Daniel Hannan, star of YouTube, and undemocratic, cheesy-arsed, gravy train-riding MEP for South East England, advances his own plan to save the UK, and break-up England. As usual, it's not devolution for England, decided by the electorate in England, it's devolution in England, the break-up of the nation, orchestrated by the UK Government and the EU that is the desired course of action.
As for the issue of devolution, this Hannan has a definite end-game. There is no power bestowed on the Holyrood Parliament under the 1998 Scotland Act that could not, in England, be exercised by counties and cities. The decentralisation of power in England is, of course, a meritorious goal in itself. But a happy consequence of English localism would be the rectification of the lopsided 1998 settlement: all Westminster MPs would find themselves on the same footing, dealing with defence, foreign affairs and immigration. Domestic questions - health, education, policing, social security- would be decided more closely to the people. All clear?
So, each county or "region" of England is awarded the same powers as the Scottish parliament? Completely unworkable. And undemocratic.
The people of England need a referendum on how they are governed - the same thing the Scots and Welsh were given.
Despite being last year's YouTube hit, Hannan is a wally.
In fact, the anti-English arrogance of the likes of guzzling Hannan make me sick.
Fuck off, man - let the people decide!
This blog is not right wing or left wing. It is old style Socialist, true Socialist, and simply points out the facts regarding asymmetric national devolution, which is based on Edward Lhuyd's 1707 'Celtic' labelling of certain languages and historical revisionism, and how it disadvantages ALL people in the largest and most ethnically diverse UK country of all - England.
Showing posts with label break up of England. Show all posts
Showing posts with label break up of England. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Gordon Brown's New Year Speech - Just How Long Can He Fool And Abuse The People Of England?
Insisting that his "guiding principle" was the wellbeing of British families and businesses, he added: "What keeps me up at night, and gets me up in the morning, are the hopes and aspirations of the British people."
Gordon Brown in his New Year speech. But surely Mr Brown's first priority is the Scottish people? He signed the Scottish Claim Of Right in 1989 promising to put Scots' interests first in all he did. And he has never renounced that promise. In his last act as Chancellor, he swiped £2bn from the English NHS budget, whilst leaving the Scots and Welsh services intact.
Proof of his intent to serve his fellow "Celts" if ever there was one.
And now he's breaking up England into regions, against the will of the electorate, basically abolishing England, and still ensuring that Scotland is far better funded via the Barnett Formula.
"British people"? You are an evil liar, Mr Brown. You look after your own - and that means the Scots.
Gordon Brown in his New Year speech. But surely Mr Brown's first priority is the Scottish people? He signed the Scottish Claim Of Right in 1989 promising to put Scots' interests first in all he did. And he has never renounced that promise. In his last act as Chancellor, he swiped £2bn from the English NHS budget, whilst leaving the Scots and Welsh services intact.
Proof of his intent to serve his fellow "Celts" if ever there was one.
And now he's breaking up England into regions, against the will of the electorate, basically abolishing England, and still ensuring that Scotland is far better funded via the Barnett Formula.
"British people"? You are an evil liar, Mr Brown. You look after your own - and that means the Scots.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The UK Government: Polls Show A Majority Support Establishing An English Parliament, But WE SAY NO. And Asymmetric Devolution Is Fine...
A No 10 Poll we somehow missed signing - results in another denial of democratic right by the UK Government, acting expressely against the wishes of the vast majority of people in England:
The Government supports the Union of the United Kingdom. The Government recognises that the devolution settlement is an issue of continued public interest, but does not believe that there is a groundswell of support for an English Parliament at present. Consequently, the Government does not believe that it is necessary to establish an English Constitutional Convention.
Scenes like this? Will we see mass violence on the streets again before our masters will listen to our pleas for democratic rule?
Big hat-tip to Tommy English.
The Government supports the Union of the United Kingdom. The Government recognises that the devolution settlement is an issue of continued public interest, but does not believe that there is a groundswell of support for an English Parliament at present. Consequently, the Government does not believe that it is necessary to establish an English Constitutional Convention.
No "groundswell"? Even a BBC Poll shows that the vast majority WANT an English Parliament!
Most people, including those in Scotland, think England should have its own parliament, a BBC poll suggests.
Newsnight found 61% in England, 51% in Scotland and 48% in Wales agreed with the idea.
