Latest / UK Column Radio / English Democrats: A Voice At The Table | UK Column Interviews

Transcript

English Democrats: A Voice At The Table | UK Column Interviews · UK Column Radio

0:08
Speaker 1: Good morning. Delighted to have a very interesting guest with
0:11
Speaker 1: me today, Robin Tilbrook, the leader of the English Democrats,
0:16
Speaker 1: and we've just had a couple of minutes talking before
0:20
Speaker 1: we went live with the camera. And there's quite a
0:23
Speaker 1: lot of political history in the background which I think
0:27
Speaker 1: we're going to be able to cover, amongst having a
0:29
Speaker 1: look at things in the present day. But Robin, thank
0:32
Speaker 1: you very much for agreeing to speak to me today.
0:36
Speaker 2: Thank you Brian, thanks for having me.
0:39
Speaker 1: I tease the audience a little bit there shall we
0:41
Speaker 1: just mention where we started. I said that obviously I'd
0:48
Speaker 1: could go back a reasonable way in some of the
0:50
Speaker 1: smaller party politics because I'd got involved in UKIP in
0:54
Speaker 1: the early days, and I'd said to you that was
0:56
Speaker 1: just at the end of Veritas, and you then said
1:00
Speaker 1: to me more very tested actually merged with English Democrats.
1:04
Speaker 1: So yes, how about kicking off with that, just as
1:07
Speaker 1: a little segue into talking about yourself a bit more.
1:12
Speaker 2: Yes, Well, it's it's quite a long time ago now
1:15
Speaker 2: and the then leader of the of bird Has who
1:22
Speaker 2: was Terre's hearst, became the deputy leader of the English
1:28
Speaker 2: Democrats as part of the manager right, so yeah, it's
1:32
Speaker 2: it's it seemed quite it seemed a good fit. Robert
1:37
Speaker 2: kill I Silt was personally very much in favor of
1:41
Speaker 2: an English parliament, and at that time the English Democrats
1:48
Speaker 2: were campaigning for an English parliament, first minister and government
1:54
Speaker 2: within the federal UK with the same powers as with
1:59
Speaker 2: at least the same power as Actually I think that
2:00
Speaker 2: was what we said as the Scottish ones, and we
2:06
Speaker 2: have we have since moved to full independence for England
2:10
Speaker 2: because basically what we've seen is that the British politicial
2:14
Speaker 2: establishment wants to break England up. And I don't know
2:17
Speaker 2: if you've seen brand, but actually Andy Burnham has reconfirmed
2:23
Speaker 2: that's what he wants to do if he gets elected
2:26
Speaker 2: as leader of the Labor Party, and with that we're
2:31
Speaker 2: talking about breaking England up again.
2:33
Speaker 1: Yes, well, this is a very very important subject and
2:36
Speaker 1: certainly one I like to talk about more. I've it
2:41
Speaker 1: hasn't been published yet, but I penned an article for
2:46
Speaker 1: the Column magazine, the second edition of the magazine we produced,
2:50
Speaker 1: and I decided to focus in on on England and
2:54
Speaker 1: how I have how I have observed England being attacked
2:59
Speaker 1: and core to that, as there's definitely been regionalization, but
3:05
Speaker 1: of course that's now being strongly reinforced by devolution. But
3:14
Speaker 1: let's come on to that in a little bit. If
3:16
Speaker 1: i'm may, can I just ask you if you'll share
3:18
Speaker 1: a little bit about your background. I think it was
3:20
Speaker 1: about nineteen ninety seven that you The move towards the
3:26
Speaker 1: English Democrat Party started around about that time. But what's
3:30
Speaker 1: your background. You're a solicitor. How did you get involved
3:34
Speaker 1: in political parties?
3:39
Speaker 2: Well, yes, I'm a solicter. I had a number of
3:45
Speaker 2: different jobs before settling on being a slister. Have been
3:50
Speaker 2: a soldier for a short while, and I had also
3:56
Speaker 2: taught for some years, and I suppose and I was
4:02
Speaker 2: teaching politics and economics. Had done politics in economics at
4:06
Speaker 2: the university, so I must have been interested in politics
4:10
Speaker 2: and economics for a long while, and I I suppose
4:16
Speaker 2: I had been well, I had been a Conservative Party
4:21
Speaker 2: member for a long while, and I stood for them
4:23
Speaker 2: locally around here. But then what happened was we were
4:29
Speaker 2: moving towards the election which got Blair elected, and there
4:35
Speaker 2: was more and more debate about what the Labor Party
4:39
Speaker 2: was saying they were going to do, which was to
4:41
Speaker 2: have a Scottish parliament, first minister and a Welsh equivalent
4:46
Speaker 2: of a Welsh parliament and the first Minister. And I
4:50
Speaker 2: thought to myself, that's happening, then surely we ought to
4:54
Speaker 2: have the same for England. So I started to lobby
4:58
Speaker 2: within the Service Departy and rather as my surprise I
5:02
Speaker 2: was I was getting answers like Norman Tebbit that basically
5:09
Speaker 2: said to me that he felt that we shouldn't mention
5:12
Speaker 2: England at all because doing so was was a threat
5:17
Speaker 2: to the UK. And I certainly felt that that was
5:22
Speaker 2: a completely bizarre way of thinking about it. After all,
5:27
Speaker 2: England is the sort of bedrock of our national identity
5:33
Speaker 2: and has been so for what over a thousand years,
5:38
Speaker 2: So the idea of we're going to jettison England but
5:43
Speaker 2: the UK didn't appeal to me at all. We then
5:47
Speaker 2: had the Scottish and Welsh Referendo, which caused the under
5:53
Speaker 2: leg haven't caused national devolution for Scotland Wales uh And
6:00
Speaker 2: by then William Hague had become the leader and he
6:10
Speaker 2: it was it was interesting he started to play a
6:13
Speaker 2: bit about doing something for England and one of the
6:17
Speaker 2: Lib Dems attacked him saying he got into the gutter
6:22
Speaker 2: of English nationalism. But he also said in a BBC
6:29
Speaker 2: interview when he was leader that English nationalism was the
6:34
Speaker 2: worst form of all nationalisms. So he was he was
6:38
Speaker 2: certainly not a friend to England and he would probably
6:46
Speaker 2: have rather agreed with that. Then Leader of the Liberal
6:51
Speaker 2: Democrats Charles Kennedy, who said that he approved a regionalization
6:56
Speaker 2: for England, which is the break up of England into
7:00
Speaker 2: holy bogus regions that have no social, historical or any
7:07
Speaker 2: any kind of legitimacy. And so he approved the regionalization
7:15
Speaker 2: Charles Kennedy said because it was calling into question the
7:21
Speaker 2: idea of England itself. Yes, that was a naked statement
7:27
Speaker 2: of what the purpose of REGIONI regionalization is. It is
7:31
Speaker 2: to break up England. And I think it's worth just saying,
7:35
Speaker 2: particularly as we're speaking in the aftermath of the trial
7:40
Speaker 2: of the murderer of mister Novak, that actually it isn't
7:50
Speaker 2: just regionalization that the British establishment have been working on. It.
7:55
Speaker 2: It is also the whole DEI device, the equality and
8:01
Speaker 2: Inclusion initiative, whereby we get to chair policing and the
8:08
Speaker 2: first thing that any police officer has got to consider
8:11
Speaker 2: is what an ethnic minority is saying about the about
8:17
Speaker 2: any racism, And you know, in other words, there are
8:24
Speaker 2: wider parts of the agenda that are about downplaying and
8:30
Speaker 2: discriminating against English people and the English people and England.
8:38
Speaker 2: So it is a situation where the UK establishment has
8:43
Speaker 2: become deeply, deeply hostile to England and they are really
8:49
Speaker 2: an outright enemy.
8:51
Speaker 1: There's two key things in my head here that we
8:54
Speaker 1: deal with. The first one which is when you started out,
8:58
Speaker 1: and you've mentioned Tony Blair. Around that time, I was
9:05
Speaker 1: becoming deeply unconsidered, deeply concerned of what I was sort
9:09
Speaker 1: of seeing happening in politics with the country, and of
9:12
Speaker 1: course the European Union was the that we'll call it,
9:16
Speaker 1: the beast in the wings. And from my view, I
9:24
Speaker 1: always believed that the key policies aimed at the breakup
9:31
Speaker 1: of i will say the breakup of the United Kingdom,
9:34
Speaker 1: but within that a special attack on England itself, that
9:39
Speaker 1: those were actually European Union formed policies which the British government,
9:46
Speaker 1: both Labor and Conservative had obviously had obviously got themselves
9:52
Speaker 1: deeply entrenched with. Did you feel that that regionalization and
10:00
Speaker 1: then later the devolution angle was simply coming from the
10:05
Speaker 1: European Union or and I'm really bringing the second point.
10:09
Speaker 1: You mentioned the British establishment a few minutes ago, and
10:12
Speaker 1: then you said, I think the UK establishment. Did you
10:16
Speaker 1: just think it was the European Union or did you
10:19
Speaker 1: believe it was deeper entwined.
