great post on Gordon Brown's Britishness by Chad.

Itchy and scratchy never ends well

How can Gordon Brown hope to cultivate a sense of Britishness when there is so much disenfranchisement in the Union? One has to wonder about his motives and motivation for this initiative as it cannot have escaped his notice that the current devolution settlement can do nothing but entrench the opinions of any of the English who have taken it upon themselves to learn about their current unequal place in Britain.

To talk of Britishness in the current climate carries with it a little risk as it only serves to confirm that the democratic deficit being faced in England is considered by Brown as unimportant or of little consequence.

The risk will increase with each and every awakening to the unfairness faced by every student, child, pensioner … everyone that calls England home.

Brown is a man that is ignoring an itch because it is not his own. Sooner or later the scratching in the audience will demand his attention and, if he doesn’t give it, the audience will turn to someone else who will. That is where a real danger to society and Britishness lies. How can a big man asking big questions be ignorant of that?

Word of the day

Incredible - So implausible as to elicit disbelief.

Example.

Got milk?

Peter Black AM highlights devolution at work.

Now is not the time

Tom Griffin comments upon an article in the Independent that sets out what Gordon Brown's agenda will be if he succeeds Tony Blair as Prime Minister. High up on this agenda is a written constitution. I've always been a fan of written constitutions but I have to say that this does worry me greatly. Here is a man that speaks of England as a collection of regions and he is a member of a party that is not popular in England but that clings to power in part because of the support they receive from non-English MPs.

Now there's no way that such a constitution will be written by Brown himself and it is unlikely that it would be written by any politician as we think of them but that does not fill me with any great confidence.

England is currently experiencing a period of severe disadvantage within the Union and it would be foolish to create a written constitution at a time like this.

Blunkett on Englishness

What on Earth does David Blunkett mean?:

"With cultural and political strength in the devolved assemblies in Parliament in Scotland, we really do need to reinforce the Englishness of the English but in a comprehensive and open way as part of Britishness," Mr Blunkett said.

Should Scottishness and Welshness be reinforced in a similarly open way? If not then why not? Why are the English a special case?

EDP flash movie

There's a new and interesting flash movie on the front page of the EDP web site. Take a look here and ask yourself how regional devolution in England can solve the problems it highlights.

Then ask yourself if there is a solution what that solution might be.

Tories accept the current devolution settlement?

I wonder what David Cameron, the new Tory leader, and his crew mean when they say:

"He will stress that his Westminster team will work closely with Annabel Goldie and he will stress, again, that the Tories accept the devolution settlement."

Well, Cameron has been up to Scotland and has confirmed that:

the Scottish Parliament's power to vary income tax by up to 3p in the pound would continue were he to win power and that Scottish Tories would have the fiscal freedom to cut tax north of the border to below the UK level.

Well, I guess we now know what he means.

All together now:

The more you refuse to hear my voice
The louder I will sing
You hide behind walls of Jericho
Your lies will come tumbling
Deny my place in time
You squander wealth that's mine
My light will shine so brightly
It will blind you
Cos there's......

Invading English legions ... somehow

I think you'll find that any continuing occupation is the doing of the British government rather than the English:

However, the decision not to opt for greater integration is very pleasing; like wise with the single welsh police force (as opposed to a cross border force) we are beginning to more clearly define our borders with England, and create an element of separation between ourselves and our occupiers.

After all, how can the English mobilise any kind of occupying force without all the state machinery necessary to run it.

Of course, way back when, such an accusation may well have been true but it is certainly not the case these days and hasn't been for some significant time.

It's an interesting time we find ourselves in. I find it fascinating that accusations of English 'occupation' and 'Empire' and what have you can come from a people who have their own national political representation, particularly when such representation is not afforded to the very people accused of using it to the determent of our democratic superiors.

Calling out Conservative bloggers

Ask a question, get a stock answer. That certainly seems to be the way of things when the questions are complex, the correct answers politically 'difficult' and the stock answers easy on the tongue. Take the deeply disturbing omission of the nation of England from the devolution project in Britain. What about England?. It's one of the hard ones and currently has two stock answers. Regional devolution, which says nothing of England as a nation and can never deliver the level of devolution given to other British nations, and English Votes on English Matters (EVoEM) which delivers just as poorly and is just as unequal in the devolution stakes. EVoEM is designed to answer a very different question to that of devolution; it simply provides an accessible answer to the question of devolved nations voting on matters in a UK parliament building on proposed English only legislation. It provides no voice for England, no executive, no body to work in the interests of the people of England to ensure that they are equally represented in the Union.

Silky smooth, it rolls off the tongue. It's the Tory opposition body armour. It's the soundbite on the radio. It's the footnote at the bottom of the ubiquitous your MP has asked me to respond letter.

And it's not good enough. I know this, my fellow Witanagemot Club bloggers know this and those members of the public who have become aware of the discrimination that devolution has handed down to them know this.

Gareth, over at the Campaign for an English Parliament has thrown down the gauntlet to the conservative bloggers who use this easy EVoEM chaff in response to the hard question:

A quick Google for them revealed them to be nothing more than a cursory mention of Davis and Cameron's attitude towards Scots voting on English legislation. This simply won't do. I'd like to see some proper discussion amongst Conservative bloggers about how 'English Votes on English Laws/Matters' (EVoEM) would actually work in practice. It seems to be a subject that Conservative bloggers, just like the Conservative Party, go out of their way to avoid discussing in any detail.

...

So, if any of you Conservative bloggers (Once More, Conservative Home, The Cameron Leadership - or any of the individual Tory bloggers) are reading this, then consider it a gauntlet thrown down. Please explain to us at The Campaign for an English Parliament how your EVoEM proposals would work. Let's discuss this now, it's in your interests before the matter becomes a serious embarrassment for the Conservative Party and the UK as a whole.

The 6:46 from Westminster will not be stopping at this station

It looks like the Welsh are to receive a greater level of autonomy within the Union. Good for them I suppose, although the UK government will still have to rubber stamp various bits of legislation.

The train of devolution seems to be progressing at some considerable speed leaving a whole bunch of unfortunates standing on the platform.

Tag line anyone?

A Nation of Flag-Hags - the friday Project lays out its stall

The Friday Project sets out its stall on the subject of England and that whole Terry White issue. Go take a look. It’s not pretty.

There is much to object to, for instance the author asserts that the Cross of St. George is a wretched flag. He also asserts that it is not too offensive to say that wherever we see hooligan behaviour the flag of St. George is displayed (referring to White's assertion that football scenarios as simply an example of this truism but not a necessary qualifying characteristic).

Has the author completely missed the last few of years? Where has he been during the rise of English consciousness and the whole ‘taking back of the flag’ deal?

for better or for worse, rightly or wrongly, associations are made between the flag and racism.

Keep up there at the back. I mean, how many people can take these ludicrous assertions seriously anymore? Where was the outpouring of utter distaste across the country when the flag was in such high profile during the footy and the rugby. All those cars, shops etc. While the Friday Project might cling to an insulting imagery the rest of us have moved on recognising the past for that is was; the misappropriation of England’s national flag by a minority of hooligans. Who in their right mind gazed upon the coverage of the rugby victory celebrations in Trafalgar Square and thought, man, what a bunch of racists or even I bet there are one or two racists on that lion?

The Friday Project, when presented with the hypothesis that The Labour Party are trying to wipe England off the UK map respond with the statement that it is not the most reasonable of assertions but I fear that they have misunderstood the meaning of the statement. Devolution has ended up asserting the nationhood of Wales and particularly of Scotland. We hear this assertion on the lips of a number of politicians when they refer to Scotland as being a nation in its own right and then refer to England as simply a collection of regions. New Labour’s very own Gordon Brown believes very much in the balkanisation of England revealed somewhat by his repeated use of the phraseology ”The nations and regions of Britain”. It is this wiping out of England as a nation in its own right on a par with Scotland that the initial statement is alluding to. Whereas this might sound unreasonable to the Friday Project it is most definitely not. Indeed, it is the crux of the whole unequal devolution process and is one of the biggest questions on the lips of a growing number of MPs and voters across Britain.

It’s of some interest that I note that the Labour Party were extremely quick to disassociate themselves from Mr. Whites statements knowing that they would be deeply unpopular and insulting to a great number of people. They recognised the fact that White’s statements were anything but reasonable.

When Gisela Stuart brought up the issue of the emerging English consciousness, which has a great deal to do with asymmetrical devolution and the notion of civic nationalism so well highlighted by Gareth’s extremely good English Civic Nationalism essay the Friday Project declares God, she's a bore. That’s fair enough I suppose and they would not be the first people to be bored by a politician. However, that does not mean that the issues raised are not important or, might I add, of great depth and interest to the rest of us.

I don’t really want to prescribe a particular characteristic to the whole editorial team of the Friday Project. It would be unfair and unreasonable and inaccurate. Why then, might I ask, does the author describe England as a A Nation of Flag-Hags?

Via Gareth.

Longrider comments as does L'Ombre de l'Olivier.

The bells are ringing

It seems that Terry White of the New Labour Communications Unit has 'resigned'. This, I think, is the first resignation of someone within the New Labour party for anti-English sentiments and it is the marvel that is the Internet that we need to thank for the speed with which this matter has been 'resolved'.

Divide and conquer is so much harder when one person, the recipient of a disgraceful anti-English email, can get his message out to thousands of people in such a short time.

Tonight I shall be drinking to the effectiveness of the web of associates that the Internet has provided me with.

Wassail my friends! Drink up, for tonight our little band of common men and women celebrate our first real victory.

Tomorrow we march on parliament.

Offer subject to Terry White having actually resigned.
Also depends on how drunk I am in the morning of course.

Singing for England

The EU Serf is Singing for England over at Once More.

Labour Attack English

Regarding Terry White's disgraceful statements about English history. Here is the article from the Sun, page 2:

Read the big picture - use page down key to scroll

This issue goes up to 11

Debates on the England/Scotland question in the blogosphere are becoming quite disturbing in their intensity.

Tom Paine adds his voice to the chorus and joins the Witanagemot Club.

Welcome Tom.

You're nearly there Mr. Heffer, now do the decent thing

Simon Heffer in the Telegraph:

It should not surprise anyone that one of the most fervent advocates of Scottish MPs being allowed to vote on matters that do not concern them is Mr Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, as far as we know, the next Prime Minister. Whereas decent men are somewhat embarrassed by this state of affairs, and stupid ones claim that the whole constitution would unravel if the present arrangements were unpicked, Mr Brown, as befits one of his titanic arrogance, is far more complacent. He simply acts as though nothing worthy of comment were amiss. And, if forced to concede that the English might have a point about being so discriminated against, his attitude can broadly be summed up as this: "We're in charge, you can like it or lump it, and quite frankly, in the interests of getting our own way in parliament, we'll carry on doing this for as long as we can get away with it." (If I am wrong about that - and my précis of his view is based on several private conversations with him over the years - then I am sure he will quickly put the record straight.) Mr Brown, of course, has seen the writing on the wall. If he is Prime Minister in the next parliament with an even smaller majority, he may depend entirely on the unconstitutional votes of his fellow Scots in order to govern at all.

Read it all, even though Mr. Heffer draws the wrong conclusion at the very end of the article when he calls for English votes on English matters. To harp on about equality and then propose a less than equal settlement is an interesting proposition. I wonder what particular interests prevent Mr. Heffer from seeking full equality for the English. A decent man would be somewhat embarrassed by this state of affairs.

Via Hutspur.

St. George's day - not special

A slap in the face.

Via The CEP.

