1

​Progressive European Party Manifesto 2017

Contents

1. Foreword by Philip Notley

2. Introduction
3. Constitutional Reform
4. The economy and principles of progressive policy
5. Europe and geopolitical factors
6. Tax, benefits, pensions and housing
7. Education, training and employment
8. Defence and foreign policy
9. Crime and drugs

Epilogue

An invitation

Membership

2
1. Foreword

3
People with money have power.

They use their influence to manipulate the media and to shape the political
landscape to their own ends. This counter-democratic activity is our enemy.
It has tricked voters into believing that the EU is the source of all their
problems.

In fact, the real culprits are those who operate behind the scenes whose
money and power the EU is beginning to curb.

In our manifesto, the Progressive European Party proposes a system of

direct democracy which will give us all an equal say in the decisions that
affect our lives.

No longer will big businesses manipulate the media, control public opinion
and influence government policy. You, the people, will decide the issues on
the basis of factual arguments and informed comment.

We shall also build social and private housing to end the disgraceful blight
of homelessness. We intend to introduce a citizen's income that will put an
end to poverty and encourage altruism by recognising and rewarding the
contributions that we all make to our communities.

The universal citizen's income will make it possible to levy a fairer, flat-rate
of taxation. Both the rich and the less well off will pay the same percentage
of their earnings back into society.

Businesses, too, will pay the same flat-rate on their profits. The many other
taxes that are now paid by businesses, even when they are making a loss,
will be abolished. A tax based solely on profits, coupled with a guaranteed
income for all, will both encourage startups and, at last, breathe new life
into our high streets.

4
It is easy for a party that does not yet have political power to make
exaggerated claims about what they expect to achieve when in
government. Over the years, successive governing parties have failed to
fulfil the promises of their pre-election manifestos.

I am confident that we shall be able to avoid these pitfalls. All of our policies
are logical, rational and, for the most part, achievable in the short term.

It would be an understatement to say that, at present, the future of our

country is looking decidedly gloomy. The combined effects of bad policies,
bad leadership and the influence of vested interests on successive
governments have taken their toll.

What, then, are the alternatives?

Some of the other parties claim that they are progressive. In reality,
however, they offer only a recycling of old ideas: nationalisation of
industries, a penny on income tax to fund the NHS and more borrowing to
finance outdated policies.

The Progressive movement is very different. We are not controlled by big

businesses or by the trade unions. We are not encumbered by rigid and
outmoded ideologies.

I would say that pragmatism is our only ideology.

Help us, therefore, to move the United Kingdom forward into the twenty-first
century with a political system that is fit for the twenty-first century.

Help us to build a Britain and a Europe of which we can all be proud

citizens.

Philip Notley
5
2. Introduction

In the month of February 2016 David Cameron, the then Prime Minister,
made a momentous and, in retrospect, foolish announcement. He
announced that, on the 23rd of June, 2016, a referendum would be held to
resolve the question of the UK’s continuing membership of the European
Union. The issue of the UK’s membership of the EU had been a
contentious matter in British politics for a number of years.
Nevertheless, it has been argued (with some justification) that Mr
Cameron’s announcement was motivated by two principal and related
considerations, neither of which were entirely to his credit. In the first place,
the Conservative Party had promised such a referendum in their manifesto
for the 2015 General Election. In the second place, this referendum was
intended to end definitively the rifts within the Conservative Party on this
issue. Cameron campaigned for (and was unjustifiably confident of) a
victory for Remain. This foolish over-confidence had a number of
undesirable consequences. The referendum was ill-conceived, badly
designed and botched. Although the instrument used to institute the
referendum (the European Union Referendum Act 2015) stated that the
referendum would be advisory and not binding upon the Government,
Cabinet Ministers were instructed to inform the people that the Government
would implement the outcome, no matter which way it went. So confident of
victory was David Cameron that he failed to include a number of important
groups among those who were eligible to vote. Most notably, 16 and 17
year-olds (whose future was most at stake) were excluded from the vote.
So, too, were citizens of other EU member-states who had lived, worked
and paid taxes in the UK for many years.
The design of the referendum was gravely defective in many other ways: i)
It was a binary choice to stay or leave. ii) No information was given as to

6
the many different types of relationship between the UK and the EU that
might arise from a vote to leave. iii) It rather looks as though the possibility
of a vote to leave the EU was not even contemplated. No plan was drawn
up or presented, by either side, to address this eventuality. iv) On so grave
and consequential constitutional an issue, there was no predetermined
majority required for it be considered valid. A simple majority was all that
was required. v) Many British nationals who had lived abroad for some
years were also denied a vote.
Many other imperfections in the design and implementation of the
referendum could be cited. Any one of the above, if given due weight,
would, in all probability, have produced a very different outcome. The
Electoral Reform Society recommends that at least six months should be
allowed for a national debate on a constitutional issue of this magnitude.
The four months allowed between the announcement of the referendum (in
February) and the referendum itself (in June) was a derisory period of time
for such a debate. Many have also argued, very plausibly, that, as a result
of more than thirty years of disinformation concerning the EU, promulgated
by the tabloid press, most of the British public were unaware of the true
nature of the EU, its democratic institutions and its very limited impact upon
the lives of most ordinary citizens. Nor were they aware that most of the
effects of our membership of the EU were highly beneficial to ordinary
people. It is a commonplace that the campaigns waged prior the
referendum by both sides were dishonest and misleading. Absurd promises
were made by the Leave campaign and foolish threats were issued by the
Remain campaign. But we are where we are. A series of historical
accidents has now led to a situation in which no single political party is in a
position to counteract and reverse the baneful effects of what has become
known as “Brexit”. These effects are already beginning to become
apparent.
Our currency has collapsed in value against a basket of other currencies.
All imports are now very much more expensive. All goods that must be
transported using (dollar-denominated) oil-products are becoming more
expensive. Inflation is already rising and is predicted to rise further. The
7
cost-of-living is spiralling upwards uncontrollably. Average wages,
meanwhile, are stagnant. The incomes of ordinary people will not be able
to keep pace with inflation. Given that no single party is currently in a
position to resist the increasingly authoritarian Conservative Government of
Theresa May, it has been decided that a new political party is necessary.
This is the manifesto of that party. We are the Progressive European Party
and it is our aim not merely to reverse the catastrophe of “Brexit” but also to
reshape the outmoded political institutions of the UK that have permitted
this shameful national embarrassment to occur. You will learn how we
propose to do this in the pages that follow. We welcome you to our
manifesto and we hope very soon to welcome you to the growing ranks of
our Party.

3. Constitutional Reform

(Note on the definition of terms: In the Section that follows the adjectives
“uniate” and “Uniate” will not be used in their customary philosophical or
ecclesiastical senses. They will be used to signify “unified”.)
We turn now to what will probably prove to be the most controversial
aspects of Progressive policies: Constitutional Reform

Overview

Reasons for reform. Practicalities of reform. Distribution of power.

Instruments and Institutions of reform. The Consequences and Implications
of reform.
Sections:
A. Direct Democracy
B. How does it work?
C. Devolution, Citizenship and Local Democracy

8
D. Parliament
E. The Monarchy
F. Northern Ireland
A. Direct Democracy

Synopsis

Definition of terms. A question. Recent failings of direct democracy.

Technological considerations. Obsolete and undemocratic character of
present political institutions. The logic of democratic development. The
Progressive European Party as the vehicle of reform/

Definition of terms

One of the most pressing questions of our time is how to reconcile the
impersonal forces of globalisation with the very basic need of human
beings for a sense of identity, a sense of “belonging” and a sense that they
are not powerless in the face of forces over which they appear to have little
control. This section will address this question directly by bringing real
democracy to the local level, as well as to the national level and, by
extension to the European level. In this section, the nouns “kingdom” and
“territory” have been used interchangeably. This is mainly for stylistic
reasons. The repetitive use of the word “kingdom” might sound
old-fashioned while the use of the word “territory” is, perhaps, too redolent
of nations such as Canada and Australia. As will be seen below, the term
“territory” it used here in an entirely different sense. There is a similar
difficulty with their adjectival forms. Etymologically, the term “regional” is
derived from the Latin “regere" to rule and, indirectly, from the word “rex,
regis” - relating to a king. However, in modern parlance, as we all know, it
has come to mean something very different. For this reason, when referring
to a geographical area adjectivally, the word “territorial” is employed. A
question Does it not strike you as odd that we can now conduct all of our
financial affairs online but that, when it comes to voting, we must still go
9
(once every four years or so) to a makeshift polling-station to make a cross
with a pencil on a little piece of paper and to put into a slit in a box?

Recent failings of direct democracy

The outcome of last year’s “referendum” has made many people

understandably sceptical about the benefits of direct democracy. But there
is a paradox here. The unfortunate consequences of the “referendum” are
attributable to a number of factors:
1.The general ignorance of the majority of the UK’s population about the
nature and benefits of membership of the European Union.
2. The fact that this ignorance had been cultivated for more than thirty
years by hostile reports in most of the tabloid newspapers. This had been
achieved by an endless stream of disinformation about the EU promulgated
in order to increase their sales by whipping up public indignation against
the EU on spurious grounds. In most instances these have subsequently
been shown to be outright lies.
3. The faulty design of the “referendum” itself. It was defective on a number
of grounds. In the first place it was a binary choice: Leave or Remain.
Neither side had even contemplated what might happen if the outcome was
Leave. There was no plan for this eventuality - for the simple reason that
nobody (not even the Leave campaigners) imagined that Leave might
“win”.
4.The design of the “referendum” was severely defective in a number of
other important respects. It was not made clear to the British public that the
enabling legislation for the “referendum” had deliberately and explicitly
made its outcome non-binding on the Government. The “referendum” was
advisory only. Nevertheless, cabinet ministers were instructed to tell the
people that whatever they decided would definitely be implemented.
5.Large sections of the significant “stakeholder” population were denied a
vote altogether. Most disgracefully sixteen and seventeen year-olds were
denied a say in their own futures. Equally deplorably, EU citizens who had

10
lived, worked and paid taxes in the UK for many decades were excluded
from having any influence on the matter.
6.There was no requirement for a substantial majority before any change
was contemplated. It is customary for important constitutional changes to
be made only if two-thirds of the electorate approve them. In the case of
this botched “referendum” all that was required was a simple majority. In
the event, the result was almost too close to call. 48.1% voted to Remain
while 51.9% voted to Leave. There was a mere 3.8 percentile difference. In
any other field, so small a margin would not be considered to be statistically
significant.
7.Finally and, in this context, most crucially, no mechanism was put in
place to ensure that, as the true consequences of the “referendum”
became increasingly apparent, the people might be entitled to change their
minds. The political establishment has attempted to present the result of
this deeply flawed “referendum” as the immutable “will of the people”. It is
already becoming clear that, for very good reasons, the people have
changed their minds. But both this “Government” and the official
“Opposition” are being wilfully deaf and blind to this reality and seem
hellbent on a course which will ruin the nation and bring the UK into
disrepute throughout the world.
These circumstances cannot be permitted to continue.
It is therefore the settled purpose and determination of the Progressive
European Party to set right the blunders and ineptitude of the present
complacent political establishment. Herein, then, lies the paradox with
which this section began. We of the Progressive European Party consider
that the remedy for a hopelessly inadequate and bungled exercise in
gauging “the will of the people” lies not in relying less on direct democracy,
but rather in relying on more and on much better forms of direct democracy
Let us, as a brief aside, consider for a moment the salient characteristics of
the majority of present-day politicians in the UK. Four things about the
qualities needed to succeed in contemporary British politics are
immediately evident:

11
1. An ambitious politician must have a desire to exercise power over his or
her fellow-nationals.
2. Successful politicians must have the ability to lie convincingly, even in
the face of evidence that directly contradicts their pronouncements.
3. They must develop to a very high degree the art of evasiveness and of
avoiding answering direct questions in a straightforward way.
4. They must be willing to plot against their closest colleagues and, if it will
further their personal ambitions, to stab them in the back without
compunction or remorse.