10:22
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think I think what was happening all along
10:25
Speaker 2: was that the British political establishment in the way it
10:28
Speaker 2: had evolved, both in terms of losing it sort of
10:37
Speaker 2: mass space and becoming much more for want a better word, elitist,
10:48
Speaker 2: much narrower, and much more of the sort of educated
10:55
Speaker 2: university graduate class of people, teachers, academics, lawyers and obviously
11:06
Speaker 2: civil servants. Those people had had become quite ideologically captured
11:15
Speaker 2: and and and still are of course extremely so. Uh
11:19
Speaker 2: and people talk about them being woke, but but actually
11:23
Speaker 2: what that means is they have signed up to a
11:28
Speaker 2: version of cultural Marxism which is hostile to the nation state,
11:36
Speaker 2: and it's particularly hostile to the concept of England. And
11:42
Speaker 2: part of the reason for that is that England is
11:43
Speaker 2: actually the oldest nation state on Earth and which it's
11:50
Speaker 2: it's it's been argued that England was the country that
11:56
Speaker 2: sort of Morris created much of the modern world and
12:00
Speaker 2: much of the way of thinking about things in the
12:02
Speaker 2: modern world, and the world trading system, and you know,
12:07
Speaker 2: you name it, whether it be law or sort of
12:10
Speaker 2: cultural things or sport, it's much of that comes from England.
12:15
Speaker 2: And it is in that context that you've got this
12:19
Speaker 2: sort of wide ranging attack on anything that sort of
12:24
Speaker 2: is in any way about England or englishness.
12:29
Speaker 1: Thank you, Thank you for that, Robin. In preparing for
12:33
Speaker 1: this interview, I obviously went and had a look at
12:35
Speaker 1: the website for the English Democrats, and I've also watched
12:42
Speaker 1: quite a bit of the videos that you've you've got
12:44
Speaker 1: published there, and you did a particularly interesting video with
12:49
Speaker 1: a I'm not sure what the gentleman's name is, but
12:52
Speaker 1: laments was the classifier for the video, and I've followed
12:57
Speaker 1: that through and a lot of very interesting things were
13:01
Speaker 1: being talked about, and in that particular interview you mentioned
13:05
Speaker 1: this subject of England and England. I think you you
13:12
Speaker 1: described it as England getting in the way of the project.
13:16
Speaker 1: It was always the English that seemed to cause the
13:19
Speaker 1: problem to the to the to the project, and I
13:23
Speaker 1: think there was an undertone of the European Union in
13:26
Speaker 1: that so that was very interesting. I've found myself drawn
13:35
Speaker 1: to this particular subject of why England, and very interest
13:41
Speaker 1: in your thoughts because I come back to two things.
13:43
Speaker 1: One is that we have a unique constitution, which you
13:49
Speaker 1: will say, of course, is the English Constitution, and we
13:54
Speaker 1: also have a unique system of law going alongside it,
13:57
Speaker 1: common law. And if we accept that, at least a
14:04
Speaker 1: key part of the power base that's formed the political
14:07
Speaker 1: policies that has attacked the United Kingdom and particularly attack
14:11
Speaker 1: the attacked England has come from the European Union. Both
14:17
Speaker 1: our constitution and our system of common law are a
14:22
Speaker 1: complete anathma to them. They are an obstacle which they
14:27
Speaker 1: have to remove, or they had I'll say, had, but
14:31
Speaker 1: had to remove if they were to subsume the United
14:36
Speaker 1: Kingdom and particularly England into the EU superstate model. Would
14:43
Speaker 1: you agree with that or would you Yes?
14:47
Speaker 2: I would, But of course I told the point that
14:50
Speaker 2: I was making about the British or k uk Ish
14:56
Speaker 2: uk Ish. We now have UK spelled with y double
15:02
Speaker 2: o k A y don't be rather than the UK.
15:05
Speaker 2: It's sort of new and new Britain, as Blair would
15:10
Speaker 2: have it. Yes, but that establishment, the establishment in this
15:19
Speaker 2: country was was, you know, very keen on this agenda,
15:26
Speaker 2: and they want to break down England and all all
15:32
Speaker 2: the traditional protections and rights, and they've got a long
15:39
Speaker 2: way towards doing so. I mean, you were saying about
15:42
Speaker 2: the common law. I'm a lawyer. What's left of the
15:47
Speaker 2: common law? Really? After the Conservatives simply on leaving the EU,
15:55
Speaker 2: consolidated all EU law into the national law in England
16:04
Speaker 2: and the UK generally. So there's a sort of embedment
16:09
Speaker 2: of EU law into English law in one go, and
16:19
Speaker 2: ministers are allowed to remove individual items of that mass
16:24
Speaker 2: of law, but they haven't done very much in removing it.
16:32
Speaker 2: We're now a point where Parliament has for decades had
16:38
Speaker 2: what I'd like to think of as sort of legislative
16:40
Speaker 2: verbal diarrhea, and they have been pumping out Acts of
16:46
Speaker 2: Parliament at a vast rate. So a few years ago
16:53
Speaker 2: now a solicitor had become a member of House of Lords,
17:01
Speaker 2: the Live Dems. He said in resigning, and he was
17:06
Speaker 2: fell up that you couldn't sensibly expect any system to
17:15
Speaker 2: common sense check the volume of legislation that was being produced,
17:22
Speaker 2: and he was saying that it was over twenty thousand
17:24
Speaker 2: pages of legislation every single year, and in fact, actually
17:29
Speaker 2: that's only really about a third of the total the
17:32
Speaker 2: sort of legislation that's being produced, because he was only
17:35
Speaker 2: talk about Acts of Parliament. If you add to that
17:38
Speaker 2: all the so called statutory instruments, that's at least twice
17:46
Speaker 2: as much as the Acts of Parliament. And this is
17:49
Speaker 2: all the prayers powers that have been given to ministers
17:53
Speaker 2: to create new rules, because that is not actually ministers
17:56
Speaker 2: that are really doing most of it, it's civil servants.
18:01
Speaker 2: And we have this vast array of law being created
18:05
Speaker 2: every single year. I'm just to give you an illustration
18:10
Speaker 2: of just what we're talking about here. I've got a
18:14
Speaker 2: complete set of Acts of Parliament, of statutes from Magna
18:19
Speaker 2: Carta to nineteen eighty eight and nineteen eighty eight. The
18:24
Speaker 2: reason it stopped in ninety eighty eight is because by
18:27
Speaker 2: then Parliament was legislating more than a full shelf of
18:34
Speaker 2: Acts of Parliament in every single year, whereas it is
18:39
Speaker 2: it is one shelf from Magne Carta to the Great
18:43
Speaker 2: Reform Act of eighteen thirty two. Yes, so in other words,
18:49
Speaker 2: we've got to a point where Parliament was pumping out legislation,
18:53
Speaker 2: and the system was public from legislation towards the MPs
18:57
Speaker 2: then generate all this. It's minister and civil servants and
19:01
Speaker 2: the executive generally pumping out all this legislation every single year,
19:06
Speaker 2: more than we had in what five hundred years. That's
19:13
Speaker 2: the level of attack on an undermining of what was
19:20
Speaker 2: the common law. Common law was the idea that are
19:25
Speaker 2: rights as as the people of England had existed since
19:32
Speaker 2: time immemorial and were perhaps dating back to the original
19:38
Speaker 2: settlement of the English in England. And what the judge
19:46
Speaker 2: was going to do was to try to apply what
19:50
Speaker 2: in effect amounted to common sense to sorting out any
19:54
Speaker 2: disputes that came before him. And what's more, of course,
20:01
Speaker 2: and I think this is an important point. Most decisions
20:06
Speaker 2: about certainly about the facts, until relative recently, we're taken
20:11
Speaker 2: by juries. And there has been a sneaky attack on
20:22
Speaker 2: juries going on now for sixty or seventy years.
20:26
Speaker 1: Most recently with Lord Levison, of course, who's come back
20:30
Speaker 1: into the frame for his second his second go at that,
20:33
Speaker 1: and I've.
20:34
Speaker 2: Been every time he does a report. The result fills
20:38
Speaker 2: anybody with remotely conservative instincts with horror because he is
20:46
Speaker 2: a fairly full on enemy of any aspect of our
20:51
Speaker 2: traditional constitution.
20:55
Speaker 1: Interestingly, in his latest work, we've seen long side that
21:00
Speaker 1: a change in mister Lammy because some time ago Lammy
21:07
Speaker 1: was actually quite supportive of the jury system in particular,
21:11
Speaker 1: and perhaps a bit surprisingly against the backdrop of saying, well,
21:16
Speaker 1: actually the juries have helped provide proper justice for people
21:21
Speaker 1: of color that they might not have otherwise got. And
21:25
Speaker 1: then Levison comes along and gets stuck in for his
21:30
Speaker 1: latest inquiry into the courts and the jury trial by jury,
21:36
Speaker 1: and we've seen this flip in David Lammy in support
21:40
Speaker 1: of that removal of jury trials in some cases. I
21:44
Speaker 1: found that a very interesting change in his demeanor had
21:48
Speaker 1: he been leaned.