Pride? We try, but it's not getting any easier

Gisela Stuart on taking pride in being both English and British:

Let’s start by making one thing clear. Of course we should be proud of our English culture and history. And we could begin to show this pride by celebrating St George’s Day properly on April 23.

But this does not mean that we should not also be proud of being British. It’s not a case of one or the other – it’s a case of being proud of both!

It’s an interesting proposition and one that I myself am still trying to believe in. Interesting because it is a position that seems some what out of character for a member of New Labour. It is a message that does not seem particularly compatible with some of what we have seen written and some of what we have heard from various Labour individuals.

England, as opposed to Britain, has an unfortunate history around the world and within the British Isles and please do not say that it is all past. – Terry White, New Labour’s Communications Unit.

There is no such thing as English nationality – Home office official.

there is no such nationality as English – John Prescott

… when Ken Livingstone, the political prankster who is also mayor of London, announced plans for a capital city St Patrick's day parade on March 17 - and blocked proposals to celebrate St George's day on April 23 - the news made surprisingly little impact - The Guardian (2001, though I suspect that it would have a greater impact now)

This time he [Gordon Brown] spoke of "the nations and regions of Britain". By "the nations" he meant Scotland and Wales by "the regions" he meant English regions.

The list could go on and it is not just limited to actual New Labour individuals. Where a government leads, some are tempted to follow. We have seen England excluded from the Tour of Britain cycle race while Scotland and Wales were permitted to enter teams. We see organisations right across Britain organise themselves on a regional basis for England but a national basis for countries with political representation because it is more compatible with the government framework and makes funding easier to get. We see, time and time again, one initiative for Scotland and a completely different initiative for England often resulting in a poorer result for the usual suspects. There are many, many more examples of the mixed messages we are getting. Nearly every institutionally based indication would suggest that, in reality, there is no such nation as England. The very nation that Gisela Stuart suggests that we should also take pride in. There’s a sharp edge to being British and England lies upon that edge. We could ask Gisela what she means by taking pride in being English when her party denies the existence of England as a nation? Is she referring to ethnic English, people who were born in England or just the history of England when, you know, it was a nation? Of course we should be proud of our English culture and history. Yes, but what about the nation of England and what about now?

For me this is not just about England’s history or England’s culture. This is predominantly about England’s future. What initiatives have been forthcoming from this current British government that assures England’s future as an equal nation in the British Union? Anyone? Anyone at all?

Let me ask a different question. What initiatives have been forthcoming from this current British government that do exactly the opposite?

The answer to that is why Gisela’s suggestion that we should also take pride in being British is difficult for some to swallow.

Your history is unfortunate

This is a simply astonishing piece of text from the Labour Party:

Dear Correspondent,

Thank you for your email.

Neither the Labour Party nor the Labour Government are pursuing the policy towards England or the English that you claim.

England, as opposed to Britain, has an unfortunate history around the world and within the British Isles and please do not say that it is all past.

It is a fact that the right and extreme right in Britain cloak themselves in the English flag, the cross of St.George and claim to be the true representatives of the English.

Wherever there is hooligan behaviour, usually linked to extreme right-wing political groups e.g. at football matches here and abroad, it is the flag of St.George that is displayed and that, I would imagine, is the reason why the MP referred to this type of 'Englishness' as a threat to democracy.

Regards,

Terry White
Communications Unit
The Labour Party

An unfortunate history. Yes, this Terry White really wrote that. England actually has a mixed history (like many other nations on Earth) rather than a specifically unfortunate one. Mr. White's statement is factually incorrect and, at best, reveals a bias against England. Indeed, there is a term that people use when describing sweeping statements against a demographic that are not factually correct and can be seen by the recipients as an insulting remark or attitude based only upon a persons nation or culture.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to accept the primacy of Britain when these are the kind of remarks we receive from its official and semi-official representatives.

"Neither the Labour Party nor the Labour Government are pursuing the policy towards England or the English that you claim", he wrote. Mr. White would ask us to accept that as the official position of the Labour party. Should we also interpret that the official position of the Labour Party is that "England, as opposed to Britain, has an unfortunate history around the world and within the British Isles..."? We need to find out. Actually, what we need to do is ask to speak to Mr. White's manager as his remarks have gone too far.

It's almost as if Mr. White's manager walked up to him and said: Here's a stick, there's a sleeping lion. Go and see what you can do.

Guess the formula

If P equals Politics, E equals Equality and I equals Inequality can you guess the name of this famous formula?

Join in the flag debate

I've signed up for the following consultation. Have you?

Davis confirms opposition to an English Parliament

This is old news but does confirm his toady change on the issue:

Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs will be barred from voting on English laws if Conservative leadership hopeful David Davis becomes prime minister.

He pledged England-only votes in the House of Commons - but ruled out a separate English Parliament.

Jingle bells, something smells

Hey, look, the Felpham Village Conservation Society is having a Winter Dinner. They seem to be advertising it by way of an inviting poster. A poster that depicts a Winter Tree sporting rather nice winter decorations and, I think, winter lights. There are also some fancy winter holly images and another image of some fat winter guy in a red winter coat. I wonder what he's carrying in his winter sack? Winter presents I fancy.

Perhaps we should ask the organisers?

Help us to helpthemselves

This is interesting (via wonko):

Former First Minister Henry McLeish has made a rare return to Holyrood - where he spoke out on home rule for England.

...in his speech he said it would benefit Scotland if England also had devolution. And he added safeguards should be brought in to prevent Westminster abolishing the Scottish Parliament or reducing its powers.

The interesting thing about this is that it is a predictable reaction to the current devolution problems. The current state of devolution undermines both Britain and England. It cannot be allowed to continue and McLeish knows this. There are those that might call for the eventual abolishment of the Scottish parliament or a serious reduction in its powers as a way of solving the problem. Perhaps the whispers are stronger than we think. Supporting an English parliament or some other kind of English devolution is a way of heading off this kind of outcome at the pass.

Perhaps the chattering is getting louder. Perhaps we can expect more talk like this from north of the border.

A class letter to the Sunday Times

Alfie puts his ship alongside the AA Gill and delivers a thunderous broadside.

The response in the letter section of the Sunday Times is excellent.

It's interesting to note that the only book I can find of Gill's on amazon is AA Gill is Away. It looks like a travel book and the amazon in-house review adds AA Gill is Away, frequently warns against travelling with preconceptions. Bwahahaha.

Standing up and being counted

The public reaction to that AA Gill article in the Sunday Times has been overwhelming.

The start of the fox hunting season

The fox hunting season has begun - the first since a ban on using dogs in England and Wales

A survey, conducted by ORB, a member of the British Polling Society, shows that 45% of those interviewed supported the ban.

The survey is based on the opinions of 1,006 adults in England, Scotland and Wales questioned between 28 and 30 October.

The steady rise of England from the bottom of the barrel

I'm very busy right now. I have my hands full. I am swamped. Snowed under. Pressed for time. This means pointing you to things like this rather than taking it upon myself to, you know, actually put in any effort.

Hatred sells?

Via Waking Hereward comes this declaration of hatred towards England by AA Gill writing in the Sunday Times:

I don’t like the English. One at a time, I don’t mind them. I’ve loved some of them. It’s their collective persona I can’t warm to: the lumpen and louty, coarse, unsubtle, beady-eyed, beefy-bummed herd of England.

...

The thing that seems impermeably English is, in fact, anger. Collectively and individually, the English are angry about something. The pursed lip and the muttered expletives, the furious glance and the beetled brow are England’s national costume.

A simmering, unfocused lurking anger is the collective cross England bears with ill grace. I can see it in English faces, in the dumb semaphore of their bodies. It’s how they stand and fold their arms and wait in queues. It’s why they can’t dance or relax.

I hate England - AA Gill, Sunday Times, 30th October 2005

I don't really know how to react to this rubbish. It would be easy to get angry I suppose but the content of the article is so stupid and hate filled that it fails to score even a 2 on my realityometer.

The man is not at fault for writing this article if that is what he really believes. People can and should be able to write pretty much whatever they want and then take the consequences. His editor is not at fault if he believes that the newspaper is a suitable platform for this kind of declaration of hatred, though he too should be prepared to take the consequences. What I can say is that this kind of view of large groups of people is not unique in the World and certainly not unique to England. There are those that declare their hatred for the Israelis or the Palestinians or the Muslims or the Christians. You name a large group of a few million people and there will be someone who hates the lot of them.

So where does this leave the Sunday Times as a platform for this kind of opinion piece? Will they accept articles from the many capable writers that produce nonsense about the Scottish, Irish, Asians, Americans, black people, white people and any one of a number of religions? Will they give the nod to any capable writer who wants to declare their hatred of a people as a group in the pages of the Sunday Times? I can't think of any reason why they shouldn't given that they clearly find this kind of material acceptable.

But will they? Is it to be just the English who are subjected to this kind of attack in a once respected national newspaper? If it is they we must ask the question "why just the English?" If it is not then we must ask the question "what has happened to the Sunday Times?" Either way we must now ask the question "do I wish to continue paying for it?"

Just grin and bear it

In his own mind

Vincent Cable MP and his English dream

Vincent Cable MP is funny. I mean peculiar funny. In a response to a legitimate complaint about his own abusive language he wrote ”We have argued for elected regional government in England”.Fair enough and perfectly in line with Liberal Democrat views. These regional assemblies by their very nature (or so we are told) will work with the local community and make policy in areas devolved to them that will affect the region they represent. There is no surprise there other than the politicians complete ignorance of the fact that the one and only public referendum on the issue showed without a shadow of a doubt that people don’t like the idea thank you very much. Pffft, since when did an MP take notice of such things.

Anyhow, back on track. These devolved regions are seen by Cable as good and as no threat to England or the Great British Union even though they have devolved powers.

Enter Cable’s second statement. ”Nationalism calls for independence, which is not something that I support for England.”

So there we see once again a manifestation of Cable’s peculiar notion of nationalism. He believes it is a black and white area with no room for anything between one extreme of no nationalism and the other of nationalism with an agenda for total independence from, presumable, the Union.

On the one hand we have regional assemblies with devolved powers that are no threat to anything (according to Cable) and on the other hand we have an English Parliament that is a Nationalistic threat to the very foundations of all that is good in Cable’s world. Both these sides of the issue involve devolved powers. Both these sides involve representation of a group of people by a drawn boundary on which they can organise their needs and their politics. Both these sides are touted to be democratic. Yet one will be the cause of independence from the Union and the other will involve no independence from anything whatsoever. How can this be so?

It can be so on one condition and that is that regional assemblies are not given devolved power to make decisions and implement them independently of any other regional assembly or of central government. If they can make independent decisions then that is a form of independence. It is a form of independence that allows one area of England to make decisions that are different from another. This independently working England is all that is good and Holy in Cable’s mind.

And yet…and yet a form of independence that allows one area of Great Britain to make decisions that are different from another area is a Nationalistic menace. A danger. Something to be avoided and something deserving of Cable’s language in which he groups people with such desires along side white supremacists and Islamic fundamentalists.

Of course he his pedalling his regional views for England only. Scottish devolution is fine. Welsh devolution is dandy. You English!

The true story is one that Cable will not admit and that is that Regional Assemblies will not afford the people they represent the level of devolution that is offered to the Scots. It’s devolution light. It is his answer to a question that no one is asking. The one thing it will do is create a framework of obstacles that will make proper English devolution even harder to achieve than it is at present. It will do this by breaking up England into pseudo political areas. That, he thinks, is how to deal with the problem of England.

So there the English will be. With Scotland and Wales employing their political machinery to do what is best for their respective populations. Prescription charges, availability of life saving drugs, funding for education, national sports funding, legislation, policing, crime and crime prevention. You name it, eventually they’ll get it.

