If England was a sovereign state again

For  England  it  is difficult to  envisage  any  insuperable disadvantage  in  the break up of the UK,  but  easy  to  see definite and  substantial  advantages. Most importantly,  England would be able to act wholeheartedly in her own interests. Her  considerable population,  wealth and general sophistication  would  ensure that   she could maintain without any real   difficulty   the present levels of government provision from the welfare state to  the  military.  The powers vital to a sovereign state – the ability to control immigration, trade and the laws of the land – would be once again in English hands.  Acting within the confines of the nation would allow  meaningful democratic control to once again be exercised over parliament as politicians could no longer act as Quislings in the service of globalism because they would have to account .  

England would  no longer  pay subsidies to  the Celtic Fringe. These  currently total  around £16 billion as there are around 10 million Celts and each receives from the Treasury  approximately £1,600 per head more than  the English receive. In addition, the tax take in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales is less per capita than in England and the take-up of benefits higher (benefits are not devolved).  Consequently, England has to pay disproportionately more of the UK benefits cost than her share of the UK population.   The same applies to other non-devolved areas such as defence and foreign policy.

England’s removal from the EU  would save around £5-6 billions just on the net difference between what is paid to Brussels and what  Britain gets back.   Much, probably most,  of the remaining money is ill-spent because it can only be used in ways sanctioned by the EU. Most of the Dangeld paid to Brussels  is paid by England.  That burden would be removed  from the English taxpayer.   Further savings would come from removing the dead hand of EU directives from  Britain, the  cost of which is overwhelming borne by England.

Billions more can be saved by ending foreign Aid. This is currently around £9 billion pa. It will rise in the next few years to between £11-12 billion because of Gordon Brown’s committment to donating the UN’s  target figure of 0.7 per cent of GDP by 2014.  Most of this money is paid by the English taxpayer.

The only important disadvantages for England could be balance of payments deficits (primarily from the loss of oil, gas and whiskey  production)  and  ructions  in  the   international institutional  sphere.  Happily,  adverse  balances of  trade are  (eventually) self-correcting even if the correction,  as is the case with America,  can seem an age coming.  Moreover, with the free global currency market and a floating pound, an          adverse  balance of trade does not hold the horrors  it  once did, for international borrowing is infinitely easier than it was  and   devaluation of the currency is not  viewed  as  a  national  humiliation.    England   might   be   temporarily embarrassed  by a substantially increased trade deficit,  but there  is no reason to believe that it would be prolonged  or seriously affect the English economy.

As  for  international  upheaval,  it  is  conceivable that England  would  be unable to sustain  a  claim  to  Britain’s  privileged  position on international bodies such as  the  UN Security  Council  and  the board of IMF.  However,  this  is  unlikely for a number of reasons. To begin with there is  the precedent  of Russia which assumed all of the Soviet  Union’s international  entitlements.   Britain  is  also  the  United States’   only  halfway  reliable  ally  on  most  of   these       international  boards.    To  this  may  be  added  Britain’s position  as one of the larger international  paymasters  and providers  of reliable military muscle.  None of these  facts need essentially change with the substitution of England  for Britain.  Perhaps most importantly,  the denial to England of any of Britain’s institutional places  would pose the awkward question of who was to take any vacant position.  This  could (and almost certainly would) in turn raise the whole question of  whether  the  constitutions  of  most  world  bodies  are equitable or suited to the modern world.  (The  constitutions were after all created approximately fifty years ago and  are in  no  sense  equitable).  To deny England  would  mean  the opening of a can of worms.

Conversely, it could be plausibly  argued  that membership of such international bodies represents a liability rather  than   an advantage and England would be well shot of them.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Nationhood and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to If England was a sovereign state again

  1. Independence for England can only be a ‘win / win situation’ for the English and I’ve been advocating independence for England since long before 1997.

  2. JoolsB says:

    Bring it on – the sooner the better! I am sick to death of English taxes being used to provide benefits elsewhere, such as free tuition fees, EMA, care for the elderly, free prescriptions, low council tax (the list is endless) that we the English are denied.

  3. Ste says:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20061231051149/www.realnews-online.com/rn0001.htm

    Discrimination against the English

    The politics of each country in the United Kingdom is clearly different with Labour and the Liberal Democrats doing far better in Scotland and Wales. These political parties have therefore ended up with a free hand in running aspects of their own national affairs. The same is true in Ireland where political parties with specifically Irish characteristics are left to run their own affairs. In England there is no assembly so there is no means whereby the politics of England finds expression.

    The current “New Labour” government has a “majority” of some 66 MPs in the Parliament of Westminster. This essential majority for the survival of this government comes from Scottish and Welsh MPs who contribute some 70 MPs to the Labour Government’s double counting system. There is therefore, in the case of England, an imposition of a United Kingdom assembly where the government of the day has manipulated affairs to guarantee a built-in “majority”. This is a minority government which has the “support” of less than 22% of the electorate. This grossly unfair system survives because of the ability of Scottish and Welsh MPs to sit in two houses while preventing the English MPs the same priviledge; this is an unacceptable act of discrimination against the English.

    Erosion of vital English values

    Historically, in terms of the development of democracy, Englishmen have been unique in identifying, defining and giving voice to seminal values which so many hold dear. These include the right to the pursuit of happiness, the setting of individual freedom as the hallmark of a successful system of justice as reflected in the typically English legal imperatives as the right to equality before the law irrespective of status, the assumption of innocence, the right to trial by jury, habeas corpus and freedom of, and the defence of, free speech. These have largely rode on English Common Law and the ability of Judges and Juries to do a fair job free from political interference.

    Such imperatives for the survival of freedom were promoted by the Levellers during the English Civil War and by the group associated with John Lilburne. Cromwell had these inividuals kept in prison. With the collapse of the English Republic and with the return of Royalty their essential writings were very much kept under wraps. The spark which gave rise to a mass revolution in the American Colonies was when the British Crown moved to ban juries because too many were preventing the state enforce arbitrary decisions on innocent “colonists”. It is notable that the American Constitutional components which relate to the pursuit of happiness, individual liberty and freedom are largely based on the early writings of Lilburne written in the Tower of London, 150 years before.

    Unfortunately there has been a slow erosion of this essential spark, this recognition of the importance of the defence of individual freedom, as a typical English value. This has occurred gradually since the ascendency of the Scottish influence in United Kingdom politics. Scotland, it should be noted, has a legal system based on the European system, Corpus Juris, a codified Roman Law which is completely distinct and almost alien from English Common Law. This sustains a position which keeps the influence of the community conscience in legal affairs and court decisions at arms length.

    Elimination through a political Europe

    The lack of an English assembly prevents the English from protecting their rights to sustain their nationality as English. The European project, Corpus Juris and the European Constitutional Draft are aimed directly at “standardizing law” which means, in the United Kingdom context that Scottish Law will eventually reign supreme. The breaking up of England into so-called EU regions has been a subtle and politically destructive means of destroying the coherence of the English nation. England has become the only country in Europe to have been eliminated without a war but rather as the result of the manipulations of Brussels bureaucrats and dishonest and irresponsible politicians in Westminster serving their party interests over country.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s