21:48
Speaker 2: On, well, I thinuon what's significant then it isn't actually
21:56
Speaker 2: remarks made by him. Because one of the things better
22:00
Speaker 2: mister David Lammy is that he does seem to be
22:02
Speaker 2: remarkably unintelligent. And I thought anybody anybody that wants a
22:09
Speaker 2: proof of that, or to watch his performance on Celebrity Mastermind,
22:14
Speaker 2: where the clips out there. He thinks that the next
22:19
Speaker 2: king after Henry the Eighth was Henry the seventh. But anyway,
22:24
Speaker 2: leave you that on one side he hasn't come up
22:27
Speaker 2: with anything that makes any real sense to anybody who's
22:31
Speaker 2: involved in the law at all. In fact, he's got
22:35
Speaker 2: very little support from any practicing lawyers who aren't ambitious
22:40
Speaker 2: to get there get promoted somehow by the state. But
22:50
Speaker 2: his number two in the Ministry of Justice, who I
22:58
Speaker 2: think her name is Sarah Sackman something like that. She
23:02
Speaker 2: was being quizzed about as proposed to get rid of
23:06
Speaker 2: the jury trials, and she let slip something I think
23:09
Speaker 2: which was highly important, and that which was that they
23:13
Speaker 2: wanted to get rid of jury trials for anything that
23:19
Speaker 2: you'd like to be sentenced the lesson three years for,
23:23
Speaker 2: not because of any efficiencies, but for ideological reasons. And
23:31
Speaker 2: I suspe, I suspect. What we've got here is that
23:35
Speaker 2: there's been a spate of attempts by the state to
23:39
Speaker 2: prosecute people who say or tweet or put on Facebook
23:49
Speaker 2: any comments which the state doesn't like, and they call
23:56
Speaker 2: that hate crime, and that much more interested in that,
24:01
Speaker 2: and the police them are now much more interested in
24:03
Speaker 2: that than they are in all the traditional proper crimes.
24:06
Speaker 2: So you know, the good example being shoplifting. Cops aren't
24:10
Speaker 2: interested in that at all. But you know, if you
24:13
Speaker 2: put up something that the state's not very happy about,
24:18
Speaker 2: you criticizing mass immigration or something like that, so you
24:21
Speaker 2: might well get a visit from several coppers who you
24:27
Speaker 2: might think would be better employed actually trying to catch
24:30
Speaker 2: real criminals. But when the state has tried to prosecute
24:37
Speaker 2: these people, sometimes they strike lucky with people like, for instance,
24:47
Speaker 2: Lucy Connelly, who obviously thought that when the cops arrived,
24:50
Speaker 2: she was going to explain it they were all act
24:54
Speaker 2: perhaps a cup of tea and the sensible and exercise
24:58
Speaker 2: common sense, and that would be the end of it.
25:01
Speaker 2: Maybe she'd get her talking to. And then when she
25:05
Speaker 2: was h and she then made the cardinal mistake of
25:10
Speaker 2: giving an interview to the police on the record after
25:15
Speaker 2: being cautioned, and she said various things that enabled them
25:19
Speaker 2: to get her convicted. And she's then been on on
25:25
Speaker 2: She's been tracked into a situation where she's been conned
25:31
Speaker 2: really into into into pleading guilty. I think probably if
25:39
Speaker 2: she had insisted on a jury trial, rather like that
25:42
Speaker 2: ex marine who who had said also comments against mass immigration.
25:47
Speaker 2: In the fallout from the Southport massacre. If she'd gone
25:55
Speaker 2: to a jury, I would have been quite surprised if
25:58
Speaker 2: the jury had convicted her, because they would have thought
26:00
Speaker 2: the whole thing was ridiculous. And of course she shouldn't
26:04
Speaker 2: be convicted of any serious crime, and of course she
26:08
Speaker 2: shouldn't be going to prison, because no sensible person would
26:12
Speaker 2: think that she ought to have gone to prison. And
26:17
Speaker 2: but the system was being used for political ends to
26:21
Speaker 2: try and get a high profile victim, to to demonstrate
26:32
Speaker 2: that the system would crack down on anybody that made
26:35
Speaker 2: comments that was critical. And you know, I think I
26:40
Speaker 2: think she was. She was simply she was simply used
26:43
Speaker 2: for that, for that political purpose. But of course, if
26:48
Speaker 2: we got rid of jury trials and we were no
26:52
Speaker 2: longer allowed to choose to go for a jury trial,
26:54
Speaker 2: because that's what they're proposing. They're proposing to remove the
26:58
Speaker 2: right to choose a juri trial and make it so
27:03
Speaker 2: that the judge would decide whether you could go for
27:05
Speaker 2: a jury trial, and the judge will only decide that
27:08
Speaker 2: if you're likely to get more than three years. Well,
27:13
Speaker 2: it's worth bear in mind that not only would that
27:16
Speaker 2: mean that all the so called hate crimes were no
27:20
Speaker 2: longer you could no longer get a jury to rule
27:22
Speaker 2: on it. But also that would also be true of
27:26
Speaker 2: most theft crimes, because the system wouldn't send you to
27:32
Speaker 2: prison for three years for theft, probably wouldn't send you
27:37
Speaker 2: to prison for three years for fraud, even if it's
27:40
Speaker 2: fraud from your employer. So you're going to be convicted
27:44
Speaker 2: by a magistrate or a circuit judge. In either case,
27:52
Speaker 2: they are basically state employees. They are selected under the
27:57
Speaker 2: Judicial Appointments Commission system on the basis that they have
28:01
Speaker 2: demonstrated a lifetime's commitment to equality and diversity, the express
28:08
Speaker 2: political basis to the the way they're selected. And certainly
28:15
Speaker 2: if you're if you said something that the work establishment
28:19
Speaker 2: don't like and you can't before such a judge, I
28:23
Speaker 2: would have thought your chances of acquittal must be pretty
28:26
Speaker 2: close to zero.
28:29
Speaker 1: Robin, you mentioned the word attack just a couple of
28:34
Speaker 1: minutes ago, and in my book you are clearly describing
28:38
Speaker 1: both an attack on a system of trial by jury
28:43
Speaker 1: and free speech to critical areas. We very often see
28:48
Speaker 1: headlines at the moment in UK which talk about broken Britain,
28:52
Speaker 1: and every time I see those headlines, I think, well,
28:57
Speaker 1: of course, it's not broken Britain. It's Britain has been broken.
29:03
Speaker 1: Do you feel that this country and particularly England is
29:08
Speaker 1: under an attack? And if you do, how does how
29:14
Speaker 1: does your party, the English Democrats, fit into countering that
29:20
Speaker 1: that attack and putting things right?
29:24
Speaker 2: Yes, I do think under attack. I mean the language
29:33
Speaker 2: in verty makes us use words that sound similar to
29:39
Speaker 2: to what goes on in a battle. You know, there's
29:43
Speaker 2: actual warfare, but it's it's much more insidious than that.
29:47
Speaker 2: It's a it's not an open attack, it's a it's
29:51
Speaker 2: a widespread undermining of our institutions, of our way of life,
29:58
Speaker 2: even the vast extent of mass immigration that we've had,
30:02
Speaker 2: whereby the Conservatives were letting in more people in a
30:07
Speaker 2: in a single year that had come in in the
30:10
Speaker 2: thousand years before the first Second World War, you know.
30:16
Speaker 2: And yet yet if you if you talk about mass
30:20
Speaker 2: immigration critically, you could well attract the attention of the police. Now,
30:28
Speaker 2: So I mean, what could be a clear example of
30:32
Speaker 2: the attack, And of course you know what we've had
30:36
Speaker 2: with the murder of the Snovak is that the Conservatives
30:42
Speaker 2: were behind the drafting of all those policies that were
30:46
Speaker 2: being applied there, so it is a an establishment wide attack.
30:55
Speaker 2: There's the British state has for a long time been
30:58
Speaker 2: a sort of pat your patronage state whereby lots of
31:03
Speaker 2: the positions within the wider constitutional position, you know, whether
31:11
Speaker 2: it be the church, the Church, the NHS, all sorts
31:17
Speaker 2: of organizations, the top people are appointed by political patronage.
31:24
Speaker 2: So actually the tentacles as it were, of political patronage
31:29
Speaker 2: and and of political thinking and action have you know,
31:38
Speaker 2: they cover the whole the whole state, including much of
31:41
Speaker 2: the charitable sector. And you know what you see time
31:46
Speaker 2: and time again is people in all these positions attacking
31:52
Speaker 2: any sort of traditional attitudes or traditional views, and also
31:59
Speaker 2: any any of our long standing English traditions, including jury
32:02
Speaker 2: dram Yeah.
32:04
Speaker 1: On the English Democrat website, you very early on in
32:11
Speaker 1: the description of the party you are talking about, I've
32:17
Speaker 1: just used the word policy. I won't used the word
32:19
Speaker 1: attack your I think coming in from the angle that
32:25
Speaker 1: dangerous policies are coming in from organizations like the World
32:29
Speaker 1: Economic Forum, the UN, UNESCO, others at that sort of level.
32:37
Speaker 1: And I found that very interesting because there are still
32:41
Speaker 1: there's more of the smaller parties starting now to look
32:44
Speaker 1: for the source of the policies which are causing the trouble.
32:48
Speaker 1: But on the English Democrat website, you're very upfront with
32:51
Speaker 1: this because I think it appears in the first paragraph
32:54
Speaker 1: describing what the situation is. Would you like to say
33:01
Speaker 1: more about why you've put those organizations in such a
33:06
Speaker 1: high high profile in your description of what you're doing.
