The London SDP will run monthly meetings and quarterly events with guest speakers. We will also be identifying at LEAST 20 candidates to run in the Next Parliamentary elections. Every candidate will hold “meet the public” street stalls and other high profile “get to know you” local events. The SDP profile and cut through in London should, hopefully, rise with media coverage. We will encourage local agreements and support with other groups and parties where our values and ambitions agree.
The two parties in our FPTP system are NOT fit for the job. They need to be run out of office and true patriotic democracy needs to be restored. London is the best City in the world. We are so lucky to live here. Let’s all get together and organise local people to make 2023 the platform for real change in 2024!
Having stood for the Brexit Party in 2019 on conviction, I look forward to seeing which candidates or parties I may support in their convictions in the health, security and prosperity interests of the United Kingdom in the run up to the next General Election…
Trust is a massive issue for me, with a burning distaste for the established and establishment parties in their incompetence: precipitating a cost of lockdown crisis; failing to deliver in the national interest on energy and health, and in their hypocrisy; putting measures in place they are not themselves prepared to follow. Their values are no longer representative of those they should be serving. It’s time for most of them to go.
I shall be watching the Reform Party most closely. They are performing well in recent polls, though that would not yet yield seats in parliament. They also have work to do if they want more engagement from former Brexit Party candidates and supporters, and that is down to trust, too.
Beyond the traditional party politics, I am looking to Reclaim for the culture wars rhetoric on free speech, British values, ID politics, intersectionality and sex-based rights, and to the Together Declaration as they seek to take back democracy – again, championing free speech with open debate over dictate and suppression. Together is going to build a shadow cabinet in the new year to challenge the orthodoxy – across health, economy, energy, housing, defence etc – and increasingly similar government and opposition approaches to ruling over us rather than to serve.
“Bending the rules of the game Will let you find the one you’re looking for And then you can show that you think you know You’re making your mind up!“
In 2023 I will try to focus on interviews regarding the situation in Ukraine at this moment of conflicts between Russia, the EU, NATO and others, and I’ll probably write a review of the Spanish local elections that are going to take place in May. In fact, I have been interested in getting interviews from Spanish political leaders. There’s not a culture of responding e-mails from researchers or journalists in this country, which contrasts with the high level of answers that I’ve got from British politicians.
Turning to the political context of Spain, Spanish representatives are distinguished by their low profile contributions in Parliament, specially the members of parties such as Podemos on the left side and VOX on the right side. Furthermore, judges interfering in strictly political debates and the impossibility of reforming Francoist institutions that changed nothing but their names, makes it absolutely annoying and toxic, at least for me. I’m a calm person, therefore in my duty as Political Scientist and analyst I prefer the moderation of Conservative-Labour dynamics. Ideologically, that’s another thing. In conclusion, I’ll see what I can do to analyse the Ukraine-Russia conflict from different perspectives, as I always try to do.
Our main aim is to get candidates in place. We are hoping for 100 by the end of 2023 so we can have a party political broadcast next time. We currently have 20 committed to standing in the next General Election. We also have a training course fixed for January 2023 with a professional trainer and we are hoping for at least 20 new people on that course.
We’re getting more exposure on Christian TV. I do a weekly interview on Air TV. Our Assembly was broadcast live on LCBN TV for the first time. Maureen Martin (President) goes regularly on Revelation TV. This is also opening doors to speak in churches. We are getting better known and accepted among church leaders. We aim to continue this process and speak in as many churches as possible in 2023
Relationships with the DUP are getting stronger. Ian Paisley Jnr MP spoke at our assembly this year and was just amazing. If you’re interested this was his speech as I say broadcast live. Part3 Christian People Alliance Conference on LCBN TV UK I hope to be a guest speaker at the DUP conference next year at the fringe as a first step. We are also preparing our Assembly for 2023 we plan to hold in Birmingham Sept 29th and 30th
We meet every Monday on zoom to pray and then afterwards review our manifesto a process Tom Rogers is in charge of. We are constantly coming up with new ideas and honing it and improving it. I would like to think that no party has a more comprehensive and well thought out manifesto to deal with the issues the country faces. This gives us a strong basis for campaigning and growing as a party. A weak manifesto is a fatal flaw as a party grows and is almost certain to bring growth to a standstill.
The European Court of Human Rights intervened to stop the deportation flight of asylum seekers to Rwanda. The UK is a member of the Council of Europe and a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.
