The Party of British Identity
We recognise that the unique
character and enormous achievements of the British people can be attributed, to
a large extent, to their ancestry. Distinctive peoples are not the product of
distinctive cultures; distinctive cultures are the product of distinctive
peoples. The very existence of the indigenous population is under unprecedented
threat. The destruction of our people will lead to the destruction of our
heritage.
Nationality is acquired by
descent and unlike citizenship cannot be acquired by legal contrivance.
Citizenship should be based on Nationality but it has, quite wrongly, been
bestowed on people who are not British Nationals. Since 1948 there have been
enormous demographic changes without any consultation of the electorate.
The British Democratic Party is
committed to ending all immigration. Talking about reducing net immigration is to connive at the
replacement of the indigenous population. Illegal immigrants and immigrants who
have committed serious criminal offences would be repatriated immediately. Other
immigrants, especially the unassimilable ones, would be provided with incentives
to return to their countries of origin
and those countries would be provided with incentives to welcome them.
Our brand of Nationalism is
certainly a commodity for export; it can also be imparted to the ethnic
minorities in our midst. Why should they settle for being second-class ersatz
Britons when they can become proud members of their own peoples.
Laws that provide immigrants
and ethnic minorities with preferential treatment would be repealed.
Asylum seekers would be
accepted only if they had been singled out for ill treatment and if
Britain were the first safe country
they encountered. Asylum seekers who travel through or over several safe
countries before arriving in Britain become migrants of choice.
Successful applicants for asylum status would be permitted to stay until a safe
country in their own part of the world could accommodate them.
Sovereignty of the United
Kingdom
The United Kingdom must withdraw from all
international organisations that encroach on our sovereignty, by taking
executive legislative or judicial decisions on behalf of Britain. We
would therefore withdraw the United Kingdom from membership of the
European Union completely. Our membership of all other international
organisations must be considered carefully and, if necessary, renegotiated to
prevent any undermining of our sovereignty.
We support our continued
membership of the United Nations and we would resist any attempt to give up or
take away our permanent seat on the Security Council. We should seek to use that seat to protect the
interests of Britain and our friends and to
promote international peace and good will. We would oppose the use of that seat
to promote the partisan policies of other states.
The Territorial Integrity of the United
Kingdom
We would oppose absolutely any
move to break up the United
Kingdom by independence for Scotland or the ceding of Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland.
We accept the current
devolution arrangements for Northern Ireland. However, we view
with dismay the inclusion of unrepentant IRA gunmen in the governance of the
Province.
The fact that
Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland have devolved Assemblies or Parliaments, means that it would be appropriate for
England, too, to have a devolved
Parliament, provided that there were electoral support for it expressed in a
referendum.
The European Union
We cannot tolerate membership
of an international organisation that can legislate for the United
Kingdom directly (in the case of regulations)
and indirectly (in the case of directives). Still less can we accept that EU
legislation takes precedence over our Common Law and Acts of Parliament. We
cannot accept its executive decisions affecting us and we cannot tolerate the
decisions of the European Court of Justice overriding those of our courts.
We are concerned to reverse its intrusions on
our immigration and asylum policy, our home affairs and justice systems, our
foreign policy and our defence policy. In the meanwhile, we must resist all
attempts to promote greater integration.
However, the European Union is
not only a constitutional threat. It is also economically, fiscally and
commercially disastrous for Britain.
We are one of the highest net
contributors to the EU. Our gross contribution costs us over £50 million for
each day of the year. We have little
control over how money received back from the EU is spent.
It is not acceptable for the
United
Kingdom to be part of a Single Market,
regulated by the EU and over which we exercise no control. It is for our elected
Parliament to determine our trading arrangements.
Our industry and commerce must
be free from the minute regulations about goods and services produced and people
employed.
The Common Fisheries Policy has
all but destroyed our fishing industry. Whilst we supplied most of the fishing
grounds, our fishermen have suffered under
minimal quotas and crippling reductions in the number of days
they are allowed to fish.
The Common Agricultural Policy
with its intervention policy has led to high food prices for all.
The European Union is not
content with the powers it already has: it is continually seeking more. It has
already intruded into civil and criminal
procedural law (including the unjust European Arrest Warrant) and has
ambitions to harmonise substantive civil and criminal law. In particular it
wants to stifle what is left of our freedom of expression on immigration, asylum
and ethnicity.