33:12
Speaker 2: Well, I suppose what we were trying to say at
33:16
Speaker 2: the time when we drafted that was that it wasn't
33:19
Speaker 2: just the EU that was our problem. It was not
33:24
Speaker 2: it was and it wasn't just the way our own
33:28
Speaker 2: establishment was working, although in both the EU and in
33:33
Speaker 2: the u N context and in the Council of Europe
33:38
Speaker 2: context and so on, you got bear mind that it
33:41
Speaker 2: was it was our establishment which signed us up to
33:44
Speaker 2: all these things, so they were active, actively colluding with
33:50
Speaker 2: it all. And so it's a it's a sort of
33:54
Speaker 2: interlocking system now as things stand, and we need to
34:02
Speaker 2: break those interlocking chains and basically free ourselves so that
34:07
Speaker 2: we become a properly functioning democratic nation state.
34:13
Speaker 1: Again, Okay, I'll just bring this one in before for
34:18
Speaker 1: I'd like to switch a little bit about you know
34:22
Speaker 1: what you'd like to achieve, but the church also figures,
34:27
Speaker 1: and Christianity figures very much. On the English Democrat website,
34:35
Speaker 1: many people would say the church in this country is failing,
34:39
Speaker 1: congregations are reducing. I think some of them would say
34:44
Speaker 1: that they've been surprised to see the Church of England
34:47
Speaker 1: in particular, hop on board so quickly with Woke and
34:53
Speaker 1: other policies that probably people who've been established members of
35:00
Speaker 1: the Church of England for a long time would find
35:03
Speaker 1: as almost counter to what they would regard as traditional
35:07
Speaker 1: Christianity in England and elsewhere. What's what's your view on
35:12
Speaker 1: the position of the church at the moment.
35:16
Speaker 2: Oh, I totally agree with what you've said there, Brian.
35:19
Speaker 2: I mean, the fact is the Church of England, you're
35:24
Speaker 2: you're certainly from the hierarchy. You're going to get lots
35:28
Speaker 2: of positions which are hostile to England and englishness. They're
35:34
Speaker 2: hostile to traditional values, they are hostile to traditional interpretations
35:40
Speaker 2: of Christianity. In many cases, they're hostile to outright scriptural
35:45
Speaker 2: text and a lot of things that they say undermine
35:51
Speaker 2: traditional Christianity. And I'm going I'll just give you a
35:56
Speaker 2: for instance of that. I had a conversation with a
36:00
Speaker 2: Church of England Vicker who is openly gay and his
36:08
Speaker 2: boyfriend in the in the vicarage, and we were I'm
36:14
Speaker 2: not quite sure how I got into the conversation about it,
36:17
Speaker 2: but he was talking about Saint Paul's attitude to homosexuality
36:25
Speaker 2: and he claimed that he thought that Saint Paul and
36:30
Speaker 2: Timothy were homosexual lovers. I mean, basically something that is
36:36
Speaker 2: completely incompatible with what Saint Paul says in his letters,
36:43
Speaker 2: because he is very damning of homosexuality in what he says.
36:50
Speaker 2: And yet there you've got a Church of England Bicker
36:55
Speaker 2: living a life that's uh contrary to traditional.
37:01
Speaker 1: Teaching would have been regarded as sin.
37:04
Speaker 2: Definitely, and what's more, trying to teach as as theologically
37:14
Speaker 2: sound something that is completely contrary to all traditional understandings
37:19
Speaker 2: of what's in Paul was was doing. Yeah. So that
37:29
Speaker 2: I think is is simply an example of just how
37:33
Speaker 2: as you saying, theoretical Church of England has become and
37:36
Speaker 2: why why is that the case? And it does bring
37:39
Speaker 2: us back to the way the British state operates because
37:43
Speaker 2: one of the one of the points is that the
37:46
Speaker 2: bishops were all within the rights of the Prime Minister
37:52
Speaker 2: or or in fact for the king to appoint. And
37:57
Speaker 2: for some centuries the prime minister had recommended people to
38:03
Speaker 2: be appointed as bishop and the king or queen had
38:10
Speaker 2: gone ahead and appointed them. And you know, for many
38:16
Speaker 2: centuries you couldn't become an MP even if you weren't
38:21
Speaker 2: a communicant member of the Church of England. So obviously
38:28
Speaker 2: prime ministers would all be communicant members of the Church
38:33
Speaker 2: of England and they would care what the bishop's theological
38:39
Speaker 2: position was. What we've had, however, for the last well
38:44
Speaker 2: fifty or sixty years at least, there is a series
38:47
Speaker 2: of prime ministers who are not communicant members of the
38:51
Speaker 2: Church of England, do not care about the Church of
38:54
Speaker 2: England's teaching at all, but they do care about the
38:58
Speaker 2: whole woke to the equality and inclusion agenda, and so
39:02
Speaker 2: they've been appointing bishops that are wont a better word, liberals, progressives,
39:12
Speaker 2: and these people have steadily undermined the Church of England's position.
39:18
Speaker 2: They have basically managed to transfer the assets of the
39:24
Speaker 2: various parishes to the diocese that they've then used that
39:31
Speaker 2: money for promoting their agenda, and we wound up with
39:38
Speaker 2: a church that is completely in many respects the opposite
39:42
Speaker 2: of what it once was, and is arguably not a
39:46
Speaker 2: very Christian church at all.
39:49
Speaker 1: We could argue it has become a political church because
39:52
Speaker 1: very often the policies woven within the Church of England,
40:00
Speaker 1: the Church of England's own policies seem to align remarkably
40:05
Speaker 1: with what central government policy is.
40:07
Speaker 2: That that's yes, and I mean they've recently appointed an
40:13
Speaker 2: archbishop to say, archbishops of Wales as the Anglican Church
40:24
Speaker 2: in Wales. Uh and she she lives with her wife. Now,
40:32
Speaker 2: whatever you think of of gay marriage, the one thing
40:35
Speaker 2: you can say without any hesitations at all is that
40:38
Speaker 2: it's not a traditional value and it's not something that
40:43
Speaker 2: is consistent with Christian teaching over the over the over
40:50
Speaker 2: the millennia.
40:51
Speaker 1: Mm hm, A march through the institutions. Just throw that
40:59
Speaker 1: expression in because when I when people start talking about
41:08
Speaker 1: the collapse really of this country, and we're talking about
41:13
Speaker 1: all sorts of things changing for the worst, whether it's
41:17
Speaker 1: to do with constitutional issues or juries, or the police
41:21
Speaker 1: or the NHS or education, there's so much we can
41:26
Speaker 1: look out the window and we see this decline in
41:30
Speaker 1: the country and for people of a more mature age,
41:35
Speaker 1: we can see some huge decline over how things used
41:38
Speaker 1: to be and how people used to relate to each other.
41:45
Speaker 1: A march through the institutions. Let me ask you, are
41:50
Speaker 1: we dealing with a Marxist attack? What do you think
41:55
Speaker 1: is causing this malicious destructive policy?
42:01
Speaker 2: Yes? So, I mean the march for the institutions is
42:05
Speaker 2: sort of mirroring Mouths long March which set the Communist
42:14
Speaker 2: Party of China on the road to eventually to power
42:21
Speaker 2: and the so obviously that the fact that people talk
42:28
Speaker 2: about that in that way, and as it was a
42:32
Speaker 2: sort of Maoist takeover, they are recognizing that communism is
42:39
Speaker 2: an important aspect of this. And going back to what
42:43
Speaker 2: we were talking about earlier about how long the attack
42:46
Speaker 2: on England's been going on, I think it is worth
42:49
Speaker 2: just mentioning Marx's comment after the Revolutions of Europe had
42:54
Speaker 2: failed in eighteen forty eight, he said, complain that all
43:02
Speaker 2: the revolutions of Europe were wrecked on the rock of England.
43:07
Speaker 2: And so it is a longstanding perception amongst the left
43:14
Speaker 2: that England and English nurse is a obstacle to what
43:20
Speaker 2: they want to achieve and I think that's not entirely
43:23
Speaker 2: surprising because England and English has been about, at least
43:27
Speaker 2: in part, individual liberty, and they don't like the idea
43:31
Speaker 2: of individual liberty much. They want they want us to
43:34
Speaker 2: be collectivized. And I did I heard a speech given
43:42
Speaker 2: quite recently at the Freedom Association and they had Lord Glassman,
43:48
Speaker 2: the labor mp peer who's been behind Blue Labor. He
43:55
Speaker 2: was saying that he thought there was a the conflict
43:58
Speaker 2: was really between sovereigntists and globalists, and that and the
44:07
Speaker 2: UK establishment is predominantly globalist, and they want one world government.
44:15
Speaker 2: They want to destroy the nation state. They want to
44:19
Speaker 2: undermine all the things that make it in the individual
44:23
Speaker 2: states unique or different, and they want to have as
44:30
Speaker 2: all of the puddled masses whilst the the apparatics live
44:38
Speaker 2: in luxury. Has used to happen in the Soviet Union.
44:43
Speaker 1: I must say I've got a lot of sympathy for
44:45
Speaker 1: that that analysis, because it does seem to fit so
44:49
Speaker 1: well with the situation that's unfolding. A globalist agender, and
44:56
Speaker 1: I'll choose the term British politicians who seemed to have
45:00
Speaker 1: absolutely no loyalty to their country of origin. They are
45:06
Speaker 1: internationalists in the way they think and the way they behave.