And there will be the various regional assemblies in England. Discussing bus routes.

Prescott plays with fire engines

Mark wonders if this fire brigade reorganisation is political and motivated by a regional agenda. If it's got anything to do with Prescott we can conclude two things. Yes, it is an attempt to further build upon an English regional framework and yes, it is doomed to failure.

But...but...but, the crusades!

Via Krip comes this excellent article from Mark Steyn, a promising columnist. You know, anyone who believes that the English should change their national flag because it is offensive to one demographic or another simply doesn't understand the meaning of the word offensive.

In one way, I suppose, I hope they give it a go and start a campaign to have the Cross of St. George changed. Just imagine the look of complete dumfounded shock on their faces when the real meaning of 'offensive' is revealed to them. "But...but...but, the crusades!". M'kay. As this Steyn fellow suggests:

Would that be the 11th century that ended nine and a bit centuries ago? When a fellow's got hang-ups about things that happened a millennium ago, there's no point trying to assuage them; he'll only unearth some earlier grievance, demanding the Natural History Museum be dismantled because some stegosaurus was disrespectful to Muslims back in the Jurassic era.

Artist's impression - Trex on canvas

Federal Britain

Gareth has put up an excellent post on devolution at Albion's Seedling.

England by the slice

"We wish to share our wares" you said
“Abroad with common man”
“Sounds fine to us” we all replied
That’s how it all began.

“England by the slice?” you asked
Oh, what a Saintly row
“England as a whole” we said
You sliced it anyhow.

With issue we once gathered
Outside your stately throne
But now we’re left with choices
Arrest or stay at home.

“What is the fuss and bluster?”
“It’s all for you” you’ll crow
Why is the law in disrepute?
Ask Tom Hill he’ll know.

Our nations once united
A Union’s central truss
Devolved to all and sundry
Devolved to all but us.

You think we’ll sleep forever
And truth be told we would
Except for all the prodding
You think we really could?

“England by the slice?” you asked
No, England as a whole!
We know that you won’t listen
We know what has your soul.

And so the sleeping masses
Begin the longest wake
Not for themselves you understand
It’s just for England’s sake.

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Is it a flag?

The wearing of St. George's Cross tie pins might be misinterpreted somehow. The right fix is obviously to correct those doing the misinterpretation.

Not even on his radar

This quote of Gordon Brown's in the Scotsman is very bad news:

"I will in the next year visit every region and nation of our country. With you I want to listen, hear and learn, to discuss the economic, social and constitutional changes we need to build for the future"

When he talks about the regions in this context he means the carved up bits of England. For him to have the confidence to deliver this quote in a speech at the Labour conference means that the cause against the regionalisation of England, and the concerns that many of the English have, is not even on his radar.

The same can be said of the case for an English parliament.

If he had any fear over these issues and how they might affect any future term as prime-minister he would not have said what he did.

It's very bad news indeed.

We are failing to make our case to the wider population in England.

One small step

Nice:

This morning the Cross of St. George had been hoist on the flagpole in place of the EU flag.

Farewell Sport England, you had your chance and blew it

Sport England have failed to make the case for sport on the national level. They have made what could be a fatal mistake on their part. While the sports councils of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been plying their trade proactively for their respective nations, similar support for sport at the national level in England has been a confusing affair.

The Tour of Britain, as readers are no doubt aware, was a distinctly sordid affair. It lacked an English team, which is a situation that the other nations of Britain could never entertain for their own sportsmen and women. These competitors were proud to enter the tournament and their sports organisations supported them. After all, it is part of their roll to do so. Not so with Sport England, who I can only assume found it a rather daunting task to support a national team who they considered would not be competitive either individually or collectively. They argued that [a]n England team that is not competitive would have limited impact on the sport, and potentially be detrimental.

That is a spectacular failure to grasp the very essence of why many people compete. How many times have we been told by an athlete how great it was to represent their nation? It’s fair enough to say that British athletes often mean Britain when they say this (which is after all what they are representing in most cases) but in a competition of nations within the Union what does being forced to represent the whole of the Union whilst other competitors are permitted to represent their home nations actually mean to an athlete? If it means nothing then this only highlights Sport England’s ‘magnificent’ failure.

The result of this bland performance by Sport England is beginning to surface:

Moynihan and Hoey argue for a one-stop funding agency to be called the Sports Foundation, which would be part of the Ministry of Culture, Media and Sport and chaired by the Secretary of State. All the governing bodies of sport in this country would go to that one source for funding, replacing the jungle of organisations that exists at present.

This would mean the end of UK Sport and Sport England, along with their regional English structures. But neither Hoey nor Moynihan wants the sports councils of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to be disbanded.

Of course, they may well argue about not having influence over the organisations of devolved nations but we all know that any attempt to dissolve these other bodies would be met with a nationalist whirlwind that no politician would be prepared to weather.

This cannot be said of England. The lacklustre efforts by Sport England to proudly and adamantly express and support actual national sport has left them in a very weak position. There can be no whirlwind. Indeed, on quite possibly the very eve of loosing their jobs they have no moral authority to do anything other than look at their feet and whistle.

How could they argue the case for England when they have, to all intents and purposes, been part of the machinery for British sport to the detriment of the nation of England? After all, the reorganisation should, ethically, mean nothing to them.

They failed to make the case. They failed to inject that nationalistic element into their support for sport that could and probably would have warded off any attempt at a ‘hostile takeover’. They are to be fractured and absorbed into a UK sporting body and those in the takeover boardroom know that there will be little or no trouble. They could never say this about the sporting bodies of other component nations.

And what of England? Well, if this absorption goes ahead the task of building an honest to goodness national sports body will be impossible. With English consciousness on the rise it would have been an uphill struggle to change the mindset of our national bodies. A struggle but probably not impossible. At least they had the right name. If this osmosis of Sport England into the murky waters of a wider agency goes ahead we should probably all go home to lie in our beds and think of England.

Remember her?

Now stop banging on, we're busy

Former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing has criticised the UK for achieving "very little" so far in its presidency of the European Union.

Hello, all our state operators are busy working on things of national importance right now. Your call has been prioritised. There are currently 1,379 callers before you in the queue. Please press 1 to leave a message.

Oooo, we've been naughty

The UK is to be reprimanded after breaching the European Union's (EU) stability pact

Oh fuck off.

Commission on Britishness

Via Blimpish we notice this national one day conference hosted by HM Treasury:

How 'British' do we feel? What do we mean by 'Britishness'?

These questions are increasingly important in defining a shared purpose across all of our society. The strength of our communities, the way we understand diversity, the vigour of our public services and our commercial competitiveness all rest on a sense of what ‘Britishness’ is and how it sets shared goals

This national one-day conference, hosted by HM Treasury, will launch the first ‘Commission on Britishness’. It will hear from leading figures as to the future of a multi-faith, multi-ethnic Britain, and , delegates will also have the opportunity to discuss the benefits and impacts of the Government’s programme of devolution on Britishness [my emphasis].

I wonder if anyone from the CEP would be interested in booking a seat.

How dare you English!

Oh dear, I missed this one from Simon Jenkins in the Guardian:

Yesterday's [the ashes] victory was laboriously attributed to "England". The flag of Saint George waved everywhere over its celebrations. This was as absurd as that "England's" World Cup team should be beaten by Northern Ireland, and that what is really Britain must face the world explicitly to the exclusion of Scotland and Wales.

Americans do not stage a knockout competition to decide which state should represent it abroad. Bavarians and Catalans, with far more autonomy than Wales or Scotland, do not exclude themselves from their national teams. British cricket has always respected the United Kingdom, and even its governors have felt obliged to add Wales to their formal title. For goodness sake wave the union jack and let this glorious game belong to the nation as a whole.

Laboriously attributed to England? Holy smokes, the English can’t even win a sporting event without the haters coming out of the closet. That’s how bad things have got. How dare the English wave their dirty flags in the very faces of those poor innocent bystanders?

Jenkins reveals himself as a Unionist of the worst kind; the kind that loves the Union in spite of England.

Via Nicholas at British Nationalists in Wales WATCH who has this message for Jenkins:

Fetch me a bucket - the Brit Nat just can't stop! Which nation? Wave the union jack - is this some kind of joke? Get over it Jenkins. Britian is on its way out. The English cricket team are rightly proud of their win. Let the English celebrate it. Stop stuffing your British Nationalism down the throats of liberal-minded English and Welsh people, and why not catch up on some international politics whilst your at it.

It’s an interesting tactic that Jenkins employs to try and smooth over the cracks appearing in the Union. Laborious condescension and absurd demands for the Unionisation of the English cricket team.

The rising levels of disaffection

For the past eight months a set of figures has been working a hole in my mind. On April 16th New Politics published a letter from a famous political pundit saying that many of the worlds democracies “are not shrinking but in fact are growing…87% of democratic nations studied by the World Democracy Monitoring Service in Zurich, Switzerland have been growing since 1980”. His letter was instantly taken up by the usual deniers and it began to worry me that a wrong and dangerous message was spreading like wildfire faster that the forces of realism and education could stamp them out.

Academics, political scientists, historical statistics and observation all prove without a shadow of doubt that democracy is in decline. More to the point the people, and particularly the poor and vulnerable, all know the truth. The truth that if we do not finally get a grip and reduce the emissions coming from the many thousands of politicians across the globe, the Worlds very existence will be in danger.

The concentration of disaffection in our atmosphere is growing rapidly year on year, a situation not helped by the greedy and wealthy who insist on expounding upon the subject of politics whenever the opportunity arises. It’s not necessary and the cost of this self indulgence will be borne by future generations.

The worst offenders, the very exemplar of the selfish and corrupt abusers of our natural resources of time and reason are the unbalanced devolutionists. The emissions these individuals are responsible for directly increase the disaffection concentration in the air we breathe to the extent that the instances of disaffection, especially among the young and the elderly, are increasing on a virtually instantaneous basis.

Of course the deniers are always there, chipping away, talking about more powers for this Assembly, more law by that Parliament and they do so without shame and in the open air. It’s good for us, they declare, but not good for everyone. And there! Another disaffected youth is created.

Figures show, and this is undeniable, that at the current rate of disaffection Great Britain will look like this within fifty years:

Is that what we want for our children? Well, is it?

EU gets bullish…again

How can this be good for democracy?:

For the first time in its 53-year existence, the European Court of Justice has given the Commission in Brussels the power to impose criminal sanctions. In a landmark ruling that is as ominous as it is deluded, the Luxembourg-based court yesterday overruled the governments of EU member states, removing from them the sole right to impose their own penalties on people or companies breaking the law, and giving the unelected EU Commission an unprecedented role in the administration of criminal justice.

I mean, come on. This is getting a little too serious for comfort. Once every 4 or 5 years we get to vote for a bunch of loonies to rule over us and that is our only real window of opportunity to keep the loonies from overrunning the asylum. We don’t even get that with these Empire building fantasists at the EU Commission.

BBC regional fantasy

Dear thinkofengland@bbc.co.uk:

By organising your "think of England" web site into a regional affair you are actually supporting a political agenda. If you wish to break down England into areas you should be using traditional boundaries such as shires, though I see no reason why England should not be considered a whole.

It is tragic that the BBC has become so overtly political, particularly when the chosen agenda may ultimately prevent England from benefiting from devolution at the national level.

You are pandering to the governments regional agenda and it is a disgrace.

A disgrace that I am forced to pay for.

Mark takes me to task over this posting inviting me to get a grip and he's right:

I'm not usually one for defending the BBC, but that map you've linked to on that "think of England" page relates to their broadcasting regions as used for the local news and such like that they've used for many years and bear no co-releation to the EU regions.

