British Democrats Could Have New Approach to Europe

By Jane Edwards.


At the Brit Dems AGM/Conference in Leicester, on November 23,  members have the opportunity to decide whether or not to accept  the following new paragraph to the end of the policy section on the European Union:

In line with the modern nationalist thinking particularly in France, The Netherlands and Austria, we would support the replacement of the European Union with a cooperative of sovereign European states.

It is being proposed by John Bean, who says that our potential voters see that mass immigration’s threat to our identity is now a  common European phenomenon that can only be tackled on a European-wide basis. He adds:

“Importantly, part of the residual support for the EU that still exists in the UK is down to people’s inbred reluctance for change. They may not like the dominance that the EU has over our national affairs but fear that if we withdrew all manner of economic calamities would  hit us. We could consider informing our voters that, although we would strip away the federal powers that the EU has given itself, we would convert the system, under entirely ‘new management’,  to put into practice the new co-operative of sovereign states for mutual trade benefit and a common immigration policy.”

Another point we could make is that this is a new line of thinking for nationalism in  Britain.

Interestingly, there is an article by Richard North in of 18/11/2013 which centres on the fact that YouGov and other polls have shown that support for staying in the EU is now on a par with those who believe we should leave. Furthermore, he says it represents a continuous year-long decline in support for leaving.  This led to Peter Kellner, husband of Baroness Ashton, (she earns £750,000 p.a. including perks as the EU ‘foreign ambassador’) putting the heading to a Telegraph report: “Britain is learning to put up with Europe”.

A key point to come out of the YouGov polls over the past year, according to Kellner, is that when people were asked about the immigration issue and EU, by far the biggest  group, 42 per cent, wanted Britain to break EU laws and restrict immigration, 22 per cent were happy with the present EU system, while 20 per cent would put up with them even though we don’t like them.

The message here would suggest that even though UKIP is likely to still win most UK regional seats for the EU next year it will not be as many as expected. Its anti-European image will now begin to shrink its support, whilst the pro-European but anti-federal dictatorship image of the British Democrats can only aid its long-term growth.

We need to continue stressing that two thirds of immigration to Britain is from outside Europe, which must be virtually halted. Immigrants from Continental Europe will be welcome where they have the skills required which are not sufficiently available among the British-born. We can pacify those who are frightened of economic mayhem if we leave the EU by stressing that along with fellow member nations of the European co-operative we are going to dismantle it.  Anything we retain – which will certainly not include the Euro –  could be run at less than one-tenth of present EU costs.

At present the net cost of the EU Budget to Britain was £10.8b in 2011 and rising, according to the Office for National Statistics “Pink Book”.  The gross cost to the UK is believed to be £65,000,000,000 and was calculated by the Bruges Group in 2008 ( It included £28 bn for business to comply with EU regulations, £17bn of additional food costs resulting from the Common Agricultural Policy and the £14.6 bn gross paid into the EU budget (now over £20bn).


Visit Brit Dems Media              Join the Brit Dems

22 thoughts on “British Democrats Could Have New Approach to Europe

  1. We DNA-homogenous Celto-Saxon-Nordics have been deliberately mentally dumbed-down, feminized and weakened through professional sport, entertainment, gossip, smut and supra-nationalist, race propaganda in the controlled MSM and ‘government’ educational centres (schools and unis formerly owned and run by the Christian churches).

    We have also been literally dumbed-down by loss of our best men in numerous engineered, unnecessary, bloody wars, abortion, contraception, and massive Marxist redistribution of wealth, generally from creative/productive to dull/unproductive.

    We imagine we cannot survive or thrive outside the burgeoning, bossy, bureaucratic EUSSR. We have developed a weird, childish dependency on our masters and oppressors.

    Deceived us sheeple into national suicide!

  2. This can only come about if one country leaves then starting a domino effect. The idea of changing it whilst still in just cannot work. The veto takes care of that. Mass ignoring of the rules might do something. Unfortunately we seem reluctant to break these rules. While most of the rest cherry pick which to obey and which to not.

  3. (Party Member) Our policy should remain that we leave the European Union straight away and develop the biggest, best and most vigorous Department Of Trade and Industry any Country has ever seen! Cameron is deceiving us as he knows the E.U. will never let us ‘cherry pick’ the regulations that we want to obey, so we need to get out now.

    Despite years of institutionalised European Unionism we still do more trade with the rest of the world than we do with the European Union! European Countries will still happily trade with us and we can happily trade with the best trading area. It’s called THE WORLD!

    1. Absolutely right John.

      We have to completely withdraw from the EU, then make foreign policy with each nation we trade with. This ‘one size fits all’ cobblers will never work in areas such as trade, where deviations in national figures vary so widely amongst the different nations involved.