So what, in the UK Government's opinion, constitutes a "groundswell of support" for an English Parliament?
Scenes like this? Will we see mass violence on the streets again before our masters will listen to our pleas for democratic rule?Big hat-tip to Tommy English.
Monday, April 07, 2008
The CEP stands up for English university students while the NUS lets them down
Press Release: CEP stands up for English university students while the NUS lets them down
The CEP carries on with its opposition to the Government’s policy of discrimination against English university students.
The Campaign for an English Parliament has deplored the decision of the National Union of Students last week to end its opposition to the tuition and top-up fees which are being imposed upon English university students.
‘We want every English student to know’, stated Mrs Scilla Cullen, Chairman of the CEP, ‘that the Campaign for an English Parliament will not stop campaigning against the fees New Labour has inflicted on English students while sparing Scottish and Welsh students. English students are being hit with immense debts while Scottish students are not.
In England university students have to pay £3145 each year of their university life. Students loans then have to be repaid at 4.8% interest rates after graduation.
Welsh students don’t have anything like the fee burden English students have. Their fees are only £1255 pa.’
However, in Scotland university students have no fees to pay. What’s more, the Scottish parliament has also made grants up to £2510 available to Scottish students coming from families on low incomes, which are not available in England. To make the discrimination even worse English students at Scottish universities have to pay their fees, while EU students do not; and Scottish students, and indeed Isle of Man students, at English unviersities pay no fees. What is quite grotesque about the whole situation is that, at the same time as the Scottish Parliament was legislatiing to relieve its students of fees, the vote in the UK Parliament to impose top-up fees on English students was carried only by the Scottish MPs in Westminister voting for them to give New Labour its majority in the vote in the House.The majority of English MPs voted against them.
‘The only way forward out of this discrimination’ says Mrs Cullen, ‘is for England to have its own parliament just as Scotland has. The UK government is just seeing England, which provides 85% of its whole tax revenue, as a milch cow from which Scotland and Wales benefit at the expense of the people of England. All the MPs who have imposed these fees upon English students got their university education completely free. The injustice to England is grotesque; and it is time that of the 660 Westminster MPs the 550 who are English start to stand up for their country. England should matter as much to them as Scotland does to the Scottish MPs both at Westminster and Edinburgh. They should stand up for their constituents. I can assure English students that is what an English Parliament will do.’
All students are invited to the CEP National Conference taking place at Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, Holborn London on Saturday April 26th from 10:30 to 4:30. It is free and open to everyone.
The CEP carries on with its opposition to the Government’s policy of discrimination against English university students.
The Campaign for an English Parliament has deplored the decision of the National Union of Students last week to end its opposition to the tuition and top-up fees which are being imposed upon English university students.
‘We want every English student to know’, stated Mrs Scilla Cullen, Chairman of the CEP, ‘that the Campaign for an English Parliament will not stop campaigning against the fees New Labour has inflicted on English students while sparing Scottish and Welsh students. English students are being hit with immense debts while Scottish students are not.
In England university students have to pay £3145 each year of their university life. Students loans then have to be repaid at 4.8% interest rates after graduation.
Welsh students don’t have anything like the fee burden English students have. Their fees are only £1255 pa.’
However, in Scotland university students have no fees to pay. What’s more, the Scottish parliament has also made grants up to £2510 available to Scottish students coming from families on low incomes, which are not available in England. To make the discrimination even worse English students at Scottish universities have to pay their fees, while EU students do not; and Scottish students, and indeed Isle of Man students, at English unviersities pay no fees. What is quite grotesque about the whole situation is that, at the same time as the Scottish Parliament was legislatiing to relieve its students of fees, the vote in the UK Parliament to impose top-up fees on English students was carried only by the Scottish MPs in Westminister voting for them to give New Labour its majority in the vote in the House.The majority of English MPs voted against them.
‘The only way forward out of this discrimination’ says Mrs Cullen, ‘is for England to have its own parliament just as Scotland has. The UK government is just seeing England, which provides 85% of its whole tax revenue, as a milch cow from which Scotland and Wales benefit at the expense of the people of England. All the MPs who have imposed these fees upon English students got their university education completely free. The injustice to England is grotesque; and it is time that of the 660 Westminster MPs the 550 who are English start to stand up for their country. England should matter as much to them as Scotland does to the Scottish MPs both at Westminster and Edinburgh. They should stand up for their constituents. I can assure English students that is what an English Parliament will do.’