It is superfluous to remark that none of these qualities are particularly

attractive and, in any other context, might be considered to be signs of
sociopathy. We appear to be governed by sociopaths. What is the solution
to this deplorable state of affairs? We of the Progressive European Party
consider that the most effective countermeasure is to remove power from
the political classes and to transfer it in much greater measure to the
people themselves, while avoiding the abuses of direct democracy outlined
above. Let us look, therefore, at the practical mechanisms by which these
aims can be accomplished.

TECHNOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Every day, new refinements of the technologies of information and of

communications improve the efficiency with which views and information
can be exchanged - between individuals, throughout societies, within
nations and on a global and international scale. As communications
technology becomes ever more “user friendly”, greater numbers of ordinary
people will gain access to the facilities that are now available. More and
more people will become aware of the power which is already at their
disposal. To use the current jargon, they will become “empowered”. What
this means, in practice, is that every individual will potentially have the
power to influence the course of events more effectively, and to a far
greater extent, than ever before.
12
You yourself can have a more direct, active and personal role in taking the
decisions which affect your own life, your own family and the life of the
nation as a whole: decisions which, at present, are taken for you by a tiny
clique of self-important “politicians”. Many of these politicians would like to
disguise from you the fact that the technology to empower ordinary people
already exists. Anyone who has ever used an ordinary touch-tone
telephone, used internet banking or an ATM, or who has participated in a
radio or TV phone-in, knows the truth of this. The entire apparatus of
parliamentary and “representative” government is now as outmoded and
irrelevant as the 19th Century conditions that, in very large measure,
shaped it. Today it is possible for the people to speak directly and
authoritatively on every issue of importance. The whole concept of
democracy is predicated on the principle that the ultimate authority is the
people. We simply take this premise to its logical conclusion. The
Progressive European Party believes that the case for extending real
decision-making power to the real people of this country (possessed of
adequate information) is now so strong that it has become overwhelming.
We hope that, as you read further into this manifesto, you will come to
agree with us - and we urge you to join us.

B. How does it work?

Synopsis Present power structure. Practicalities of broader democracy.
Progressive attitudes and commitments. Integrity of democratic systems.
Checks and balances.

Here are some of the questions which people are beginning to ask:

Q. Who has the power at present?

A. Well, if you are an ordinary member of the public, it certainly isn’t you! In
Britain, in theory, Parliament has supreme power. In practice this means
that the Government of the day has power. The Government is composed

13
of the most plausible politicians of the party which controls a majority of
Members of Parliament.

Q. Politicians from the traditional parties love to talk about “democracy”.

What do they really mean?

A. Once every four years or so, for approximately thirty seconds, you are
allowed to help in choosing, from a tiny short-list, your local MP. That’s
about it. That’s all the power you have. That is what most politicians mean
when they talk about “democracy”. In the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth
Centuries, when our political institutions took on many of their present
characteristics, these arrangements seemed adequate. Communications
were slow and unreliable. Information was scarce. It seemed to make
sense that the nation’s administration should be entrusted to a small
number of the people’s representatives. In theory, these “statesmen” had
access to the facts upon which policy-decisions could be based. The
broader populace did not, at that time, have access to the necessary
information. But now, as we move further into the 21st Century, conditions
are dramatically different. Printed media (newspapers, magazines etc.)
and, increasingly, electronic media (radio, TV and the Internet) can supply
you with exactly the same information as is available to the politicians.
There is no longer any need for “representatives” to take all the important
decisions on your behalf. You can help to decide for yourself.
If you can press a few buttons on an ordinary touch-tone telephone, you
can cast a vote - not just in a General Election or in a cumbersome
“referendum”, but on every vital issue that arises.

Q. How will I know when to vote on the issues which concern me?

A. At present, forthcoming government and parliamentary business is

briefly notified in a handful of broadsheet newspapers, in the limited
circulation publications of Westminster and Whitehall and on specialised
Government and Parliamentary websites. The Progressive European Party
14
will ensure that this information is published daily, a fortnight in advance, in
national and local newspapers, on radio and television and on the Internet.

Q. How will it be possible for me to vote on any issue?

A. If you have access to an ordinary tone-phone, you will simply dial an

access number between 6.00 a.m. and 11.00 p.m. on the day assigned to
the vote. Once connected, an automated message will prompt you to key in
your Social Security number, your voter’s PIN number, your postcode and
your date of birth from your telephone keypad. This is known as 4-factor
verification and is the most secure form of identification in existence. Your
call will then be transferred to an anonymous Registry server to ensure that
no record is kept of your voting history. To further eliminate the possibility
of hacking and of identity fraud the network to which you are connected will
be a “closed” network. That is to say, it will be an “intranet” and completely
isolated from the broader Internet. Your will be able to choose between
numbers on the keypad to cast your vote. Your vote, but not your identity,
will be registered. For those who have no access to a telephone, a network
of “hole-the-wall” voting machines (similar to cash-machines or ATMs) will
be provided. Specialised equipment will be provided for the disabled and
for the visually or hearing-impaired and as technologies develop other
foolproof methods of voter recognition could also be used such as facial or
voice recognition software.

Q. What is the point of having a political party if you are going to allow the
whole population to make policy decisions?

A. Our ultimate aim is to put all political parties (including ourselves) out of
business by rendering them obsolete. We consider that the system of
adversarial politics that has prevailed for too long in the UK is unhelpful and
outmoded.
We can therefore make the unconditional promise that no measure will be
imposed against the expressed wishes of a majority of voters. The system
15
proposed, moreover, will be much more responsive to changes in the
aggregate “will of the people”. It will be possible, for example, to revisit with
great ease issues such as “Brexit” in the light of new facts and
developments. A lean and efficient elected administration is obviously
needed to identify the most pressing issues and to implement the decisions
of the people. Our sole aim is to serve the nation by administering its affairs
under direct instruction from the people as a whole. We reject the boastful
terminology of the wielding of power which is the political currency of the
other parties. We shall not “govern”. We shall administer on behalf of, and
under instruction from, the people themselves. As we have already made
plain, the Progressive European Party is not a “single-issue” party. The
gradual introduction of direct democracy is only one of our many proposals.
Nor do we imagine that direct democracy as outlined above can be
achieved overnight. It will need to be phased-in incrementally. The main
difference between us and the more antiquated political parties is that,
before implementing any policy, we shall present that particular policy to
the whole nation for rejection or approval. At present, any party which wins
a General Election claims to have a mandate for all of its policies. But this
is clearly a deception. Voters vote for many different reasons. They may
like some policies of one party but dislike others. Their decisions are
therefore based on a balance of likes and dislikes. A Progressive
administration will be bound by the decision of the people on each and
every policy. We believe that, if the public is treated with the respect that is
due to the collective electorate and if the relevant information is made
freely available, the nation as a whole will demonstrate its political maturity
by making wise and beneficial decisions. It is, at any rate, inconceivable
that the people of Britain could make a worse mess of the nation’s affairs
than that concocted by out-of-touch politicians over the course of the last
nine decades.

Q. Won’t the electorate be vulnerable to manipulation by the media, by big

business, by “special interest” pressure-groups and by the Administration
itself?
16
A. If we are to extend real decision-making powers to the people, as the
Progressive European Party intends, it is obviously desirable that the public
should be as well-informed as possible. As the 2017 General Election
outcome demonstrated, the majority of people (especially younger people)
no longer rely exclusively on the mainstream media in forming their
opinions. Theresa May was not returned to power with the overwhelming
majority that had been confidently predicted by most of the polls and
actively promoted by most of the tabloid newspapers.
As we have noted above, at present only a handful of serious newspapers
make any effort to address the important political, social and economic
issues of the day. Most of the tabloids scarcely merit designation as
“newspapers” at all. They have become little more than scandal-sheets and
the propaganda organs of vested interests. Fortunately, there is now a
great wealth of information from many different sources to be found on the
internet - especially in social media and by means of search-engines. By
publishing, on a daily basis a fortnight in advance, all forthcoming business
of the nation’s administration (in every major national and local newspaper
as well as on TV, radio and the Internet) we shall open up the seemingly
esoteric art of political decision-making to the entire nation and place it
under direct democratic control. The closed doors and shuttered windows
of secretive “Cabinets” will be thrown open. The true nature of the issues
will be seen in the daylight and the forum of debate will shift and expand.
These public announcements will contain only the unadorned essentials of
the issues to be decided. Each day’s bulletin need occupy no more than a
single page printed spread or a single web-page. For it would not be right
to attempt to influence the outcome of the vote by including partisan
comment or “spin”. Legislative safeguards will be put in place to prevent
this. However, the mere fact that a Progressive administration has chosen
to seek the nation’s approval of a particular policy would serve as an
indication that we recommend it. Editorial comment will remain, as now, in
the hands of the editor or proprietor of the news medium concerned. Some
will support our measures. Others will oppose them. We do not fear this
17
process; firstly because it will all contribute to public awareness of the
issues at stake; and secondly because (as result of the last “referendum”)
we do not believe that members of the public are now nearly as gullible as
most politicians and media tycoons like to imagine. Finally, if (for whatever
reason) the public rejects a particular proposal, it will be an indication to us
that the case for it is not as strong as we had supposed. We shall adjust
the proposal to take account of the public’s reservations and submit it,
reformed and refined by proper and inclusive debate, for public
consideration at a later date. One advantage of submitting everything to
public scrutiny is that, along with the power of the public to decide the
issues, comes greater public responsibility for the outcomes, It will very
soon become apparent that there is a vast difference between registering
an “opinion” in a “snap-shot, straw poll” and casting a real vote which will
have real consequences.

Q. When a proposal is submitted to the public, how will the question be

framed?

A. Initially, a cross-party, independent Registry Commission will be elected

by the people to formulate guidelines for the framing of questions and to
regulate the process itself. The main brief of the commission will be to
ensure that phraseology used in the formulation of questions will be as
neutral as possible. It will not be considered legitimate, for instance, to
combine two or more separate proposals into a question that requires a
single answer. The substance of the questions (their content) will be
stipulated by the Administration. Their form will be shaped by the Registry
Commission.