    2. UKIP is actually HARMING the anti-EU cause. They are globalist Thatcherite non-entities and therefore haven’t got an economic policy which would enable us to take full advantage of our new found independence. This is where we in the BDP come in. We can show the British people that if we left the EU under a BDP government there would be nothing to fear for their jobs as our economic policies are nationalist. I think that if we have the referendum in 2017 or certainly earlier we on the anti-EU side of the argument would probably lose as many British people think all anti-EU campaigners are idiots like UKIP and haven’t got a plan for an orderly exit and certainly an economic approach which would enable a fruitful transition to independence.

  4. No no no. Leave the EU asap. We still have other trade ties with European countries and non EU countries which serve us better. The EU is a monster which needs destroying totally, and replacing with what it was meant to be all along.

    A trading agreement and a means of cooperation not enslavement.

    1. I agree with Edward Holmes. To get all the countries in the EU to agree to transform it would be almost impossible, and take many years. The polls seem to show that the majority of British people believe that we should leave the EU. The idea of change from within is something that the LibLabCon have been peddling for years, and frankly is very dishonest and I believe that the British public is beginning to see through this. If we appear to be saying something similar we would be indistinguishable from them and would be ignored or seen as saying the same thing. A clear policy of withdrawal is essential and in the national interest. Once one member state leaves it would create a domino effect with those others who are losing more than they gain leaving as well. This would leave only the member states that have more to gain, and are a net drain on others, along with probably Germany and France, who were the founders and still have vested interests in making this work. We would be free to trade once again with whoever we pleased, but more importantly would be free to run our own affairs. As a Democratic party we should be displaying to the electorate the anti-democratic nature of the EU. It is an argument for Democracy that we must leave immediately.

  5. We have to realise that our closest allies are the PEOPLES of Europe. They are not the enemy. It is the politicians who are every bit as corrupt as our own. We have so much in common and we should rejoice in the fact that Europeans are responsible for creating so many things of beauty be it architecture, literature, medicines or life changing inventions. The present EU is a disaster for all the peoples of Europe. We have woken up to the fact and it is for visionaries to offer a sensible alternative. They will be ridiculed along the way as many great men have before them but UKIP is being found wanting and the bubble will burst. We could offer a sensible alternative if we suggested an alliance of European nations willing to trade whilst protecting their cultural independence. It would allow us to control our own destiny and break away from the shackles of the Federalist and the puppet masters of the USA.

  6. It seems that Edward Holmes and Geoff Crompton have misunderstood what I have proposed – and supported here by Jane Edwards – on our attitude to Europe. We have never suggested that all we have to do is to somehow infiltrate the EU and transform it. This is impossible. The EU is undemocratic, quasi-Marxist and rotten to the core. It should be replaced by a co-operative system of sovereign European states, as already suggested by the Front National of Marine Le Pen and already supported by the kindred movements in The Netherlands and Austria. The choice of any offices required to run such a system will be available among those already occupied by the EU’ s commissioners and its lackeys.

    If at this dangerous time for our European civilisation, of which Britain has always been a major contributor, nationalists cannot move from isolation then I suggest that they join UKIP, which has a contemporary appeal for some, but has no long term answer to our problems and therefore must be excluded from the future.

    1. I think we can all be reconciled.

      People are so fed up with the EU controlling us that they fear than any suggestion of a new arrangement will end up as a pretext to continue in much the same way.

      My view is that we must leave – period – but at the same time constantly repeat that we need to form a new cooperative arrangement of independent states. There would be a lot of goodwill around once people realised the great escape had been made.

    2. Are you suggesting a loose confederation? I could live with that. I can see the attraction in European states co-operating on foreign and even defence policy to defend European interests with respect to the USA and China and India but apart from that the EU is an organisation that is an ‘answer’ looking for a problem to solve. Brussels does far too much and the powers it has should be devolved back to the nation states of Europe. Certainly, economic polices MUST be handed back as this policy area is the ‘bread and butter’ of domestic politics and is important for democratic legitimacy. General De Gaulle had it right ie the ‘Europe des Patries’

    3. My apologies for misunderstanding your proposition. A Europe that is united by a confederation of independent nations would be very acceptable to all nationalists, I’m sure. The ideal would be to disband the present federal EU and replace it with something far better and truly useful to the European people.

      However, I think that getting the electorate to understand the difference and to realise that we are proposing something more acceptable to our national interests would be very difficult for us to explain. The electorate have experienced the constant meddling of the EU and are beginning to realise the disadvantages of membership of this Union. At this stage should we not make it obvious that we distance ourselves from the same position as the other parties? UKIP are not advocating any replacement for the EU, that is true. They are Thatcherite Tories, also true. That doesn’t mean that we must confuse the electorate by having a policy of EU replacement, which would probably come across as unrealistic and idealistic. Nevertheless, please let’s not fall out over this as we agree that the EU is a monster and cannot be reformed, as the other parties dishonestly propose.

