FOREIGN

AFFAIRS

INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY AND REDISTRIBUTION? — YES.

DISMANTLING NATIONAL DEMOCRACIES AND ABOLISHING FREEDOM ACROSS THE GLOBE? — NO.

  1. ...Compassion Abroad Must NOT Mean — and Does NOT Have To Mean — Tyranny At Home!

SELF-GOVERNING NATIONS ARE THE ONLY REAL BASIS FOR MEANINGFUL DEMOCRACY, AND THEREFORE THE SUREST FOUNDATION FOR A PEACEFUL, FAIRER WORLD.

OUR POLICIES — AT A GLANCE

THE EU

  • BREXIT : Termination Of The Brexit Deal — So That UK Governments Are Free To Change ANY UK Laws In Accordance With The Wishes Of The UK Electorate.
  • Remain Committed To Genuine Deep Intergovernmental Co-operation.

WORLD POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS

  • A REFORMED UNITED NATIONS : International Solidarity and Redistribution — But Without Dismantling National Democracies.
  • Britain NOT Party To ANY International Treaties Involving EU-Like Sovereignty Transfer — e.g. TTIP and TPP.
  • GLOBAL DEFENCE : Multilateral Military Action Through NATO, The EU's European Defence Force and The United Nations Security Council.
  • GLOBAL TRADE : Global, Nation-Based 'Fair Shares' Economics — Allowing 15% Imports In Each Sector of The UK Domestic Economy.
  • GLOBAL CRIMINAL COURT : Support For International Criminal Court (ICC) Restricted To Genuine War Crimes Only.
  • GLOBAL AID : A More Co-ordinated Intergovernmental Global International Aid Effort Encouraged. A commitment To Meet The UN Target For Overseas Aid As A Percentage Of GDP.
  • GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS and TAXATION : Non-Participation In Bogus, Unscientific UN Global Environmental Agreements (e.g. Kyoto, Paris).

OTHER INTERNATIONAL TREATIES

  • Constructive Engagement With Undemocratic States
  • Only Limited Relations With Countries Sponsoring Terrorism Or Mistreating Their Own People.
  • Commonwealth countries encouraged to become fully independent of the UK.
  • Falkland Islands : allowed to become a part of the significant nation that occupies the nearest large land mass — Argentina.
  • Gibraltar allowed to become part of the nation that occupies the nearest large land mass — Spain.
  • Middle East : support continued for the existing (stalled) peace process, whilst seeking to work with the international community to promote the idea of separate faith-based zones across the Middle East.
  • Ukraine : support for an early ceasefire and efforts to rebuild Ukraine as an independent self-governing - albeit militarily neutral - nation.
  • China and Russia : Both countries urged to desist from opposing international attempts to bring peace and democracy to troubled parts of the world, whilst seeking to build a cordial, enduring relationship.
  • A Single Global Language Encouraged.

OUR POLICIES

THE EU

Thanks to the recent referendum on the EU and the majority vote for Brexit, the disaster of a permanent lock-in to an undemocratic EU political union that made the votes of UK voters increasingly meaningless at election times has been narrowly avoided.

THE BREXIT VOTE WAS A CLEAR DEMAND FROM THE ELECTORATE AND CLEAR MANDATE FOR THE POLITICIANS TO UNAMBIGUOUSLY 'TAKE BACK CONTROL' OF OUR OWN LAW-MAKING POWERS AND TO CONTROL AND SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE IMMIGRATION.


ANY PARTY CLAIMING TO BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY SHOULD THEREFORE BE ABOUT THE BUSINESS OF IMPLEMENTING THE REFERENDUM OUTCOME, NOT SEEKING TO SIDELINE, REDEFINE OR IGNORE IT.

THE BREXIT DEAL (THE TRADE AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT) TERMINATED — SO THAT UK GOVERNMENTS ARE FREE TO CHANGE ANY UK LAWS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WISHES OF THE UK ELECTORATE.

The present Brexit deal is only a SEMI-BREXIT that leaves future UK governments needing to coordinate (approx.) 60% of UK laws with the EU. This level of contractually-binding coordination undermines the ability of UK governments to make changes in many areas and undermines the naturally-unifying focus of meaningful national democracy.

Whilst terminating the agreement and COMPLETELY leaving the EU will not be without a short-term political and economic price, the suggestion made by those in favour of the EU that millions of UK jobs associated with trade with the EU would somehow be lost upon withdrawal are, sadly, another example of the near-total dishonesty that has characterised the EU-debate.

Whilst withdrawal will almost certainly mean some lost European business, we will simply continue to trade in the usual international manner on WTO terms, and as Britain consistently buys more from EU countries than we sell to them, it is not in their interests to significantly disrupt this trade.