Q. How will the inviolability, integrity and anonymity of the computerised

ballot-system be safeguarded?

A. In addition to the safeguards already mentioned, the Registry

Commission will have power to co-opt three additional members from
18
among the foremost authorities on computer systems and security. The
recommendations of the Commission for maintaining the system’s integrity
will be given legal force by the assent of the people. It will certainly be more
secure and less subject to error and abuse than the present deeply
compromised and unwieldy method.

Q. How will minorities be protected from oppression by majorities?

A. The uncodified Constitution of Great Britain will be clarified and

augmented by three written and legally enforceable codes: 1. A Statement
of Constitutional Principles 2. A New Code of Civil Rights, Freedoms and
Responsibilities 3. A New Freedom of Information and Open Administration
Act. The final form of each will be determined by public debate and will be
subject to public approval in the normal way.

Q. What other policies will The Progressive European Party advance?

A. These are set forth in detail in the other sections of this Manifesto.

19
C. Devolution, Citizenship and Local Democracy

Synopsis
Inadequacies of present system of local government. Historical
considerations. Ethnicity. Restoration of the ancient kingdoms of Britain.

To maintain the creaking system of occasional paper-ballots and

“representative” democracy at the local level, while promoting direct
democracy in national affairs, would be inconsistent and unjustifiable. If
anything, the urgency of achieving administrative transparency in local
politics is even more pressing than it is for the national administration. The
possibility of the system being corrupted by town-hall predilections for
nepotism and “jobs-for-the-boys”, lucrative collaborations with developers,
the passing of bribes, election-rigging and the exchange of “favours” with
local businessmen, are all removed with direct democracy. The British
people will not quickly forget the inordinate sums spent by this
“Government” on unelected “advisors”, on Foreign Office “travel expenses”
and on lavish “refurbishments” to Ministers’ and MPs’ already luxurious
dwellings. Seldom has it been more requisite or salutary that those whose
nests are built in local politics should submit each fondly nurtured scheme
to the stern appraisal of local people. The desire of many for greater
autonomy in the management of their local affairs is evidence of a renewed
awareness of of regional identity - in response to the impersonal forces of
centralisation and of globalisation. Some progress has been made in
recognising and addressing the legitimate aspirations of the inhabitants of
the ancient lands of Wales and Scotland for a revival of the signs of their
nationhood. Much, however, remains to be done. And the arrangements for
Northern Ireland are in a deplorable state of chaos. Arrangements that
have an historical beginning may also have an historical end. By the same
token, those things that have fallen into desuetude may come, in time, to
be restored.
But it is not only to the Celtic lands of Ireland, Wales, the Isle of Man,
Cornwall and Scotland that these considerations are relevant. Those
20
whose roots are in the ancient Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of Mercia, East
Anglia, Northumbria (including Bernicia and Deira), Wessex, Essex, Kent
and Sussex could advance an almost equally persuasive claim - as could
the former kingdoms within Scotland, Wales and Ireland. In the strength of
a shared history and a common purpose, the peoples (for there are many,
both old and more recent) of Britain may also wish to express and to
celebrate the diversity of their origins and the rich variety of their cultures.
The historical maritime robustness of the British is attributable, in part, to
the cultural cross-fertilisation which has occurred down the centuries as
wave after wave of new arrivals have made their homes in these islands.
This process continues to the present-day. For these reasons, among
many others, The Progressive European Party utterly rejects unthinking
racialism and narrow xenophobia. Who, after all, may be said to be the
natives? Are they the present-day descendants of those Dutch who came
with the wool-trade, or of Huguenots escaping religious persecution in
France? Perhaps the descendants of the Normans who arrived with
William, or of more recent immigrants from Commonwealth countries?
Those, perhaps, who can point to the Vikings that settled these shores as
their distant progenitors? Offspring of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes? Or
should it be only those of Celtic stock, who boast traces in their veins of the
blood of the Ancient Britons? All these and more can legitimately call
themselves British. We are a mongrel people with the advantages of
hardihood which hybrid vigour confers. It ill-befits us to vilify, to reject or to
persecute minorities of any ethnic kind. We take it as axiomatic that the
central administration has no business in interfering with matters which can
be settled at a local, subsidiary level. And we apply this principle as much
to the regional organisation of Britain as to the larger questions thrown up
by the European Union. As might be expected from our electoral policies,
we view the electorate as composed of responsible individuals capable of
regulating themselves - and, for the most part, very willing to do so. As a
general principle we believe that the less a government is given to cajoling,
patronising and controlling, the better it is for the people. Similarly, if there
is no very compelling reason for centralising the orchestration of a
21
particular aspect of polity, it is best left in the hands of those whose lives it
touches most nearly. By a happy historical coincidence the demographic
distributions of the present are closely analogous to (and roughly
coextensive with) the bounds of the former kingdoms (illustrations of
pre-Norman Britain to follow). The Progressive European Party intends to
recreate, in reformed and contemporary image, the ancient kingdoms of
Britain as local administrative hubs.
The inefficient, costly, officious apparatus of local authorities will be swept
away and replaced with a streamlined network of territorial administrations.
Gone will be the County Councils, the City Councils and the “unitary
authorities”. In each territorial jurisdiction these will be replaced by a single
regional government called and elected by electronic plebiscite and
answerable directly to local people for its stewardship of territorial
resources. Direct democracy in territorial affairs will ensure that no
measures are taken without the consent of local people. These islands will
be renamed the United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
One of the factors that produced the regrettable outcome of last year’s
botched and poorly planned “referendum” was the sense of powerlessness,
alienation and neglect that many of those who lived in more deprived areas
felt. For this reason, the provinces of polity controlled by the people at the
local and territorial levels will be very much more extensive than at present.
The power of local people to determine their own priorities and to shape
their own mechanisms of local taxation will be correspondingly greater. The
burdens of national taxation will be correspondingly lighter. The
determination and settlement of precise relations between the central
Administration and the territorial Convocations (and their respective areas
of competence) will be guided by the principles enunciated in the earlier
sections of this manifesto and will be subject to the approval of the people.
The aim will be to find a distribution of jurisdictions which is fair,
responsible, economical and efficient - while ensuring that those functions
which can be performed satisfactorily at a subsidiary, territorial level are
entrusted to the Convocations, acting under the direction of local people. A
few functions (e.g. those of the police in preventing and detecting crime at
22
the national and international levels) which, for historical reasons, are still
inappropriately fragmented by the old regional structures, will be unified
under national control - but operated through their territorial subdivisions.
The flow of power will be overwhelmingly away from the central
administration and into the hands of the people at local level.
Macroeconomic policy, higher education, national transport and
communications policy, infrastructure, defence and foreign policy are
obvious examples of areas in which the people of the entire Union of
Kingdoms will have an interest - and will therefore be managed at the
national level. In the other sections of this manifesto we have set forth our
proposals for each of these.

D. Parliament

Synopsis
Present decline and debasement of Parliament. Shortcomings of
”representative” democracy. Retaining the useful functions of Parliament.
Mechanisms and consequences of reform.