We have, quite rightly,
remained outside the Euro-zone. A single external currency value and a common
interest rate cannot be appropriate for seventeen different economies – still
less twenty- seven (soon to be twenty-eight).
Whilst we are opposed to the
European Union, we are not Anti-European. We recognise and value the overlapping
ancestral, cultural and historical ties of all of the European peoples, both
inside and outside the present EU. We would seek to strengthen our friendly
relations with our neighbours on our Continent but we are not prepared to pool
our sovereignty.
Our System of Government
We support the system of
Constitutional Monarchy and believe that the person who succeeds by law to be
our monarch should occupy the position of Head of State of the United
Kingdom. The monarch must, of course, be
capable of resisting attempts by party politicians to use the monarchy for its
own purposes.
We believe in Parliamentary
Democracy and in Cabinet Government responsible to the United Kingdom
Parliament.
The Head of Government would of course continue to be the Prime
Minister. However, we believe in the use of a referendum to consider every
question of major national importance.
Democracy is too delicate a
flower to be left to the free market.. Parties must not be capable of being
bought and sold to the highest or most powerful bidder. Indeed they must be free
from those who support, financially, all parties but the unfavoured ones.
Corporate donations from
companies, trade unions and pressure groups must be prohibited. Individual
donations must be limited in size and frequency.
Unlike the other parties, we
believe in freedom of expression for all: for our opponents as well as our
friends. This freedom of expression must be guaranteed by law. The only
exceptions, in the political sphere, should be advocacy of violence, breach of
official secrets legislation and civil
remedies for defamation.
We believe in freedom of the
press and broadcasting media. However, that freedom must not be a freedom to
lie, defame and support the media’s friends. There must be prohibitions on the
press acting as an election sponsor that is exempt from limits on electoral
expenditure. There must be affordable and effective means of challenging
untruths, especially during an election campaign. There must be a statutory
right of reply.
Freedom of the press and broadcasting media
is not enough. There must be freedom of access to the press and broadcasting
media for all parties – particularly at election time. In particular, there must
be a statutory right of reply to allegations and slurs in the press and
broadcasting media.
Local government boundaries
must reflect local identifications and loyalties.
Law and Justice
We are determined that England and Wales
should continue to use their Common Law System, with judicial precedent and its
adversarial form of trial. Scotland and Northern Ireland
would remain free to continue to use their own systems that are guaranteed by
law.
The strength of our criminal
justice system lies in regulated police procedure, an independent prosecution
service and trial by jury.
The civil actions for the recovery of debts by individuals and
small and medium sized business must be made more efficient. Small businesses
must be protected from vexatious claims.
Our criminal law must provide
strong deterrent and preventative sentences for repeat offenders and those
convicted of the worst crimes.
Whilst some first time offenders react favourably
to rehabilitative sentences, there are others who require strong specific
deterrent sentences to dissuade them from committing further offences.
Furthermore, it is necessary to have dissuasive general deterrent sentences for
potential offenders. A significant minority of offenders are irredeemable
recidivists from whom society needs protection for a long, indefinite
period.
The question of whether or not
a sentence of capital punishment should be available to the courts for people
convicted on conclusive evidence of the worst categories of murder should be
decided by a referendum.
Individual Freedoms
The Human Rights Act (a
codification of the European Convention on Human Rights) would need to be
repealed and replaced by a British Fundamental Freedoms Act that would
concentrate on the freedoms essential to a democratic and civilised society. We
would seek inspiration from our own
Common Law, historic charters and statutes for the preservation of our rights
rather than less than perfect continental role models.
Our priority must be to protect
and extend those freedoms that are essential to a civilised and democratic
society: freedom from torture, ill treatment, cruel and unusual punishments;
freedom of expression; freedom of association; freedom of assembly; and freedom
to contest and to campaign in elections
Freedom of expression must be
subject to the fewest exceptions (such as clear advocacy of violence).
Freedom
of association must include the freedom to form and shape parties and groups
without any interference from the state.
All race relations legislation
must be repealed. It is either undesirable, unnecessary or both. We do not
believe that the recipients of goods and services from the private sector need
to be protected by discrimination legislation.