45:12
Speaker 2: And you know, people think that, for instance, mass immigration
45:18
Speaker 2: is an issue that is not part of this, but
45:22
Speaker 2: it is. It is part of it. The fact is,
45:27
Speaker 2: even on the sort of open level of the sort
45:30
Speaker 2: of arguing about human rights, what they're saying is there
45:33
Speaker 2: should be no special rights for our own people. The
45:38
Speaker 2: idea of human rights is fundamentally that somebody who's literally
45:43
Speaker 2: just got off the boat has exactly the same rights
45:46
Speaker 2: as somebody whose ancestors have been here for centuries. And
45:53
Speaker 2: you know that, and that is of course one of
45:56
Speaker 2: the emblematic things that they peddle as if it was
45:59
Speaker 2: an obvious fact of life, rather than a completely new invention.
46:07
Speaker 1: Yes, let's come on to solutions, and I'll just rolled
46:15
Speaker 1: this little ball along the floor. I'm sure it'll make
46:17
Speaker 1: you laugh. But I'm sitting here as one of a
46:21
Speaker 1: number of individuals who many years ago set up the
46:24
Speaker 1: British Constitution Group, and the primary aim of that group,
46:31
Speaker 1: and I think for several years we were pretty successful.
46:36
Speaker 1: Our aim was really to talk about the constitution and
46:40
Speaker 1: constitutional issues, to educate people as a means to refocusing
46:48
Speaker 1: people on the history and origins of their country, why
46:53
Speaker 1: it was important, and also the strengths and protections that
46:57
Speaker 1: our constitutional system gave. And we deliberately chose the word
47:03
Speaker 1: British because recognizing these islands are made up of a
47:12
Speaker 1: number of different nations, we wanted to make that discussion
47:17
Speaker 1: inclusive and that's why we chose the term British. Now
47:24
Speaker 1: having been successful for quite a while and we'd certainly
47:27
Speaker 1: had some pretty big conferences. I think the biggest one
47:30
Speaker 1: that we managed was about five hundred and forty people
47:35
Speaker 1: and we had some really interesting speakers. Actually one of
47:38
Speaker 1: the speakers was Rodney Atkinson, who tragically died at the weekend,
47:45
Speaker 1: but he was one of the people who came along
47:48
Speaker 1: to talk from a very knowledgeable position about constitutional issues.
47:54
Speaker 1: So we did, I think, start a lot of discussion
47:59
Speaker 1: in a lot of different places, including certainly with UKIT membership,
48:04
Speaker 1: because because there were a lot of UKIT people at
48:06
Speaker 1: that stage, you got interested in what we were doing
48:08
Speaker 1: and would come along to the conferences. So our word
48:12
Speaker 1: started to spread out. But eventually really the pressure was
48:18
Speaker 1: on us. We couldn't manage the Constitution Group and the
48:21
Speaker 1: uk Column and we decided to steak to the UK column.
48:26
Speaker 1: But as time went on, of course, some people quite
48:30
Speaker 1: rightly said, well, actually, is it the British Constitution or
48:34
Speaker 1: is it the English Constitution? And some were very measured
48:41
Speaker 1: in how they rebutted our initial attempts at the British Constitution.
48:46
Speaker 1: Some people were I think a little bit hard and
48:50
Speaker 1: didn't quite realize why we'd chosen that particular title. But you,
48:55
Speaker 1: of course are very much on the side of the
48:57
Speaker 1: English Constitution. How do you see application of an English
49:05
Speaker 1: constitutional a reinstatement almost of an English constitution? How does
49:10
Speaker 1: that help people in this country deal with what we've
49:16
Speaker 1: loosely described as an attack on everybody living in the Islands,
49:22
Speaker 1: but particularly the English. So take us through how how
49:26
Speaker 1: you see these constitutional issues and how you see the
49:30
Speaker 1: English Democrat policy dealing with this issue.
49:35
Speaker 2: Yes, so I think the first thing to say when
49:37
Speaker 2: we're talking about constitution issues, we're going to talk about
49:42
Speaker 2: legal framework. And some people say things like British law,
49:50
Speaker 2: a sort of phrase that people would use, and of
49:53
Speaker 2: course there never has been a British law. What we've
49:57
Speaker 2: got is a number of jurisdictions, legal jurisdictions, and we've
50:03
Speaker 2: got Scottish legal jurisdiction. The Act of Union in seventeen
50:10
Speaker 2: eighty seven expressly left the Scottish legal system as separate.
50:15
Speaker 2: It was originally based on Roman law, not common law.
50:18
Speaker 2: And then we've got the Irish legal system that was
50:24
Speaker 2: more common law, and there's the rump of that left
50:28
Speaker 2: for Northern Ireland, and then we've got the common You've
50:33
Speaker 2: got the common jurisdiction legal jurisdiction of England and Wales
50:37
Speaker 2: at the moment, although Welsh nationalists are talking about separating
50:43
Speaker 2: Wales from the English jurisdiction. And then of course you've
50:50
Speaker 2: got other jurisdictions like the Isle of Man and Jersey
50:54
Speaker 2: and Guernsey and so on. So one of the curiosities
51:01
Speaker 2: of the UK system, of the kingdom system is that
51:07
Speaker 2: it's pretty inconsistent and there isn't a sort of one
51:12
Speaker 2: rule or law for all. The only interlocking thing holding
51:21
Speaker 2: it together, of course, is the monarchy. And it's also
51:28
Speaker 2: worth us thinking how we got to the point where
51:30
Speaker 2: there was a united Kingdom at all, because there were
51:34
Speaker 2: basically three acts of Union. There was fifteen thirty six
51:39
Speaker 2: in which Wales was incorporated to the Kingdom of England,
51:46
Speaker 2: and after that people didn't in constitutional terms talk about
51:50
Speaker 2: Wales at all. They talked about England. And then you
51:56
Speaker 2: get in seventeen oh seven, in when the country was
52:02
Speaker 2: in the midst of a long running war with France
52:06
Speaker 2: under Lewis the fourteenth and there were worries that the
52:11
Speaker 2: Scots might, on the death of Queen Anne, have a
52:17
Speaker 2: different king who would be perhaps willing to negotiate with
52:25
Speaker 2: France in a way that was hostile to England. So
52:28
Speaker 2: you then wound up, as part of a sort of
52:30
Speaker 2: big power, almost imperial politics, you wound up with the
52:37
Speaker 2: Active Union, which created the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
52:45
Speaker 2: And it did soay in a rather peculiar way, because
52:47
Speaker 2: you might think that the United Kingdom would have laws
52:50
Speaker 2: that were the same, but they weren't. You might think
52:53
Speaker 2: that the educational system would be made uniform. No it wasn't,
53:00
Speaker 2: and nor was the religious system. So Scotland remained in
53:04
Speaker 2: many respects a separate kingdom. That was the one thing
53:07
Speaker 2: that was unified was that the Scottish Parliament was folded
53:12
Speaker 2: into the English Parliament. And you've you've got Scottish MPs
53:18
Speaker 2: being elected to what had been the English Parliament, and
53:22
Speaker 2: you've got some Scottish peers who were then made members
53:26
Speaker 2: of the House of Lords of the English Parliament, and
53:32
Speaker 2: that was the active Union seventeen o seven, and then
53:35
Speaker 2: we had another active union again, war with France, this
53:39
Speaker 2: case Napoleon in eighteen oh one, in which Ireland was
53:43
Speaker 2: brought in, and again it wasn't done on a fully
53:47
Speaker 2: sort of equal basis. Irish people living in Ireland had
53:51
Speaker 2: different rights under that Act of Union to people living
53:58
Speaker 2: in England or Scotland. So for instance, it wasn't wasn't
54:02
Speaker 2: even full free trade between Ireland and in England. And
54:11
Speaker 2: so so what we've got is a sort of slightly
54:13
Speaker 2: sort of patchwork, haphazard constitution. That's that's evolved, but it's
54:18
Speaker 2: evolved by sort of tacking bits onto what was the
54:22
Speaker 2: English constitution. We get some quite weird comments being made about,
54:28
Speaker 2: for instance, the British Magna Carta for example, Well, the
54:36
Speaker 2: very concept of Britain didn't really exist at the time.
54:40
Speaker 2: It was England, and so the Magnicat is not a
54:46
Speaker 2: British document, it's an English document. And the same would
54:50
Speaker 2: be true of the other really very important constitutional document
54:56
Speaker 2: of the Bill of Rights, because that was passed by
54:59
Speaker 2: the English pliament. It wasn't. It wasn't past as as
55:03
Speaker 2: a British parliament, the Scott's did pass something quite similar
55:10
Speaker 2: but not exactly the same. And and obviously you then
55:15
Speaker 2: got the Glorious Revolution which William and the William of
55:22
Speaker 2: Orange with his Dutch grenadiers, basically ensured that we would
55:28
Speaker 2: then wind up eventually with unbeknownst to him at the time,
55:32
Speaker 2: we would eventually wind up with the Hanavarian succession. And
55:38
Speaker 2: so you know, if you go back into our history
55:41
Speaker 2: you can see that there is a difference. What would
55:45
Speaker 2: that do in what what? What impact would that have
55:48
Speaker 2: in the modern world? I think is where you were
55:50
Speaker 2: taking me.