Through no particular fault of their own, the majority of those who haunt the
corridors of Westminster (and especially those of the House of Commons),
under the present system of “representative” democracy, are
supernumerary drones. They are paid large sums of money for achieving
very little. It is true that a small minority of MPs do good and useful work on
behalf of their constituents. But what they can achieve is limited and the
processes by which they sometimes achieve results are intricate and
cumbersome. The perennial brouhaha, stirred up by MPs (and especially
by Governments) about the House of Lords provides them with a very
convenient excuse for ignoring the glaring defects of the House of
Commons and of the machinery of government. Since real power resides
with the Government at present, there is very little that most MPs can
achieve of their own volition. Except for the occasional Private Member’s
Bill (with Government approval), they are there to rubber stamp, or to
23
ineffectually oppose, the actions of the ruling party. The only circumstances
in which the Government’s power is rather more limited is when an General
Election produces a “hung” parliament. Even then, as we have seen all to
recently, the “Government” can enter into an alliance with some small,
sectarian party in order to cling onto power. In the most recent of this the
current Government has been willing to jeopardise the Northern Irish
peace-process simply so that they could cling to power. This whole
mechanism is in obvious need of reform. By reason of the party system and
because of the old-fashioned requirements of “representative” democracy,
Parliament has been reduced to a huge, impotent, petrified talking-shop -
paid for and maintained by taxpayers, most of whom are understandably
mystified by the impenetrable proceedings of Parliament and are justifiably
revolted by the childish squabbling of its Members. The “best behaviour” of
MPs, put on since the introduction of television cameras, is seldom edifying
and often would disgrace the classrooms of an average secondary school.
Since Parliament has become an irrelevancy, even in terms of the
“representative” form of democracy whose main arm it claims to be, in a
nation whose business is conducted by direct democracy it will become
entirely pointless. There are, perhaps, five useful functions that Parliament
currently fulfils: 1. It provides a (very inefficient) mechanism through which,
by the condescension of their MP, the concerns of local constituents may
be drawn to the attention of those in power. 2. It is a forum in which those
who wield power can be questioned semi publicly. 3. In the shape of the
House of Lords it may act as a temporary check on the more preposterous
impositions of absolute power by the Government. Each and every one of
these three ends is achieved more expeditiously by the mechanisms of
direct democracy here proposed. The two other specialised functions of
Parliament which may be considered to be of some value are: 4. The
continuing role of the House of Lords in adjudicating matters of
impeachment may still be considered useful - but not irreplaceable. 5. The
role of the Palace of Westminster as a focus for national ceremonial is an
object of curiosity to television producers and to foreign tourists. Since, in
its judicial capacity in cases of impeachment, the House of Lords is
24
represented only by the Law Lords, the powers of this same Court could
readily be transferred to the Supreme Court. The process of impeachment
has, in any case, become effectively obsolete in the United Kingdom. With
the permission of the people, therefore, we propose to abolish Parliament
and all of its tawdry pretences. It will be replaced by a Convocation of State
of directly elected by the people of the Union of the Kingdoms. (The people
may wish to vote a small sum of money annually to maintain the relics of
the hereditary peerage in the Upper Chamber, for the performance of
elaborate ceremonials for the entertainment of the people and as an
attraction to foreign tourists. The Lords Spiritual may be permitted to
participate in these rituals but will not be paid for doing so.)
For all other purposes, as indicated above, Parliament will be replaced by a
unicameral Convocation of State of not more than ninety-nine members
directly elected from the new territorial jurisdictions or “kingdoms”. Each
member will be elected either as a Territorial Envoy by the people of their
own territory or “kingdom”, or as a Uniate Envoy by all of the people of the
Union. Each Uniate Envoy will be responsible to the people for the conduct
of a particular policy portfolio. Each Territorial Envoy, therefore, will be ex
officio Secretary of State for the Territory that has chosen them and will be
answerable to the people of the Convocation that has chosen them. Each
Uniate Envoy will be Secretary of State for the area of policy to which they
have been elected by the nation and will be directly answerable to the
people of the nation as a whole. Secretaries of State will no longer be
chosen by the head of the Government. They will have to demonstrate to
the people who elect them that they are fit and proper persons to serve in
the Convocation of State and that they intend to pursue, in their area of
competence, policies which have the support of the people. The First
Secretary, whose job will be to coordinate the work of all the others, will
also be chosen by the electorate of the whole of the Union of Kingdoms, as
will the Second Minister, who will act as deputy to the First Secretary. The
mandate of the First Secretary will be renewable every three years and no
First Secretary will serve for more than three consecutive terms.
Secretaries of State will be required to resign if more than three of their
25
proposals are rejected by the public consecutively. Likewise, the Territorial
and Uniate Envoys will normally be elected every two years. Any envoy
may be removed from office by a Petition signed electronically by more
than half of the electorate that has chosen them. Byelections may also be
triggered by the death or any other cause of incapacitation of an Envoy or
Secretary. The different and staggered times at which portfolios are
changed will help to assure stability and continuity in the administration as
a whole (thus removing the temptation of short-term “fixes”) and at the
same time will help to prevent the administration from becoming stale,
stagnant and corrupt by the regular introduction of new faces and new
ideas. It will readily be seen that, since all of the Envoys and Secretaries
will be directly elected as individuals, over time the political party system
will gradually become irrelevant. The logic of the case leads inexorably
towards the collapse of the party system.
The people will ultimately be able to vote individuals into or out of office,
just as they will vote for or against the implementation of particular
policies.The puerile “gang” tenor of adversarial politics will become
manifestly inappropriate. Prime Minister’s Question Time and other
questions to Secretaries of State will gradually be replaced by questions
from members of the public. For two hours every fortnight, in a
purpose-built television studio, each Secretary of State will be required to
answer directly questions put by members of the public - either directly
from the floor or telephoned in from other parts of the Union. The Editor of
Secretaries’ Question Time will be elected annually by the people. The
long-term realisation of these these goals will take some time but, if and
when this point is reached, The Progressive European Party will voluntarily
disband. All of the above proposals represent a very radical departure from
the present constitutional arrangements. For this reason they are to be
regarded as a “blueprint”. We are not so arrogant as to suppose that the
suggested dispositions are faultless. Nor do we claim that the forms of
social and political organisation which we have here recommended will
lead to the establishment of any kind of “Utopia”. They represent progress
only in the sense that they are designed as a means of rendering our
26
society more fair in its internal operations, more responsible in its collective
and individual attitudes, more economical in the way in which it regulates
itself, and more efficient in the attainment of its common goals. We of The
Progressive European Party will welcome comment from the public,
whether advert or supportive. It is not very difficult task to discover
objections to almost any proposal for reform of any kind. What is more
difficult (and more rare) is the ability to suggest better alternatives -
improvements to the overall plan- and these we shall especially welcome.
Finally, The Progressive European Party recognises that all of these major
constitutional changes cannot be expected to occur overnight. It will take a
considerable period of time to make the machinery of government more
flexible and more rapidly responsive to the needs of the people. At the
outset it will be necessary for us to work through the existing antiquated
political structures. Parliament, after all, will have to vote for its own
abolition. That is why it is vital that, as soon as possible, the people of
these lands should accord us an indisputable majority - in order that we
shall have the democratic authority to begin to blow away the cobwebs of
the past and to usher in a new era of responsible and responsive
governance.
It is worth repeating that changes of the magnitude required will not happen
overnight. Evolutionary rather than revolutionary change has usually been
the defining characteristic of British constitutional history. And this organic
growth of a Constitution, with its roots in history, nourished and informed by
constant reference to experience and to precedent, has often helped to
preserve us from tyranny. Long may it continue to do so.
For the present purposes the ancient kingdoms are: Cent (Kent) Sudsexe
(Sussex) Wedesexe (Wessex) including Dornsete (Dorset), Somersete
(Somerset) and Defnas (Devon) Essexe (East Saxons - Essex) Cernieu
(Cornish Celtic). Mercna (Mercia) Austur Anglia (East Angles or East
Anglia) Nordymbria (Northumbria) including Deira and Bernicia Yorvik
(York) - Viking controlled. Glywysing (Welsh Celtic) Gwent (Welsh Celtic)
Brycheiniog (Welsh Celtic) Deheubarth (Welsh Celtic) Powys (Welsh
Celtic) Gwynedd (Welsh Celtic) Gododdin (Scotland) Strathcluade
27
(Strathclyde, Scotland) Fib (Fife, Scotland) Fortriu (Scotland) Fotla
(Scotland) Circinn (Scotland) Ce (Scotland) Fidach (Scotland) Cat
(Scotland) Part of what is now Scotland (Dal Riata) was then Irish - and,
indeed the original inhabitants of Scotland were Pictish. The Scots came
from Ireland. Ireland itself was then composed of a number of major
kingdoms, namely: Mide (Meath) Leinster Munster Connaught Ulster For
the present purposes, we need only concern ourselves with Ulster. It is
obvious that urbanisation has caused high concentrations of population to
appear in some of these former kingdoms. Essexe, for instance now
includes London (formerly Lowindinjon). Similarly the great conurbations of
Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Newcastle etc., would formerly have
been within the territories of Mercia,
Northumbria and Yorvik, while Edinburgh and Glasgow formed part of
Gododdin and Strathclyde respectively. It will obviously be necessary for a
new Boundaries Commission to divide these territories in such a way that a
total of ninety-nine Envoys from the various parts of the Union of Kingdoms
(together with the Uniate Envoys) will form the Convocation of State.

E. The Monarchy
Synopsis
Nature of the modern monarchy. Advantages of constitutional monarchy.
Insufficiency of the alternatives. Expenditures on the monarchy.
Constitutional implications and provisos.

In our exploration of the present institutions of “parliamentary” democracy

and “representative” government, we identified much that would benefit
greatly from the changes suggested by (and made possible by) the new
technologies. The case is rather different with the constitutional monarchy.
If we apply the Free-Test to this curious and quintessentially British
institution, the results are rather surprising. It may be argued that the
selection of the nominal Head of State by the hereditary principle does not
meet the requirement that it should be fair. This would be of some
28
significance if any real power were attached to the office. There is a
tendency in the modern world to regard the Monarchy as “family business”
- and there is much to be said for this analogy. It would be unusual to
suggest that the very natural wish of a small-town greengrocer or cobbler
that his son or daughter should succeed him in his business should be
thwarted because it would not be “fair”.
It is no longer the case that the Royal Family (as an example of family
cohesion and right conduct) is seriously considered, by any significant
section of the population, to be a model that invites emulation. A number of
ill-judged remarks by some of its members have completely ‘demystified’
the Royal family However, the constitutional monarchy not only has very
little power, it also has no very extensive influence. But it does still have a
number of useful functions which will be considered below. On the question
of responsibility, it is true that there are no formal channels for ensuring that
the Monarchy is answerable to the people. But recent events have shown
very clearly that the nature of the institution, in the modern world, requires it
to be extremely sensitive to public opinion. And our history shows
repeatedly that there are means “of last resort” for removing a given
monarch from the throne. However, on the only occasion when the whole
institution of the monarchy itself went into abeyance (during the
“Protectorate” of Oliver Cromwell and his Puritans) its removal was soon
adjudged to have been a dreadful mistake - not least because the “Lord
Protector” proceeded to attempt to found his own dynasty. This latter
tendency is still regrettably seen among some of the “political family
dynasties” in republics throughout the world. To make a meaningful
judgment about the extent to which our monarchy may be said to be
economical or efficient is virtually impossible. The impact which it makes on
people, both within and beyond these shores, is difficult to identify,
impossible to quantify and depends on too many variables - not the least of
which is the personality of the reigning monarch. It may reasonably be
supposed, however, that a person who, from birth, has been trained and
prepared for a particular occupation, whether it be the vocation of
greengrocer or of monarch, is likely (barring some mental impediment) to
29
excel in the skills and qualities required by the “trade”. That our monarchy
is greatly admired by many foreigners (including, ironically, those who have
unwisely jettisoned their own royal families) is a matter of common
observation. That it is one of the pillars of our tourist-trade and helps to
swell our reserves of foreign currencies, most would concede. That it lends
a dignity which no mere president could supply to our rituals and at times of
national import, is a fact of common experience. That it is the most potent
symbol of our Union, and therefore of our unity, is beyond question. Even
our enemies and zealous republicans admit (and usually regret) that our
monarchy serves as a focus for patriotic feeling. That the monarchy is
currently held in affectionate esteem by the great majority of British people,
even when they disapprove of some of its particular actions, could probably
be shewn.
The modern constitutional monarchy may have its flaws, but most of the
alternatives are too horrible to contemplate. Would we really wish upon
ourselves an executive President who does not have the necessary skills of
international decorum. The examples of those republics that have an
executive President are usually enough to make the blood of British
nationals run cold, while a nominal presidency (for convenience but without
executive powers) would have no discernible advantages over the present
constitutional monarchy - and would probably be almost equally costly to
maintain. It might rapidly become an expensive constitutional sinecure for
retired politicians. The Progressive European Party therefore believes that,
at present, there are no very good reasons for abolishing the monarchy
altogether. There are, nevertheless, very good reasons for reforming the
funding of the monarchy. Much of the land owned by the monarchy was
seized from the noble enemies of former monarchs or (by Henry VIII) from
the pre-Reformation Church. These lands should be reclaimed for the
nation and the expenses of maintaining the monarchy should be greatly
reduced. These expenses, under a Progressive administration will be part
of the annual Budget. The restoration, if only in name, of the ancient
“kingdoms” within a single Union would be greatly enhanced and
strengthened by allegiance to a single, and preferably shared, monarch. It
30
is possible that the Scots, if they become an independent nation, may wish
to find a monarch with with stronger Stuart credentials. It is also possible
that they may eventually wish to become a republic. As they already have
their own parliament, whose nature and functions may be expected to
change with the introduction of direct democracy, that will be a matter for
them. The same might eventually be said of the Welsh. In the event that
any of the restored “kingdoms” (or Territories) decide - by a clear popular
majority that a different Head of State is more appropriate to their needs,
their wishes will, of course, be respected. Nor will any individual kingdom
be prevented from seceding from the Union if a clear majority of its
inhabitants believes this to be in the best interests of their nation. By the
same token, if (at some future time) a majority of the inhabitants of the
Union of Kingdoms wishes to do away with the monarchy, then that wish
will be implemented. But we cannot on the one hand argue that Northern
Ireland should remain within the Union for as long as a majority of its
people wish it to do so, or that Gibraltar or the Falklands should remain
British for similar reasons, without also, on the other hand, conceding the
converse.
It will not, therefore, be a condition of participation in the Union that a given
Territory should accept the House of Windsor, or indeed any Royal House,
as the only legitimate source for their sovereign. And it is a corollary of
these principles that, at least in theory, nations which have not, hitherto,
formed part of the Union will not, henceforth, be discouraged from joining it.