We asked your views on: How should the government react to the ruling by the ECHR?
Freedom campaigner and former Brexit Party candidate Peter Sonnex.
I think we should leave the orbit of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on the basis we have a mature domestic justice system (albeit compromised for now by the relatively recent Supreme Court construct which can be fixed…). However, leaving is not straight forward as the ECtHR is tied to our membership of the 47 nation Council of Europe (what’s that all about?), and remains a condition of the UK/EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
I worked in Whitehall for 5 years servicing UK commitments to a number of international treaties and conventions. Some were bilateral, multilateral or bound to international and supranational organisations for their administration. Clear to me was that the UK participated in, and contributed financially, to pretty much the lot!
Other countries, perhaps more discerning in their national interests, attended fewer. Some smaller state delegations were funded by non-government organisations where a vote was effectively bought to promote a particular outcome…
Special international courts may have a place where, with the agreement of affected states, domestic competence and capacity does not exist – often post conflict. The court is convened and financed for as long as it is necessary. Recent examples are for Cambodia, Former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone and the Rwanda Genocide.
The Council of Europe with the ECtHR certainly had a role post WWII as human rights were consolidated and as nation states matured their domestic, accountable, justice systems. More recently, ECtHR judgements have been increasingly ignored, and therefore made irrelevant without enforcement, by Russia and Ukraine (and Italy!?) in particular.
Russia has been suspended from the Council of Europe following its further interventions in Ukraine and, oddly, is therefore no longer even required to be bound. Any future special international tribunal for Ukraine could only be constituted with the agreement of Russia…
Bottom Line: the UK should leave the ECtHR on the basis it is expensive, not accountable, and is no longer relevant, credible or effective in the promotion and defence of human rights. As with many international and supranational organisations I saw in operation, they are toothless, self-licking lollipops…
Firstly, let’s bear in mind that the ECHR ruling was not that the deportations should be abandoned, which is beyond their legal competence (as well BTW their intellectual competence). The ECHR ruled that the deportations should not go ahead until all (British) legal avenues had been exhausted. That’s actually fair enough. It’s our own fault that we have an idiotic level of no-risk judicial oversight where activist lawyers operating pro-Bono or on left-wing crowdfunding can cause delays without risking the award of costs again them.
Short term the government should react by pressing ahead, legally, with this policy. Medium-term they should react by closing loopholes that permit this level of legal politically motivated time-wasting challenge. Long term, as with all international obligations, from the UN downwards, the UK government should consider whether or not it wishes to remove itself from them. It is a nuclear option that should not be taken lightly, but neither should it be regarded as beyond consideration.
I believe to an almost religious extent in free-market economics, and accordingly, I am an enthusiast for mass economic migration. I place no upper limit on how many migrants the UK should accept. I would be comfortable with a net positive of half a million per year if they were carefully vetted, and yes, I would joyously lock block the Green belt to enable it. But a government must be in control of its borders, or it is not a sovereign government. I am content to see illegal immigrants deported with a life ban from entering the UK.
Opposition to illegal immigration does not require opposition to economic migrancy.
The recent ruling from the European Court of Human Rights highlights some of many gargantuan evils which European Institutions, including the EU are continuing to rush headfirst to adopt.
The truth is, instead of helping poorer countries with aid and investment the EU decided to exploit it’s cheap youth and talent with an open door invitation. Mass immigration was the worst thing they could have done, just ask the EU’s abandoned, ageing rural populations and the bereaved families. Immigration was not the answer but it suited Merkel’s aspirations to import cheap labour at the cost of all Europeans to grow productivity.
Thousands drowned, countless girls raped and forced into the sex industry and thousands left to die in the Sahara dessert by crooked people traffickers. All this for immigrants who can afford people trafficker fees of £20,000, enough to build them a home in their own country.
This was sold as an humanitarian act but when did Angela Merkel ever care about all the Greek pensioners who had their pensions stripped and public servants who were thrown out of their jobs or the massive EU youth unemployment caused across Europe in the aftermath of the 2007 crisis? The EU protected the Euro by not allowing their member states to spend on job creation, simple. They certainly never cared for high wages for their own workers, so it opened the floodgates to mass immigration, not because Merkel’s a loving, caring, matriarch but with the sole intention to import cheap labour.