Remain Committed To Genuine, Deep INTERGOVERNMENTAL Co-operation

Yet just leaving the EU is not the end of the problem, for the powerful pro-EU arguments remain concerning national self-interest producing wars, and whilst the EU was not primarily responsible for staring down Russia during the Cold War as some EU advocates claim (that was achieved by the sustained credible threat of the USA and NATO) the EU can surely claim credit for helping to solidify post Cold War relations with Eastern Europe and making significant national rivalries between EU member states largely unthinkable.


We therefore remain deeply and actively committed to participation in EU projects in the areas of:

  • A Multilateral Approach In The Areas Of Defence and Armed Forces
  • Economic Advantage For Poorer EU Nations — with Britain continuing to make reduced contributions to the EU budget for this specific purpose
  • Atomic Energy
  • Research and Development — for e.g. in the areas of energy production and biotechnology
  • Student Exchange Programs
  • A Fishing Quota of 30% of Total Catch in UK Waters For EU Boats
  • Cross-Border Crime and Security Measures and Data Sharing

WORLD POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS

IN ORDER TO MAKE ALL OUR OWN LAWS, BRITAIN SHOULD NOT BE PARTY TO ANY OTHER INTERNATIONAL TREATIES TRANSFERRING LAW-MAKING POWERS TO INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS OR THAT CONTRACTUALLY BIND THE ABILITY OF FUTURE UK GOVERNMENTS TO SET POLICY IN ANY AREA (SUCH AS ENVIRONMENTAL TREATIES OR UN AGENDA 2030 STRATEGIES OR TARGETS).

A REFORMED UNITED NATIONS


International Solidarity and Redistribution — But Without Dismantling National Democracies

In government we will pursue a middle course, rejecting the extremes of both the massive inequality and destruction of vital national industries of unregulated laissez-faire international capitalism and the artificially-created restructuring of national economies to build-in a permanent dependence on other nations favoured by globalist politicians. This forced dependency may be the shared vision of an anti-democratic coalition of anti-democratic-left and anti-democratic-right, but it is a vision that makes for weak nations, artificial markets, jobs going abroad, reduced career choice at home and the undermining of meaningful debate and democracy in every country on the planet.


However, international institutions can be guardians of a free world of nations, but The Fair Britannia Party believes individual nations should remain essentially economically independent — this is what comes most natural to humankind across the globe and down through the ages, and is the only way to have a meaningful democracy and a free world. Internationally, this would mean 'economic national independence-clipped' — with nations being essentially economically independent (with a powerful global military alliance to keep rogue-states at bay), but required to accept a certain amount of detriment to home-grown interests in order to enable those same industries to also flourish in other less developed (or equally developed) countries. The exact amounts of trade to be determined in a global economic forum, but in such a way that no artificial and damaging forced-dependencies are created and no country's entire industry in any area is undermined.



GLOBAL DEFENCE : Multilateral Military Action Through NATO, The EU's European Defence Force and The United Nations Security Council

In the area of defence, above all others, a Fair Britannia Party government's approach will be to always seek to work in a multilateral way through existing institutions. Significant foes are only defeated by dealing with them from a position of strength, and that means wide-ranging co-operation of a kind that really counts. Our policies will therefore reflect a commitment to a future in which Britain plays a full role within EU and international peace-making and peace-keeping bodies and yet also continues its proud history of using its international influence independently to further the cause of peace, freedom, justice and democracy across the globe.


Britain should also actively encourage a more united proactive international military approach against not merely so-called 'rogue nations' that credibly threaten military action against other countries, but also against nations oppressing or negligently failing their own people (for e.g. in Africa, Rwanda, Sudan, Haiti) — where regime change supported by a majority of the international community and a clear majority of the people in the country concerned could save hundreds of thousands of lives and save many millions from decades of unnecessary suffering.

Britain should therefore continue with NATO commitments as the main plank of our defence but actively seek to work with the European Defence Force in an intergovernmental way, and work for reform of the United Nations security council procedures (possibly removing the right of veto on military action and granting seats on the security council to other nations with a significant military presence besides USA, China, Russia, UK and France).

Britain also needs to be a voice ever-encouraging a more constructive approach from China and Russia who currently veto military campaigns which could quickly save so many from horrendous brutality and suffering.




GLOBAL TRADE : Global, Nation-Based 'Fair Shares' Economics — Allowing 15% Imports In Each Sector of The UK Domestic Economy

Britain should refuse to be bound by WTO rules forbidding UK governments from favouring and subsidising and protecting domestic markets where they wish to do so, and should support other countries in asserting these same rights for themselves — economically, as in other areas, countries must be run by democratically elected governments not greedy, rootless multinational corporations. However, in recognition of the dangers of unbridled economic national independence Britain must remain committed to a global deal on trade.