4. The economy and principles of Progressive policy

Synopsis
‘Free-Test’ methodology. Sources of national wealth. Contemporary global
conditions. Enhancing British productivity.

31
In the formulation of Progressive European Party economic policy we have
been guided neither by monetarist zeal for the magic of ‘the market’ nor by
the tiresome rhetoric of interventionist socialist dialectics and the idolisation
of the 'command economy'. The three most recent market-crashes
illustrate, yet again, the inherently unstable basis of the former approach,
while the collapse of the former Soviet and East European spheres
exemplifies the practical end of the latter. To the elaboration of our own
policies, therefore, we have applied a simple, yet rigorous, fourfold
methodology of principles. Of each proposal for addressing a specific issue
we have asked…

Is it: Fair? Responsible? Economical? Efficient?

For obvious reasons, this is known as the ‘Free-Test’. A training in

philosophy is not required to see that these terms may mean many different
things to different people and that, at times, the principles themselves may
be in mutual conflict. That which is efficient is not necessarily fair – and that
which is economical may fall far short of being socially responsible. For
these reasons we use these terms in their most familiar and colloquial
senses and we apply the ‘Free-Test’ in the order, and with the weighting,
suggested. It is, for example, more important that a policy should be fair
and equitable, to all who are affected by it, than that it should be the most
efficient means of achieving a particular end.

Similarly, it is preferable that a given policy (for example, on an

environmental issue) should be socially and ecologically responsible than
that it should be economical in the short-term. In the longer term, of course,
fair and responsible action will usually produce more economical results.
Thus, in addressing particular problems, it has been our aim to suggest fair
and responsible remedies which are as efficient and economical as
possible. History shows that the real wealth of nations lies not in the
‘service industries’ that they incubate, nor in the accomplishments of
bankers and the skills of those who deal in stocks, shares, derivatives and
32
currencies - though each of these industries, people and skills may have a
part to play. It lies rather in the ability of the nation to realise the potential of
its available natural resources, of its productive industries and of its people.
These considerations apply with even greater force to supra-national
collaborations such as the EU. Another of our principal aims, therefore, will
be to re-establish, as far as possible, the technological pre-eminence which
the UK enjoyed during the greater part of the last two centuries and to
recreate, in contemporary (low-pollution) automated form, the heavy
industries whose destruction was one of the more disgraceful legacies of
the Thatcherite decades. We know, however, that, in the modern,
globalised world, these aims cannot be achieved in pitiful isolation. We
need the willing cooperation and transnational resources of many equal
and geographically close partners. We need, in other words, the EU.

Under current global conditions, Far Eastern and American dominance (in
the ship-building, aerospace and automotive industries - to name but a few)
is no longer inescapable. With one or two exceptions, the market
advantages briefly enjoyed by the newer "tiger" economies of the East
have all but run their course. Employment costs in Japan are now higher
than in the UK. Property values in some of the densely populated
'engine-rooms' of Eastern growth have overtaken our own, increasing their
overheads. A cradle-to-grave employment culture has further burdened
some of the initiators of eastern industry. The globalisation of
pricing-mechanisms for raw-materials has eroded some of their other
advantages and, in some instances, their levels of debt and currency
fluctuations are leading to instability and to commercial contraction.
Precisely the same will happen here in the UK if "Brexit" is permitted to
proceed. Indeed, the first unwelcome signs of this are already appearing.
The conditions are now favourable for a resurgence of British productivity -
but only if we remain in the EU.

The Progressive European Party's planned reorganisation of the education

and training budget will enable us to ensure that leading-edge technology
33
continues to be developed in our universities, research institutes and
factories. Our training and more effective apprenticeship initiatives will
correct the current mismatch between, on the one hand, the needs of
industry for highly skilled engineers and technologists and, on the other, the
dismally small numbers of our own people who are made ready for such
work by the present chaotic arrangements. But none of this will be possible
without the cross-fertilisation and collaborative approach that the EU is
capable of fostering. Our employment policies will lead to better use of our
human resources and will establish an environment in which ingenuity can
flourish. You will discover, in the pages that follow, precisely how these
objectives can and will be achieved.

5. Europe and geopolitical factors

We take it as axiomatic that internationalism and cooperation are

preferable to narrow nationalism, jingoism and protectionism. These latter
stem from the worst of human tribalistic and territorial instincts. All too
frequently, both in the past and in the present, they have led to division,
conflicts and wars.
Any effort, therefore, to promote concord and collaboration between
nations is to be warmly welcomed.
The EU, from its earliest days as the European Coal and Steel Community
of 1952 right up to its present multi-dimensional form as the European
Union, has been, and remains, just such an endeavour.
The road leading to the present EU has been long and difficult.
Even today, nobody would claim that the institutions of the EU are perfect.
Nor can it be said that there are no difficulties presently confronting the EU.
It would also be untrue to say that no further reforms are necessary.
In an ever-changing world, it is inevitable that all international
collaborations are works continuously in progress.

34
All this notwithstanding, the attempt to bring peoples together in common
unifying purposes remains an ideal worth preserving and promoting.
In 1990 there were only about 70 Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs)
throughout the world. Globalisation, however, has led to the creation of
more than 300 such accords. Excluding the EU, principal among these are:

• The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the USA,
Canada and Mexico (see below for current status);
• Mercosur. A customs union between Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay,
Paraguay and Venezuela (a nation currently suspended);
• The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Free Trade Area
(AFTA);
• The Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA);
• The South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) created in 2006 by countries
including India and Pakistan;
• The Pacific Alliance – 2013 – a regional trade agreement between Chile,
Colombia, Mexico and Peru.
• Russia also participates in the Commonwealth of Independent States.
Other members include Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

In addition to these, a number of other major initiatives are underway -

some of which have become highly controversial.
These include:
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), sometimes called the Trans Pacific
Partnership Agreement (TPPA), a trade agreement between Australia,
Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru,
Singapore and the United States (until January 23, 2017) and Vietnam;
The hotly disputed TTIP: the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership between the USA and the EU.

35
The details of all of these different groupings and the terms upon which
they trade within, amongst and beyond themselves need not detain us
here. For the present purposes, it is sufficient to note four things:
1. Trade by means of trading-blocs has become the norm, worldwide, in
recent decades. It has obvious advantages in terms of uniformity of
standards, reducing bureaucratic burdens and obstacles to free trade, and
increasing the collective power and influence of each of the collaborative
organisations.
2. The only alternative to trading as a member of a trading-bloc is to trade
as an individual nation under basic World Trade Organisation rules. This
normally involves innumerable bilateral tariff agreements with every other
national trading partner or trading-bloc.
3. President Trump's arrival in the White House appears to have disrupted
some of these long-standing trading agreements. Donald Trump seems to
favour a protectionist policy. He has already removed the USA from TPP
and shows no enthusiasm for concluding TTIP. Some people in the EU are
also opposed to TTIP. Trump would also like to remove the US from
NAFTA.
4. Trade negotiations between nations and trading-blocs are extremely
complex, detailed and lengthy. They usually take many years to conclude -
and sometimes decades. The recent agreement between Canada and the
EU (CETA) took seven years to negotiate and has still not been ratified by
all of the national parliaments and assemblies involved.
These considerations should give some idea of the complexities that face
the UK if we leave the EU.
To imagine that the two-year period allowed by the terms of Article 50
notification is an adequate time-frame for disentangling ourselves from our
current arrangements with the EU is pure fantasy, Nor would it be desirable
to do so.
The proposed ‘Great Repeal Bill’, repealing the European Communities Act
of 1972, will simply transpose all European law into British law.
The present Government then hopes to excise all those parts of European
law that it does not like (e.g. protection of workers rights, regulations
36
regarding maternity and paternity leave, freedom of the press, freedom
from more or less arbitrary arrest, etc., etc., etc.) from the corpus of British
law. This Bill, if enacted, will not, however, be able to keep pace with any
new standards that the EU may formulate - and thus our ability to continue
trading with EU member-states will be constrained. If we leave the EU, we
shall also be obliged to forge new trading relations with every other nation
or trading-bloc in the world under WTO rules. The UK is not even currently
a member of the WTO in its own right. We are members only by virtue of
our membership of the EU. New membership terms will have to be agreed.
In addition to the UK no longer benefiting from the trade deals that the EU
currently has we will also be putting ourselves in the position of having to
compete with the EU in all our future trade deals.

Let us turn, then, to some broader global geopolitical considerations. There

is an old but regrettably true adage that, in this world, money is power and
power is money. It will be evident from the above that there are currently
only four major geographical players in the field of global politics and
economics:
1. The USA and its sphere of influence; 2. The EU and its sphere of
influence; 3. China, Japan and their respective spheres of influence; 4.
Russia and its sphere of influence.

It is worth remembering that, from prehistoric times right up until the

present day, there has been a gradual complexification and enlargement of
basic societal units. The earliest social unit was (and in some remote
societies remains) the family. The bonds of kinship resulted quite quickly in
the development of tribes. One of the characteristics that distinguishes
humanity from some other species was the discovery that collaborative
skills are beneficial to survival. Hunting was more effective when conducted
by groups of people, each of whom performed a slightly different function.
Our earliest ancestors survived by hunting and gathering. Some peoples
still do. With the development of agriculture more complex social structures
were required. Grains had to be grown, harvested and milled or ground.
37
Livestock required tending, herding, milking, skinning, slaughtering,
dismemberment and distribution. Different (and often unrelated) people
assumed different roles. Systems of bartering and exchange became
necessary. Local, regional and, ultimately, national social units evolved.
Numerous variations ranging from city-states to empires found temporary
expression throughout this long process. Furthermore, as each new
societal experiment has been tried, there have always been those who
opposed them. This remains as true today as it has always been. We, of
the Progressive European Party, would argue that the technological and
communications revolutions that have occurred over the course of recent
decades have rendered the nation-state obsolete. Our contemporary world
has become globalised. The rapidity with which this has happened has
been breathtaking - and very few people yet understand the full
implications of these developments. The resurgence of nationalism and of
populism are an inevitable reaction to this increasing globalisation. As the
size of societal units has increased, there has been an erosion of the deep
human need to feel part of a small, cohesive group. People, especially
those at the margins of these developments, have begun to feel insecure
and alienated. They have longed for and sometimes fabricated smaller,
more easily identifiable groupings. 'Identity politics' are being reasserted.
There is nothing particularly wrong or surprising about this. It seems that
our psychological, biological and social evolution has not kept pace with
our technological evolution. There is very little harm in belonging to a local
Sewing Club, Youth Group or Hedgehog Appreciation Society - if that is
what appeals to you. It is only when narrow definitions of identity lead to
aggression and to conflicts that they become destructive and
reprehensible. But it is justifiable to conclude that the long-term trend has
always been (and remains today) away from small and exclusive societal
units towards larger and more inclusive ones. In the past, empire-building
has been achieved by force of arms, by violence and by conquest. The
European Union and other transnational groupings, on the other hand,
demonstrate that the enlargement of societal units can also be achieved
and sustained by agreement, consent and willing cooperation. From this
38
perspective it is clear that a united world would be an ideal logical
conclusion of this process. Our recently acquired ability to view our tiny and
fragile planet from space (and in the context of an unimaginably vast
universe) puts our pathetic human conflicts and idiotic wars into their
proper perspective. If humanity wishes to survive, it must do so by
collaborating on a global level. The ideal of a united world, in which
territorial wars are unnecessary and global emergencies such as climate
change, famines and disease can be addressed swiftly and efficiently is still
a very distant dream. We shall not see it in our own lifetimes. The stage at
which we find ourselves now is intermediate. If Europe and other
continental entities can join together in cooperation and friendship we are
well on our way towards beginning to solve global problems. That is why it
is vital that the European Union should be preserved and that the people of
these islands should continue to play a leading role in it.