All this because of Centralised, Unaccountable Power. Nobody cares in distant, lavish offices for what happens to people in Watford or Kilmarnock! Decentralising power, taking influence and resolutions closer to the electorate has been the rallying cry across the whole of the UK for decades simply because the best people to identify and resolve issues are those closest to the issues.
Brexit was supposed to free us from EU perils, to return our supremacy of Laws and borders but Boris, being the consummate politician, tried to keep everyone happy by selling our Laws and borders out to the EU and splitting up the UK. Ultimately, we were all sold out.
So here we are, the EU caused this massive problem and as we no longer control our borders and laws, the EU is flexing it’s muscles to say they still rule us. Our only rational way forwards might include any or all of the following :-
Ditch the European Human Rights Act and replace it with our own Bill.
Ditch European Law supremacy
Invest in the UK in sectors such as manufacturing, technologies, infrastructure.
Defund any legal service which chooses to cynically exploit our legal funding system
Create our own basic constitution to protect us from abuse of power from our own politicians. We had no choice over lockdowns, no choice in handing over sovereignty to a foreign power, no protection over police investigating the public for the ‘wrong type of thinking’.
Make cancel culture a criminal act, we need our history, our comedians, our freedom of speech.
Make the BBC impartial or defund it.
It would also be really nice if the UK has an opposition party which is capable of challenging for power, a party which is practical, capable of independent, rational, coherent thinking to fill the vacuum which is sucking us into a void of mad shouty people intent on dominating debates.
The Loony left is not only back with a vengeance, it’s now mainstream.
A humanitarian crisis is unfolding before us following Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine. The risk of a major military conflict is remote but real, and the situation on the ground continues to change. We asked our contributors how they think Putin’s aggression will impact politics and policies in the UK and what if any changes are needed?
Peter Sonnex, veteran, former Brexit Party candidate and political campaigner.
I despair. As an Army Veteran, I ache for the senselessness and failure that is armed conflict – the so-called last resort in our international rules-based order. Of course, there are those whose interests will be satisfied by all this and who will benefit from it in some way. Then, there are the rest of us, the ordinary citizens of the west, Russia and Ukraine who are paying the price.
Ukraine has been an independent state for more than thirty years. It has aspired to join the EU and NATO. Such memberships have not been forthcoming, and we ought to ask ourselves why this should be. For everyone hailing and siding unequivocally with the bravery and resolve of a sovereign Ukraine in the face of Russian ‘special military operations’, I’m sorry, it’s all a bit bloody late.
To be clear, I am no cheerleader for Vladimir Putin. In a protracted game of chess it is he, with Sergey Lavrov (with whom I have shared the same room), who has had the longer-term strategy in mind. Short-term, narrow-minded EU and NATO sabre-rattling, whilst failing to put their money where their mouth is has not helped. Annexation of Crimea and the Donbas without consequence has not helped. An ongoing civil war in Ukraine has not helped. A young country with divided communities and conflicting loyalties has not helped. For all of us, Ukraine constitutes unfinished business from the end of WWII, the breakup of the USSR and the Cold War we had the arrogance to believe we had won. What is playing out now, in the worst that humanity can offer, is a failure of vision, leadership and values on all sides. For the west only, add inconsistency.
I’m very nearly done with it. The same people who brought a disproportionate response to Covid-19 and are stoking the fires of a climate crisis without first considering our prosperity and energy security, have delivered another war and another humanitarian crisis in Europe. We can be outraged, even signal our virtue, but not while conflicts and humanitarian crises are evident over the rest of the world with hardly a mention – some facilitated by us.
We might change how we vote in order to challenge the incompetence inherent in the unacceptable status quo – no?
Back to the question, but I’m afraid with even more questions… If we were to substitute Northern Ireland for Ukraine and the institutions of the EU for Russia – how might we consider an answer? Clear to me are the ambitions of the EU as they may relate to the island of Ireland. Clearer to me is the lack of resolve at home to defend the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of which I am a citizen. Do the unionists in Northern Ireland have the resolve to send the clearest message in May elections to those who hold their interests elsewhere that the Union is worth defending? Or will our apathy hitherto over Ukraine and now over Northern Ireland prevail until it is likewise too late?
If you thought chess was complicated, wait until you try Mah-jongg…
The situation with Russian military action in Ukraine is much more complex than the narrative being promoted by the mainstream media and those that control them. We are being led to believe that Putin is as always the “big bad wolf” and Ukraine is the innocent victim of a bully. It is not that cut and dry! There is propaganda on both sides. Quite frankly I am very reticent to agree with the same people who have fed us a steady diet of lies for the past two years concerning the pandemic and all things associated with it, call me a sceptic if you wish! The news cycle has suddenly shifted from covid, mandates, masks and vaccines to Ukraine/Russia. Covid has been completely abandoned by all major news outlets.