Britain should take a lead in pushing for radical reform of the World Trade Organisationm (WTO). A fairer deal must be struck for the world's developing countries who are still too often tied to international aid hand-outs or required to prematurely open their fledgling domestic markets to international competition and denied a real opportunity to trade their way out of poverty through protectionist export subsidies from richer nations.


Again, Britain should remain committed to working through existing institutions in this area, so through the WTO, we will seek to offer a lead to other developed countries by reserving 15% of all domestic markets for imports from abroad. Preference will be given to developing nations and former commonwealth countries with no reciprocal access for domestic goods or services demanded in return.


Britain should also work to democratise the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and press for reforms so that the assistance offered to nations struggling economically does not come with a nation-state-hijacking agenda of wholesale permanent economic, financial and legal reform.



GLOBAL CRIMINAL COURT : Support For International Criminal Court (ICC) Restricted To Genuine War Crimes Only

Initially, when dealing with the butchers from the second world war and those responsible for subsequent genocides, the ICC was a most welcome and totally appropriate international response. In recent years however, the ICC's remit has been so widened — quite deliberately — as to now bring much unilateral military action by democratic governments and even any OTT responses by individual military personnel (even when in the heat of battle and in genuine fear of their lives) under its potential scrutiny.

Full co-operation and support will therefore be given to the ICC in pursuing, capturing and prosecuting genuine war criminals — i.e. those responsible for torture and genocide, and any advisory work the ICC does to assist developing countries to develop a full and fair legal system will be supported with manpower and financial resources.

All other aspects of the ICC's work will however NOT be supported, and a Fair Britannia Party government will NOT recognise as 'international law' any judgements the ICC makes concerning the UK, its leaders, its policies or our military personnel.

GLOBAL AID : A More Coordinated Intergovernmental Global International Aid Effort

GLOBAL AID WILL ONLY BE PROVIDED TO GOVERNMENTS NOT SUPPORTING TERRORISM AND NOT PERSECUTING THEIR OWN PEOPLE.

Time and again when natural disasters strike, the international response is inadequate or very slow off the mark, causing unnecessary death and suffering. Britain should therefore press for more radical reform of the UN humanitarian system, so it is better equipped to saves lives. The government should push for the permanent establishment of massive stocks of emergency supplies (tents, blankets, food rations etc) around the world and the drawing-up of international contingency plans for coordinated access to heavy machinery and military planes at times of crisis to enable life-saving work to begin on-site within hours — rather than days — of a disaster occurring.

It is well known that much overseas aid is wasted. Overseas aid channeled through the E.U. has been subject to large-scale waste, fraud and corruption. Aid given to poorer countries often gets into the wrong hands. Yet projects to help communities in the third world to help themselves lack finance and rely on charitable aid. Effective aid should be sent directly to where it is needed, diverting overseas aid from going into the pockets of corrupt third world leaders.


Britain should aim to meet the UN spending target (as a percentage of national income) on overseas aid and development and all aid should be given as grants not loans and not tied to poor countries opening up their markets or inviting in powerful multinationals from rich countries.


DEBT RELIEF — A Fair Britannia Party government will review the current debts owed to the UK by the world's poorest countries with a view to writing them off at the earliest opportunity.

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS and TAXATION : Non-Participation In Bogus, Unscientific UN Global Environmental Agreements (e.g. Kyoto, Paris)

Current international treaties on the environment are more about establishing UN-based, one-world institutions on the EU model (and which will therefore bind all future UK parliaments and electorates in key areas of policy) than meaningful attempts to alter the climate (as if we could). The 'climate' these agreements are really intended to change is the political one.

It is no coincidence that controlling and redistributing carbon dioxide emissions across the globe has the same economic effect as controlling and redistributing economic activity and finances across the globe — 'greenhouse gases' basically being produced by economic activity itself. The climate change myth is to global institutions what the single European market was to the EU — a convenient 'problem' of sufficient scope to justify new political intuitions being established to operate at that same geopolitical level.

Therefore, whilst The Fair Britannia Party is in firm agreement with the aim of redistributing wealth from rich to poor nations, we believe this should be done openly, not hiding behind global myths fundamentally at odds with science itself. We will therefore rescind all prior carbon and 'greenhouse gas' emission agreements and take no formal part in any subsequent gatherings. Further, in government, we will use Britain's position on the world stage to encourage nations taking part to be honest with their respective electorates about the real agenda behind the meetings and the agreements.

OTHER INTERNATIONAL TREATIES

A Fair Britannia Party government's basic approach to international relations will be framed by a commitment to oppose all terrorism and the mistreatment of citizens by governmental authorities. Such a policy will be implemented as follows :


CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT WITH UNDEMOCRATIC STATES NOT SPONSORING TERRORISM

— and where there is not widespread mistreatment or unrest amongst their own people. The engagement to include cordial relations and trade.


