Chat with us, powered by LiveChat


England Denied a Voice in Brexit Talks

Negotiation Table 1

Yesterday the UK Prime Minister had a meeting with the leaders of Scotland, Wales, & N. Ireland Parliaments. England was again excluded from those talks as the British Government continually deny England the same democratic rights they enjoy.

The English Democrats are the only party standing up for England, Campaigning for an English Parliament, with First Minister and directly elected MPs, to give the people of England a voice at the UK table.

Article from–finance.html

LONDON (Reuters) – British Prime Minister Theresa May will urge the devolved nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to “listen to business” at a meeting on Wednesday and back her Brexit deal, which envisages continuing close ties with the EU.

A day after her government said it would implement plans for a no-deal Brexit in full, May was due to stress how her deal works for all parts of Britain, her office said.

“I am confident that what we have agreed delivers for the whole of the UK,” she was due to say ahead of the meeting.

“That’s why it is more important than ever that the devolved administrations get behind this deal and listen to businesses and industry bodies across all four nations who have been clear that it provides the certainty they need.”

May is due to meet the First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon, new First Minister of Wales Mark Drakeford and representatives of the Northern Ireland Civil Service at her Downing Street office.

She will update them on plans being made for every eventuality including leaving the EU without any kind of a deal, plans that include setting aside space on ferries to ensure a regular flow of medical supplies and keeping 3,500 armed forces personnel on standby to support contingency plans.

With just 100 days until Britain is due to leave the EU, May has yet to win the support of a deeply divided parliament for the deal she struck last month with Brussels.

She has said a delayed vote on her deal will take place in mid-January, prompting some lawmakers to accuse her of trying to force parliament into backing her by running down the clock as the March 29 exit day approaches.

Sturgeon, leader of the independence-minded Scottish National Party (SNP), has accused May of not listening to Scottish opinion and has likened her Brexit deal to taking a blindfolded leap off a cliff.

The Welsh Assembly also rejected the deal in a symbolic vote earlier this month. Northern Ireland has been without an executive since January 2017 when the governing parties, Sinn Fein and May’s allies at Westminster, the DUP, split after a fierce row.

A so-called backstop plan to avoid the reintroduction of a hard border between the Irish republic and Northern Ireland remains one of the principal obstacles to parliamentary agreement on May’s deal.

“From the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and Diageo , to Airbus and Manufacturing Northern Ireland, business and industry right across the UK want to us to deliver this deal as it gives them the clarity and stability they need to protect jobs and living standards,” May was due to say.

(Reporting by Stephen Addison; editing by James Davey)

Analyst on May's Brexit Plan: Isn’t at All Unlikely That UK Is Going to Break Up

British Prime Minister Theresa May has sensationally postponed a parliamentary vote on her Chequers Brexit plan, much to the outrage of the pro-Brexit factions in the commons. Sputnik spoke about it with Robin Tilbrook, leader of the English Democrats.

Sputnik: What do you make of Theresa May's decision to cancel the vote on her deal?

Robin Tilbrook: Wasn't it an astonishing turn around? We had not only the European Court of Justice saying that the Article fifty notices could be revoked, but we then have Theresa May coming forward and basically admitting that she couldn't possibly get her deal through the House of Commons, and then talking an absolute load of nonsense about going back and getting some more reassurances.

The most sensible thing that anybody seemed to say in the House of Commons was by Nigel Dodds; the leader in the House of Commons of the Democratic Unionist Party, who said that there was no way that these reassurances, would make any difference.

In order to get it through the house, she's got to find some other legal mechanism to deal with the so-called backstop.

It isn't at all unlikely that the UK is going to break up. We've had movements towards that sort of thing for quite a while, and the SNP are getting more and more excited, that that's the way it's going to go.

Public opinion in Scotland seems to be going towards independence, and clearly, if anything like the current deal offer goes through, then Northern Ireland is very likely to be separate from the main UK, so with either of those happening, you've got dissolution of the United Kingdom occurring.

Personally; as an English nationalist I don't find that a problem, because we're paying quite a lot at the moment to maintain the union and are mostly only getting grumbles and complaints in response for all our money.

Sputnik: Would we be in this situation with a pro-Brexit leader?