55:51
Speaker 1: Well, no, the key, the key point I'd like you
55:54
Speaker 1: to come to is that, obviously the English Constitution is
56:00
Speaker 1: key part of your political agenda. How does the party
56:08
Speaker 1: intend to use constitutional reform?
56:12
Speaker 2: I'm just.
56:15
Speaker 1: Listing a reply here, so don't focus on the words.
56:20
Speaker 1: But how are you going to use issues of the
56:23
Speaker 1: constitution in order to produce solutions for this breakdown of
56:31
Speaker 1: the country? How does that work?
56:34
Speaker 2: Yes, so, in terms of what you would do if
56:38
Speaker 2: you were in government is actually mostly repeal of things
56:43
Speaker 2: that have been done to try and undermine the English
56:49
Speaker 2: Constitution and to sort of sideline it. So you would,
56:55
Speaker 2: for instance, need to reverse the way that the judiciary
57:01
Speaker 2: is selected. You know, we we can't have a Judicial
57:05
Speaker 2: Appointments Commission. Instead of the Lord Chanceer appointing them. Lord
57:10
Speaker 2: answer was appointing judges on the basis that they were
57:13
Speaker 2: thought to be best lawyers, and that's all gone by
57:19
Speaker 2: the board. Instead. The primary thing that they're looking at
57:21
Speaker 2: is political commitment to equality, diversity, inclusion, multiculturalism and statism.
57:32
Speaker 2: So you know, we we we've got we've got quite
57:35
Speaker 2: a lot of It would be quite a full agenda
57:38
Speaker 2: to try and restore our constitution back to its functioning
57:44
Speaker 2: the times when it was functioning.
57:46
Speaker 1: But you are you taking this as as as far
57:49
Speaker 1: as recreating an English parliament? And if if you go
57:55
Speaker 1: in that direction, how how do you deal with what
58:02
Speaker 1: would certainly be a perceived impression And it might be
58:05
Speaker 1: actually a practical application that as you decon as you
58:10
Speaker 1: start to deconstruct or pull apart some of the things
58:13
Speaker 1: that have been put in place, this is also increasing
58:16
Speaker 1: the stability we go back to an English parliament. That
58:20
Speaker 1: means that we are now dealing with the countries Scotland
58:27
Speaker 1: and Wales and Northern Ireland. We're now operating with those countries.
58:35
Speaker 1: How does this change act in a stabilizing way for
58:42
Speaker 1: the country as a whole.
58:46
Speaker 2: So I think I think we've got to just acknowledge
58:51
Speaker 2: that there are very few institutions functioning at the moment
58:57
Speaker 2: which are concerned about England. I mean, just to take
59:02
Speaker 2: as an example, the trade unions. There is a Trade
59:06
Speaker 2: Union Congress for Scotland, there's a Trade Union Congress for Ireland.
59:11
Speaker 2: I think, there's a trade Union Congress for Wales, and
59:13
Speaker 2: then there's the British Trade Union Congress. There isn't a
59:17
Speaker 2: trade union Congress for England apart from one that we've
59:20
Speaker 2: been involved in setting up. And there wasn't even a
59:27
Speaker 2: trade union that talked about England until we were involved
59:31
Speaker 2: with the Workers of England Union. So you know, that's
59:39
Speaker 2: just an example of the fact that England isn't recognized
59:44
Speaker 2: it's almost any level within the current system. I mean,
59:50
Speaker 2: another example would be the NHS. People talk about the
59:53
Speaker 2: National Health Service, but there isn't really a national health service.
59:58
Speaker 2: The way that the the systems are operated in Wales
1:00:02
Speaker 2: and Scotland and in Northern Ireland is different from what's
1:00:06
Speaker 2: operated in England, and the English NHS want a better expression.
1:00:14
Speaker 2: Is operated by British politicians in the British interest and
1:00:20
Speaker 2: not not necessarily in the interests of people in England.
1:00:24
Speaker 2: And quite a good example of that is that there
1:00:28
Speaker 2: are prescription charges for people in England but not in Scotland,
1:00:33
Speaker 2: Wales or Northern Ireland. The people of the taxpayers of
1:00:37
Speaker 2: England pay extra subsidies through the so called Barnett formula
1:00:43
Speaker 2: to scott Wales and Northern Ireland, so that they don't
1:00:46
Speaker 2: have to pay prescription charges, but we do have to
1:00:49
Speaker 2: pay them as well as the subject is to the
1:00:53
Speaker 2: other parts of the United Kingdom, to keep them basically
1:00:58
Speaker 2: electoral bribe to keep them wanting to remain part of
1:01:03
Speaker 2: the UK. And in fact, during the Scottish referendum, the
1:01:07
Speaker 2: unionist politicians were referring to the Barnet formula whereby Scotland
1:01:12
Speaker 2: was then getting a subsidy in excess of thirty two
1:01:16
Speaker 2: billion pounds a year from the English taxpayer. They called
1:01:20
Speaker 2: that the Union dividend. So you know, there are lots
1:01:25
Speaker 2: of things that would have to be unwound, and you
1:01:29
Speaker 2: know we would have to be steadily creating a separate
1:01:36
Speaker 2: institutions for England, and I think I think people would
1:01:44
Speaker 2: find that we then then wound up with things that
1:01:48
Speaker 2: actually worked, because I think one of the constant refrains
1:01:51
Speaker 2: that we're now hear anything to do with the state,
1:01:55
Speaker 2: people say, nothing bloody works anymore.
1:01:58
Speaker 1: Well, that is absolutely true. You unwind things, we go
1:02:05
Speaker 1: back to an English parliament. We're fully operating under the
1:02:10
Speaker 1: English Constitution. What would you then describe the United Kingdom
1:02:17
Speaker 1: as I mean, does it does it then become federal?
1:02:24
Speaker 1: How do you how do you see? What do you actually?
1:02:27
Speaker 2: We certainly did used to campaign for effectually a federal system,
1:02:35
Speaker 2: but I think we've got to a point now where
1:02:39
Speaker 2: that's probably not really a feasible outcome because firstly, we've
1:02:48
Speaker 2: got the British yeah, Westminster Whitehall system wanting to eradicate
1:02:58
Speaker 2: the very idea of England. So that is a major
1:03:05
Speaker 2: sorts of things that have got to be well, that's
1:03:08
Speaker 2: got to be sorted out thoroughly. And we've also we've
1:03:14
Speaker 2: also got us now after the last lot of elections
1:03:17
Speaker 2: situation where scott and Wales and Northern Land are all
1:03:21
Speaker 2: the majority well they're they're led by Celtic nationalist parties
1:03:32
Speaker 2: that want to break up the United Kingdom. So I
1:03:38
Speaker 2: think in terms of the dynamic of where we are
1:03:40
Speaker 2: at the moment, it's probably more likely that the Celtic
1:03:45
Speaker 2: nations are going to break up the United Kingdom than
1:03:47
Speaker 2: than the English will, because we are still at the
1:03:51
Speaker 2: point where English people are just waking up to what's
1:03:56
Speaker 2: going on, and we haven't. We haven't got a situation
1:04:00
Speaker 2: where there is a fully effective dominant English nationalist party
1:04:11
Speaker 2: or agenda. Well, of course, because what we've been doing
1:04:14
Speaker 2: over the years is trying to wake people up.
1:04:17
Speaker 1: Yes, and and anything to do with England and England
1:04:21
Speaker 1: nationalism is branded has been increasingly branded as extremist in
1:04:26
Speaker 1: contrast to any description for the Scots or the Welsh.
1:04:32
Speaker 2: We've also got a weird extremist when when the British
1:04:37
Speaker 2: establishment is flooding the country with vast numbers of immigrants,
1:04:42
Speaker 2: far more than we've we had in the thousand years
1:04:44
Speaker 2: before the Second World War.
1:04:49
Speaker 1: This this is very true. I've found it interesting when
1:04:53
Speaker 1: I've been speaking to a live audience and there's a
1:04:58
Speaker 1: discussion on immigration. I've tried asking a simple question and
1:05:04
Speaker 1: how did they get here? And on a couple of
1:05:07
Speaker 1: occasions there was this long silence and I said, well,
1:05:10
Speaker 1: did they fight their way ashore? And the answer was no.
1:05:14
Speaker 1: And one meeting, a gentleman said we let them in,
1:05:19
Speaker 1: and I said, ah, I've always wanted to meet the
1:05:21
Speaker 1: person who let them in. He got very annoyed with me.
1:05:24
Speaker 1: But where I was coming to is that if the
1:05:29
Speaker 1: migrants who are now in the country didn't fight their
1:05:31
Speaker 1: way ashore, and they were invited in, and therefore where
1:05:36
Speaker 1: is the problem? Is it with the people who were
1:05:38
Speaker 1: invited in or those that opened the doors? Some might
1:05:44
Speaker 1: argue treacherously or in a deliberately destructive way, And I've
1:05:52
Speaker 1: just add on that I was recently talking to a
1:05:55
Speaker 1: member of the Muslim community up up in Birmingham. The
1:06:00
Speaker 1: subject was actually to do with the abuse of children.
1:06:03
Speaker 1: But towards the end of the discussion, I can't remember
1:06:06
Speaker 1: what I said to him, and he instantly came back
1:06:09
Speaker 1: and said, well, it's obvious the English are being attacked.
1:06:15
Speaker 1: And I've had this now from a few people within
1:06:19
Speaker 1: the migrant community that established we're talking second third generation.