My bad. My red face. Sorry BBC.

I call it dissolution

The present government likes regional assemblies in England. This became obvious during the campaigning for a “yes” vote in the North East of England referendum and was confirmed by the look on the deputy prime ministers face when he received a metaphorical bitch slap from the voters. However, liking regional assemblies and actively promoting them are two different things.

Alfie has been chatting to Matt Cook who works for the Department of Constitutional Affairs. Mr. Cook informs Alfie that:

Regional Assemblies are voluntary bodies independent of Central Government which were established by local authorities and other regional stakeholders in each English region in the late 1990s. The members of each assembly are wholly selected by bodies within the relevant region. Ministers do not have a role in the process. As voluntary bodies Government has no powers to abolish them.

This begs a number very interesting and important questions.

Who are these other regional stakeholders?

Who created these artificial English regions in the first place for the assemblies to operate in? What basis for existence do these regions have if they have if they are not represented by some body? Were they really invented as nothing but geographical curiosities for map creators or was there some grand scheme for them based upon, oh I don't know, some kind of political intent?

If these regional assemblies are voluntary and independent of Central Government then on what basis and on what remit do they strive to implement governmental plans, for instance demands for new housing across England?

If they are independent then by what mechanism does the government converse with the various regional assemblies? Are they invited to put forward proposals by the assemblies who then consider these proposals as if they were submitted by a member of the public within the artificial regional boundaries?

Of course the answer to these questions may be relatively simple. It may be that the government instructs local authorities and then these local authorities instruct the regional assemblies acting, if you like, as a convenient proxy for Central Government.

If this is the case then Mr. Cook’s declaration is simply smoke and mirrors. Alfie’s proposition is that he feels these non-democratic regional assemblies are bad and do not adequately address the issue of devolution for England. The government's proposition is that devolution for England would be best served by regional assemblies. Mr. Cook’s proposition is that regional assemblies are nothing to do with central government and this allows him to neatly sidestep the issue.

Where do the actual, you know, people of the nation of England come into it?

A very poor show for someone who is notionally and partially responsible for devolution and constitutional affairs. This abdication and obfuscation of the real issues that Mr. Cook should be working on is made worse by his department's tag line: “Strengthening Democracy and Rights”.

Don’t make me laugh Mr. Cook. Don’t make me laugh.

We all know what has happened. Devolution is a serious issue, so serious in fact that the government realised that even the English might actually get a little upset when they find out they are playing the parts of "paymaster general" and of "poor man" in the United Kingdom at the same time. The government needed an answer to the inevitable devolution questions. They drew up artificial regional areas in England and tried their hardest to get elected bodies to represent these regions and to answer, perhaps by proxy, to central government. The public halted that plan. So now we have a new one which is exactly the same as the old one except without the voting. After all, people voted to not have elected assemblies. They did not vote to have no assemblies at all.

So we have most of the great nations of Great Britain hurtling towards full and proper devolution while the nation of England is actually going in the other direction by being broken up into manageable and less troublesome chunks. Some call it devolution, I call it dissolution.

Matt Cook
Crown and Devolution Division, Constitution Directorate
Strengthening Democracy and Rights
Department for Constitutional Affairs

Sounds pretty hollow to me.

Joke of the day

An Oath of Allegiance to the EU? Bwahahahaha.

Devolution and national anthems

An interesting letter in the Telegraph on devolution and national anthems.

Thanks for the heads-up Milo.

Happy and content - you really think so?

I urge you to visit the Birdman to read about how happy everyone in England is.

It really is too funny for words.

...and so am I.

Aha! My T-shirt is here

The design used is this one, though a very much larger version for print resolution purposes:

I'm seriously consideriing sending one to my MP.

Sport England obfuscation

The following, via information from Gareth of Little Man in a Toque, will prove to be an embarrassment to Sport England who have insisted that England can not be represented in the Tour of Britain cycle race because the UCI does not allow it to do so. Sport England have been mailing concerned people with the following response:

The English riders are not allowed to ride in Team England because the UCI doesn't allow one.

This, seemingly, is obfuscation. Phil Ingham, from British Cycling, was asked:

Can you confirm whether or not the UCI's rules also preclude the participation of an English team?

He responded:

I'm sure they [UCI] don't preclude the inclusion of an England Team in a stage race of this standard (i.e. sub pro-tour)...

His response would seem to be in line with the UCI policy of not discriminating on the basis of nationality.

The whole shooting match (or cycling race) seems to be boiling down to one of funding and of historical happenstance. Phil states the following:

The Welsh, Scottish Feds [cycling federation, which needs to be present for proper English representation at this level in the sport it seems] question is an historic one - both were set up before current funding structures and to establish an English Fed now would be extremely costly an contrary to the way we wish to develop the sport in the UK i.e. to pool funding and resources to the betterment of the sport rather than dilute them in the interests of home nation national identity in 1 or 2 events per year, when virtually every event we send a national team to requires it to be GB.

This is all fine and dandy I suppose. After all, Great Britain is the generally accepted team we put out at a large proportion of international events. However, the whole issue does serve to highlight the way that devolution has and is going to continue to work in the UK.

If British Cycling and Sport England think that they will eventually manage to absorb the Welsh and Scottish cycling federations into a greater GB team for the Tour of Britain then they are dreaming. Indeed, I would be extremely surprised if this is something that they will even attempt to do because any attempt will be doomed to failure. Why? Because the Welsh and the Scottish have representation which is specifically there to further their interests, both political and structural (federations etc).

So we are left at exactly the same point where we began. The agenda of Sport England does not seem to be to further the interests of England as a sporting nation in the discipline of cycling. The reason has nothing to do with the UCI and much more to do with the fact that there is no English cycling federation.

Two questions need to be asked now. Why did Sport England think it appropriate to use the UCI as an excuse and what exactly are they doing to bring into existence an English cycling federation?

Sport England: Working to prevent embarrassment

Tour of Britain

Devolution has changed all that, the emails of complaint pour in

From this cover story in the Spectator:

Then there is the impact of devolution. The English are a tolerant bunch and, outside elements of the London elite, never much minded the rise of the Scottish Raj: after all, we were British, well-educated, reasonably cultivated and spoke with clear, classless accents. Devolution has changed all that. The English increasingly resent Scots in charge of English affairs now that Scotland has control of its own domestic matters.

I see this resentment on the Daily Politics show I present for BBC2. When politicians from Scotland pontificate on English matters, the emails of complaint pour in. Some don’t even like the fact that I, a Scot who has lived in London for over 30 years, question Scottish politicians who have responsibility for English affairs. When do the English have a say? they ask, not unreasonably.

The growing resentment is a consequence of the asymmetric devolution plan, which gave Scotland its own Parliament, but not England. Great Britain has become a two-class state: those with home rule (Scots and Welsh) and those without (the English).

Gradually people are becoming aware of the mess that devolution has deposited on the giant welcome mat at England's front door.

I recently introduced a friend to the issue when sitting in a local pub garden. I started with "you know, England doesn't actually exist" and after absorbing the expected "That's bullshit" remark went on to explain to him the ins and outs of devolution, political representation and the government's plans to regionalise England. You should have seen the look on his face.

No doubt he will tell someone else, and that someone else will also pass it on. At some point someone will come up to me and say "you know, England doesn't actually exist". At that point I will know that victory is not that far away.

Sweet, sweet regret

Sunderland council may be regretting that day, five years ago, when they seized Mr Thoburn's scales.

Exactly.

The Tour of Britain cycle race

The Tour of Britain is a cycle race. During this race it is often advantageous for the competitors to do less touring and more really, really fast cycling. Britain is a nice place to tour around but, notwithstanding the niceness, the Tour of Britain is a competitive race and stopping off at every pub on the way is frowned upon.

Hello, yes, I wonder if I might have a word

Alfie picks up his telephonically charged mace of justice and phones everyone!.

That's the way to do it

In light of Sport England's inability to contemplate supporting English sport it's interesting to note how things could be done:

The quest for Scottish Commonwealth Games medal winners has received a timely million-pound boost.

A sportscotland grant of £1.4m has been unveiled to improve the chances of success at the 2006 event.

...

"This funding will provide vital support to our top Commonwealth athletes, and along with additional medal enhancement funding it will help to maximise Scotland's medal winning potential for the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne next year."

Note the lack of commentary regarding the chances of success. Sports Scotland seem to actually want to support grass roots sport in their country. Unlike Sports England who make statements like the following about some of our sportsmen and women:

I am not sure how you would justify putting a team into the event which would not be competitive either individually or collectively.

Yeah, nice one. "Success for the successful". I can hear them chanting it on the sidelines as the British cycling team flies by. Somehow, if the same team were called the English cycling team they would all fall off their bikes, do a funny walk and drink too much tea.

Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

Here's something to keep an eye on. It's the Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister:

The ODPM Committee was appointed by the House of Commons on July 13th 2005. Its purpose is to scrutinise the work of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions.

Here's a little snippet of something the committee came up with after the referendum in the North East produced an overwhelming majority of 78% against the establishment of an elected assembly:

Once the electorate had spoken, it was tempting, just to abandon our scrutiny of the draft Bill [on elected regional assemblies]. However, we do not believe devolution will go away. It will return to the agenda. We would go further and argue that with the powers already conferred on unaccountable regional bodies there is a democratic deficit and with the existing devolution of powers and resource allocation to Scotland, Wales and Greater London, devolution in England must be addressed.

We all know what they mean by devolution in England and it has nothing to do with devolution for England.

Sport who now?

Wonko is doing a fantastic job at exposing the disgrace that is Sport England, a body which is apparently very keen on funding a British Cycling team but see no merit in an English Cycling team because an English team would be crap somehow. The Scottish and Welsh teams, on the other hand, are permitted to ride by some body called the UCI (don't they also fund rather large cinema screens?). The view of Sport England on how competetive these Scottish and Welsh teams will be is not yet forthcoming.

The reason, apparently, that Wales and Scotland can ride is that the are classified as regional teams which I am sure will come as a surprise to those most excellent of nations. England is, apparently, not a region of something. Can I assume that it is a nation in its own right? No, not really. Apparently Scotland and Wales are nations in their own right whereas England isn't.

Those of you who are confused about the issue (and who can blame you) need to keep in mind the aim of our political masters to downgrade England from a nation into a mere collection of individual and competing regions. The legacy of this is that England is viewed by various semi-official and officious bodies as neither a Nation nor a region in the United Kingdom and positions such as that taken by Sport England and that 'cinema company' are the result.

Wonko is angry:

Sport England is a disgrace to this country and a disgrace to English sport. Scotland and Wales don't need Sport England's support, they have their own bodies. English sport needs an organisation behind it that is interested in England only, not the whole of the UK. Why would a British cycling event that has no English team inspire an English youngster to take up a sport that his or her country is not represented in?

Sport England's attitude towards English sport is absolutely disgusting and I will be making my views known to the Minister for Culture, Media and Sport and anyone else who will listen. When the English people see what blatant disregard Sport England has for the English people I can only hope that those responsible for policy are as quick to resign as they are to disregard their own country.

He also makes the excellent point:

Firstly, the British team presumably has a good chance as it is the first choice of British riders according to you. As Team GB consists entirely of English riders, it therefore follows that all the best British riders are English. Going on this, I fail to understand how an English team would be worse for English sport than not having one at all.

Entirely of English riders. Riders who are not permitted to ride for their own country.

Look to the future when Sport England changes its name to Sport English Regions. It seems that only then will the North East English Region finally manage to ride against their bitter and very different somehow South East English Region rivals. Without such a brave move from Sport England there is no chance of the E word appearing on a cycling shirt any time soon.