The Progressive European Party, therefore, has short-term, medium-term

and long-term aims.

1. In the short term it is our purpose to stop "Brexit" in its tracks. If this
proves impossible, the EU has already indicated that, although it regrets
the present UK Government's intention to jump 'out of the boat', it would be
very happy if we decided to climb back on board.
2. In the medium term it is our aim to promote ever-closer cooperation
between member-states. This will lead, not immediately, but in the not-far
distant future, to participation in the Schengen area and to the adoption of
the common European currency - the Euro.
3. In the long-term, it is our aim to take a leading part in the expansion of
the European Union by assisting states who wish to join us in meeting the
basic requirements that are expected of member-states. These, of course,
include acceptable standards and practices in the field of of human rights.
4. Given President Trump’s ambivalent attitude towards NATO it seems
prudent to us to encourage and to cooperate fully in the formation EU
defence forces.
39
6. Tax, benefits, pensions and housing

Synopsis
Reversing the proliferation of taxes and benefits. Commercial taxation.
Personal taxation. Indirect taxation. Simplification of benefits and the
abolition of ‘unemployment'. Incentives to responsible urban planning and
energy conservation. Pensions, childcare and the disabled. New housing
initiatives.

Like the British Constitution, the UK’s tax and benefits system may be said
to have grown 'organically'. Because, however, the most rapid phase of its
growth has occurred in comparatively recent times (and because the
motives which have driven its growth have been of a different kind from
those which have informed the constitutional process), the results have
been even more fragmentary, chaotic and cumbersome. Recent panicky
campaigns by the other parties to produce an 'integrated' tax and benefits
system show every sign of having been overwhelmed and halted by their
encounter with the sheer magnitude and complexity of this vast body of
accretions. Such a complex apparatus, moreover, demands an
unnecessarily large body of expensive civil-servants to operate it. The
Progressive European Party, therefore, intends to abolish the hollow and
hypocritical pretence of 'National Insurance' contributions.
It is at last becoming common knowledge that the money which many have
paid, over the decades, in the belief that they were providing for their own
old age and health-care, has been plundered, squandered, diverted, raided
and misappropriated, year after year, by successive governments - to meet
the demands of the moment and to finance whatever schemes have been
fashionable with the government of the day. Contrary to popular belief,
there is no huge reservoir, no carefully tended fund of resources, to provide
for the needs and infirmities of the growing aging population. National

40
Insurance contributions have been exploited by the Exchequer simply as
another source of revenue to support current expenditures. 'Contributions',
in short, have been (and remain) a tax. The original philosophy which
underpinned the levy of National Insurance contributions was not, however,
of this mercenary kind. National Insurance contributions were not intended
solely as a means by which individuals who 'put in' their pence might
eventually 'take out' their pounds. Nor were they intended to supply funds
to support the political aims of the party in power. It was intended that a
social 'safety-net' should be provided for those who, for whatever reason,
had become unable to provide adequately for themselves and for their
families. National Insurance was designed, in other words, to be an
expression of social responsibility. And it is nonetheless pellucidly clear that
the management of the scheme (by successive governments of differing
political colours) has been inept - to put it at its most charitable - and, all too
often, opportunistic, improvident and dishonest. National Insurance
contributions will therefore be replaced by a more forthrightly named Social
Responsibility Tax (SRT), payable by employers and companies alone.
Standard rate SRT will be an annually fixed percentage of a company's
gross annual profits. This will do away with discrepancies such as
'zero-hour contracts' and the fictitious classification of employees as
'self-employed contractors'. All other forms of taxation on companies (e.g.
Corporation Tax and Business rates) will be abolish

For reasons which will become apparent later, we shall also abolish all
means-tested benefits and close down all public offices of the Department
for Work and Pensions, retaining only a greatly reformed version of
Jobcentre Plus. The present hideously complex, expensive, demeaning
and inefficient system of assessment and distribution of benefit
entitlements will be replaced by the introduction of a Citizen's Income for all
- and Augmented Citizen's Income for those with disabilities (CI and ACI).
CI will be linked directly to the Consumer Price Index and will be calculated
to provide a satisfactory quality of life. CI will be treated in the same way as
all other income and will, in effect, be fair payment for citizens - in return for
41
fulfilling certain civic duties which will be detailed in the section on
'Constitutional Reform'. In this very limited sense, under a Progressive
European Party administration, 'unemployment' will be unknown among the
population of the UK and will become a thing of the past. (See also the
section on 'Citizenship'). We strongly believe that the whole concept of
'unemployment' is based upon a misunderstanding and upon a failure to
recognise and value the contribution of every member of our society. Those
people who live on CI alone will not be taxed. Every pound of earned
income over and above CI will be taxed at a flat-rate which will be
calculated annually and submitted for public approval (See 'Constitutional
Reform’). Self-evidently, Citizen’s Income will render the “minimum wage”
obsolete. All public accounts will be published annually, together with the
administration's assessments of the total financial requirements for the next
twelve months and estimates for the next six years. The reasoning and
calculations which have produced the recommendation for the current
year's flat-rate of taxation will be openly published. This tax will replace
Income Tax and will be known as the Unified Provision Levy 1 (UPL1) -
because its purpose will be to provide for those functions which are best
administered at a national, unified level.The enormous savings from the
simplification of the tax and benefits system will help the administration to
keep unified taxes down to very low levels. A Progressive European Party
administration will not only have to show conclusively that a proposed
course of action is necessary and desirable, but will also have to
demonstrate to the people that the budget for it is economical and efficient.
It will, in other words, have to pass the 'Free-test". The devolved
Convocations (See 'Constitutional Reform') will have, in theory, far wider
revenue-raising capabilities than the current local and regional authorities.
However, they will also be subject to much closer public scrutiny and will be
under much more immediate public control. Indirect taxation through VAT
will continue at average European levels. To avoid unnecessary
organisational duplication, all taxes, both regional and unified will be
collected by the devolved regional government (See 'Constitutional
reform'). Those regional Convocations that have instituted house-building
42
programmes on 'brownfield' sites with thermally efficient and renewable
building materials will be permitted to retain a proportion of the the unified
tax revenues. All remaining revenues will be transferred to the national
administration. Incentives to incorporate renewable energy features (such
as solar panels, domestic wind-turbines, micro-hydro and other
hydroelectric technologies) into all new building projects will be provided
through the mechanisms of taxation. The UK currently lags far behind
countries such as Germany and the Netherlands in the deployment of
these technologies. The Progressive European Party will not permit this
deficit to persist. Separate arrangements for the payment of pensions will
no longer be required - since all adults, irrespective of age, will be receiving
CI. Nevertheless, every year, in recognition of their long years of service, a
Seniority Supplement for all voters over the age of sixty-five will be
proposed by the PEP administration. This will be in addition to CI and will
be calculated to cover, at the very least, the heating costs of those who are
frail. With the introduction of CI 'retirement' will technically be abolished. In
the calculation of total tax-liability (UPL1 and UPL2), all sources of income
(with the exception of CI), whether from work or from investments, will be
taxed at the same flat rate. ACI (Augmented Citizen's Income) will be paid
to those with disabilities. It will not be means-tested. The sole criterion used
in calculating the amount of ACI will be the amount of extra expense
necessarily incurred as a result of the disability. ACI will be one of the very
few payments that are of variable amount - but will be subject to the same
flat-rate of taxation and will be included in the assessment of liability for
UPL1 or UPL2. Standard Childcare Allowance (SCA) will be paid to those
who have legal responsibility for children under the age of 16. Parents (or
those who stand 'in loco parentis') themselves will decide whether to spend
this allowance on looking after their children or towards paying for
child-care for younger children.
SCA will also be taxable under UPL1 or UPL2 - but with exemptions for
those whose sole source of income is CI.
New Housing Initiatives

43
One of the most pressing issues of our time is the inadequate provision of
social housing. It is an area of policy that has been neglected by
successive governments for many decades.
The results of this neglect are all too obvious in both urban and rural areas.
The demand for housing far outstrips the supply and secure, adequate and
affordable housing is now a distant dream for the majority of families and
individuals.
The Progressive European Party intends to address this problem from its
very roots.
Central government does not, at present, allow local government to borrow
against the value of their housing stock in order to raise the finance
necessary to build new housing. In addition local government is not allowed
to use the money it generates from the right to buy scheme to build new
housing. If such borrowing and relocation of funds were to be allowed, new
social housing could be built at no cost to the taxpayer. If, furthermore, 50%
percent of these new builds were sold on the private market, the revenue
from these sales could be put towards the cost of the each project. Such a
scheme would work perfectly in predominantly urban areas. In such cases
the high building costs would be offset by high house prices. Thus the
revenues from properties sold would be more than enough to cover the
costs of the entire project. In other words, each well-managed project
would provide new social housing completely free of cost. In some areas of
the country, the whole cost of building might not be fully recoverable from
private sales. In such instances, however, it would still be possible to build
social housing at approximately half the cost of solely social estates. The
savings generated would thus be enormous. The effect of this would be
that the chronic housing shortages in the private sector would at last be
alleviated. Social housing would at last be available to all who need it.
The total cost of building could not be expected to be reimbursed from the
sales in every part of the UK. Nevertheless each project would still
ultimately cost nothing. For any remaining unsold properties would be
rented . This rental revenue would easily cover interest payments on any
outstanding loans. These housing initiatives will also provide an opportunity
44
to upgrade building regulations to require high standards of safe, fire-proof
insulation for all new builds. Catastrophes of the type typified by the
Grenfell Tower disaster would be averted and winter heating costs would
simultaneously be minimised. New flats, for instance, would have only one
outside wall. Thus insulation cost per unit would not be significantly greater.
New building regulations would also make solar panels and, where
appropriate, mounted wind-turbines mandatory. The electricity generated
could either be used directly for heating or, at times of surplus, be sold into
the National Grid. Technologies such as storage radiators and efficient
insulation would provide efficient and cheap or cost-free heating. Fuel
poverty for occupants would become a thing of the past. Providing suitable
housing for all would save local authorities millions of pounds. Currently
local authorities spend large sums on bed and breakfast accommodation
for the homeless. By the same token, at present, when a family becomes
homeless, children have to be taken into care. This is inordinately
expensive. Central government, moreover, currently spends £25 billion on
the UK's housing benefit bill. To sum up, the need for local authorities to
build low-cost, inferior housing would be obviated. Because about half of
new homes would be sold on the open market they would need to be of a
high standard to attract buyers. Finally, therefore, the plight of first time
buyers and council waiting lists would, in due course, be ended. Good
quality homes would be available for everyone at no cost to the taxpayer.