Robin Tilbrook: One of the most extraordinary things that's happened in the past three or four years is the sort of implosion of incompetence in the Conservative Party. The reason why we wound up with; as Jacob Rees-Mogg called it, a remainer who's remained a remainer as leader, was because the two leading Brexiteers knifed each other.

Particularly the loathsome Michael Gove backstabbing Boris Johnson, who would otherwise have become the leader. They would then have had Boris Johnson as a keen Brexiteer, with the number two in the cabinet in Gove as another Brexiteer.

I suspect if that had happened; we wouldn't be anywhere near where we are now.

Listen to full interview here

Brexit has reopened two constitutional conflicts which must be resolved

Article by Jonathan Clark


The British have, typically, little interest in constitutional law. Unlike the French, who regularly rewrite their constitution in revolutions or attempts to prevent revolutions, the British tend to assume that little changes and that all is well. Alas, the constitutional problems accumulate nevertheless. Dominic Grieve was right in a recent Commons debate to say that there are areas of the British constitution that need clearer definition. But what exactly are they? Why is the Brexit question so difficult to resolve through the familiar Westminster machinery?


The big issues of constitutional conflict are so fraught because they happen in legal grey areas, in which agreement and definition have never emerged. Today there are two such major areas, though many minor ones.


The first is the question of sovereignty: where does ultimate authority reside? It is many centuries since any significant number of people claimed that it resided with the person of the monarch alone. But the decline of that image was followed by the growing popularity of another, ‘the Crown in Parliament’, that is, the monarch, the Lords and the Commons acting together. This image never went away, but was upstaged by the doctrine of the lawyer A. V. Dicey (1835-1922) that ‘Parliament’ (meaning, increasingly, the House of Commons) was sovereign. Yet from the Reform Bill of 1832 into the 20th century, successive rounds of franchise extension strengthened another old idea, that the ultimate authority lay with ‘the People’, however defined.


From 1973, when the UK joined the EEC, it slowly became evident that the answer was ‘none of the above’: ultimate authority lay with Brussels. Parliament rubber-stamped increasing amounts of secondary legislation from an evolving super-state. In 2019, departure from the EU would remove that layer of command. This prospect inevitably reopens an old debate, which had never really been settled: was Parliament or the People finally supreme? Its re-emergence reminds us that Dicey’s doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty was the opinion of one commentator only. That opinion partly corresponded to contemporary practice, partly not.


Today, the tide is everywhere running in the opposite direction. Deference and duty daily fade; the key word everywhere is ‘choice’, and this means the choices of the many, not just the few. The transformation of communications places steadily more power in the hands of a steadily more educated, better informed ‘People’. But this trend has been matched by another, seen across the West in recent decades and at all levels: in increasingly complex societies, the executive has everywhere grown more powerful vis-a-vis the legislature. Political scientists have largely ignored this tide, but it has swept forwards nevertheless. It means that two powerful social forces now collide. Across western democracies, ‘ordinary people’ find means of complaining that they are ignored by elites who ‘just don’t get it’; elites decry ‘populism’ and exalt the opinion of ‘experts’, expressed to within one decimal point in forecasts of outcomes 15 years hence.


This collision reopens a second, equally old, question. What is a Member of Parliament: a delegate, or a representative? Edmund Burke famously outlined the case for the second: MPs, once elected, represent the nation as a whole; they owe the nation their best judgment; they are in nobody’s pocket. But another idea is just as old, and equally honourable: MPs are sent to Westminster by their electors to redress the electors’ grievances, and are accountable to them. Against Burke, we can set another intellectual, Andrew Marvell, MP for Hull in 1659-78, who was paid by his constituents and regularly reported back to them. Understandably, Burke’s high-sounding doctrine proved the more popular among MPs. But after he framed it, his constituents in Bristol threw him out for favouring Irish commercial interests over theirs, and he represented thereafter only his patron’s pocket borough.


Both ideas in their pure form are unacceptable. But how the balance between the two is to be struck can never be quantified or defined, and a crisis like the present makes the impossibility of a definition clear. ‘The People’ voted by 52 to 48 for Leave, and a larger percentage now says ‘just get on with it’; but about five-sixths of the House of Commons are for Remain.