UKIP petition

UKIP are looking for signatories to their Let the People Decide Campaign and Petition. If you think that politicians lie, and that all of them should be directly accountable to the people whose lives they affect, I urge you to sign it.

WWF and state incentives to discriminate against England

The above is a snapshot of part of the World Wide Fund for Nature web site. I'm sure that they have their reasons for describing England as the English Regions and I am equally sure that it has something to do with getting more money out of the Government.

However, where they have miscalculated is that it is likely to lead to them getting less money out of the rest of us.

I've written to them and encourage readers to do the same. I also encourage bloggers to spread the word because once this kind of language change really gets hold it's usually too late to do anything about it.

You know, it really is about time that a list was drawn up of some of the organisations that are helping to carry forward the governments deeply unpopular regional agenda. I'll set one up here on The England Project.

So, if you know of any such organisations please let me know in the comments on this post or via email and I'll start the ball rolling. The list will be called Collaborators because that is what they are. They may think they are organising themselves in a way that maximises their income, and they probably are, but only because the state has made this a requirement and it is a requirement that serves the governments purpose.

If you agree to play by this particular rule then you are collaborating and the result will eventually be the blanket acceptance of the "English Regions" as a credible term.

It seems that Wonko has already started on the hard work.

Gareth points us to this letter received from the WWF for Nature which attempts to explain their collaboration on this issue. Nothing in their letter suitably explains away their use of the government approved language that helps to carry forward the meme that England is a collection of regions rather than a nation in its own right.

meme - ... an idea considered as a replicator, especially with the connotation that memes parasitise people into propagating them much as viruses do.

Memes can be considered the unit of cultural evolution.

...

The term is used especially in the phrase "meme complex" denoting a group of mutually supporting memes that form an organised belief system, such as a religion.

There is absolutely no reason for the WWF for Nature to use the artificial term "English Regions" and it is indicative of their lack of subtlety and understanding of the sensibilities of a proud and currently discriminated against nation. There are other organisations that have managed to work within the governments framework without resorting to insulting language (such as this one - the WWF won't like that!!).

The WWF are being discriminatory. Their excuse is that it simply reflects the way they have organised their charity. Most charities, organisations and companies do not ask their web design team to reflect their internal structures and operating regimes in such a high profile manner in their design proposals but for some reason the WWF for Nature has been seduced into doing so.

Here is the question: If the WWF for Nature were to replace "WWF English Regions" with "WWF England" would they receive less money for their cause? If the answer to that is no then someone in the WWF should prevent further damage by putting a stop to this insulting behaviour.

Dirty little secrets

When we were on holiday the other week in Spain we had the pleasure of the company of an ex Tory councillor and his wife for a day and a night. During this time the casual conversation around the pool (egged on by any number of gin and tonics) turned to politics. I know, shocking. Anyhow the news of the demise of Edward Heath, a British Prime Minister, reached us a little earlier and our guest remarked that Mr. Heath was his political hero.

I was dumbstruck. "You do realise that the man was a traitor don’t you?" I said. Of course the terms in which I put the actions of Mr. Heath (he brought us into the precursor of the European Union) were pretty strong but, in truth, not all of it was the drink talking. I received no reply and didn’t press the issue. Instead I allowed myself to be seduced by the various pleasantries that were fairly abundant at the time.

I’ve also been deliberately trying to reign in my tendency to drag conversations into the various indignant realms that torment my inner self. Who wants to talk about serious business with the angry guy these days? Not many people I can tell you. They are all far too comfortable to even consider the possibility that they might, you know, find out that they are actually living in interesting times.

Anyhow, Heath. It’s never nice to speak ill of the dead so I will leave you with someone else’s truth about the Heath government and it’s deliberate (and successful) attempts at fooling people into accepting the tragic events that lead to the UK joining the EEC.

From Depleted Uranium:

Cabinet papers pre-1970 show the Heath government to have had full knowledge of the EEC (EU precursor) being a long-term plan for a unitary European State with its own currency; but the facts were suppressed by this and succeeding governments with the deliberate intention of keeping the nation in the dark.

I think that it's about time that all government documents are released before each general election. Can you imaging how the face of politics would change if this were the case. Holy smokes, nothing would ever be the same again.

Anything for the project

Can you believe this?

Welcoming the result of the European constitution referendum in Luxembourg yesterday, European Parliament president Josep Borrell of Spain jumped onto the bandwagon by saying “the people of Luxembourg had realised the need for "more of Europe to better guarantee the safety of Europeans".” And he hoped that the “"appalling" attacks in London would "have a positive political effect in making Europeans realise the importance of the European project to better guarantee their safety".

Better guarantee our safety? Who the hell does this idiot think he is? More to the point, who the hell does he think we are?

Here are a few things that I think have a better chance of improving our safety than the self loving European Project and its verbal masturbators:

1. Our police service.
2. Our security services.
3. Our doctors and nurses.
4. The British public.
5. Our soldiers.
6. Our silent assassins.
7. Our bus drivers.
8. Our train drivers.
9. Our flight crews.
10. Our tea ladies.
11. Our cats and dogs.
12. Those small crumbs you find at the bottom of cheesy wotsit packets.

Go here and read (via the BBC) and note the total absence of requests for help and for safety tips from the project.

Into the mind of a Toad

Stephen Pollard provides us with insight into the mind of a Toad. Its got nearly everything; elitism, dislike of the USA, the evil free market, how wrong the voters are.

It's like someone extracted Louis Michel's (the EU Development Commissioner) Toad gland, squeezed the contents into a vial and used it to distil a few drops of pure essence of EU.

The People's NO Campaign

Neil has written to say that The People's NO Campaign have a new logo. I like it much better than the old one.

Anyhow, if you have their old image up on your blog you might want to change it.

How Eurosceptic are the Tories?

The excellent EU Referendum blog carries this piece of analysis on the chances of the UK going ahead with a referendum on the EU constitution. Richard goes out on a limb (as the title of the post suggests) to say that it will.

…we are saying unequivocally that there will be a British referendum.

Be under no misunderstanding, the decision to carry on with the ratification process is not one that can be made by any member state. Even Chirac knew that. It is "owned" by the European Council, which will meet on 16/17 June and then make its formal announcement.

As it stands, 24 of the 25 member states – the one exception being the UK – has already committed to continuing with ratification. And, as Thatcher found to her cost at Milan in 1985, a Council vote is carried by a simple majority.

On that basis, Blair will not submit himself to the humiliation of being outvoted and being instructed by the "colleagues" to continue with his referendum plans. He will therefore declare that it is his decision to carry on, in the "interests of democracy".

That, in effect, will give him the moral high ground, because he will have decided to "listen to the people". It will give him "ownership" of the referendum, backfooting the Tories who have been calling for it to be abandoned.

What I find most interesting is the undercurrent of Labour/Tory party politics in the context of Richard’s analysis.

This is conjecture but let us assume that Richard is spot on. What can be said about the Tory position? My conclusion is that they are either stupid or just reiterating their pro-EU position (let’s be kind and say that pro-EU does not qualify one by default for stupid). Now, we know to quite some significant extent that the Tory Party is pro-EU; they have said so on many occasion. Refusing to entertain the possibility of withdrawing from the European project is pro in my books and in the books of many conservatives signalling to the Tory party in easily decoded X’s. So how does it show this?

Well, if the Tory party wanted to show up the EU in a bad light how best could they take advantage of the situation described by Richard above? The answer would be to play on exactly the kind of thing that those who are pro-self governing hate most about the EU. They would leave everyone in no doubt that Blair will have no choice but to go ahead with the referendum because, frankly, it’s not up to him. He has already made the commitment to hold a referendum if we are to consider ratifying the treaty and the decision about whether we should attempt to ratify it is not in domestic hands but in the hands of the ‘colleagues’.

Blair has no choice. He will be instructed by the European political elite to go ahead with the referendum regardless of domestic opinion. That would be a real Eurosceptic Tory party position.

The people's NO campaign

Now linking to this on the left with the rest of my standards:

The people's NO campaign

Ask yourself...

...why would anyone say this?

"No institution of the European Union can criticise another institution".

That came from the European Commission President Barroso. Do they think we are not listening or is it that they think there's absolutely nothing we can do about their project regardless of what they say?

Goin' to get you after school

This, from England Expects, deserves to be put about a bit. It's the text from the letter sent to the five 'rebel' Tories who are doing exactly what they should be doing in Brussels (tabling resolutions that call people out on suspected abuse of their privileged positions):

This resolution could be very damaging to the Conservative Party in that it is also co-signed by individuals from groups and parties such as Sinn Fein who are alien to and hold views incompatible with our beliefs, and your signature on the resolution could indicate your support for these groups and parties.

Therefore we must insist that you urgently remove your name from the list of signatories, in any event at the latest by 12 noon on Thursday 19th May. Failure to do this will result in very serious consequences for you.

This letter was co-signed by Philip Bradbourn, Conservative chief whip in Brussels and Timothy Kirkhope, Tory delegation leader. It's playground stuff isn't it? If you don't do as we say we're goin' to get you. Never mind that they are doing all us little people a service. And that smokescreen about 'aliens' is about as transparent as they come.

The toads are chirping.

Have at you!

Oh what fun

Posted by John at 02:05 PM | TrackBack

The EU constitution

The campaign has launched.

It's your duty, ni

Down the river

Blair seems to think that he’ll have enough EU support to keep the UK’s working time opt out.

That is exactly the point.

Our elected parliament wants one thing, our EU project leaders want another and who do we have to turn to? What a joke.

You know, every time a UK politician harps on about Lords reform and how necessary it is to have an elected Lords chamber I wonder why their vision stops at the door of their parliamentary building in Westminster. How many EU parliamentarians are elected by us? Certainly not enough to legitimise the power that Brussels wields over the UK. Sure, the others may well be elected by their own “constituents” but they are from constituencies that have absolutely nothing to do with us in the UK. For that argument to hold any water we would have to have exactly the same rights, privileges, centrally set and administered taxation regimes, laws etc as all the other constituencies in the EU. Oh! Wait a minute!

The political classes and what they have and are doing to this country and union of ours disgusts me. They have lied, cheated, misrepresented and hushed up nearly every aspect of their glorious project for decades.

Shame on them

Inspired by this news:

A senior European Commissioner marked VE Day yesterday by accusing Eurosceptics of risking a return to the Holocaust by clinging to "nationalistic pride".

As Richard says:

How dare these second-rate crooks invoke the death of millions in the support of their cause. Never more have this etiolated bunch demonstrated just how foul their "project" is and what vile bodies they really are.

Are my eyes deceiving me?

It’s a cold, wet, and windy day over here in dear old Blighty so what better time to pay a visit to an Englishman’s Castle for a spot of warm comfort. What a mistake. Now I am not only cold but also rather annoyed:

Members of the European Parliament rejected moves yesterday to clean up scandal-ridden arrangements for their travel allowances and expenses. Their decision prompted anger and disbelief from British MEPs, who voted for proposed reforms.

In a series of votes carried by a margin of six to four at a full session of the parliament in Strasbourg, MEPs resisted proposals for audits of their accounts and turned down calls to impose sanctions on those found to have defrauded the taxpayer.

I think this latitude for deciding ones own fate should be extended to the rest of us. Imagine, if you will, how annoyed the tax man would be if we all chose, by a six to four ratio, in a free vote to prevent access to and auditing of our own personal accounts.

Of course, such a vote would never be permitted. We would not be afforded the latitude of which I speak. So, what is so special about these EU architects? Why are they even given the option?

