Originally Posted by Richard the Lionheart:
I will try and answer your question.

The EFP are a far right party, we are not. We do not judge a person by the colour of their skin. For us, it's about attitude. If you feel English, act English, and care about England, that's good enough for us. Look at the examples of Nasser Hussein and Ian Wright. I would say they are more English than the rabble that infest the House of Commons.

The EDP support a devolved English parliament within the British state. We believe in a sovereign independent nation state of England. The system of governments proposed by the EDP and Free England vary significantly.

In addition, we are the only one of the three that is calling for a referendum for the people of England to choose whether or not they want to remain in the union with reference to the vote being proposed in Scotland for the Scots to choose independence or continued GB/NI membership.

Thank you for your reply!

I have to disagree with your definition of who is English (Angle-ish) - as you might expect I endorse the definition given in my signature.
[Rep]

As far as I'm concerned "the English" are an ethnic group. English nationals are people who came later. That is, they would be nationals if England were an independent country. They are at present British nationals. The ethnic groups of all peoples will always be of the racial and cultural type that gave them their existence historically. If you can no longer find any Indians some day, then Indians as an ethnic group will have ceased to exist in the same way that Etruscans and Thracians and Scythians have ceased to exist. And in the same way that many native American nations are beginning to vanish by cross-breeding. You'll find that those who wish to re-establish an ethnic Sioux or Apache, or whatever, will need to exclude certain individuals from the tribal or national context in order to re-establish that context. Otherwise all they will be is "Americans". Nothing wrong with that as some people like the big collective context, but others prefer the smaller compact collective of the nation.
[Rep]

Just think,efp=bnp and the reverse of course.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Hartlepool:
Just think,efp=bnp and the reverse of course.

Thank you for helping to enlighten me, Hartlepool.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Like The Roman:
Thank you for helping to enlighten me, Hartlepool.

Are you seriously saying that you were unaware of the efp/bnp linkup?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Hartlepool:
Are you seriously saying that you were unaware of the efp/bnp linkup?

I knew the founder of The English First Party was a former BNP member.
[Rep]

The bnp hijacked the Union flag,and the efp hijacked the English flag.

Is this because they are both really EU and Governmental led anti Britain and anti England parties intent on breaking up both of them?

This is the way covert destruction of Democracy has worked in the past in the EU and in this country,is it a possibility?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Like The Roman:
Thank you for your reply!

I have to disagree with your definition of who is English (Angle-ish) - as you might expect I endorse the definition given in my signature.

A fair point, but as successive governments have given out British passports to those who don't fit that description, we're kinda stuck with it.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Frith:
As far as I'm concerned "the English" are an ethnic group. English nationals are people who came later. That is, they would be nationals if England were an independent country. They are at present British nationals. The ethnic groups of all peoples will always be of the racial and cultural type that gave them their existence historically. If you can no longer find any Indians some day, then Indians as an ethnic group will have ceased to exist in the same way that Etruscans and Thracians and Scythians have ceased to exist. And in the same way that many native American nations are beginning to vanish by cross-breeding. You'll find that those who wish to re-establish an ethnic Sioux or Apache, or whatever, will need to exclude certain individuals from the tribal or national context in order to re-establish that context. Otherwise all they will be is "Americans". Nothing wrong with that as some people like the big collective context, but others prefer the smaller compact collective of the nation.

At least you are nearer a proper definition of an English person than these PC micro-parties. Haven't we got enough PC parties ie Labour, Liberal Democrats, CONServatives, Greens, Respect ect, ect?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Independence Now!:
At least you are nearer a proper definition of an English person than these PC micro-parties. Haven't we got enough PC parties ie Labour, Liberal Democrats, Conservatives, Greens, Respect etc, etc?

Why is a 'proper definition of an English person' needed?

Were 'proper definitions' of being Scottish and Welsh needed before they were given their devolved powers?

Why is this navel gazing nonsense constantly indulged in about the English? It's not needed either for the creation of a separate English Parliament or for England to separate from the UK!


_______________________
[Rep]