Among Conservative MPs, something under 100 are evidently for Leave; of the other 200 or so, over half are on the Government payroll in one capacity or another, and more would like to be. So profound a dissociation between elite and popular opinion is rare. Worse still, public opinion polls and the growing practice of referenda quantify the problem as never before; the issue is easily expressed in binary terms (Leave or Remain); and the arguments have been fully rehearsed. Other countries show similar problems of relations between the many and the few, but in the UK these are brought to a focus. Since the constitution has failed to resolve them, public debate is full of expressions of elite contempt for the ignorant, prejudiced, xenophobic, racialist populace on the one hand; of popular contempt for the self-serving, condescending, out-of-touch Establishment on the other.


Before 1914, Conservative peers making technical points over a budget were manoeuvred by Lloyd George into a constitutional confrontation that could be memorably summed up as ‘Peers versus the People’. In this clash, the peers could only lose. Now, the Remainers have been manoeuvred into a constitutional confrontation that, if it goes much further, will be labelled ‘Parliament versus the People’. In such a conflict it can only be Parliament that will lose. In that event, the damage would be considerable.


These great questions of constitutional definition are seldom solved; rather, the issues are defused by building next to them a new practice. The present challenge is to accommodate that new arrival in the political arena, the referendum, and to turn it into a clearly specified, moderate, and constructive institution, as it is in Switzerland. Those concerned about daily policy should think again about a subject, once salient in university History departments but now everywhere disparaged: constitutional history.

Northern Ireland for UK Cabinet Ministers and Other

The English Democrats campaign for an Independent England. We are committed to government of the people, by the people, for the people. Those with power to affect our way of life must be answerable to the people. Democracy is much more than the ability to choose, from time to time, between broadly similar parties which compete amongst themselves for power. Real democracy is measured by the ability of the people to manage their political, economic, physical, and cultural environment. 

Please read this interesting article from British politics and policy at LSE.

Northern Ireland for English Cabinet Ministers and other beginners

Posted: 19 Nov 2018 04:00 PM PST
Brexit has exposed much confusion about the history and processes of Northern Ireland, both among the public and government ministers. In an effort to provide some clarity, Sean Swan offers an overview.
Given the importance of the Irish border in the Brexit negotiations, the lack of knowledge about Northern Ireland displayed by senior English politicians is depressing. Perhaps the ultimate example of this was when Northern Ireland secretary, Karen Bradley, admitted that she:
didn’t understand things like when elections are fought, for example, in Northern Ireland – people who are Nationalists don’t vote for Unionist parties and vice versa. So, the parties fight for election within their own community.

The 2018 Annual Future of England Survey was conducted in each nation of the UK. It contained a question on national independence. 41% of Scots agreed with the statement “Scotland should become an independent country”; 19% of the Welsh agreed that Wales should be independent, and a similar 19% of the English thought that England should be independent. The response in Northern Ireland to the question should it be independent showed that only 4% agreed that it should – but 44% thought it should form part of a united Ireland and 43% thought it should remain part of the UK. This is unsurprising. Northern Ireland, unlike England, Scotland or Wales, is not a nation. It is home to two competing national identities. This is Northern Ireland’s first dirty little secret; its second flows from this – the real border runs not so much between Ireland and the Republic as along the 20 foot high walls – euphemistically named ‘peace lines’ – separating Nationalist and Unionist areas in Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland has its origins in Unionist resistance to Irish Home Rule in the 1880s. That resistance quickly crystallised around the northern province of Ulster, where there was a Unionist majority. ‘Unionists’ were mainly Protestant descendants of those English and lowland Scots with whom James IV & I had planted Ulster in the early 17th century. The Catholic/Protestant division in Northern Ireland is thus not religious per se, rather religion serves as a cultural marker distinguishing ‘natives’ from ‘settlers’ (who speak the same language and are the same colour).
The aim of Ulster opposition to Home Rule was to either prevent it, or at worse, to prevent it being applied to Ulster. Following a series of failed Home Rule bills in 1886 and 1893, the Home Rule crisis of 1912-4 and the 1916 Rising, the 1920 Government of Ireland Act (also known as the fourth Home Rule Bill), was designed to bring Home Rule to Ireland, but with two separate parliaments: one for the 26 southern counties and one for six of the nine counties of Ulster. It became a dead-letter as regards the south as it was overtaken by the Irish War of Independence, the Anglo-Irish Treaty and the creation of the Irish Free State – a self-governing dominion within the Empire.