Because they are powerful men and women working for a powerful organisation in command of the processes, procedures and structures that granted them their privileged positions in the first place.

Imagine, if you will, the UK parliament voting for the same toadish outcome. How long (no need to be exact, an approximation would suffice) do you think it would be before they were turfed out on their collecive ears by a rightfully righteous public and judiciary? Or worse.

Lamp posts would bend under the strain.

But not so with the EU parliament. They are different somehow. As they dish out to us various rights and privileges (thanks very much for that by the way) in their stinky constitutional document they do the same for themselves in their own despicable way (it's called The Constitution Plus) arguing that they have every right to because they have the mandate from the very people who can't vote for them and who don't give a brass farthing about them.

Give them and inch and they'll legislate that you should be using centimeters.

Quote of the day

Via Neil Herron we have the following on the withdrawal by Trafford Council of their membership of the North West Regional Assembly:

This assembly does nothing of real worth. People round here don't even know that is exists, and that they are paying for it. The assembly is an expensive debating chamber for political insiders. If it disappeared tomorrow, nobody in the real world would notice it was gone - Sale Moor councillor Christine Bailey

Extra absorbent

Honestly, I had to check the date on this posting from England Expects to make sure it wasn't an April fools. Those paper napkins would make excellent toilet paper.

Those disgraceful assemblies

I've recently been in contact with my local council about the subscriptions they pay to the East of England Regional Assembly which is one of the many un-elected European Regions of England that, as the recent vote in the North East has shown, have no mandate to exist. Hertfordshire County Council paid £34,000 of our money to this toadish body.

I was forthright in my communications and they had the courtesy to respond.

You paid £34k. To an agency that we don't want and that has absolutely no mandate? It's criminal.

There is little wonder that people are turning off politics. These artificial European Regions of England are not wanted, as shown by the massive defeat in the North East, and yet they continue to exist.

It's almost as if they hoped we wouldn't notice.

Please, stop paying them before we stop paying you.

Tina Parker replied:

A recent enquiry to the Leader of Hertfordshire County Council elicited the response below:

We pay a subscription of £34,000 to belong to EERA. I have looked at the case for staying in, or coming out of EERA. We could (and if appropriate) will come out of EERA and in that case would seek to persuade other Councils to do the same. However, at present, it is my view that we need to remain in membership, so long as there is a chance of influencing EERA to maintain its current position of withdrawing its endoresement of its own plan.

Regards
Tina Parker
PA to Robert Ellis
Leader of Hertfordshire County Council

Of course, the plan this email refers to is not made clear and we should not draw the conclusion that the plan in any way relates to the destruction of the assembly. It's my guess that it relates to housing instead.

I responded:

Staying in adds legitimacy to a body that has none. Certainly the government would have us believe that it does but legitimacy is derived from the voter who has, yet again, been hoodwinked. Being voted into government does not mean that they have a remit to do as they will and we can see this to be the case as this government and its supporters (active or conspiratorial) go from one constitutional crisis to the next.

To continue to pay money to this body in the hope that it will give something back in return is not a satisfactory position to take. They have been given the proverbial inch.

Many thanks for your response.

It's a bit thick for a To-Do list

England Expects supplies us with a number of email addresses which, I hope, belong to people that can help me with something I have been wondering about for a while (indeed I am not the only one). These helpful people belong to the "CIDC":

"The CIDC is a special taskforce whose mission is to detect lies, errors and other types of misleading reporting on the EU constitution in the European media".

Here is what I hope they can help me with:

Sirs,

The UK government consistently describes the EU constitution as a tidying up exercise and this phrase is often repeated in the media. This has left me feeling a little concerned.

You see, over here we normally organise tidying up exercises in documents loosely referred to as “plans” or, sometimes, we even relegate them to an appendix of a greater work. On the odd occasion one might even find such a document at the bottom of a filing cabinet stamped with such words as “COMPLETE” or, thankfully less frequently, “INCOMPLETE”.

Some people over here also refer to documents relating to tidying up exercises as “TO DO LISTS”.

These are fitting and well used places for exercises predominantly concerned with tidying up and the tying up loose ends.

For the life of me (and this is where I hope you can help) I cannot grasp why, over there, such documents are referred to as “constitutions”. We would normally reserve a grand document title such as that for more important and far-reaching works. Indeed, in the whole of our history we have been unable to find a cause worthy of such a document, though we have produced a couple of preliminary reports called Magna Carta and The Bill of Rights.

I strongly suspect that the confusion is at my end and that it is my government that has incorrectly described the contents of your governments document.

I hope you can help.

Faithfully,

Apparently some kind of release from the EU?

The target of this little apparent EU ejaculate were the Metric Martyrs:

youre a bunch of fucking luddites. Metric has to win cos thats what welearnt at school. Long live England. long live metric, with 5 metric unitsnames after Uk scientists and 2 Uk directors of the metre bureau. Theimperialists are dead in the water.ps: what in hell are you actually defending? look at great countries likeaustralia and new zealand if you cant stand europe. you luddites inengland make me sick.

The scrote asks what they are defending. I couldn't answer for the Metric Martyrs but for me its simply the freedom to sell produce using traditional and non-metric measures. I would go further and suggest that it should be possible to sell produce by whatever measure you think your customers would be happiest with. It should be possible to do this without the threat of fines and imprisonment and it should be possible to do this without the threat posed by girly council hammer boys.

After all is said and done

The repatriation of powers

UKIPwatch points us to this answer by Mr Barroso on the subject of the repatriation of powers to 'member' countries of the EU. The answer is worth including in full and should be kept in mind whenever a politician says that they will wrestle powers back from the EU without leaving the project all together (I'm looking at the Quislings here).

There are only two possibilities to ‘repatriate powers’ to one Member State. The first option is for such a State to withdraw from the European Union. Insofar as the Treaties have been concluded for an unlimited period and provide no specific procedure for withdrawal, an ad hoc procedure would have to be defined.

The second option would be to revise the Treaties. The Treaties set a number of objectives to the European Union and the European Community and give them powers to pursue these objectives. These powers could be revised. The procedure would be to convene a conference of representatives of the governments of all Member States. This conference would have to decide by common accord how the Treaties should be amended. All the Member States would then have to ratify these amendments, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The Conference could decide that some powers would no longer be attributed to the European Union. Upon ratification, each and every Member State would have the possibility to adopt national measures and policies in domains where the Union would have no competence any more. It would also be for them to manage the transnational consequences of their measures. The Conference could also decide that some Member States would not have to participate in some policies of the Union. Such derogations and exemptions could take the form of so-called opt-out or opt-in.

As to the consequences for a Member State of ignoring unilaterally any part of the acquis communautaire and so failing to fulfil its obligations under the Treaties, Articles 226 and 227 of the EC Treaty enable the Commission or any other Member State to bring the matter before the Court of Justice. Should the latter find that a Member State has indeed failed to fulfil an obligation under Community law, according to Article 228 of the EC Treaty this Member State must take the necessary measures to comply with the judgement of the Court. If such measures are not fully and timely taken, a second judgement could impose a lump sum or a penalty payment on it.

It does seem like an either or doesn't it? You're either in or you're out. I mean it does seem rather unlikely that all member countries (note how they use member state) would consistently vote to amend treaties at the request of a UK government particularly when such amendments were of the "less EU" kind.

Obvously, I say this in jest

In this BBC article we find that:

Mr Vaz said it would be "catastrophic" if Britain voted no to the treaty [on the Eu constitution] and all the other states voted yes.

Catastrophic? Who for?

Also in the same article it is argued that the government should be more honest about the EU project and admit that it is mainly a political project and not as economic as we have been led to believe. A kind of hey, ok, we'll start telling the truth now move.

This is just a cynical ploy to cash in on the disenchantment felt by the electorate with politics and politicians. They are hoping that less people will be bothered to get out and vote on purely political matters (the what for's, why bother's and they'll do whatever they want anyhow's may possibly choose to stay in bed instead).

That way a NO vote can be discredited because only a tiny minority of voters bothered to get involved.

Once you start using the language.....

The English Democrat blog reports that they now only require a West Midlands Regional Chairman because they have 8 out of the 9 English Regions, covered:

I can confirm that we have 8 out of the 9 English Regions, covered by Regional and/or County Chairman.

The West Midlands is the last area the English Democrats need to cover, and we currently have a Vacant Area.

I'm curious about these English Regions. Are they the same as what are commonly described as the European Regions of England or some other bunch of regions?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

27th January 2008

EU CONSTITUTION

"Should the United Kingdom approve the treaty establishing a constitution for the European Union?". That was the question put to the electorate in 2006 and 68% of voters said NO. So why is the government consistently abiding by every section, paragraph and sentence within the document? Why are elected government ministers sitting on the EU constitutional committee, helping to further add to what is an already weighty document?

We asked one government minister those very questions today and were shocked at his answer.

"What the electorate said they don't want, is an approved treaty. Some of them may have thought they were making a decision on whether they wanted an EU constitution or not, but that was not the decision they were making", says Malcolm Blows, assistant director of the constitutional committee.

"The question was: do you want to approve the treaty? The answer was no. If you don't want an approved treaty, then you have a constitution that is used as it is now. If there was some uncertainty in people's minds, well...," he shrugs.

Constitutional committee chairman Bob Getsome, also leader of Stackten Council, is dismissive of suggestions it has no democratic mandate.

"I'm not interested in that issue. The committee will carry on the work that it has been doing, the same as the other member countries are doing. That's all I'm saying on the issue," he says.

Catalyst

The continuing existence and the current behaviour of members of the unelected North East of England Regional Assembly.

Hat tips to Neil Herron, Jules and the CEP.

East Midlands Regional Assembly - the who exactly?

This is utterly hilarious:

PRESS RELEASE
More information from Jon Whowell, Policy Advisor Communications East Midlands Regional Assembly
DDI 01664 502551,Tel 01664 502555
Mobile 07887 635749
E-mail jon.whowell@emra.gov.uk
Web site www.emra.gov.uk
Release Date: 10th Feb 2005
Ref: 08/02/05

East Midlands salutes local heroine - Ellen MacArthur “brings great credit to region”

Cllr David Parsons, Chair East Midlands Regional Assembly, said "We are very proud of the achievement made by Ellen MacArthur who brings great credit to the entire East Midlands region, we would like to congratulate her on her magnificent effort of breaking the world record and the honour Her Majesty the Queen will bestow on her. The East Midlands is not normally noted for its maritime links so Dame Ellen's success is very special to us all."

It's hilarious because it serves to highlight the straws that the East Midlands Regional Assembly are willing to clutch at to help their crumbling agenda.

Fact of the matter is that people in England do not and do not wish to recognise these EU inspired artificial regions. Villages, Towns, Cities, Counties, England; these are the well established regions that people enjoy.

They certainly don't enjoy un-elected Assemblies that help to encourage the current language of the day enjoyed by some Labour politicians who insist on using the term the regions of England when, by God, they should be refering to the nation of England.

UK challenges Brussels over carbon trading

Of course, the difference between the people on both sides of this argument is that, on the one hand, we have people we can directly vote for or against and, on the other hand, we have people:

Negotiations between the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the European Commission continue, but Mrs Beckett has warned Stavros Dimas, the Environment Commissioner, that the UK will take Brussels to the European Court if he does not approve the revised British plan.

Bring on the Rain

Richard North publishes the address he gave to the Kings College European Week. It's a hoot and recommended reading.