      The simple message of withdrawal from the increasingly disliked EU should be our immediate policy. One of proposing a new kind of European confederation should surely be left for the future in order not to confuse the electorate.

      1. That’s spot on Geoff.

        The thing is that Cameron is promising a new type of Europe by agreement. People know it’s all lies and any party that talks the same way is not likely to be distinguished as different from the Tories – whatever it says. BBBut we’re different!

        Sometimes you just have to keep it simple. Simpler than you’d like.

  7. Yes Steven, I have been pushing for a European Confederation, much on the lines of De Gaulle’s ‘Europe des Patries’ for more years than I care to remember. I regret that my motion to adopt a clause in our policy supporting Marine Le Pen’s European co-operative of sovereign European states was not accepted at our recent AGM. I understand that this was because it could be mistaken for support for the EU, which it was not.

    This is a pity. For those among the general public who have actually heard of the British Democrats they will continue to think that we are similar to UKIP except being a little stronger on opposition to immigration.

    1. As a party we need to make the public aware there are some large differences between us and UKIP. To combat them effectively, I suggest we outline that whilst we support free enterprise we are NOT so approving of it that the national interest is damaged. As nationalists we want to see business work within broad national guidelines. In short, in our nationalist view, business should be the SERVANT of the nation and NOT its master.

      UKIP is an ultra-Thatcherite, globalist Tory Party and the public need to be made aware of this.

  8. With regard to the ‘domino effect’, apparently there was consternation in Brussels/Berlin when The Ukraine suddenly changed their minds and decided at the last minute not to join. Also, Greece is to receive no bailout until May next year, if then, when it is needed to stop collapse right now. They may have no choice but to default. The EU masters cannot meet their budget requirements so keep promises they have made about infrastructure projects to new countries joining (Romania and Bulgaria). This is why VAT is going up everywhere to 20%. They are running out of other peoples’ money. How can there be ‘growth’ if people have no money to spend? The squeeze is getting particularly bad in France, as the socialist government, led by a weak and vacillating president, has no other way of raising money than by taxing.

    All in all, I would say that for those who wish to see a collapse of the ‘project’, things are going quite well.

    I agree with John Bean, up to a point.

  9. Be aware that your proposal of “immigrants from Continental Europe will be welcome where they have the skills required which are not sufficiently available among the British-born” may contradict your desire to halt non-white immigration (which I assume is the main reason for opposing Third World immigration – on grounds of preserving identity). I say this because continental Europe also has large populations of non-European descent. The assumption that the “European” one-third of immigrants to the UK total (the other two-thirds being from non-European nations) are all of European ethnic stock is a lazy one at best. Immigration of any kind is never a substitute for apprenticeships for those born here, so that there is no longer a situation where our people not have the “skills available” so they can get jobs, and so the dole queues go down. We need full employment, we need an education system that trains young people to work with real skills and not airy-fairy degrees in philosophy and media studies. We need a welfare system that does not discourage work and we must remember that every immigrant we let in – of whatever colour – will need housing and that means more of our precious Green Belt land being paved over.

  10. If you wish to make employing British people more enticing to the employer then pass a law that will make businesses that import and employ overseas labour rather than homegrown workers responsible for their education, healthcare, their housing costs and their visas….

    See how ‘profitable’ their cheap labour becomes then!

    1. The mania for employing immigrants has been based on a massive and deliberate deception. It had nothing to do with ‘enrichment’ unless you mean enriching some people.

      It’s no secret any more that Labour brought in immigrants as voters and to demoralise the British.

      Business has two reasons for wanting immigrant labour. Firstly, to dodge training costs. Secondly, to pay lower wages. New entrants are so happy to be getting bigger wages than at home they will work for less than the British people. For a while anyway.

      Business is free riding the rest of us who have to bear the resulting costs of supporting the unemployed British.

  11. …………”Firstly, to dodge training costs. Secondly, to pay lower wages. New entrants are so happy to be getting bigger wages than at home they will work for less than the British people. For a while anyway.”

    Indeed – and the fledgling “Left Unity” party will, like all other supposedly “left-wing” parties, be more interested in posing as the champion of the immigrants than dealing with the issues of joblessness, lack of training and wage depreciation that mass immigration causes. In this respect the “left” are useful idiots of the capitalists. Big business uses them to assault those who wish to defend the interests of the indigenous working classes.

    1. The really peculiar thing is how capitalists and the left have made common cause in promoting unlimited immigration – but for different reasons.

      No wonder people are flummoxed by what’s happening. It’s actually confusing until you analyse it.

      We are caught between the two jaws of a nutcracker.

  12. It is naive to say the least, to point out (and recommend that we must keep making the point) that two-thirds of immigration comes from OUTSIDE the EU. Correct, but the EU facilitates it – people get into any European country, obtain papers or whatever status AND THEN ARE FREE TO COME HERE. It is the porous EU borders that are the cause of our immigration problem.

Leave a Reply