We believe that employees must
have protection from unfair dismissal, for example when carried out on account
of the employee’s political beliefs or affiliations. However, the concept of
unfairness does not need to be reinforced by discrimination legislation.
We do not believe that the
recipients of goods and services from the private sector need to be protected by
discrimination legislation.
We do not accept that there
should be restrictions on freedom of expression to accommodate a supposed
freedom not to be offended.
We recognise that the Police
and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is one of the most necessary pieces of
legislation, protecting suspects and investigating officers from false
accusations. It matches the provision of necessary investigative powers to the
police with safeguards for the rights of suspects.
Foreign Policy and Defence
We must first of all assert
our complete control over our own
foreign policy. Our withdrawal from the European Union would immediately free us
from whatever involvement we might have in an EU common foreign policy, with the
High Representative and the European External Action Service.
We must not allow our foreign
policy to be hijacked by other states. In particular, we must avoid any partisan
involvement in the Middle East or exploitation by the United
States administration of our supposed special
relationship with that country.
We do not want
Britain to carry out the role of the
world’s policeman. Our service personnel must not be sent to die in foreign wars
in which we have no vital interests at stake.
We are not indifferent to the
need to maintain world peace and we would use our permanent position on the UN
Security Council to that end but we would not send our servicemen to die in
other nations’ conflicts.
Our foreign policy must be
dictated by the need to protect our people, our territory and our vital
interests.
We have no animosity towards
any state or people and we would endeavour to maintain peaceful relations with
all. However, we would defend ourselves against any aggressor with vigour and
determination.
Our opposition to sending our
troops to die in foreign wars should not be understood to mean that our present
level of service personnel is too high. We are aware that real threats to our
people, our territory and our vital interests can occur at any time without
being predicted by the security services. We must have the men ready to meet any
threat to our nation, at a moment’s notice.
Even in peacetime troops can
be, and are, deployed to deal with civil
emergencies, including intentional disorder. They will also be needed to help to
guard our borders against mass immigration.
Our troops must be in a
permanent state of readiness and protected by life-defending equipment of the
highest quality.
Britain must neither be a warmonger intent on pointless wars, nor
a nation of pacifists and appeasers. We should enjoy peace as a legacy of the
strength and resolution to defend what is ours.
Our forces have sometimes have
been weakened by ill-considered defence cuts which has then resulted in huge
unnecessary expenditure. This is best exemplified by the removal of HMS
Endurance from patrols around the Falklands Islands in 1981. This was seen by
Argentina as an invitation to
invade.
We are determined that
Britain must retain an independent
nuclear deterrent. A nuclear war would be a nightmare but the way to prevent it
is for responsible nations like ours to retain our power of ultimate
resistance.
Education
We alone among the parties
acknowledge that observed differences in academic ability are attributable to
differences in heredity to a greater extent than to differences in nurture.
However, we see these as differences in
kind of ability as much as differences
in level of ability. It is therefore important that the type of schooling received depends on the abilities
of the children concerned.
We are in favour of selection
but we do not favour the old style of selection that condemned many children,
often unfairly, to an inferior form of secondary education. There was lack of
uniformity in the method of selection and even in the percentages of pupils
allowed to pass. Secondary moderns were often starved of resources.
We should see future selection
as being on the basis of vertical divisions between types of ability rather than
horizontal divisions between levels of ability. However, all selection must be
uniform, flexible and subject to regular reviews. Schools (or streams within the
same school) for the less academic should not be allowed to provide an inferior
quality of education.
Schools for all pupils must receive equivalent
funding.
Primary education must ensure
that all capable children, without exception, are functionally literate,
numerate and capable of using information technology. Early diagnosis of
impediments to learning is essential to the provision of a fair educational
system.
There are many other qualities,
apart from academic ability that need to be recognised and nurtured in children:
a spirit of inquiry; honesty; reliability; sporting ability and teamwork. These qualities
are just as important.
Religious education in ordinary
state schools would be taught from a non-denominational Christian perspective.
However, it would not be unduly prescriptive. Parents would continue to have a
right to withdraw their children from such classes.
Discipline must be restored to
our schools. Those whose disruptive behaviour does not respond to the corrective
policies of the school must be removed and taught in separate
institutions.