Several European nations EU member states have been manoeuvred into a very precarious position especially Germany who rely on Russia for the majority of its gas. In it’s haste to go “green” they decommissioned two nuclear power stations and started buying gas from Russia, now as a knee jerk reaction to the current situation and the realisation that they are compromised are taking steps to reduce their dependency on Russian energy, too little and too late! The sanctions being implemented are not any different to the sanctions that have been in place for some time. The only sanction that is a step further is the use of the swift system. This will impact Russia, however I do believe that Russia has alternative means of doing international business and this will not be as effective as hoped. However, there is a war being waged economically and the Russian economy is under attack, coupled with cyber warfare all these methods can be deemed by Russia as acts of war. In fact Russia has other nations who would be happy to buy their wheat and other commodities; China!
For us here in the UK, we must be careful not to join the war mongering drum beating narrative, desperately trying to emotionally manipulate public opinion into supporting military action by the international community with a no fly zone which would effectively be engaging in kinetic war. This is a regional conflict which I do not believe the UK needs to engage in on any level. We are not dependant on Russian gas comprising only about 4% of our supply, our involvement at this time can only be in response to international allies and has been slow in comparison with other EU nations, also bearing in mind that we are no longer part of the EU. Boris Johnson has blacklisted several Russian Oligarchs.
There is a view that the reason for the reticence of the UK in applying harder sanctions is the significant contributions that some of these billionaires have made to the Conservative Party coffers as well as the financial secrecy services provided by the UK in places such as the Cayman Island and Jersey. The UK is a major actor on the world stage in proving financial secrecy services resulting in an estimate worldwide tax loss of approximately £190bn annually.
I do not know what is going on in Ukraine. I think the bigger question is…if I wanted to get a balanced view…how would I do that? There may be misinformation on both sides…I’d like to hear from both sides and decide for myself. We seem to have moved from censorship of ‘medical and scientific consensus’ to other areas including what’s going on in Ukraine. I have no idea whether Putin is more or less aggressive than we have been in the last two decades.
Tam Laird is the leader of the Scottish Libertarian Party. They can be found online, on Facebook, and on Twitter.
I think the most worrying development we may see this year is the introduction of CBDC (central bank digital currency) It may be the beginning of a cashless society which has massive implications for individual privacy and liberty. Especially if it goes hand in hand with a concerted effort by government to erase competing crypto currencies such as bitcoin. No easy task but government may decide that if you use crypto you are automatically involved in criminal behaviour and if caught face stiff penalties. They did it with gold before and there’s nothing to suggest they wouldn’t try it with crypto currencies.
Prediction: In Scotland I predict we will see the SNP try to centralise more power. An attempt at least to introduce more draconian legislation with possibly another attempt to bring in Named Person Legislation or something similar. They may also attempt to ban home schooling.
Wish: What do I want to happen? That’s simple enough. For the Scottish Libertarian Party to increase its support and membership and perhaps even win a few seats in the upcoming council elections in May.
Nigel Jacklin is a statistician and market researcher. He also runs www.TheDemocraticNetwork.org which helps new and independent candidates stand in local elections.
Prediction: Many of us who would like to break the hold of the Westminster parties on local Councils will fail to prepare for and take advantage of the May 2022 local elections. Whilst there are not too many places with elections this year, rules and guidance which are created centrally tend to get implemented locally. I predict there will be more candidates who feel the measures taken by the UK government in response to Covid-19 have done more harm than good. These candidates will be best placed to counter over-reach by Council jobsworths.
Prediction: One month will be the warmest/coldest/wettest/driest month for the past 20 years. This is a statistical joke. Another would be predictions that something very bad may happen, to justify some imposition.
Wishes: My wish for 2022 is that the NHS resets the Covid case definition such that it is in line with other diseases. This will put an end to the narrow focus on Covid and mean further restrictions will be unjustified. I would also like the government to abandon its plan to sack NHS staff who are not fully vaccinated and respect their right to informed consent. Most nurses know more about health than the ministers responsible for this decision.
Peter Sonnex, former Brexit Party candidate and political campaigner. Peter can be found on Facebook, Twitter and Gettr.
