My Attitude to the English Democrats
By Andrew Brons MEP
Posted by admin on Jun 12th, 2011 to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
In the European Election campaign I regarded the English Democratic Party as an establishment safety valve party — a spoiler party to attract votes from those who might otherwise vote for us. Nothing that I have learned since has led me to doubt this conclusion.
Furthermore, the Party is inherently unsound ideologically. Its membership is open only to people resident in England — Scots, Welsh and people from Northern Ireland need not apply.
They are not nationalists who understand our distinction between nationality and citizenship; they are civic nationalists.
When the ED wanted to use somebody to represent the plight of English students, it felt that they were most appropriately exemplified by an Asian student.
Even if the BNP disappeared into the ether or if I were to be expelled for contesting the leadership, I would sit as an independent rather than ever join the English Democrats.
If the English Democrats were the last party on the face of the earth, I would not join them.
I hope that I have made my position completely clear.
Why then do I employ ex-members who have joined them?
Firstly, people with more than one year’s continuous employment have the right not to be dismissed unfairly.
Secondly, I do not believe in sacking people because of the political stand that they take; that is what happens to our members in the wider world.
Thirdly, they are genuine nationalists, even though the party they have joined is not.
Fourthly, we must ask why they joined the English Democrats.
They were expelled or suspended as part of the civil war that our Chairman and his friend (employed by him despite being the leader of the National Liberal Party) wage against anybody suspected of the slightest disagreement.
Chris Beverley was suspended for attending a meeting at which he did not speak a word.
I deplore his choice of party but that is not a reason for sacking him.
Chris Beverley is the most efficient and effective office manager/personal assistant whom one could hope to employ.
That civil war started with the removal of Eddy Butler from our Chairman’s employment when his plan in 2010 to call an EGM and replace the Chairman was discovered.
Its consequence was not the silencing of Eddy Butler, but his enforced freedom from any constraint by our Chairman.
It led inexorably to the Eddy Butler website on which criticisms of our Chairman have been posted. Removing Eddy Butler from his employment was not our Chairman’s brightest idea.
It must be remembered that our Chairman was exhorted to dissuade the Kirklees branch from defecting to the English Democrats.
His reply was “No, I want them all (his critics) to go (to the English Democrats).”
The call for an EGM and plan of a leadership challenge by Eddy Butler and his friends would certainly have failed.
It must be remembered that the Party had been told untruthfully that its accounts “were in the black,” when in fact it was in debt to the tune of £580,000 [Emphasis mine, AE].
Eddy Butler’s plan to call an EGM from the Advisory Council and to challenge the leadership were perfectly constitutional.
I did not at the time consider that they were necessary or desirable, but that is not the point.
The civil war started by our Chairman was completely unnecessary, even from his own perspective.
That civil war and the response to it have lost us a third of our membership and a majority of our activists.
I have criticised Eddy Butler’s website for disillusioning members without providing them with a strategy or even keeping them in contact.
When a strategy was devised, it was simply advice to join a civic nationalist party.
However, Eddy Butler did not start the civil war. That was started by our Chairman and his friend.