A toad and a hawk

An old toad, sitting late one night by its pond, looked up and regarded the moon. Ssshhhh, said one of the other toads that had gathered around to hear him speak. I think he's going to say something. The other toads shuffled forward. Hush, hush, said some. I can't see him properly said others. All of them, however, quietened down as the old toad dropped its gaze and regarded them with its soft, glistening eyes. With a song in its voice and content within its heart the old toad drew himself up and said:

The point of the EU is that some sovereignty is best exercised collectively.

A passing hawk, flying home late after a hard days work, heard what the toad had said. What utter tosh he thought to himself. Swooping down so that all the toads might hear him better the hawk squawked:

I realise that you need to believe that in order to be able to cash your pay cheque each month.

Click here to continue reading this story.

Well, if you don't take an interest in local affairs...

Limeypundit, among many others, brings this to my attention:

The European Commission threatened last night to block Michael Howard's programme of tough immigration controls if the Tories win the election.

Why? Because the British state has entered into agreements with other multinational organisations. No news yet on how that affects any agreement that a British government might have with the voters of Britain.

Further:

Europe's intervention in what has become a major issue in the election campaign took Westminster aback. MPs and officials were unaware of how much national sovereignty on immigration and asylum had been transferred to Brussels.

It took them aback. They were surprised.

I bet a few of them even raised an eyebrow or two.

No matter what you think of the Tory policy you have to wonder why MPs and officials were surprised and what other issues are now likely to be ‘surprisingly’ seen as EU business by EU officials? What do you mean you didn’t know? It was on display in a disused lavatory behind a sign saying “beware of the leopard”. Perhaps an enquiry would leave Westminster in a permanent state of mild astonishment.

You’d also be forgiven for wondering a little about the credibility of any of these amazed MPs and officials if they were, for instance, ever to suggest that the public need educating on the benefit of EU membership. I mean, benefit can only really be measured if all the drawbacks are also on the table. It’s a Ying Yang thing and I bet there are many more Yangs waiting to reveal themselves to our unsurprisingly unaware ‘local representatives’.

O'er the broad face of England

The blog Loose the Delusion, in a post titled In your English faces says:

...the loudest and most vociferous opponents of the EU are most usually to be found in England. You can see this clearly in the blogosphere. Apart from the dedicated Eurosceptic sites, it is interesting that a number of the other 'British' blogs that rant and rave about Europe seem to have the word English prominently displayed in the title.

Anyway, I have always wondered how these English Eurosceptics, who seem to adore the British union, would respond when faced with the same arguments from Scots or Welsh nationalists as they deploy against Europe.

You need to read the rest of the post but there are a number of issues it raises that I might as well address here from my own personal perspective.

Firstly the presumption that the the loudest and most vociferous opponents of the EU are most usually to be found in England. If we accept that this is indeed the case all we can say is that it is a legitimate observation of British bloggers and the English in general. What we cannot yet say is why this might be the case. For instance, there are tens of millions more people living in England than in each of the remaining parts of Britain and this significantly larger population may be the reason. I am guessing that there are more English blogs than there are blogs of Scottish or Welsh persuasion. I don’t see any evidence that the English (ignoring the excesses of some football fans who I do not think are representative) are more nationalistic (and hence more anti-EU) than the Scots or the Welsh at this time (indeed in the case of the Scots I think exactly the opposite might be true), so doubt this could be the cause if indeed the original presumption is correct, which it might not be.

Having said that I do think that the English will become (and are becoming) more nationalistic as time goes by and I put that down to a better understanding by the English of what has been happening to them and their culture over the past few decades. I am talking about unbalanced devolution, regionalisation, lack of proper political representation and the way English national identity is being ignored on the petty day to day level. Examples being the Keep Scotland Tidy, Keep Wales Beautiful and Keep Britain Tidy campaigns (no Keep England……); no English nationality on Census forms; BBC Scotland but no BBC England etc. Petty, but people notice and these things pile up.

Another issue is this adoration of Britain which English Eurosceptics are apparently adorned with. I personally have a high regard for Britain, though not quite as high ever since devolution started working its solvent magic on the glue that holds Britain together. My adoration of Britain is not as strong as one might think, though I hope that the return of the correct symmetry of the Union with the introduction of an English Parliament might one day fix that.

Having said that, I do not think it particularly meaningful to compare a person’s affinity to an old and well established union and that persons affinity to a new and larger current process of union. One might as well rubbish ones affinity to England, a union in itself. How far back do we want to go?

Loose the Delusion muses:

Anyway, I have always wondered how these English Eurosceptics, who seem to adore the British union, would respond when faced with the same arguments from Scots or Welsh nationalists as they deploy against Europe: the right to exercise national sovereignty, the right to rule themselves, the lack of democracy, the imposition of regulations from outside, etc.

We know already that the Scottish are over-represented in the Union. They have their own parliament over which the English have no real authority and they also have significant voice in the UK parliament. I would say that the Scots could not really use quite the same arguments as we deploy against the EUropean project. They have never had it so good and have done well for themselves over the past few years; I wish them luck. However, if either the people of Scotland or Wales made it clear that they wished to be independent and break away from British union I would support them 100%. The union, such as it is, is nothing without the willing participation of the people that make it up.

Let's see how well the loons can fight their own arguments!

I’d pay to watch that.

As an aside I would be keen to see some more of these blogs with English prominently displayed in the title. I know of very few: Campaign for an English Parliament (a movement that do not comment upon European Union policy), English Democrat Blog (which may comment, though I don’t recall anything) and possibly An Englishman’s Castle and The Edge of England’s Sword (which do comment on the EU – and I gave those for free given that they do not strictly speaking qualify given their titles).

Get your facts straight

The Times reports :

As part of its campaign to improve flagging confidence in the European Union, it has set up a website giving detailed rebuttal of stories that it complains leaves readers with a “picture of the EU as a bunch of mad “eurocrats”.

They don't provide a link to the site but I believe it is this one here.

I would also welcome a similar easy to read web site that highlights EU regulation for which the British and the British Government have not identified a need. Something called "Stuff that costs us time and money that we could quite easily do without".

The EUREALIST has noticed the EU's anti-mad eurocrat list.

You know, I can't help thinking that there is potential for this to go badly for the EU. I mean, can we now assume that anything that is not on its rebuttal list is endorsed as the truth by the EU? Hmmm, I don't know about that but someone somewhere must surely come up with something embarrassingly contrary, hosted at its own nice URL (the mind boggles with all the possible domain names).

As EU-Serf says in the comments on the post by the EUREALIST:

Like you say, they want to focus on Euromyths and keep the discussion away from real issues. We can not let them get away with this.

Future fun to be had by all.

We wanted trading zone, but got something very different instead

So what if the Chancellor of an elected British government wants to open up a little more free trade with the USA?

Under EU law, individual EU states surrender all their trade policies to Brussels, where the European Commission has the sole right to initiate new legislation.

I suppose the expertise in Brussels for initiating new legislation regardless of an identified need for it in its member regions makes it uniquely qualified in this respect.

I suggest that the Chancellor should mark any legislative interference from the EU with one of these pre-prepared responses.

EDM 228 - The abolition of regional chambers

An excellent Early Day Motion (EDM 228). These are basically short written statements made by one Member of Parliament or more which can be signed by other MPs as a show of support for the cause highlighted by the EDM:

ABOLITION OF REGIONAL CHAMBERS 30.11.04

Spelman/Caroline

That this House notes the overwhelming and decisive rejection of elected regional assemblies in the North East referendum by 78 per cent. to 22 per cent. and widespread public opposition to regional government in England, to higher taxes and to more politicians; notes that the transfer of powers to regional chambers was predicated on the ultimate establishment of elected regional assemblies; asserts that there is now a clear democratic deficit, as the regional chambers have no accountability, no mandate and no legitimacy; and calls on the Government to end its stealth regionalisation and for the regional chambers to be abolished, and for the powers that have been seized by the chambers to be returned to England's boroughs, counties and cities.

Via Neil Herron.

I have used the excellent faxyourmp.com to ask my MP to add his signature to the EDM. Why not try this at home?

Parity

The EUropean Regions of England

Here is a cracking exchange of letters where an English Regionalism acolyte and EUropean project suck-up gets his filthy facade stripped off and returned to him in a coffin over which an EU flag has been draped.

The hero in this instance is Fredrick Forsyth, author, who receives a letter from the un-elected and unrepresentative East of England Development Agency offering him ambassador status. His reply ends:

So when you say to me: 'By 2010 the East of England region aims to be one of the top regions in Europe,' you should, if you were to be scrupulously honest, phrase it thus: 'By 2010, following the abolition of this and other outdated nation-states, and in a New Europe of devolved regional territories, the East of England region....' etc.

Your problem is not me but Abraham Lincoln. 'You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time. But you can't fool all the people all of the time.' Regionalism, behind its mask of local democracy, enhanced prosperity for all, but in truth standing for millions more unaccountable gravy-slurping jobsworths, has got to fool enough of the people enough of the time; i.e. until the referendum, which will be as rigged as Prescott and Blair can fix it.

But you run into a group of people far more numerous than yourself, just as committed to the retention of England as you are to its disappearance, just as smart and just as moneyed. Before the fight is over you and yours will have learned the hard way that this old country of ours is not yet prepared to be led into the knacker's yard.

The English Regions are part of and a requirement for the EU project and we should insist that they are referred to by their proper and revealing name, that is The EUropean Regions of England.

My thanks to the undercover agent who pointed out the above letter exchange to me.

Drinking? You know, it's always possible

Via the Campaign for an English Parliament we have this:

"Surely the result of the recent referendum and subsequent change in New Labour policy towards English devolution serve to illustrate that Scotland is different from the English regions in that we are a nation...."

Richard Lockhead, MSP, Scottish Parliament.

Honestly, try as I might I can't work out what Dickie is talking about or what point he is trying to make.

The English regions that he speaks of are artificial and fanciful made up sections of England so, I suppose, in that context he is right. For instance, if we were to substitute his reference to these fairytale and ephemeral secret regions with something more concrete that the people of England are familiar with, say counties, then....:

"Surely the result of the recent referendum and subsequent change in New Labour policy towards English devolution serve to illustrate that Scotland is different from the English counties in that we are a nation...."

....makes a little more sense but beyond that it is simply Scotch mist.

I wonder, was the reason that it cost so much to build the Scottish Parliament building something to do with how high up a mountain it was constructed? Is Dickie's problem simply altitude sickness?

Still, once again it shows our common ground because, like Scotland, England also differs from its various areas in that it is a Nation and they are not.

Similar countries separated only by an air of incomprehensibility.

Spending rules, OK!

This is doing the rounds at the moment and I think it's worth repeating here. Go to Neil Herron's site for more:

Referendum spending rules 'unfair to No vote'(Filed: 25/11/2004)

Spending rules governing the referendum on the European constitution will give the Government an unfair advantage, Sam Younger, the chairman of the Electoral Commission, said yesterday.

He told an academic seminar that ministers should be banned from promoting the European Union constitution using taxpayers' money for at least 10 weeks before polling day.

Mr Younger said the rules should be changed because it would be wrong for the Government to be allowed to spend unlimited sums highlighting the advantages of the constitution at a time when the organisations campaigning against it could not.

Shooting organisation goes all regional

I've just noticed the following in my recent copy of the British Association for Shooting & Conservation magazine (scanned in using OCR software, but hopefully there are no errors):

BASC is creating a new region in the south of England and re-structuring others to match the boundaries of the new local government areas. From January 1 there will be five regions: Northern, Midland, South-West, London & East of England, and South-East. The largest single change involves splitting the existing East & South-East region into two and moving Hampshire, Oxfordshire, Berkshire and the Isle of Weight from the South-West to the new South-east region.

Other changes involve moving Cheshire and North Lincolnshire into the Northern region while the rest of Lincolnshire moves to the Midland region.