Through our conversations together in 2022, even protests, in the public square – engaging, explaining, encouraging and exposing wherever necessary, essential freedoms of expression, speech, association and peaceful assembly – I make two predictions and have one wish.
Prediction: The mainstream emergence of hopeful alternative, beneficial and compelling Covid and Climate narratives. As with Brexit, many commentators in 2022 will be manoeuvring themselves to the right side of history as the increasingly illogical, irrational and irrelevant legacy narratives crumble.
Prediction: The mainstream emergence of a hopeful alternative, beneficial and compelling political opposition. Many of us are politically homeless and will be seeking a values-based, principled alternative to the increasingly illogical, irrational and irrelevant legacy establishment and established parties.
Wish: “Modelling” is brought back into the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study – building on our knowledge – of the structure and behaviour of the physical, social and natural worlds through predictions (hypotheses), objective observations and experimentation. We used to call this “science.”
Two notable enablers in all this, for me, are the Reclaim Party and The Together Declaration – both founded on common denominator values and principles that may transcend self-interested party politics and politicking to paint an irresistible picture of a shared future.
Reaching Net Zero carbon emissions by 2050 is enshrined in UK Law. With COP26 in Glasgow the news is full of stories about Climate Change and Global Warming. With all the main parties in agreement on the policy we have recently seen calls for the people of Britain to have a choice via a referendum on Net Zero. Nigel Farage has hinted he could campaign, articles have appeared in the Spectator, and Gaia Fawkes sums the position up brilliantly when they say:
“Politicians seem very keen to avoid a Net Zero Referendum. It’s a project without democratic legitimacy. Let the politicians who want us to eat bugs, have cold showers, lukewarm heat pumped houses, higher energy bills and far more expensive foreign holidays, make their case!”
As a group that came together to fight a referendum on membership of the EU, we thought we would ask you, what your views are on Net Zero, a possible Referendum, and more generally the environment.
Thanks to Peter Sonnex, Jeremy Wraith, Dr Tom Rogers, and Scott Neville for their responses.
Peter Sonnex, former Brexit Party candidate and political campaigner.
Is global warming a threat?
Global warming may be a threat to the planet, if only we knew! That the climate has always been in flux is true – so what is the ideal status quo or permanent reversal we are trying to engineer? And, at what cost, if our UK 1% contribution may amount to £1 Trillion to mitigate?
Climate and Covid catastrophists are one and the same – doing stuff just in case, if it saves just one ounce of carbon or one life. And, we know the government can’t do cost benefit analysis.
Should we have a referendum on enforced Net Zero targets?
Referenda are only offered when the establishment believes it can win. The Brexit result confirmed both arrogance and a lack of connection to the electorate. Neither the government, nor the opposition, will risk a climate referendum.
What action should we be taking on the environment?
Firstly, we must allow the developing world their industrial revolution. The world, where energy poverty is no longer a significant factor, will be in a better position to adapt to ever changing climactic conditions – perhaps even influence the most extreme effects.
Secondly, I think we should be pursuing nuclear power – capital plants, small modular nuclear reactors and fusion – with more vigour and investment. We should be emulating the example of our sun, not trying to fight against it.
With nuclear power comes the energy to desalinate and move water, ending the reality of water poverty and potential conflict. Hydrogen through electrolysis becomes entirely viable. Hydrogen can be stored, and with fossil fuels provide stored, potential energy and, therefore, energy security.
The CPA affirms that we have a duty to be the best possible custodians of God’s creation — our planet and its natural resources. We therefore have a developed programme of policies for greening the economy and transport, which you can find in our 2019 Manifesto (www.cpaparty.net).
Our approach to ‘climate change’ is a sensible and cautionary one. We have to be very careful about being panicked or coerced into measures that in themselves would be catastrophic to our industries, economy and human freedoms in response to alarmist claims of a ‘climate emergency’ and ‘climate extinction’. Contrary to the establishment narrative that ‘the science is settled’ (in itself an unscientific statement) the extent to which recent changes in temperatures are unnatural, dangerous to our survival and/or caused by human activity are questions still contested by many scientists, and which require much more open scientific freedom, investigation and debate than is currently being allowed. The earth’s climate after all has never been something static but has always been constantly changing and evolving in the absence of human presence or attempted control.