7. Education, training and employment

Synopsis
Introduction. Systematic rationalisation of education and training. Meeting
the needs of Industry and Commerce. Meeting the needs of civil
administration and of the National Health Service. Meeting the needs of the
armed forces. Meeting the needs of schools and universities and promoting

45
excellence. Encouraging constructive use of leisure-time. Stimulating the
creation of new jobs.

INTRODUCTION

One of the salient problems of our present education system is that

successive governments have been making changes to it without any real
consensus with the professional educators. The latter are, after all, the
ones who are the experts in this field. We hear complaints from industry
that school leavers and graduates do not have the required skill set to fill
vacancies and it therefore becomes necessary to recruit workers from the
EU and beyond. Numeracy and literacy levels amongst our school leavers
are shamefully low by comparison with all other major developed countries.
Moreover very few of those school-leavers have learned a second
language. At the same time our teachers are overworked and find
themselves bogged down with paperwork. This has been causing many to
leave the profession. An education system that has overworked teachers
but at the same time produces under-qualified students clearly needs a
radical reform.
The solution to this problem that the Progressive European Party will
implement will be the setting up of a Parliamentary cross-party Select
Committee for education. This committee will consist of fifty percent MP’s
with the remaining fifty percent made up from teachers of children of all
ages, head teachers, representatives from our universities, colleges and
industry.
The remit of the committee will be to examine the effectiveness of our
current mix of Primary and Secondary schools, Faith schools, Free
schools, Academies, City technology colleges, State boarding schools and
Private schools. It will also examine all further and adult education.
The committee will be will be free to explore education methods in other
countries, the work of the progressive schools as well as the successful
areas of our current system and those that are falling behind. Everything
should be taken everything into account including the relative merits of
46
degrees and vocational experience to find the most effective methods to
suit all students. The aim will be to develop a new education system that
overcomes the current difficulties and can produce students that know how
to be responsible adults, good citizens and who can contribute to society. It
will naturally be necessary for them to have the qualifications necessary to
find meaningful employment upon leaving full time education. The
qualifications suggested in other papers of this section will serve those
purposes extremely well.
The final recommendations of the committee will propose the changes
necessary to make the system fit for purpose in the twenty-first century.
Such changes will have to be both practical to implement and capable of
being funded from taxation at a realistic level. It will be a condition of the
work of the Committee that there should be no political interference in the
implementation of its findings.
The Progressive European Party has its own complete plan for the nation’s
education system outlined below which we will put to the education
committee for their consideration.

Like many parents, most teachers and the majority of pupils (and now,
apparently, Ofsted), The Progressive European Party believes that, in the
longer term, compulsory schooling should end at 16. We propose that,
thereafter, a number of different choices should be open to young people.
The overall pattern of British education, therefore, will ultimately be as
follows:
1. Initial Education (3-14) For pupils up to the age of 14, provision and
funding of schooling will be the responsibility of the territorial Convocations
under the direction of local people. During their final year at school, on the
basis of coursework and of written examinations, pupils will be awarded
their Certificates of Initial Education (CIEs) by their territorial Board of
Examiners. With the permission of the people of each kingdom, schools
under territorial supervision will be permitted to make modest charges for
the facilities (but not for the education) which they provide. Parents whose
sole source of income is CI will be exempt from these charges. Parents
47
may also be reimbursed a proportion of these fees by the Territorial
Convocations I inverse proportion to their tax liability. That is to say that
those parents who only have to pay small sums of UPL1 and UPL2 will only
be charged correspondingly small sums for educational equipment funding.
Those parents who find themselves temporarily unable to meet school
charges will be assisted by the People’s Provident Bank (set up on
co-operative principles) with loans at very low interest rates (See Section
B).

2. Intermediate Education (14+) From the age of 14 onwards, those who

wish to continue with academic study at Uniate Colleges will be able to
choose between Colleges of Arts and Humanities, Colleges of Engineering
and Technology, and Colleges of Science. A system of transferable
Academic Credits will operate between the colleges so that, in building up
their portfolio of Matriculation Qualifications (MQs), students will be able to
take a number of different modules in different Uniate Colleges. In the
normal course of events, four years spent at one or more of these Uniate
colleges, and possession of the relevant MQs, will lead either to University
entrance or to a placement with a commercial organisation. The courses of
the Uniate Colleges will be open to freelance civil servants (formerly called
“the unemployed”) of any age.
There will be no need for grants for students over the age of 18, since they
will all be receiving CI.
3. A nationwide system of apprenticeships Those whose aptitudes are
more suited to skills training will be able to learn a more traditional trade
(plumbing, electrician, carpentry etc.) through an apprenticeship with an
employer - or will also have the choice of embarking on an Employers’
Training Programme in Engineering, Electronics, Information Technology
and a number of other technical fields. No final career decisions need to be
made at this stage. We shall provide financial and tax incentives to industry
and commerce to develop training programmes which will be supervised by
the Territorial Convocations. If these training programmes are of a
sufficiently high standard, the Training Accreditations which they yield will
48
have parity with MQs for more advanced employment and for the purposes
of university entrance.
4. Initial membership of a new Civilian Service Corps We shall create a
Civilian Service Corps to train and supply personnel for the uniate Police
Service, Civil Service, Coastguard Service, as well as the Intermediate
Education Service, Territorial Social Services and Initial Education
Services. Entry into the Civilian Service Corps will be possible at
Intermediate Level (14+), at Matriculated Level (18+) at Graduate Level
(normally 21+) or at Mature Level (all ages above 25). In this way lifelong
learning and opportunities for skills enhancement will be provided. Training
in the Civilian Service Corps will yield a Licentiate of of Civilian Service with
recognition and standing in the universities and other fields of civilian
employment. 5. Cadet membership of the armed services As part of our
defence policy, which will involve the reform and expansion of the existing
services, young people will also be encouraged to apply for cadet
membership of one of the defence services. Defence Service Training
Colleges will be set up for this purpose. We believe that early training in
this field will enable young people to decide whether it is the right career for
them, will, in any case, equip them with helpful skills for civilian life and will
supply more efficient personnel to the services themselves. Initial training in
the Defence Services will yield a Defence Services Licentiate with
equivalent standing in the universities and for the purposes of civilian
employment to those awarded by the Civilian Service.
With the above five alternatives before them (Initial and Intermediate
academic, apprenticeship, Civilian Service and cadetship) no young person
need be without an occupation. Within each service provision will be made
for the employment of persons with disabilities.
6. The Universities and Teaching Hospitals The design of the education
and training system detailed above will supply high calibre students to our
universities. Financial provision for the universities and their associated
teaching hospitals will be the direct responsibility of the Convocation of
State. The assumption of responsibility for primary and early-intermediate
education by the territorial Convocations will enable a Progressive
49
administration to concentrate funding on high quality teaching and pure
research in the universities and to provide for the tuition fees of British
students. Student loans and tuition fees will therefore be abolished.
Students, as stated previously, will be in receipt of CI. Commercial
sponsorship of applied research will not only continue but will be greatly
expanded. The provision of accommodation for students and the level of
boarding charges for those that do not live in their parental homes will
become unequivocally the responsibilities of the universities, which will
receive Uniate grants to help with such provision.
7. Expanding employment opportunities In addition to the initiatives outlined
above, The Progressive European Party believes that there are benefits to
be gained by industry, commerce and agriculture from more
labour-intensive methods of production. Automation, for its own sake, is not
necessarily and in all cases the most cost-efficient of the alternatives.
Where productivity and profitability would not be adversely affected, we
shall provide tax-incentives and training resources to enable employers to
design methods of production around human resources, rather than
requiring shrinking numbers of high-salaried specialists to service ever
more complex machines (See Section 5. Tax, Benefits, Pensions and
Housing above). A proportion of National Lottery receipts will be assigned
to the development of resources for the support of small-scale production
of suitable products. Large-scale infrastructure and transport projects will
create significant numbers of new jobs
Foremost amongst these will be the creation of a network of tidal
hydroelectric power-generating facilities and the restoration and extension
of the railways (See Energy, Transport and the Environment below). Details
of each if these initiatives, together with the budgets for their
implementation will be laid before the people in the normal way.

8. Defence and foreign policy

50
Synopsis
Free-Test methodology in foreign policy. The inadvisability of immediate
unilateral disarmament. The necessity of defending Britain’s interests. The
case for reform, expansion and repurposing of the armed services. The
defence and propagation of democratic principles.

The principles which inform our domestic policies will also guide our foreign
policy. We shall seek friendly relations and economic ties with those
nations (especially our closest European neighbours and fellow-members
of the European Union) whose social and political institutions are fair,
responsible, economical and efficient. When the values of fairness and
responsibility clearly form no part of the agencies of a foreign government,
we shall use the channels of diplomacy, of economic pressure and (in
some instances) of international aid to build an impetus towards them.
In our own dealings with other nations we shall strive for results which give
tangible expression of those principles. In the case of nations whose
regimes openly abrogate the norms of civilised behaviour, and thereby
cause international turbulence, we shall strongly support international
corrective measures.
If the present Conservative Government, despite its lack of a credible
parliamentary majority, persists in its ill-considered purpose of extracting us
from the EU we shall seek immediately to return to the EU fold. We
anticipate that, partly as a result of the “Brexit” the European Union to
which we shall be returning will be a more unified, purposeful and reformed
organisation than the one that a misinformed public rejected by a narrow
majority on June the 23rd, 2016.
If, on the other hand, the present British government is forced to call
another General Election before we leave the EU, we shall quite simply
stop “Brexit” in its tracks. Article 50 notification will be withdrawn either
unilaterally or, if necessary, with the consent of the other 27 members of
the EU.