In our view, university
education has expanded beyond need and beyond the ability of the economy to
absorb graduates in positions commensurate with their expectations, degrees
and educational outlay. This expansion
led inexorably to the end of maintenance grants and the charging students with
tuition fees. The result of all of this is that nearly all graduates, apart from
those from very rich families, leave university with enormous debts.
Furthermore, they often have to accept jobs that would have been available to
them as school leavers. We should explain to those who wish to join the
professions, including the law and accountancy, that there are alternative
routes, without the need to go to university.
We believe that those with the
finest intellects, whose intelligence is matched by conscientiousness and a need
for their field of study, should be able to earn the right to have their tuition
fees to be paid and even to receive a maintenance grant.
The United Kingdom
needs to have the benefits of a new industrial revolution. This would require an
education system that pushes education in science and technology to the head of
its priorities.
Economic Policy
We believe in private
enterprise but we do not subscribe to the view that there should be no economic
regulation by the state. We would pursue a policy of Economic Nationalism.
In particular, we do not
believe in unrestricted international trade, when it has plainly destroyed much
of our manufacturing industry. We would seek the re-building of our
manufacturing industry with state assistance if necessary. Globalisation – the
free movement of goods, services and even people around the world can have only
one result: that all wage levels throughout the world will approximate to the
same level.
Macro-economic policy must be
based on the principle that what is
physically possible must be
financially possible, otherwise there is something wrong with the financial
system. This means that if there unemployed workers and unsatisfied needs that they could fulfil, the
financial system must facilitate the satisfaction of those needs.
The current financial system is
one in which much of the money supply is created by private banks on the basis
of the banks’ need to make a profit, rather than the needs of the economy. The
quantity and form of money in circulation must be under the control of the Bank
of England, which must be independent of the government of the day.
The ways in which governments
of different political persuasions try to reduce unemployment and restore
business activity are many and varied. Both the Keynesian and Friedmanite approaches are flawed. We
need a system that quickly causes activity to return without causing inflation
by precipitate increases in demand. We
need to produce reflation without
inflation.
The Structure of Business
We favour private enterprise
for most areas of the economy. However, we believe that natural monopolies such as the
postal system and eventually the railways should be publicly-owned, in the form of public
corporations.
We believe that private
enterprise should be extended to as many people
as possible by encouraging: self
employment; small and medium sized businesses; employee share ownership
schemes, such as those provided by
Marks & Spencer; and full employee partnership, such as the John Lewis Partnership/ Waitrose.
We do not approve of the
process of Globalisation or the political and
economic ideology. of Globalism, which advocates the process. However, global and
multi-national companies are a fact in the modern world If it were not for Honda
and Nissan plants in the UK, we should have a much depleted car manufacturing
industry.
If global or multi-national
companies wish to sell their products in Britain, the assumption is that they should manufacture
their goods in Britain, employing British people.
We would review carefully such
practices as transfer pricing, whereby global corporations seek to transfer
their profits overseas to avoid paying taxes to the Exchequer.
In the longer
term, of course we should like to
re-establish British manufacturing industry, owned by British companies. We believe that British
utilities should be controlled by British companies.
Social Welfare and Housing
When suitable jobs are
available, claimants must be expected to
seek them. Neither the state nor the claimants can be complacent about the
problem of the long-term unemployed.
However, it serves no purpose for state
officials to harass claimants to apply for jobs that do not exist. The state has
a duty to ensure that work is provided to satisfy real needs, so there are no
long term unemployed.
The present perceived need to
build more and more houses on precious green field sites is fuelled by endless
large scale immigration. If we were to stop immigration and put the process into
reverse, the housing crisis would disappear.
In the meanwhile, people with
local roots must receive statutory preference over recent arrivals.
Health
We are completely committed to
the National Health Service. However, we are concerned that the National Health
Service has become international, both in its service providers and in
patients.
Medical practitioners and
nurses are often looted from Third World
countries that can ill afford to train them. It is utterly immoral for the
developed world to recruit health care staff from poor countries, when those
workers are needed to care for their compatriots at home.
We need to help poor countries
to train their brightest and best to become medical practitioners and nurses,
with distance learning packages managed by volunteers – especially by those with
ties to the countries in question. The beneficiaries of this help would be
contractually bound to devote their careers to the care of their own
people.
