2017 Manifesto

    

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





Foreword

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.

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




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 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 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 D. Parliament E. The Monarchy

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 (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 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:

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.

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 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 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. You 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 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? 

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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 (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 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 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 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

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 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 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.

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.

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 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. 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 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.



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 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 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 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

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 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 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 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 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 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 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

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.

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.

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 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:

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 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).

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.

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.

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.


© 2017 Progressive European Party All rights reserved


                                                     Click to download