Ironically, the 1920 Government of Ireland Act, designed to deal with Irish Home Rule thus came to apply only to the Unionist area. Northern Ireland was created to be the largest area of the province of Ulster in which Unionists would have a secure majority, which turned out to be six of Ulster’s nine counties. This yielded a Unionist majority of roughly two to one, though many border areas and NI’s second city actually contained Nationalist majorities – who did not want to be part of NI. Part of NI’s tragedy is that it originated from Unionist opposition to Home Rule but, as a ‘Unionist state’, was ‘territorially over bounded’. It controlled six counties but only had a majority in four and a half of them.

For fifty years Northern Ireland existed as a semi-detached region of the UK. Ulster Unionists had not asked for a separate parliament, but a parliament they got. The British political parties did not organise there and Northern Ireland was kept at arms’ length from the politics of the British state. The only form of politics possible within the devolved parliament was the constitutional question and Unionist policing of a large dissident Nationalist minority. Elections were regularly held but elections in Northern Ireland were never anything more than sectarian headcounts. Despite elections, the government of Northern Ireland never changed. It was always Unionist.

Gerrymandering, particularly in Derry city which had a Nationalist majority, was almost a structural imperative. It was the only way in which Unionists could politically control areas in which they were a minority. Because the local election franchise was restricted to householders, giving somebody a house also meant giving them the vote. This provided a powerful incentive for discrimination in the allocation of local authority housing.

This situation was challenged by the civil rights mobilisation in the late 1960s. The movement challenged structures on which Unionist hegemony in Northern Ireland relied, and led to a Unionist backlash which rapidly degenerated into the Troubles. Truly horrible things happened during the Troubles – Bloody Sunday, the Kingsmill massacre, the Shankill Butchers, the Birmingham and Guildford bombings, the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, and random sectarian assassinations.

The Troubles were ended by a peace process which culminated in and was sealed by, the Good Friday Agreement. A large part of the Agreement consists of mechanisms to prevent discrimination. The Assembly created by the Agreement operates on a power-sharing basis; it is not controlled by a majority party; and seats in the Executive are allocated on the basis of party strength. This creates a form of forced coalition government. Members elected to this Assembly must designate as either ‘Nationalist’, ‘Unionist’ or ‘other’. Certain key votes require a minimum of support from both those designated as ‘Unionists’ and those designated as ‘Nationalists’. All of this is designed to deal with the issue of potential discrimination at the individual or community level.

Another important part of the Agreement deals with the key constitutional issue. Northern Ireland remains a part of the UK for as long as a majority so desires. Should that seem to have changed, a referendum will be held to give the people the choice between remaining in the UK or joining a united Ireland. Northern Ireland is thus conditionally part of the UK. At the individual level, both Dublin and London guarantee the rights of individuals in Northern Ireland to be, and to be recognised as being, British citizens, Irish citizens, or both. And this would not change even if Northern Ireland became part of united Ireland. This is important because it recognises the fact that there are two separate national allegiances in Northern Ireland.

The Agreement also created North/South institutions connecting Northern Ireland and the Republic (the North/South Ministerial Council) and linking the Republic and the UK (the British-Irish Council). Such institutions obviously blur the distinction between the UK and the Republic as much as they do the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. The core of the Agreement was thus a blurring of all sorts of borders. It represents a form of post-Westphalian sovereignty in which the distinction between being an Irish or British citizen, whether within Northern Ireland or within these islands, was more symbolic than of any practical significance. This was in harmony with the general thrust of developments within the EU. Obviously, the existence of a common EU citizenship further blurred distinctions. Brexit, with its emphasis on borders, was always going to pose problems for Northern Ireland.

In terms of democracy or economic prosperity, there is little to choose between the Republic of Ireland and the UK. The 2017 Economist Intelligence Unit ranks Ireland as the joint 6th most democratic country in the world and the UK as 14th. In terms of prosperity, the UN Human Development Index ranks Ireland as 4th most developed and the UK as 14th. Not only can it no longer be argued that ‘Home rule is Rome Rule’, but Northern Ireland is today much closer to a model of ‘Rome Rule’ than is the Republic. Abortion and equal marriage remain banned there – though the reason for this currently has more to do with Protestant fundamentalism than Catholicism. Nor can it be maintained that Nationalists today suffer significant discrimination in Northern Ireland.
Whether Northern Ireland is part of the UK or of a united Ireland thus makes little difference in terms of prosperity or rights. What is at issue is symbolism and identity. What makes all this extra problematic is the fact that there is now no majority in Northern Ireland. The 2011 census showed that those of Catholic background comprise 45% of the population and those of a Protestant background 48%. Similarly, latest opinion polls showed 44% in favour of a united Ireland and 43% in favour or remaining in the UK. The real borders in Northern Ireland may run along the peace lines, but the symbolically significant border remains the one between North and South. The need to keep that border ‘soft’, ambiguous and invisible should be obvious and not have to be endlessly re-made.

