Originally Posted by cassie

For the EDP's aim to be realised, the composition of the Commons must be radically changed,

Originally Posted by Englishman

You now look like anti English childish ***** to new members. :roll:

Originally Posted by Hereward the Wake

If all non-English MPs were removed Labours majority would fall from 66, to the eqivalent of 52*. Hardly a radical change.


There are currently 14 members of Eurosceptic parties elected to parliament. Not one of them sits in an English seat.

*The actual majority would be 43, but due to a smaller total number of MPs it would act like a majority of 52 in the current UKwide parliament.

Originally Posted by Hereward the Wake

If all non-English MPs were removed Labours majority would fall from 66, to the eqivalent of 52*. Hardly a radical change.

There are currently 14 members of Eurosceptic parties elected to parliament. Not one of them sits in an English seat.

*The actual majority would be 43, but due to a smaller total number of MPs it would act like a majority of 52 in the current UKwide parliament.

Originally Posted by Andrew Constantine

Are you sure about the figures? I thought New Labour had some 50 plus MPs in Parliament from Scottish seats. I assume that all are pro EU.

On the face of it, without these Scottish MPs, New Labour's majority would be almost wiped out.

Originally Posted by cassie

1) If you visit the EDP site, its official policy is summed up as "Our objective is the creation of an English Parliament within the United Kingdom."
(This is the window I found amongst all the mish mash: http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/general.php )

Therefore, I am not sure what 'break up' you mean in 1) This policy would not seem to require dismantling the UK. On the other hand, to the extent that it is based on the status quo, it does not preclude it.

Hazarding an opinion, the more of the EDP's members happy to retain the UK (or perhaps a re-negotiated one), the less likely it is to change that policy into one of demanding independence.

For the EDP's aim to be realised, the composition of the Commons must be radically changed, and most of its unrepresentative Members removed. Therefore, the UK is unlikely to be significantly more susceptible to the 'rape' you allude to than now. The most urgent consideration must be security, which transcends even the "Fighting over the dwindling amount of power our people have . . " I don't understand the reference to 20% - 80%, save to say, the EDP would be primarily concerned with the 83% of UK citizens living in England, but not exclusively - that would be irresponsible!

2) This is referred to above ie "For the EDP's aim to be realised, the composition of the Commons must be radically changed, etc ". Concomitant with that will be a Commons replete with anti-EU Members. Consequently, the EDP's other principal policy of actually conducting a referendum on the question of continued EU membership (which includes the option of leaving) could be effected. ( http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/eurounion.php )

Does this take things further for you?

Originally Posted by Soddball

Either you misunderstood me, or you are a [SNIPPED - let's keep this friendly please]. Which is it?

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Sorry, there is no real attempt to answer my questions here. Nothing the English Democrats are doing acheives anything to get anti-EU members into parliament. Nothing at all. It makes assumptions that there would be no grief between the home nations, which is absurd.

It makes assumptions that English MPs are in some way more EUsceptic, which is simply wrong.

You say you don't want a split, but that's not what your other comrades are saying.

Come on, have a real go at answering my points. I don't really believe a word your site says anymore, so please give me the answers, to the problems I have pointed out.

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

1) The break up will be smooth, IE there will be no arguing over resources, money, oil, weapons, borders, etc. Where will the net benefit for any of the countries be in this and what is to stop the EU continuing it's rape of all the countries while our attention is on this issue. Fighting over the dwindling amount of power our people have seems like total folly to me. Explain why the English democrats are more concerned with the 20% and falling part and not the 80% part.

2) The new English parliament, being full of the same traitors who took us and kept us in the EU, will just further take us even deeper, beyond the point of no return. Wales and Scotland also get thrown in so deep, that in the end we are using Euros, have no borders because we are EU and are 100% all fully controlled by Brussels anyway. That'll solve 1), but we will be the EUs b****.

Originally Posted by Tom Wilde

Here are the results for Scotland from the last election, on the BBC website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2...l/region_7.stm

Labour 41
Lib Dem 11
SNP 6
Conservative 1

Take away Scotland, therefore, and Liebour's total would fall by 41, but the total for other parties would fall by 18, so the reduction in Liebour's majority would be 23. Therefore if Labour's majority is currently 66, then without Scotland their majority over all other parties would be 43.

However, Hereward did say without any non-English MPs, so I assume we are looking at a case in which Wales and NI also left the UK. NI leaving increases Labour's majority by removing 18 non-Labour MPs (including all 14 from Eurosceptic parties!). Therefore Labour's majority without Scotland and NI would be 61.

In Wales, the totals are:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2.../region_10.stm

Labour 29
Lib Dem 4
Conservative 3
Plaid Cymru 3
Other 1

(UKIP came 5th in terms of votes, but no MPs, alas)

Therefore the total Labour majority without Scotland, Wales or NI would be 61-29+4+3+3+1 = 43.

Unless my maths is dodgy, natch. Still, it looks to me as if Hereward has his numbers right.