We would therefore implement effective but proportionate policies best in themselves for the environment and long-term provision for humanity, and not just because they reduce carbon omissions. It is right that we seek to eliminate pollution, continuously improve energy efficiency, increase recycling, and strive to further the use of renewable sources of energy, and we have detailed policies in all these areas which we would support also at a local level.
Potentially, it depends on how far it goes and I don’t believe we have sufficiently accurate data to know for sure. The important thing to consider is the word “threat”, is any of this a threat to the planet, no, the planet will be fine regardless. If the planet was going to boil away with a self-reinforcing loop of heating it would have done so millions of years ago. However any change is always a threat to some people (and potentially a benefit to others), so yes global warming or global cooling does pose a threat to some of humanity regardless how big or small. There could however be a big threat to humanity, I personally don’t believe all the doomsday predictions, but I accept I might be wrong, and I accept totalitarian government is a very big threat too.
Should we have a referendum on enforced Net Zero targets?
I am unsure. I don’t believe in enforcing many things is just, because the use of force against another is wrong, holding a referendum does not suddenly make me believe this is ok (as many found the presence of an EU referendum does not make their belief in themselves less European). I simply don’t agree with a tyranny of majority. Any referendum would be fought on religious grounds (the fastest growing religion of “the science”) and that will just lead to far more anger and fighting with everyone becoming more ideologically entrenched rather than trying to examine empirical fact and critically assess information presented.
What action should we be taking on the environment?
Waste is by far the biggest problem, filling up our landscapes with all this scrap, use once and throw away plastics. The debate is so skewed it’s all about paper vs plastic straws rather than “why do most people even need a straw?” or make sure that you put your plastic bottles in the correct bin rather than “you will be going back to the supermarket at some point, the lorry that delivers to the supermarket will go back to the factory, just take the damn bottles back and refill them”. Energy production needs to focus on nuclear, particularly research in nuclear fusion where the UK is already a world leader, bizarrely we don’t say much about our achievements despite our achievement in making Didcot the hottest place in the solar system (briefly) https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/didcot-was-hottest-place-in-solar-system-gj9wg258f.
You can read more about Scott and the Hampshire Independents in his interview with us, or listen to him one of our recent Podcasts.
This is the first set of your responses, further responses can be found in Part 2
We are joined by Peter Sonnex, former soldier and Brexit Party Parliamentary candidate, as we discuss the threat of domestic Covid Passports, the upcoming DEMOC Referendum and what Angela Raynor really thinks of you. We then chat with Peter about the shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan and the future security implications.
We are joined by Peter Sonnex, the former Brexit Party Parliamentary Candidate for Croydon Central, as we discuss the Vaccine Wars and Lisa Nandy being inspired by the proposal for a Woke Peace Force. We then chat about the plethora of emerging parties and the Democrats plan to impeach ex-President Trump.
Peter can be found on Twitter, and previous articles and podcasts are available here.
Now we have left the Transition Period we asked Brexiteers if they feel Brexit is now complete, for their hopes and their predictions for the future. Part 3 below more (parts 4 and beyond) to follow….. You can also read Part 1 and Part 2.
Crispin Williams local long term Brexit campaigner.
Did Brexit get done? My short answer is yes. If you had asked me on 23rd June 2016 if I would have been happy with the exit arrangements we now have, I would have ripped your arm off for them.
If you had asked me on 24th June 2016, I would have been disappointed with the 4½ year delay and the outcomes achieved. If you had asked me in May 2017 or in the months before, I would have been delighted with the current outcome.
So, overall, I am very happy. The 4½ year wait is miniscule in historic terms and will soon be forgotten. And what particularly pleases me is how Boris Johnson and his team have been able to claw back the amount of sovereignty they have from such a disastrous starting point bequeathed to them by Theresa May.
It’s a long way from the perfect Brexit but, given the politics involved and the large minority of dissenters to the whole idea, it is realistically as good an outcome as we were ever likely to get.
How do you hope the U.K. will use the new found freedoms? Ah, ‘hope’ versus ‘think’! I hope that we will widen our trading sphere, reduce bureaucracy and red tape, lower taxes to make the UK more attractive to invest in and invest the money saved in infrastructure projects that represent value for money. And control immigration so that all incomers are of genuine benefit to the country.
However, I worry that governments of all colours are inefficient, bureaucratically controlled and extremely wasteful of public money. If we can keep a government with the policies of the current one, we will come out much better off than before we left the EU, although probably not as well as we theoretically could. If, however, we get a Labour administration or even, in time, a Theresa-May type government, then I think things would back-slide to the point where we might as well have not left.