The case for ‘special status’ for Northern Ireland rests on the reality that Northern Ireland is, and always was, different. Those who argue that giving Northern Ireland special status would strengthen the case of the Scots who want their own special status and a closer relationship with the EU, need to explain why Scotland should not have that right. Scotland, like Northern Ireland, voted to Remain. Brexit is an English obsession. Those who wish to maintain the existence of the UK state would be better advised allowing for and facilitating the real differences that exist between the UK’s component parts than in trying to force an Anglo-centric uniformity on everybody else. Of course, it would help if they knew just a little bit more about Scotland and Northern Ireland. Here’s a clue: Finchley is in England, not in Northern Ireland or Scotland.
About the Author
Sean Swan is a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Gonzaga University.

All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of LSE British Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Featured image credit: Pixabay/CC0 licence.

The Decay of the British State


At the height of Empire, when the British State was thought by vast numbers of people across the planet to be the greatest and most powerful State on earth; Rudyard Kipling wrote his famous poem “Recessional” – the haunting words of which are:-

“God of our fathers, known of old,

   Lord of our far-flung battle-line,

Beneath whose awful Hand we hold

   Dominion over palm and pine—

Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,

Lest we forget—lest we forget!

The tumult and the shouting dies;

   The Captains and the Kings depart:

Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,

   An humble and a contrite heart.

Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,

Lest we forget—lest we forget!

Far-called, our navies melt away;

   On dune and headland sinks the fire:

Lo, all our pomp of yesterday

   Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!

Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,

Lest we forget—lest we forget!

If, drunk with sight of power, we loose

   Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe,

Such boastings as the Gentiles use,

   Or lesser breeds without the Law—

Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,

Lest we forget—lest we forget!

For heathen heart that puts her trust

   In reeking tube and iron shard,

All valiant dust that builds on dust,

   And guarding, calls not Thee to guard,

For frantic boast and foolish word—

Thy mercy on Thy People, Lord!”

But who other than Kipling could have thought back then in 1897, that just a bit over a hundred and twenty years later the British State would have reached such a point where it seems to fail at everything it tries?

We have got very used to hearing over the last two years, just how ineffectual the British Political Establishment has become that it cannot even get its act together to implement the EU Referendum result. This is despite having made it crystal clear at the time from all sides of the debate that the referendum result would be implemented. This really is not rocket science. It is a clear demonstration of the further feebleness of the British Establishment’s Political culture.

In everyday life we are also used to hearing other instances of just how bad the British State is at delivering on anything that it sets itself to. Whether it be computerisation projects or even the MoD trying to bring the British Army back from Germany, but then finding that they had sold off so many of the bases that it is no longer possible!

The other day in my professional work as a solicitor I came across a little example of just how bad the administration of one of the most fundamental aspects of the basic institutions of the State has become, namely the Courts.

It is worth remembering that the courts pre-date almost every aspect of the State’s functions, except for Defence. The administration of the Courts is therefore far more fundamental to the running of the State than the Welfare system, the NHS, the Transport system, the Education system or any of the other things that the British Political Elite wants to talk about, however ineffectual their deliberations may be.

I just thought I would share with you some of my woes in dealing with the Courts.

I have been dealing with a case which was primarily dealt with at Edmonton County Court, but then there was an Appeal which went to the Central London County Court.

The upshot was that the Assessment of the Costs of the case could theoretically either be assessed at Edmonton or at Central London County Court. I therefore wrote to both asking for them to let me know which. Only Edmonton replied and even then after quite a long wait. They said it was the Central London County Court.

As the papers have to be taken in nowadays with a prior appointment, I then rang Central London County Court to arrange this and to which said that the papers should be taken into Edmonton.

After some difficulty I managed to get through to Edmonton (who didn’t basically answer the phone!). They said that it was Central London County Court.