The changes are being made to align the boundaries of BASC’s English regions with those of the nine Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) which in many ways are assuming the powers of regional assemblies.

This means we can work with the RDAs -and regional assemblies if they are created -in the key areas of politics, economic planning and partnership development.

We will now be better placed to exploit the opportunities presented by the regional economic strategies, work more closely with local government and gain access to new funding. Much of BASC's work already involves co-operation with statutory agencies and NGOs who are also developing their approach to regional working.

Here is their map which matches this one on the Campaign for an English Parliament web log.

My beef with this is that it adds to the weight of legitimacy of these new and highly artificial EU inspired servings of England and it also does the same for the unelected regional assemblies in those regions.

Now, the BASC is a private organisation that can do what the hell it likes but, as a member, this frustrates me no end.

Those of you who are of a mind might like to advise the BASC of their complicity in the carving up of our country.

Listen up Tory party

If the Tories want to win back my support in the General Election then they should take the following advice:

Tory hawks will urge Michael Howard to harden party policy on Europe after poll findings

CONSERVATIVE Eurosceptics are to step up pressure on Michael Howard to harden his party’s policy on the European Union after a poll suggesting that the British people — particularly the young — would back a renegotiation of Britain’s membership terms.

A survey by ICM for the European Foundation over the weekend indicated that 58 per cent agreed that Britain should renegotiate EU treaties so that they were reduced to trade and association agreements.

The poll found that 68 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds backed a policy of renegotiation. It also suggested that 63 per cent of professionals and managers backed that policy, which has always been seen as a crucial step towards withdrawal from the EU. Sixty per cent of the skilled working classes supported it.

Of course, after Sean Gabb's memorandum and meeting with the party we know that:

there would be no change of policy and no change of emphasis. The Conservative leadership would under no circumstances talk about withdrawal from the European Union.

Well, I suppose you could argue semantics and say that withdrawal and renegotiation are very different things but, frankly, I think a renegotiation down to trade and association agreements only (with none of the usual hidden extras that we have come to associate with the EU) is an acceptable and wholly appropriate level of withdrawal.

However, no change of policy or emphasis is a pretty clear statement of intent by the Tories and they will have little chance of winning back my support with that kind of attitude.

Listen up. I feel badly let down by the party I have supported for over 20 years. I'd much rather face a clear enemy in opposition than a false ally in power.

A prayer for Maastricht

Dear Lord, please find work for these idle hands to do.
Something nice, but not too expensive.

Blessed are the weak.

Please protect them from the EUrocrats, the Health and Safety Executive, and their like.

Yours is the Kingdom, but they'll come for that too, soon enough.
Forever and ever.

Amen.

Those pesky UKIP MEPs

Lurch, over at Gun Culture brings us a revealing press release concerning a recent clash in the EU parliament between UKIP MEP Nigel Farage and, well, everyone else it seems. Money shot:

Today, the European Parliament is prepared to overlook the conviction of a senior member of the Commission for embezzling government funds, and is prepared instead to threaten with arrest the person who reveals it.

Read it and weep.

Hard to see the future is - cloudy is the dark side

Those are the words of Yoda, who I have been emulating more than I would like recently. However, in this particular case, wrong he is.

The Bunny that Blithers reflects upon the republic that is a banana:

How does the EU have any credibility at all? For the tenth year in a row its own auditors refused to sign off on the budget. How come that doesn't completely demolish the EU's credibility? Where are the "Banana Republic" headlines? Why hasn't the EU been laughed out of politics?

It is astonishing isn't it? Having said that I see it as a good news story that does indeed carry within it some credibility. When the EU's auditors eventually start signing off these budgets in spite of the unsafe spending and errors then we can lament the total loss of credibility.

Of course this will more than likely happen through the careful moving of the goalposts. Unsafe spending will become safe as houses. Errors will become adjustments.

I have 25 billion quid and a butter mountain to bet on it if you're feeling lucky.

The truth is out there

This from Gawain is interesting:

Interesting discussion with a political veteran of the European parliament - (1975-2004) about the impact of the North East Referendum. His comments went something like this.
'Devastating blow, bad news for the regions, make that bad news for all of England. The thing is the EU is designing itself around funding through regional systems. It will be unable to fund through national govrnments which means that England will miss out on increasingly large anmounts of funding'.
So the UK will continue to send cash to Brussels, where it is so well audited and then it will send out money back to Scotland, Ulster and Wales as the have 'Regional' governments, but England will miss out.

I'm not sure this is quite the case yet because we still have unelected regional assemblies (I'm sure Gawain will correct me if I am wrong).

However, once we get rid of these unelected ones (if we ever do) then the real question behind all this will come into stark focus. Why on Earth are we organising our country to fit in with the machinery of the EU project when there is no established mandate from the people for this to happen? Quite the contrary could well be true given the massive victory in the North East for those that want to maintain their own (non-EU directed) local structures and identities.

Gawain writes:

The MEP in question foresaw the shocking possibility that a future Government would close down the regional Assemblies now it realised that they would never receive legitimacy from the lumpen proles.

Girly council hammer boy

The Blithering Bunny points out this act of anti-Imperial violence:

One day last year, Mr James, a trading standards official of Torbay council in Devon walked into Dennis Webb's fruit shop. When he saw that, despite a previous warning, Mr Webb was still using scales that measured only in pounds and ounces, Mr James produced a hammer and a metal punch with which, according to Mr Webb, he struck the scales so hard as to render them unusable.

Of course, initial complaints seem to have fallen on deaf ears. There’s also something about the data protection act which, I assume, does indeed cover reverse-luddite damage to the private property of British citizens via the use of Torbay council hammers.

Obviously being council hammers they are pretty crap at doing any actual hammering. You see the council admits that its officer had "taken action to take the scales out of use". Yup, by hitting them with a hammer. However, and we might have guessed, "this action did not damage the scales".

I bet if the scales were one of those new fangle EU approved metric scales, rather than a set of stout Imperial ones, they would have been completely destroyed.

Or, more likely, they would have surrendered at the first sight of the hammer.

There's always something.....

Michael Howard, the leader of the conservative party, has called on the government to scrap unelected regional chambers. The North East voted against a regional assembly and because these chambers were set up as precursors to elected assemblies Howard argues that the NO vote proved that they were dead. Blair disagrees and argues that they serve a purpose. It's not clear what that purpose is, other than to meddle in local affairs while not being directly accountable to the electorate, but this little gem caught my eye:

Under the terms of the 1992 Maastricht treaty, EU member countries had to organise themselves into regions in order to gain access to development cash.

Why is it that whenever we enter into an EU agreement there are always these little intricacies that no-one ever really tells us about?

Unelected regional chambers? The need to organise our countries into regions regardless of the voiced desires of the local population? Who knew?

It's because of stuff like this that mistrust in the affairs of the EU project is rife in England. I mean just read this:

Their official role [these chambers] is to oversee the work of the regional development agencies, which were set up in 1999 to encourage inward investment.

But they have also taken over some strategic planning roles from local authorities.

For example, the South East England Regional Assembly will consider controversial proposals to increase new homes target from 29,500 to 36,000 a year.

The what regional assembly? I never voted for no freaking South East Assembly and I sure as hell did not ask it to consider building new homes (on green belt no doubt).

Like I said, there's always something with this damn EU project.

Mark writes to tell me that it doesn't matter whether you voted for no freaking South East Regional Assembly or not. You live in the area covered by the freaking East of England Regional Assembly. He also provides a pointer to this government site to prove it.

Apparently the new region that I live in is a better place to live and work in so it's just as well that I no longer live in the south east. Thank the EU for that I say.

The rise of the machines

Natalie points us to an an interesting conversation between man and machine. Looks like fun:

Me: Hello there jabberwacky.
Jabberwacky: Hello there George.
Me: I'm not George. My name is John.
Jabberwacky: Hi John. My name is Matt.
Me: Tell me Matt, what do you think about the EU constitution?
Jabberwacky: I think they are not that good.
Me: I agree.
Jabberwacky: It's good to know that we share the same opinion on that.

So it's official then; the machines are on our side. EUrope is toast.

RENUNCIATION OF CITIZENSHIP OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Now this post over at Attempting Escape introduces us to the fine idea of renouncing ones EU citizenship. What a spiffing idea and a great way to really annoy Europhile MP's and their like.

The Resistance - its name has been spoken

Lurch, over at Gun Culture ends his post with:

Those of us in what might be described as ‘The Resistance’ hear that the Queen has been taking advice from people outside the corrupt and institutionally treasonous inner sanctum of government officialdom and that the cry of the people is at last being heeded. Perhaps we are deluding ourselves, perhaps it is even too late for the Crown to take back that which has been so cravenly stolen and given away.

I hope not, and I hope that we are all doing that which we can to facilitate the return of our country.

This 'Resistance' he speaks of sounds interesting. I once told a Conservative councillor that this EU business would give rise to a real resistance movement in Britain and that he should not be surprised if this resistance truly believed that many of the democratically elected MPs in the UK Parliament were actual real life traitors. He looked at me as if I was a loony and dismissed my suggestion.

I still believe that this is a likely outcome, though at least the rise of the UKIP gives us a useful safety valve of political expression that people can get behind if they wish, but I suspect that the future holds far more in the way of trouble than many of us are expecting.

Right, that's it

Impeach Blair!

Is someone playing moonbat bingo?

I for one support the constitution and believe it is time we become a Europe of one. Most people I have spoken to know little about Europe and make xenophobic judgements of the French and Germans. I do believe we should become one country.

Mark, Barnstaple, Devon

Come on, own up.

The EU-Serf wades in on Tony Blair:

As you pose for photos on this day which the BBC will constantly refer to as historic, the people of the UK, whom you legally and by tradition represent, may wish you to ponder on the gravity of what you are doing....

Sorry Italy, I know he's your man but we don't like him

Here is Boris Johnson (MP) on the recent troubles in the EU parliament:

Sig Buttiglione was sent to Brussels with all the solemn authority of the government in Rome. That government's authority in turn derives from the sovereign people of Italy. And yet Sig Buttiglione has been rejected by a polyglot babel of 25 countries, and the will of the people of Italy has been frustrated. What we saw yesterday was the collision of two democratic imperatives: the right of the people of Italy to have their government's man in Brussels, and the right of that nebulous demos, the people of Europe - represented in this bizarre mother-in-law of parliaments - to say no.

And there we have it. You may not agree with Buttiglione but there are many, many people who do and quite a few of those come from a very Catholic Italy. Who will answer to them over this? No one. The politicians who have denied them their representation don't ever have to listen to them and can never be voted out of their seats by them. The parliament they sit in isn't even in the same country. Tough shit peasants. You've had your Empire now let us have ours.

Ceterum censeo Unionem Europaeam esse delendam

Here's a rehash of something I did earlier.

Ceterum censeo Unionem Europaeam esse delendam is Latin for something along the lines of I say, the EU is not what we're looking for really. A better definition can be found over at Tim's place.

Ps. I'm not sure that the image above scales down well due to the smallish bullet holes.

Reasonable Free Trade requirements or half baked interfering claptrap?

So Blair wants to take on EU inspired red tape, the increasing of which is apparently a popular pastime with local civil service types. Nice try Tony, and very welcome indeed. We don’t like red tape over here on The England Project. However, I have a better idea.

You see, I’ve been thinking about this red tape stuff and this EU regulation business and I’m wondering just how much of it is to do with free trade (you know, common actual quality requirements and the like) and how much of it is really, well, interfering and burdensome rubbish. So, I’ve devised a test called …..erm….. The England Project Regulation Standard Test.

This is