What constitutional reform would you like to see happen next? My initial answer is a negative one which is no Scottish independence. Although there seems to be an inevitable march towards demand for this, I cannot see how Scotland could operate as an independent nation; and if you think Brexit was complicated, just imagine how hard Scottish independence arrangements would be. Boris (or whoever) would need the very best negotiators to put Ms Sturgeon in her place as, for all her faults, she is a very shrewd politician.
In common with many people, I would like to see reform of the House of Lords. However, I am vehemently opposed to an elected chamber on the grounds that this would tend to mirror the lower house, it would lead to instability and, more pertinently, it would make it more party political. The Lords’ great strength is that its members can largely act on conscience without the worry of being deselected or voted out.
Below I give some examples of the kind of positions that might comprise the appointment committee. As I say, these are just examples and there can be much further debate as to the final choice.
The Prime Minister and, say, three leading cabinet positions
The Leader of the Opposition and one other Opposition position
The Leader of any other party with X number of seats in the Commons
The Speaker of the House of Commons
The Speaker of the House of Lords
The First Minister of Scotland
The First Minister of Wales
The Mayor of London
The Archbishop of Canterbury
The Prince of Wales
The Governor of the Bank of England
The General Secretary of the TUC
The Director-General of the CBI
The Chair of the Commission for Racial Equality
The Chair of the National Federation of Women’s Institutes
This would lead to a House of high quality people being elected by a committee with balanced views. Clearly, some of the above might also be Lords themselves.
The House of Lords would comprise 250 members, re-appointed on a staggered 10 year basis, with no restriction on the number of times a member could be re-appointed.
However, I would rather see the House of Lords remain as it is than become an elected chamber.
What do you think is next for the EU? I think the EU will stagger on for a long while yet. It will attempt to hoover up as many peripheral nations into membership as it can. The Euro will continue to be propped up until this becomes totally unsustainable. The collapse of the Euro, combined with an increase in nationalist parties being elected to governments, will probably eventually result in the EU’s demise in its current form.
However, I believe that it is in the UK’s interests that the EU does survive for, now we are out of it, it does offer useful advantages in terms of collective co-operation with other countries and, particularly, security from conflicts.
How do you think the U.K. should use the new found freedoms? Don’t fall into “protection” mode. Keep your markets open and get your taxes down.
What do you think is next for the EU? We don’t know really, we are running into a terrible debt (death) spiral. Covid is used to minimize freedom and to maximize what the governments are “allowed” to do. So we are quite sure that the BREXIT was soon enough for GB to not get into an ever larger EU with more laws and much less freedom.
Did Brexit get done? Yes essentially, trade deal is not perfect but considering the unwillingness of Brussels to broker a mutually beneficial deal it is a better outcome than expected.
How do you hope the U.K. will use the new found freedoms?Make improvements to trade agreement with the Commonwealth and other African countries especially. Change some foreign policy especially towards Israel and Iran and other Middle Eastern counties. Talks with Dublin to broker better relationship with them. Give financial incentives for any British industry that needs to improve productivity and can create wealth for us by building new plant.
What constitutional reform would you like to see happen next? Reformation to House of Lords and proportional representation.
What do you think is next for the EU? The UK success will incentivize more nations to leave. Also will need to refinance with major shortfall in their budget.
Did Brexit get done? Yes, legally. This ends the fight to achieve Brexit, leaving the peace to be won. I am mightily optimistic for our future as a global, generous, independent coastal nation.
Much of the government rhetoric is expressed in absolute terms, where it is clear our departure is conditional on significant alignment with institutions of the EU and the risk of an easy path to re-joining.
Practically, politically and subsequently, full sovereignty and control of money, laws, borders and fish were traded as an expedient to achieve the Trade and Cooperation Agreement – which goes much further than trade. Tariff and quota free trade is always the preferred trading understanding, though this should remain open for action in the national interest. With a £100Bn trade deficit with the EU, and wider trade opportunities opening up all the time – especially with Commonwealth Nations abandoned when we joined the EEC – we should not fear a tit-for-tat trade war; such are normal in adjustments to trade and diplomatic relations among sovereign equals acting in their own interests.