1:06:25
Speaker 1: They are well aware that there is a special treatment
1:06:31
Speaker 1: of the English, and I find I find this, I
1:06:34
Speaker 1: find this very very interesting that people who do have
1:06:38
Speaker 1: a different view on things because although they're born here,
1:06:41
Speaker 1: they obviously feel a very strong pull for aware of
1:06:45
Speaker 1: their country of origin is or their religion, but they
1:06:51
Speaker 1: can see through this bias in politics and they can recognize,
1:06:56
Speaker 1: some of them can recognize at least that the English
1:06:58
Speaker 1: are getting an especially hard time. It's it's quite fascinating.
1:07:03
Speaker 2: Yes, I think it's true. And I think so we've
1:07:08
Speaker 2: we've sort of mostly focused on the top down, you know,
1:07:13
Speaker 2: in other words, what that's, what the that the system
1:07:17
Speaker 2: is trying to impose on us. But then I think
1:07:21
Speaker 2: it is also worth thinking about bottom up, in other words,
1:07:24
Speaker 2: what we've been doing about it. And one of the
1:07:32
Speaker 2: things that people used to talk about regularly about the
1:07:36
Speaker 2: English was that we were very unready people when it
1:07:40
Speaker 2: came to a conflict, and it took us a long
1:07:43
Speaker 2: time to work out what we needed to do and
1:07:46
Speaker 2: get really sort of exercised about it. But when we
1:07:51
Speaker 2: had worked that out and got ourselves have sorted out,
1:07:54
Speaker 2: we then attended a tendency to rather more thoroughly sort
1:07:58
Speaker 2: it out than are opponent would have wished. Yes, and
1:08:03
Speaker 2: so I think what we what we've got to hear
1:08:07
Speaker 2: is that actually, in the decades of the horrific child's
1:08:14
Speaker 2: well mass, mass rape and pimping of English girls by
1:08:20
Speaker 2: Pakistani Muslim gangs, predominantly in some Somalian gangs, that has
1:08:29
Speaker 2: been going on, partly in the context of the British
1:08:34
Speaker 2: political establishment not being willing to do anything about it,
1:08:38
Speaker 2: not being willing to talk about it, trying to downplay it,
1:08:42
Speaker 2: and basically acting more or less in collusion, but also
1:08:50
Speaker 2: it has been in the context of English people not
1:08:54
Speaker 2: having any way of responding to that. So what you know,
1:09:00
Speaker 2: one of the things that I think you see consistently
1:09:04
Speaker 2: is people who find that their daughters are being subjected
1:09:08
Speaker 2: to this kind of horrific abuse. They've tried to call
1:09:14
Speaker 2: the police, and you know, they haven't been able to
1:09:20
Speaker 2: really understand that the police have been colluding with this.
1:09:24
Speaker 2: And it's not just it's not just woke political correctness
1:09:29
Speaker 2: gone mad that's going on there. There's also downright corruption.
1:09:33
Speaker 2: You know. One of the things that many of the
1:09:35
Speaker 2: girls who've been subjected to this have said is that
1:09:40
Speaker 2: some of the men that they were forced to have
1:09:42
Speaker 2: sex with were police officers, you know, so you are
1:09:46
Speaker 2: you are talking about these police officers being in effect
1:09:50
Speaker 2: part of these gangs, and certainly would have time turned
1:09:55
Speaker 2: up once they'd done anything like that, They would have
1:09:57
Speaker 2: been as much in the gang's pocket as all the
1:10:01
Speaker 2: various rich and powerful Americans were in Epstein's pocket.
1:10:07
Speaker 1: Robin. Sorry, this is a very very important point, isn't it,
1:10:10
Speaker 1: Because once we get into this level of corruption, where young,
1:10:16
Speaker 1: vulnerable girls, women are being being abused, we are talking
1:10:21
Speaker 1: about utter breakdown of the state. We're not talking about
1:10:26
Speaker 1: a sort of mild political breakdown. We're talking about breakdown
1:10:30
Speaker 1: of the fabric of the country. I think, I think yes,
1:10:35
Speaker 1: the way that the rate gang issue was handled and
1:10:40
Speaker 1: indeed covered up, is.
1:10:42
Speaker 2: Still being handled and covered up. Correct.
1:10:47
Speaker 1: It takes us to the point that this country is
1:10:49
Speaker 1: in a very very serious position. It is it is it?
1:10:55
Speaker 1: Is it planned? Or is it just a sort of
1:10:58
Speaker 1: cockup in the system. I think we're looking at planned
1:11:02
Speaker 1: break down personally, and this abuse and those abuse rings
1:11:09
Speaker 1: clearly bring us to how bad the country is. So you,
1:11:14
Speaker 1: you and the party have have a lot of work
1:11:16
Speaker 1: to do out on the streets, Robin. How are people
1:11:23
Speaker 1: responding to the English Democrats when when you're out and
1:11:27
Speaker 1: about and and how do you think you're getting on
1:11:32
Speaker 1: in peddling your wares in the political markets.
1:11:38
Speaker 2: So individually and sort of canvassing and leaf flitting and
1:11:46
Speaker 2: talking to people, very very good. I mean what we
1:11:50
Speaker 2: we we when we started out, Yeah, we wouldn't be
1:11:53
Speaker 2: saying all the things that were going on about trying
1:11:56
Speaker 2: to break England up or unfair treatment of England or
1:11:59
Speaker 2: the English and people would say they didn't believe us.
1:12:04
Speaker 2: And we don't get that anymore. What we get now
1:12:06
Speaker 2: is we say, we say, you know, one thing's gone wrong,
1:12:09
Speaker 2: and before we know it, we've got a person saying
1:12:12
Speaker 2: a list of other things also that's gone wrong, and
1:12:16
Speaker 2: they are fully sort of recognizing the type of things
1:12:19
Speaker 2: that we've been saying. And I do feel we've played
1:12:22
Speaker 2: our part in getting awareness of that. I mean, we've
1:12:26
Speaker 2: stood in quite a lot of elections. We've used the
1:12:28
Speaker 2: election process to distribute lots of leaflets. We aren't quite
1:12:36
Speaker 2: sure exactly how many, but I think a conservative estimate
1:12:40
Speaker 2: is at least fifty million leaflets we've distributed through the
1:12:45
Speaker 2: elections process. So you know, when you stand for Westminster
1:12:52
Speaker 2: formerly for the European Parliament. You've got you've got a
1:12:55
Speaker 2: free delivery of your leaflets. You had to pay for
1:12:57
Speaker 2: the leaflet yourself, but you can then get the Royal
1:13:00
Speaker 2: Male to deliver them. They weren't. They were a bit
1:13:03
Speaker 2: of ratic about whether they delivered the leaflets that they
1:13:06
Speaker 2: didn't the unions didn't particularly like. But nevertheless, quite a
1:13:11
Speaker 2: lot of the leaflets were distributed, and I would think
1:13:14
Speaker 2: at least fifty million were distributed, which sort of brings
1:13:19
Speaker 2: me onto the limitations of what we've been able to do.
1:13:25
Speaker 2: So I stood in the Essex Last Essex Police Commissioner
1:13:30
Speaker 2: election and I'd managed to get perhaps twenty twenty five
1:13:37
Speaker 2: thousand leaflets distributed in Essex and in return for that,
1:13:43
Speaker 2: I got about forty five thousand votes. There were forty
1:13:48
Speaker 2: five thousand votes. I think it was well. My leaflet
1:13:52
Speaker 2: said other words, quite good bang for the buck as
1:13:54
Speaker 2: it were, and I've given them as size and what
1:13:59
Speaker 2: resources we've got, I thought i'd done quite well. However,
1:14:03
Speaker 2: when I went into the count I the first person
1:14:09
Speaker 2: I bumped into was the Conservative candidate Roger Hurst, and
1:14:16
Speaker 2: he was sort of quietly confident because of course they
1:14:19
Speaker 2: had already seen the postal votes and could see what
1:14:24
Speaker 2: the where the votes had gone there, and he was
1:14:29
Speaker 2: saying that they the Conservatives had distributed more than three
1:14:34
Speaker 2: quarters of a million leaflets and he got about one
1:14:38
Speaker 2: hundred and eighty thousand votes, so banged for the buck.
1:14:40
Speaker 2: We did much better than him, but obviously he and
1:14:46
Speaker 2: the much greater financial resources and manpower sources of the
1:14:50
Speaker 2: Conservative Party had actually flooded what we had done to
1:14:56
Speaker 2: the point where we got forty five thousand votes and
1:15:00
Speaker 2: got one hundred and twenty, so that he was elected. He,
1:15:03
Speaker 2: by the way, is another very woke, SoCal Conservative, and
1:15:13
Speaker 2: he appointed the current Chief Constable who is a full
1:15:17
Speaker 2: on campaigner for diversity. They give us a lecture before
1:15:23
Speaker 2: the election about how delighted they were in Essex Police
1:15:28
Speaker 2: with their diversity hires and all their various efforts to
1:15:32
Speaker 2: change the culture. And of course he was the guy
1:15:37
Speaker 2: who responded to when Alison Pearson was was being harrassed
1:15:43
Speaker 2: by Essex Police officers for having posted up something on
1:15:46
Speaker 2: Twitter that they weren't sure they liked the Daily Telegraph
1:15:53
Speaker 2: journalists I'm talking about, and he came on the television
1:15:58
Speaker 2: did an interview in which in which he backed the
1:16:01
Speaker 2: Essex Police and said that that when we were thinking
1:16:09
Speaker 2: about this, we ought to be thinking not not about
1:16:11
Speaker 2: what Alison Pearson thought, but how it all appeared to
1:16:15
Speaker 2: the black and Muslim people in the in the community.