51
So much damage has already been done to the British economy by this
ruinous “Brexit” process that we shall need all of the economic measures
outlined above to restore Britain to economic health.
It would be agreeable to observe that, now that the world has embarked
upon a new millennium, humankind has outgrown the dreadful destruction
and wastefulness of war. Alas, every day new evidence arises that
contradicts and confounds that pleasant hope.
If, therefore, an international consensus forms the view that the best means
of addressing a particularly intransigent international problem would be
military action, we shall consult the British people directly on the question of
whether Britain should play her part. In most cases, under the present
dispensation, such a response would be mediated through the agency of
NATO- or, in the case of peace-keeping forces, through the United Nations.
We shall however, ensure that our military, naval and armed aerospace
dispositions are such that we shall be able to respond decisively (and, if
necessary, independently) to every foreign threat to Britain’s interests. It is
a matter for national shame that, if a crisis comparable to that of the
Falklands in 1982 were to recur, our armed services have now been so
depleted by successive penny-pinching governments that we would be
completely unable to respond.
On the other hand, the necessity of for consulting the British people (by
electronic means) before launching into an ill-advised military adventure
would almost certainly preclude unwise excursions such as that which
occurred in Iraq.
We have indicated elsewhere that, with the permission of the people, we
intend to reform and expand the the armed services. Since the advent of
special forces that are trained to operate on land, in the air and by sea, the
distinctions between the armed services have become increasingly blurred.
This natural process will be recognised and formalised by the, so that all
three services will be merged into a single High Command. With the help of
the savings outlined in previous sections of this manifesto by a reduction of
the sums spent on the civil service, the size and capabilities of our armed
High Command will be considerably increased.
52
The gradual erosion of our military capabilities by politicians more
concerned with popular short-term gimmicks than with the peace and
security of our nation has left Britain dangerously enfeebled. We only just
managed to scrape together a force sufficient to deliver a rebuke to
General Galtieri after Argentina’s attempt to annexe the Falklands. It is
doubtful that, under present circumstances, we could even manage to
muster a comparable force if similar circumstances were to arise again.
Leaving aside, for the moment, the necessity for ensuring that the interests
and views of the British peoples command serious attention in the world,
there are sound internal social, economic and educational reasons for
revitalising our armed forces.
In the first place, and most obviously, increased recruitment is a means of
supplying constructive employment for young people who might otherwise
drift aimlessly. The discipline of life in the armed services may serve to
channel energies which, all too often, find their expression in the costly
evils of petty crime, of public aggression and of vandalism in our cities. The
apparent successor the recent initiative to recruit homeless young people
supports the effectiveness of this approach. Many could be saved from
drug addiction, prostitution or worse.
In the second place, recruits will receive training, both practical and
academic, which will enable them to contribute constructively to society
when they leave the armed services. Those who choose to remain at the
end of their four-year contract will supply the armed services with
better-trained, more competent and more effective personnel.
Thirdly, recruits will be receiving pay above the level of CI and hence will
become tax-payers, instead of just a charge on the public purse. The role
of the armed services could, moreover, be extended to provide assistance
to the major projects of national reconstruction. They are ideally placed, for
example, to supply the logistics for the restoration of our railways and for
the construction of our sea-defences and tidal electricity installations.
Finally, as the Americans and Russians are well aware, the armed services
often supply a stimulus to technological advances, a market for some of the
products of our recreated heavy-industries and a stimulus to the product of
53
others (unrelated to arms) which can be sold abroad. The case, in short, for
reversing the contraction of our armed services, which has been taking
place during the past several decades, is fairly persuasive. It goes without
saying, however, that a Progressive administration will not embark upon
such a course without the explicit approval of the British peoples.

Above all, we want Britain to be strong enough, in the political, economic,

social and military attributes, to ensure that we shall always be able and
ready to neutralise every attempt, from within or without, to infringe our
personal, local and collective liberties.
We believe that the principles of direct democracy that will shortly be taking
root in our country will be emulated in other lands and that Britain will once
more light the way and pioneer the path for those who wish to make
progress in their journey towards freedom and democracy.

9. Crime and drugs

Synopsis
The link between crime and drugs. Placing the supply and use of drugs
under public supervision. Making accurate knowledge about drugs
available to the public. Controlling the supply acquisition and use of drugs.
Treating people whose lives have been shattered by drugs.

Few can now seriously challenge the direct link between rising long-term
crime figures and the increasingly ubiquitous use of drugs. Eighty three
percent of convicted criminals admit to having used drugs and a very large
proportion of crimes are committed while under the influence of alcohol or
other drugs. For the present purposes alcohol and tobacco are treated no
differently from other drugs.
At least two other factors have contributed to this steady rise:

54
1. The fact that activities which are widespread and commonplace among
young people are presently classified as “criminal”. 2. The fact that costly
and currently illegal drug-addictions are often supported by petty theft,
muggings and other violent crimes.
Progressive policy is based upon four principles which arise, in their turn,
from Free-Test methodology. These policy principles are:
Legalise Inform Control Treat
A. Legalisation
Historical evidence suggests that, prior to the introduction of legislation
preventing the universal availability of most drugs, the social ills that
attended drug-use were, in fact, less severe than the problems which we
experience today.
It is certainly much easier to regulate and control a process if there is no
need for it to be ‘hidden”. The American experiment with “Prohibition” of
alcohol is but one of many social experiments which have repeatedly
confirmed this simple and obvious truth. When alcohol was “prohibited” it
was simply driven underground. Illicit production flourished. “Speakeasies”
proliferated. The trade in alcohol received an enormous stimulus.
The Progressive European Party therefore proposes to legalise (not merely
“decriminalise”) the private use of all currently popular drugs and to create
a licensing system which will enable the the supply and use of drugs to be
supervised effectively and stringently regulated.
Mere “decriminalisation” of small-scale possession of certain drugs, like
most half-measures, would be unsatisfactory. It would leave the supply of
these substances in the hands of criminal organisations.
Only by bringing drug-use out into the open can we hope to counteract its
baneful personal and social effects and to put an end to the power of the
criminal fraternities.
B. Information
To make drugs widely available without warning people of the possible
dangers attendant on their use would be irresponsible. We therefore
propose to launch a comprehensive public drugs-education campaign

55
giving detailed information based upon the best available evidence from
medical and social research.
This information will be targeted at schools and prisons and at the
institutions of further and higher education - as well as at the general
public.
The discredited “scare-campaigns” and ineffectual “just-say-no” campaigns
of the past will be avoided.
C. Control
The supply of drugs will be regulated by a licensing system comparable to
(but more stringent than) that which presently applies only to alcohol and
tobacco. Drugs of addiction (including alcohol and tobacco) will only be
available through approved outlets and purchasers will be required to
furnish evidence of their age and identity before licensed drugs are
released to them. Buyers will be required to sign for each purchase and
quantities purchased will be electronically recorded.
Duty or tax will be payable at each stage of the import, manufacture,
wholesale and retail of licensed drugs. Such duties and taxes will, however,
be set at a level which permits the sale of standardised and unadulterated
drugs at prices considerably lower than those that render this trade
profitable to criminal organisations. In simple terms, licensed outlets will
have no difficulty in undercutting the present prices of “street-drugs”.
Economic factors alone will drive “dealers” out of business.
Standards to regulate the relative potency, quality, purity and safety of
substances and of their preparations will be strictly monitored and
enforced.
Advertising of all such products will be prohibited and all packaging will
display appropriate warnings.
Protection of the public from the anti-social consequences of drug use will
be strengthened. Legal provisions which currently apply only to those under
the influence of alcohol and some other drugs will be extended to cover the
use of all other licensed drugs. In some cases, where recorded purchases
are excessive, compulsory treatment of chronic addiction will be necessary
(see D. below).
56
D. Treatment
In addition to financing drugs-education and public awareness campaigns,
revenues from taxation of the production and sale of licensed substances
will be employed to ensure that comprehensive treatment facilities are
available in all Territories of the Union of Kingdoms to help those whose
drug-use has become problematic.
Patients will be accepted on a voluntary basis or as a result of referral by
the courts. The revisions of the Mental Health Act, in respect of persons
who may be a danger to themselves or to others, will be extended to apply
to those whose chronic use of drugs has placed them in this category.
We believe that this four-pronged approach to the problems associated
with non-medical drug-use (Legalise, Inform, Control, Treat) has a better
chance of getting our national drug-problem LICT than any of the other
presently proposed strategies.

In short, the present failed “war on drugs” will be discontinued and the
antiquated system that helps to create an entire criminal caste will be swept
away.

Epilogue

It has been our aim, throughout this Manifesto, to show how the inexorable
forces of globalisation can be reconciled with the very natural desire of
every human being to feel a sense of “belonging” - by finding a way of
overcoming the sense of alienation and powerlessness felt by many,
especially in previously neglected and deprived parts of the United
Kingdom.
You must judge for yourself to what extent we have succeeded in this aim.
Politics are perpetually in a state of flux and political parties cannot, for this
reason, afford to stand still.

57
We do not claim to have found permanent and definitive solutions to all of
the problems that beset the United Kingdom, as it is presently constituted.
As our name suggests, we aim for continuing progress rather than an
unreachable state of perfection.
We are equally sure that, at this historical juncture, Britain’s place is within
the European Union. We are Internationalist in outlook but at the same time
determined that democracy should operate at the local level of
neighbourhoods and of communities.
We regard a united Europe as an ideal worth striving towards.
It may be that, in centuries to come, our successors will be able to achieve
a united world.
We believe that history shows that human social evolution tends towards
ever larger collaborative efforts between the peoples of the world.
We are equally aware, however, that at every step towards global unity
there arises resistance that stems from the fear of a loss of identity.
We take it as axiomatic that peace is preferable to war and that
collaboration is preferable to rivalry.
It is our hope that our children’s great grandchildren may inherit a world
that is at unity and at peace within itself.
This will not happen in our own lifetimes.
But it is a vision worth striving towards - for the only alternative is that, by
one means or another, humankind will obliterate itself and lay waste to the
planet that has been our home for countless millennia.
Let wisdom, unity and peace triumph over all folly, division and conflict.

An invitation

We commend to you the practical vision of this new Progressive European

Party and we invite you to join us. We have set forth here our analysis of
many of the difficulties that must be faced as the 21st Century progresses -
and we have shown how most of them can be solved.

58
The established parties (and the social and political order that they
represent) cannot be part of that solution - for they themselves are in no
small measure the cause of many of these problems.
But you can be instrumental in the restoration, rebirth and reinvigoration of
Britain within the European Union.
You will have an opportunity, in forthcoming elections, to show that you
reject the politics of narrow self-interest and the pursuit of short-term
advantage and that you will not sit idly by while successive Governments
preside over the rapid decline, disintegration and humiliation of a great
nation and of a proud people in an even greater continent.
It is our aim that, as soon as possible, every British voter will have the
opportunity to choose the Progressive way forward. Help us, then, to
remove the power of deciding Britain’s future from the political
manipulators; the “grandees” and the “spin doctors” of the old parties. Help
us to transfer real power into the hands of every ordinary citizen of Britain.
We are, as yet, a small, but rapidly growing, force in British politics. Unlike
the outdated, but more established, parties, we receive no regular support
from powerful Trades Unions; nor from global “business”. We rely entirely
on our members and on individual well-wishers.
The ideas and policies outlined above represent only the main components
of our programme of national renewal and international placement. We
have many other proposals for the people of Britain to consider. We want
these ideas to be seen and discussed in the daylight. We want you to be
able to participate effectively in the debate and to have a hand in the
decisions. The Progressives want Britain’s course to be steered not by the
secretive covens of the party hierarchies nor by faceless “quangos” and
Whitehall “mandarins”. We intend to ensure that it is the ordinary people of
Britain who are at her helm.
If the plans that we have set forth here have been of interest to you and
you would like further specific information, please feel free to write to us or
to send us an email. If you have suggestions as to ways in which our
programme could be improved, be assured that shall listen, take note and,
where possible, bring them to fruition.
59
 http://www.progressiveeuropeanparty.com

​© 2017 Progressive European Party All rights reserved

60