All students are invited to the CEP National Conference taking place at Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, Holborn London on Saturday April 26th from 10:30 to 4:30. It is free and open to everyone.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Neil Harding
Thanks to Neil Harding for e-mailing us regarding his racist comments about "mongrel" England. Below, Mr Harding withdraws some of his comments, perhaps we, and all nations, are "hybrid"?
We get the usual train of thought - an English parliament would break up the gravy train, sorry, we mean "UK", etc.
Below are Mr Harding's thoughts, followed up with a few of ours.
'Mongrel' is a very emotive word with sometimes negative racial connotations but I was not using it in that context at all - just to mean 'mixed origins' - which of course (as you suggest) all nations are. Perhaps in hindsight I should have used the term 'hybrid'.
An English Parliament poses many problems - a federal UK system with one parliament having 85% of the population would just not last very long - it would inevitably lead to the breakup of the UK. Maybe that is what some people want, but not the majority I imagine. I could live with an EP elected by PR (but it would still signal the end of the UK), but one where 35% of the English vote would give a majority to one party is as unjustifiable as Labour currently having a majority on 35% of the UK vote. Whichever party dominated, either the Tory South or Labour North would be alienated just as socialist voting Scotland, Wales and London were alienated by Tory UK rule and led successfully to their own devolved governance. How much better to have regional assemblies - give them the same powers as Scotland and this just as easily solves the west lothian question. What is the problem with this?
We reply...
Firstly, Mr Harding, the UK Government has never suggested regionalising England to the extent that each region has parliaments with the same powers as Scotland.
The regions on offer are tinpot talking shops, designed to muddy the waters and stop the English from asking questions about devolution. "You ARE a region - not a nation! You HAVE devolution!" is the UK Government's stock argument for these areas of England. But nobody voted for these regional bodies. And the North East, the only area allowed a referendum, voted 78% AGAINST!
Would the type of devolution you suggest, each English region on a par with Scotland, really work? All these NATIONS with different health, education transport policies, etc? Because that is what it would take to bring the so-called English regions onto a par with Scotland. Each would have to have its own fully fledged, national parliament. Enormously expensive. Rather nonsensical. England would cease to exist, of course, which would please you no doubt, but the UK would be a very odd and fragmented place indeed.
No, the only route forward is for the UK Government to give the people of England all the facts and let them decide if they would like a national parliament via a referendum. This is what happened with Scotland.
Useless to go on about the Scots being tired of "Tory" governments foisted on them by England. The old unitary system sometimes worked against England, too. It was flawed but did not involve health apartheid, etc.
As for the internal governance of England, first we need a national parliament, then other decisions should be made. If you are seriously suggesting to us that Gordon Brown, a non-accountable MP for a constituency in Scotland, should have the main say over the internal governance of England, then we must reply that we do not think you understand what democratic rule is!
We were old Labour supporters, Mr Harding, and now we support no party. We are care workers and we see what the UK Government is doing to care services and the NHS in England via the likes of the odious "Supporting People" organisation. Did you know that care and NHS workers in England are now gagged as part of their contracts so that they cannot speak out?
Nope, England needs a parliament. It may not suit you, or other "UK rump" politicians riding the gravy train, but England needs national recognition within the UK. It's needed it ever since Scotland and Wales were awarded it. And now Northern Ireland is following suit.
The UK is a union of nations. The UK Government should serve those nations, not seek to abolish one of them just because it doesn't suit!
New Labour is not a Socialist party. That's nonsense. We see what's happening on the ground in health and social care, we know that people die in England for want of medication available on the NHS in Scotland, we know that people in England scrimp and save for prescriptions free to millionaires in Wales.
England needs its freedom to decide its own future. The UK needn't break up. But if it is the will of the people, so be it.
Personally, we think a federal system could work very well, if it is the will of the people.
UK politicians are all about suppressing the will of the people of England, to preserve a status quo that is no longer fit for purpose.
But please don't tell us that you are a Socialist. Your party's uncaring attitude, skewed devolution settlements and your own rantings against England and the English prove that both you and your party are very far from being Socialist.
CHRIS ABBOTT, DREW & FIONA
We get the usual train of thought - an English parliament would break up the gravy train, sorry, we mean "UK", etc.