Of particular concern to me are:
We did not leave the EU as one United Kingdom. The longer term workings of the Northern Ireland Protocol remain to be seen. I am reassured by the measured approach of the Northern Ireland Assembly and that the Protocol will be subject to review in four years’ time. There are opportunities and risks. Vital self-determination is preserved as are the workings and institutions of the Belfast Agreement – a bilateral agreement between the UK and the Republic of Ireland and no one else, it should be remembered;
Defence, intelligence and security is less than autonomous for the UK. We know this well through our memberships with NATO, the United Nations and the 5-Eyes intelligence network. But, we remain bound to spending on EU Defence Programmes at least through our subscription to EU Horizon Europe. Even if we should refrain from becoming a troop contributing nation, where such may not be deemed to be in the national interest, we are still bound to funding defence, research, communications and other EU defence infrastructure – perhaps to further EU foreign policy with which we do not necessarily agree; Defence contracting remains bound by EU procurement laws. Tenders for UK defence contracts must be shared with the EU, even where this may be prejudicial to UK defence industry and jobs, perhaps even national security;
The UK fishing industry has been let down. Intent to rebuild the UK fishing industry was never signalled during TCA negotiations. £100M to energise the industry is a lame sop;
We remain bound, through the TCA hence international law, to the European Court of Human Rights. Though not an EU institution, the EHCR and the UK supporting legislation in the Human Rights Act have been counter to UK rights, responsibilities and immigration justice; and,
As we leave the EU, in the TCA a raft of new bureaucratic institutions are created. Whilst there is no doubt negotiations will be ongoing, we must be vigilant to their motives and operation, and ensure transparency and parliamentary scrutiny.
Ultimately, we must continue to hold our elected representatives to account and to their word, exactly as I said I would when standing for the Brexit Party in 2019. I meant it.
The barometer on our Brexit future is expressed well by Brexit-Watch here:
They assess the government’s performance on rhetoric and action, currently at 38% and 43% respectively.
If we do not trust our elected representatives, or do not like the direction they are taking us locally or nationally, we must change them. With so many available alternatives, I shall be advocating for people you can trust – so a vote other than for any established or establishment party currently represented it is then!
How do you hope the U.K. will use the new found freedoms? Cancelling VAT on sanitary products and banning electro-pulse fishing on Brexit Day One were low hanging fruit, showing a lack of government ambition and boldness. Pulse fishing was already banned by the EU other than for “scientific purposes’. Banning supertrawlers would have signalled far greater intent, protecting our single biggest natural and sustainable resource. Fishing protection was, and remains, the acid test for Brexit if, practically, Brexit is to be other than in name only.
Particularly in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic, I would like to see aggressive moves on economic stimuli; reducing taxation and funding enabling national infrastructure, such as broadband, nuclear energy (especially fusion energy), transportation, ports and housing.
Our parliamentarians, hitherto so used to EU initiatives, will be required to come up with their own. We can look to alternative media, such as Unlocked to lobby ideas:
What constitutional reform would you like to see happen next? Reclaim of reason, tolerance, manners, fairness, and common sense in our institutions; local government, education, civil service parliament and established church. For too long we have seen the rise and rise of the precautionary principle (better safe than sorry and just in case) with politically correct wokism stifling reasoned dissent and free speech. So-called social justice warriors have been polarising and divisive, leading to a situation where to be anti-racist is actually to be racist in one of the most tolerant and inclusive countries in the world.
The interview below with Laurence Fox, whom I have been supporting, makes the challenges clear:
The House of Lords, with over 850 unaccountable members must be reformed or abolished. Enough said there! Then there is the NHS…
What do you think is next for the EU? I am watching the progress of leave campaigns in other EU countries and supporting the French bid for a referendum (https://twitter.com/CH_Gallois & https://twitter.com/ReferendumUE). As the EU comes under increasing pressure by member states to be democratic, fair, effective and efficient – operating to their advantage, on balance, in the national interest – I see the EU having to reform enormously or fail as a project. This should not be feared, and those who claim the EU to be the only stabilising factor in post war peace are peddling a fear-mongering fallacy.
The institutions of the EU remain bloated and anti-democratic.
We are joined by Peter Sonnex from the Brexit Party as we discuss the latest COVID restrictions, the Internal Market Bill and whether it breaks “International Law” and the recent revelation of the wages of the BBC’s “stars”. We also consider the latest developments at Croydon Council and yet another leadership change for UKIP.
Finally, Peter talks to us about the Un-locked Group and how people can get involved.