1:16:21
Speaker 2: So you know, he's not he's not what I would
1:16:25
Speaker 2: consider to be really a proper conservative. He's somebody who's
1:16:31
Speaker 2: really an entriest I think, you know, in words, we're
1:16:34
Speaker 2: going back to the long March through the institutions. He's
1:16:36
Speaker 2: he's one of those who's peddling an approach to policing
1:16:42
Speaker 2: which is totally consistent with the way that policing has
1:16:47
Speaker 2: been conducted in Hampshire.
1:16:50
Speaker 1: Yes, well, it's a pan England policy and of course
1:16:55
Speaker 1: we end up with regionalization of the police in England,
1:16:59
Speaker 1: which is what they desperately trying to do. This this
1:17:01
Speaker 1: sort of policy is going to spread further and faster.
1:17:05
Speaker 2: I think if I had been elected as Police Commissioner,
1:17:13
Speaker 2: and it is a position that was of genuine power
1:17:19
Speaker 2: and power that was un trammeled by any any restrictions
1:17:24
Speaker 2: in the areas that you were that you were given
1:17:26
Speaker 2: power over. So you know, the police Commissioner appoints the
1:17:31
Speaker 2: chief Constable and can fire the chief constable and sets
1:17:38
Speaker 2: the policies of the police force and sets the budgets.
1:17:42
Speaker 2: And of course that that actually does represent a serious
1:17:45
Speaker 2: threat to the establishment viewpoint, because if I, if I
1:17:50
Speaker 2: had been elected, I could have changed their policies. I
1:17:53
Speaker 2: could have got rid of all these various sort of
1:17:55
Speaker 2: d NI policies. I could have gotten focused on dealing
1:18:00
Speaker 2: with proper old profession crime. I could have changed the
1:18:06
Speaker 2: budgets for things, so you know, for anything I didn't
1:18:08
Speaker 2: like them doing, would have a zero budget, anything that
1:18:12
Speaker 2: I was encouraging them to do, and I'd set the policy,
1:18:16
Speaker 2: and I also provide a budget. And I'll give you
1:18:19
Speaker 2: a for instance of how that power has been used.
1:18:22
Speaker 2: When said he Khan was elected as mayor, he automatically
1:18:25
Speaker 2: became the police commissioner or they met and his first
1:18:31
Speaker 2: act really almost was to set a policy that they
1:18:37
Speaker 2: were to prioritize the investigation of Islamophobic comments on the internet.
1:18:44
Speaker 2: And he gave them and he allocated a budget, I
1:18:49
Speaker 2: think initially something like two million pounds for doing that,
1:18:52
Speaker 2: and that's been consistently up as time's gone on. And
1:18:57
Speaker 2: of course the met have been foremost investigating so called
1:19:02
Speaker 2: islamophobia on on on the In other words, the politician,
1:19:10
Speaker 2: the elective official, would make a big difference to this,
1:19:16
Speaker 2: to the way that policing is being done, and and
1:19:19
Speaker 2: that is I think what they're trying to get rid
1:19:21
Speaker 2: of in the same way as part of the reason
1:19:24
Speaker 2: for getting rid of the district and borough councils is
1:19:30
Speaker 2: because Labor wants to exercide more central control over planning
1:19:37
Speaker 2: and trying to break up the the existing planning structure
1:19:42
Speaker 2: so that they can have new towns, so they can
1:19:46
Speaker 2: you know, impose solar paneling, you know, wind wind farms,
1:19:54
Speaker 2: and the.
1:19:54
Speaker 1: Global mayors of course, and the global and super city
1:19:59
Speaker 1: mayors system. Exactly, we must come to a close. I
1:20:05
Speaker 1: think I just push you a little bit more. How
1:20:09
Speaker 1: is the English how are the English Democrats doing in
1:20:15
Speaker 1: in penetrating politics? Have you now got established local councilors
1:20:21
Speaker 1: and and what are they doing?
1:20:26
Speaker 2: So now we aren't we have not been very successful
1:20:29
Speaker 2: electurer for a while. We we have, you know, we
1:20:32
Speaker 2: we we've generally got a creditable vote. So like I say,
1:20:38
Speaker 2: you know, in the police question election, I got forty
1:20:41
Speaker 2: five thousand votes. Other candidates save their deposits. In other words,
1:20:47
Speaker 2: we we haven't we haven't got derisory votes in things
1:20:51
Speaker 2: where we really applied ourselves to. But politics is well.
1:21:00
Speaker 2: Steve Bannon said in The Trumps, the campaign advisor of
1:21:04
Speaker 2: the worst that's Trump and Trump one, he said that
1:21:09
Speaker 2: we've got to think of politics as being war carried
1:21:13
Speaker 2: out by other means. And I do think that's quite
1:21:17
Speaker 2: useful for saying, because what it says is that actually
1:21:22
Speaker 2: politics isn't just about the argument. People who are interested
1:21:26
Speaker 2: in politics tend to get obsessed with the idea that
1:21:28
Speaker 2: politics is about the argument and the policies, whereas actually
1:21:34
Speaker 2: what he's saying is that if you think about war war,
1:21:37
Speaker 2: the argument is quite useful for making alliances. So the
1:21:41
Speaker 2: argument isn't completely negligible. But it's mostly about resource, money,
1:21:49
Speaker 2: organization strategies and that sort of thing. It's in other words,
1:21:55
Speaker 2: it's it's very dependent upon resources. And obviously the English
1:22:01
Speaker 2: Democrats are a quite small party and we although we
1:22:07
Speaker 2: have been going a while and I think to have
1:22:10
Speaker 2: some name recognition, we nevertheless don't have a lot of money,
1:22:17
Speaker 2: and therefore there's a limit to what we can do.
1:22:23
Speaker 2: And I think I think we we We sort of
1:22:26
Speaker 2: saw that in the last lot of elections with the
1:22:29
Speaker 2: local elections, where it was the parties with a big
1:22:35
Speaker 2: budget and lots of resources, particularly of helpers and of money,
1:22:45
Speaker 2: but also that had media attention that did very well.
1:22:51
Speaker 2: And so the party that did best in the last
1:22:54
Speaker 2: lot of local elections on our side of politics at
1:22:58
Speaker 2: any rate is reform. They are currently, however, having a
1:23:02
Speaker 2: bit of a struggle in make a Fielding reform and restore.
1:23:09
Speaker 2: We'll see in a week or so what what the
1:23:12
Speaker 2: outcome of that is. Okay, I think many of us
1:23:15
Speaker 2: are worried that what it might be is it means
1:23:18
Speaker 2: that Burnham gets elected.
1:23:21
Speaker 1: Well, we will see. You're doing a difficult job. I
1:23:28
Speaker 1: appreciate absolutely what you're saying about the resources on the
1:23:32
Speaker 1: ground and the fact that you are getting votes indicates
1:23:37
Speaker 1: that people are paying attention to the message and are responding.
1:23:41
Speaker 1: But of course you are fighting with inside a political
1:23:46
Speaker 1: system which is heavily biased in favor of the parties
1:23:50
Speaker 1: with money. There's no question of this. So last comment
1:23:54
Speaker 1: from from you, where where do people go to see
1:23:58
Speaker 1: the party and what would you like to encourage people
1:24:02
Speaker 1: to do to get involved or support what you're doing well.
1:24:07
Speaker 2: First of all, can I just apologize for interruptions because
1:24:10
Speaker 2: obviously I am in my office. It's fine, But I'm
1:24:18
Speaker 2: on Twitter at Robin Tilbrook, and the party's website is
1:24:24
Speaker 2: English Democrats dot party, and i'd invite people to have
1:24:30
Speaker 2: a look and also to follow me on Twitter.
1:24:36
Speaker 1: Okay, excellent, Thank you very much indeed for talking to me.
1:24:42
Speaker 1: I'm making an effort at the moment to get around
1:24:45
Speaker 1: some of the smaller parties and see what they're doing
1:24:48
Speaker 1: and what they're what they're trying to achieve. I personally
1:24:53
Speaker 1: think it would be really good if we could get
1:24:57
Speaker 1: some cooperation maybe between some of the smaller parties on the.
1:25:02
Speaker 2: We have. We have work to try and do that.
1:25:05
Speaker 2: On a number of occasions, there's.
1:25:07
Speaker 1: A common enemy and so maybe friendships could be quite important.
1:25:12
Speaker 1: But I know that's not always easy to do.
1:25:15
Speaker 2: I often use the expression it can be a bit
1:25:19
Speaker 2: like herding cat.
1:25:20
Speaker 1: Yes, okay, well, Robin, anyway, it's been really interesting. Thank
1:25:26
Speaker 1: you for spending the time with me this morning, and
1:25:30
Speaker 1: we'll be very interested to see people view as reactions
1:25:34
Speaker 1: to what you have to say. Thank you again for
1:25:37
Speaker 1: joining me.
1:25:38
Speaker 2: Thank you, Brian