Britain
has talented and conscientious people within our own populations who can easily
be educated and trained to provide the full range of medical services. The GMC
has revealed that doctors trained abroad are disproportionately likely to be
struck off or suspended for misconduct or incompetence.
The National Health Service was
established on the assumption that it would provide care for the British people
and not the peoples of the whole world. Health tourists must not be allowed to
use the services of the NHS.
The administrative costs of the
health service are disproportionately high. There must be a shift of funding
towards those providing health services directly to the patient.
Agriculture
Agriculture and stock keeping
constitute a sector of the economy that, more than any other, cannot be left to
the vagaries of the free market. Government intervention is essential. The survival of our agricultural
sector is more important than any other.
Firstly our very survival might
depend, in emergencies, on our ability to feed ourselves. Secondly if any
further agricultural land were to be lost to urbanisation, we should be saying
good bye to rural Britain.
The sector must be supported
because the market conditions are quite different. Demand is price inelastic and
supply is also inelastic in the short term because it is dependent on forces
outside of the control of the producer. Prices must not be left to market
forces.
Our preference would be for
deficiency payments that keep prices low rather than the EU system of
intervention which pushes prices up.
The
Environment
We extend our concern for the indigenous British people to
the welfare of the environment of our national homeland, the British Isles. We regard the principal threat to our
environment as lying in the excessive and ever rising overcrowding of our
islands.
Our homeland is not just full up. It is bursting at the
seams. England and
Wales in particular, where the
overwhelming majority of our people live, has become one of the most densely
peopled areas of its size in the world, far more crowded than our major European
neighbours. The cause of that is Immigration.
Most of the unprecedented 3.7 million increase in thee
population of England and
Wales in the ten years to the last,
2011, Census is officially admitted to be the result of ongoing Immigration.
The rest is due to higher birth rates amongst ethnic groups of post-1948
Immigrant origin.
In our view overcrowding causes almost all the other
problems afflicting our environment. Urban sprawl, the unrelenting pressure to
build ever more houses on what remains of our countryside to house ever more
people, and to use ever more intensive farming methods to try to feed them.
These intensive farming methods are recognised as the main threat to our native
wildlife, notably wild birds. Overcrowding also strains our transport system,
resulting in jam-packed motorways and commuter trains.
Worse in the long run, the fact that our islands now have
far more people jammed onto them than they can sustainably support or feed means
we are ever more dangerously dependent on an ever more complex, ever more
fragile web of global trade for food, fuel, energy and vital raw materials.
We would therefore protect the environment of the
British Isles and the quality of life of the
British people by stopping all further Immigration completely. Our islands are
full up and cannot take any more people settling on them. We would further, as
already stated, encourage Immigrant communities to return to their countries of
origin.
Given that the birth rate amongst the native British
population has fallen substantially below replacement levels, if our land were
inhabited only by its own people the population of our islands would stabilise
at an environmentally sustainable level giving a much improved quality of life
for all. That is our aim.
Culture
We maintain that the settlement of our country by large
numbers of foreign people from around the world does not enrich our culture or
promote multi-culturalism and diversity. On the contrary - the effect, here and
around the world, of mass migration is, we believe, to impoverish everyone’s
culture, destroying diversity and replacing it
with a commercialised homogenised global lowest-common-denominator pop
planet-wide monoculture which benefits no-one except for the giant multinational
corporations whose worldwide marketing this makes easier.
In contrast as Nationalists we support real diversity. We
want a sustainable multi-cultural world of diverse nations rather than the
destruction of every culture – and the diverse ethnicities that uniquely created
it - everywhere in the name of Big Business-driven global pop monoculture.
We would therefore maintain and enhance our nation, with
its ancient ethno-cultural identities, Scots, Ulster, Welsh, Cornish, Manx and
last but not least English, our traditional folk cultures and musical heritages,
and the languages underlying them, as a hotspot of rich indigenous cultural
diversity.
We would encourage other peoples and nations around the
world to do likewise. Thus the world will not lose everyone’s culture in a
homogenised mass mess but instead celebrate and preserve the rich cultural
diversity, heritage and ethnicities of the World.
On a global level, and in the long run, we Nationalists are
the only true friends of multiculturalism and diversity, which those who parrot
those Politically Correct catch-phrases would in fact destroy, for everyone
everywhere