Below are Mr Harding's thoughts, followed up with a few of ours.
'Mongrel' is a very emotive word with sometimes negative racial connotations but I was not using it in that context at all - just to mean 'mixed origins' - which of course (as you suggest) all nations are. Perhaps in hindsight I should have used the term 'hybrid'.
An English Parliament poses many problems - a federal UK system with one parliament having 85% of the population would just not last very long - it would inevitably lead to the breakup of the UK. Maybe that is what some people want, but not the majority I imagine. I could live with an EP elected by PR (but it would still signal the end of the UK), but one where 35% of the English vote would give a majority to one party is as unjustifiable as Labour currently having a majority on 35% of the UK vote. Whichever party dominated, either the Tory South or Labour North would be alienated just as socialist voting Scotland, Wales and London were alienated by Tory UK rule and led successfully to their own devolved governance. How much better to have regional assemblies - give them the same powers as Scotland and this just as easily solves the west lothian question. What is the problem with this?
We reply...
Firstly, Mr Harding, the UK Government has never suggested regionalising England to the extent that each region has parliaments with the same powers as Scotland.
The regions on offer are tinpot talking shops, designed to muddy the waters and stop the English from asking questions about devolution. "You ARE a region - not a nation! You HAVE devolution!" is the UK Government's stock argument for these areas of England. But nobody voted for these regional bodies. And the North East, the only area allowed a referendum, voted 78% AGAINST!
Would the type of devolution you suggest, each English region on a par with Scotland, really work? All these NATIONS with different health, education transport policies, etc? Because that is what it would take to bring the so-called English regions onto a par with Scotland. Each would have to have its own fully fledged, national parliament. Enormously expensive. Rather nonsensical. England would cease to exist, of course, which would please you no doubt, but the UK would be a very odd and fragmented place indeed.
No, the only route forward is for the UK Government to give the people of England all the facts and let them decide if they would like a national parliament via a referendum. This is what happened with Scotland.
Useless to go on about the Scots being tired of "Tory" governments foisted on them by England. The old unitary system sometimes worked against England, too. It was flawed but did not involve health apartheid, etc.
As for the internal governance of England, first we need a national parliament, then other decisions should be made. If you are seriously suggesting to us that Gordon Brown, a non-accountable MP for a constituency in Scotland, should have the main say over the internal governance of England, then we must reply that we do not think you understand what democratic rule is!
We were old Labour supporters, Mr Harding, and now we support no party. We are care workers and we see what the UK Government is doing to care services and the NHS in England via the likes of the odious "Supporting People" organisation. Did you know that care and NHS workers in England are now gagged as part of their contracts so that they cannot speak out?
Nope, England needs a parliament. It may not suit you, or other "UK rump" politicians riding the gravy train, but England needs national recognition within the UK. It's needed it ever since Scotland and Wales were awarded it. And now Northern Ireland is following suit.
The UK is a union of nations. The UK Government should serve those nations, not seek to abolish one of them just because it doesn't suit!
New Labour is not a Socialist party. That's nonsense. We see what's happening on the ground in health and social care, we know that people die in England for want of medication available on the NHS in Scotland, we know that people in England scrimp and save for prescriptions free to millionaires in Wales.
England needs its freedom to decide its own future. The UK needn't break up. But if it is the will of the people, so be it.
Personally, we think a federal system could work very well, if it is the will of the people.
UK politicians are all about suppressing the will of the people of England, to preserve a status quo that is no longer fit for purpose.
But please don't tell us that you are a Socialist. Your party's uncaring attitude, skewed devolution settlements and your own rantings against England and the English prove that both you and your party are very far from being Socialist.
CHRIS ABBOTT, DREW & FIONA
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
The Break Up Of England
When the North East of England voted 78% NO to regionalisation, we thought that was it. The end of the regionalisation project. This was the only area allowed a referendum and the electorate had spoken. Silly us! The wishes of the people count for nought and regionalisation continues apace. It suits the anti-English Union Government, headed by Gordon Brown, to dismember our country (we didn't vote for him) and it suits the EU (we didn't vote for that, either).So we now have Yorkshire, Europe. Actually that's not really the old county of Yorkshire - it's "Yorkshire and Humber", an EU/NuLab region. Not UK. Not England. A tinpot region to be ruled from on high in Brussels.
More here .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)