So I then rang Central London County Court again and they said it was definitely Edmonton. I pointed out that both courts were now saying that it was the other Court and therefore I needed the Courts to resolve between them which Court the papers had to be handed into.

Central London County Court then issued a direction on the internet Court file. So finally, when I got back to Edmonton County Court, I got an appointment to hand in the papers.

When I did so Edmonton County Court’s Clerks then moaned about the size of the file!

This particular small version of the Whitehall farce was anything unusual in dealing with the current British State.

The next part of the saga will be a long wait whilst we wait for the Court to actually deal with the Assessment.

This bit of incompetence is the result of typical Conservative ministerial actions, in this case by Chris Grayling. Who, when he was the “Justice” Minister, not only did the usual “slash and burn” cuts of over 40% to the Civil Justice system, but also pushed ahead with asset stripping by selling off the historic court buildings in town centres. He coupled these actions with raising court fees by over 400%! Despite the fact that before his intervention the Civil Justice system was actually making a profit for the State! The results of his unwillingness to think about the consequences of his actions are that we now have a Civil Justice Court system whose administration is truly appalling.

This of course is just another example of how bad the British State is at managing even its basic responsibilities.

This general incompetence is also partly because of the British Establishment’s addiction to political correctness. People are no longer appointed within the British State because of their ability to do the job for the country and for taxpayers. They are appointed on the basis of Sovietesque, ethnic, sexuality, tick box “politically correct” tokenism. So consequently it is no surprise that those appointed this way not only cannot do the job, but have no particular desire or incentive to do it properly.

Many of the key people within the State of course no longer really care to look after the interests of the country or our Nation and in many cases are actively against both the country and Nation.

All this is symptomatic of the decay of the British State to the point now that it is not just past its “best before” date but well past its “use by” date!

In England we urgently need a rejuvenated State which is both dedicated to, and works efficiently to, promote the interests of England and of the English Nation!

This must be an English State which will confidently make a patriotic appeal for national unity and national pride and which stands against progressive tribalism, which has for too long sought to divide the country into grievance groups and to promote a narrative of shame. We need a State which will reject the decades of the British Establishment’s revisionist history and grievance ideology which have sought to undermine English national pride!

The Dissolution of the Dis-United Kingdom


Although the “Mainstream Media” (AKA “Legacy Media”) newspapers and broadcasters, such as in the article below by Alan Cochrane, focus on the risk to the Union (of the UK) from Northern Ireland and Scotland, it may well be that the more important longer term “threat” to the Union will be from England and from English Nationalists.  As William Hague when he was the Leader of the “Conservative” Party said:-  “English nationalism is the worst of all nationalisms” for the future of the Union!
The constitutional position about Theresa May’s agreement, if she manages to get it through Parliament and ratified by all the relevant parts of the EU will be interesting, because, if that happens, with the majority Leave vote in England, of well over 15 million English people voting for Leave, can then only be satisfied by the dissolution of the United Kingdom!
From a legal and constitutionalist point of view this works because the dissolution of the UK as the contracting state means that the deal is dissolved too.  This was threatened against the Scottish Nationalists, in the run up to the Scottish Independence Referendum, when the then Commissioner Barosso pointed out that, if Scotland left the United Kingdom then (because the United Kingdom would be dissolved), Scotland would be a new State and therefore not an ‘Accession’ state and so not part of the EU.
The EU is composed of “Member States”.  If a Member State is dissolved and ceases to exist, then the arrangements with the EU also cease to exist.  The EU is not a territorial entity, nor an entity of individual people, nor of peoples, it is an entity only of accession Member States.  This means that the general legal principles on dissolution or death of a participating entity in an agreement apply.  Generally that means that the agreement itself ceases to exist as well as the dissolved entity upon its dissolution (or death).
I explained this in my Blog article quite a few years ago.  Here is a link to that article
The article below by Alan Cochrane is also interesting but is of course yet again looking at the Union from the Scottish perspective rather than from the point of view of English nationalists.
In short I think Theresa May’s proposed deal may actually fill the sails of English nationalists and of English nationalism because our way of thinking will then be the only practical way of coming out of the EU.
What do you think?  Here is Alan Cochrane’s article :-

Warring Tories have put a hurricane in the sail of the nationalists 

With the Conservative Party tearing itself and the government of Theresa May asunder last night, one of its hitherto more successful parts appeared to be also heading for the intensive care ward.


In a bitter, and unprecedented Cabinet-level war, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party accused resigning Brexiteer ministers of threatening to wreck the United Kingdom. In one of the most outspoken attacks one senior minister has ever launched against colleagues, former or otherwise, David Mundell, the Scottish Secretary, described Dominic Raab and Esther McVey as “carpetbaggers”.


Just for good measure, he claimed that Mr Raab’s departure was more about a future leadership bid than the Brexit deal.
In their resignation letters, the former Brexit and Work and Pensions Secretaries had both cited the threat to the Union posed by the fact that special provisions were proposed for Northern Ireland in Mrs May’s withdrawal deal.


And there is little doubt that this escalation in insults reflected the fact that the Northern Ireland aspect of the deal has put immediate and intense pressure on Mr Mundell and, also to a lesser extent, Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Tory leader.
Their partnership has been largely responsible for the revival of the Conservatives north of the border – leaping from one MP to 13 at the last general election and forming the official opposition to the SNP at the Scottish Parliament.
However, significantly, at least in terms of their current embarrassment, both signed an open letter to the Prime Minister last month in which they threatened to resign if there was a “differentiated deal” agreed for Northern Ireland. And, no matter how you cut it, that is precisely what is contained in the deal Mrs May put to her Cabinet on Wednesday.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the view expressed in Scottish Tory circles that Mr Raab and Ms McVey used the threat to the Union as “cover” for their resignations. And I can also understand Mr Mundell’s intense irritation that many of the most ardent Brexiteers care little for the maintenance of the Union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Indeed, I can’t remember any of them making an appearance during the Scottish independence referendum campaign four years ago.
That’s neither here nor there now, however. No amount of name-calling and foot stamping will alter the plain fact that, by including a distinctive feature for Northern Ireland after Brexit in the deal, the Prime Minister has done two things: she’s delivered a major boost to the SNP, whose sole aim is the break-up of Britain, and she’s ignored the warnings she received from Mr Mundell and Ms Davidson.


In one of the great ironies of the situation, the nationalists claim that Scotland should be given a different deal from the rest of the UK but haven’t got it, whereas Northern Ireland is getting one but its majority party doesn’t want it. And yesterday First Minister Nicola Sturgeon claimed that Ulster’s special treatment would give it an unfair trading advantage over Scotland.


There is a hope within Scottish Conservative circles that Mrs May might yet be able to retrieve the situation by clarifying and playing down the differences in the deal for Northern Ireland. But given the furious reaction from DUP MPs yesterday, she has a mountain to climb in that direction.
Nevertheless, the Scottish Tories’ main problem is that threatening letter sent to the PM and signed by Mr Mundell and Ms Davidson. It was seen at the time, by some observers, as a silly piece of grandstanding and it has now come back to bite them – hard.
Ms Davidson is on maternity leave and, last night Mr Mundell said he was staying put, insisting that he would fight on for the maintenance of the UK, adding: “That’s what I’m focused on, not being the heart of some soap opera of resignations and I’m not going to be bounced into resigning by carpetbaggers.”
Notwithstanding his determination to fight on and his angry words about his now former colleagues, I’m sure that he wishes he hadn’t signed that letter. It’s boxed him in, good and proper

Second post about your nation

first-post.pngThis is the first blog post. You can insert photos into a post and embed content. Blogs are extremely useful, as they provide a platform for highlighting things taking place on your nation, as well as news or press that develops. They also keep your site content fresh, and increase the likelihood someone searching for topics related to your nation will find your website.

Learn how to create a blog and some tips for keeping it updated.


To change this content, click "Edit this page" in the Supporter Nav on the right,
or from your Control Panel navigate to Websites > [blog] > Posts & subpages > [first_post].

First post about your nation

first-post.pngThis is the first blog post. You can insert photos into a post and embed content. Blogs are extremely useful, as they provide a platform for highlighting things taking place on your nation, as well as news or press that develops. They also keep your site content fresh, and increase the likelihood someone searching for topics related to your nation will find your website.

Learn how to create a blog and some tips for keeping it updated.


To change this content, click "Edit this page" in the Supporter Nav on the right,
or from your Control Panel navigate to Websites > [blog] > Posts & subpages > [first_post].