ONLY LIMITED RELATIONS WITH COUNTRIES SPONSORING TERRORISM OR MISTREATING THEIR OWN PEOPLE

— and any trade made subject to concessions in a more democratic non-aggressive direction. For states blatantly or significantly supporting terrorism, active steps will be undertaken to support democracy movements and opposition parties (if any) within those countries. Freedom-loving nations must fight terrorists wherever they are, or else ultimately have to confront an emboldened and stronger enemy at home.


THE COMMONWEALTH

Commonwealth countries encouraged to become fully independent of the UK and no favourable trade terms will be sought or expected from them. We will support the Commonwealth continuing as a forum encouraging cordial international relations for as long as commonwealth countries themselves wish it to remain.


FALKLAND ISLANDS

A generation on from the Falklands War the time is surely right for the Falkland Islands to become a part of the significant nation that occupies the nearest large land mass — Argentina.


GIBRALTAR

Gibraltar should surely belong to the nation that occupies the nearest large land mass — Spain.

THE MIDDLE EAST

ISRAEL-PALESTINE

The UN decision in 1948 to reinstate Israel in its former homeland after the holocaust of WWII was understandable. However it is a policy that has caused 60 years of unrest in the region and that unrest is likely to continue for generations, maybe centuries, perhaps for as long as Israel itself remains in that part of the world.


Prior to the establishment of Israel, the region had been settled by Muslim-majority nations for over 1,000 years. The United Nations then just unilaterally decided to impose the Jewish state on the region. If the same had been done in the West we too would oppose the new settlement with all we had. As in other ways, it seems the damage perpetrated by the Nazis included that of causing the international community post-WWII — with the best will in the world — to overreact. The Muslim contention that this policy amounts to the Muslim Middle East being made to pay the price for the mess made by the West and Europe (in the form of Nazi Germany and WWII) is therefore surely well-founded.


However, the modern, democratic Jewish state is now a reality, and Israel has every right to defend itself and its people effectively. This means the right to target those firing thousands of missiles into the country, occupying land used by terrorists to threaten Israel's security and preventing the return of millions of Palestinians (who once granted citizenship would then just vote for Israel's demise). The misery and hardship in the region therefore look set to continue.


Therefore, whilst continuing to support the existing (stalled) peace process based on the principle of Israel secure within its borders and a viable Palestinian State, we will seek to work with the international community to promote the idea of separate faith-based zones across the Middle East in hope of building settled, prosperous, Muslim democracies that might yet provide a bridge of hope and reconciliation with Israel and the Jewish people.

THE WIDER MIDDLE EAST

The two Gulf Wars that liberated Kuwait and then Iraq from the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein, were no doubt partly prompted by the desire to secure the supply of oil that is so essential to the fundamental functioning of the West (and of any developed country). However, as the George Bush's Administration clearly and repeatedly stated at the time, the second campaign in particular was a genuine effort to bring long-term stability to the region through taking democracy to that part of the world whose undemocratic and extreme religious cultures have for decades spawned terrorism and actively fomented a vociferous hatred of the life and liberty we enjoy in the West.

The military campaign in Afghanistan was aimed at achieving the similar purpose of removing a dangerous and significant safe haven for terrorists from which to launch attacks.

The changes brought by these military actions inspired the 'Arab Spring' that saw democracy movements rise-up to overthrow secular dictatorships across the Middle East and beyond.


Yet settled democratic peace has not taken hold. And having started the process of liberation and democratising reform, the West and the international community has retreated, withdrawing from Iraq, allowing the extremists in the region to fill the vacuum.


In Syria, with America taking a back seat and our own UK parliament voting against UK involvement in military action in the country, the international community's retreat became a full-blown withdrawal, and as in Rwanda, Sudan and Bosnia, the international community has sat idly by whilst the butchers have systematically perpetrated genocide.


This entire tragic episode has revealed that the Islamic world has yet to undergo the difficult, interminably slow transition from blood-letting and war to acquiescing in the face of difference and the acceptance of the compromises necessary in order to establish an open and democratic culture. The Islamic world is also largely incapable of containing even slightly different versions of its code within the same country. Europe and the West's own path to stable democracy took many generations and there is no reason to suppose that the process will proceed any faster in the Middle East.

INTERNATIONAL POLICY IN THE REGION SHOULD THEREFORE NO LONGER SEEK TO IMPOSE OR REQUIRE DIVERSITY AND DEMOCRACY BUT INSTEAD SEEK TO WORK WITH THE PREVAILING POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL REALITIES, NOT AGAINST THEM.

THE MAP OF THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST NEEDS TO BE REDRAWN: WITH NATIONAL AREAS REPLACED WITH SAME-FAITH ZONES AND REGIONS OF COMMON ETHNICITY

International policy should therefore pursue a different course of :

  • Encouraging the entire Middle East to properly acknowledge their difficulties and commit to plain 'start from where they are'.
  • Respect and uphold the right of the people of peaceable nations within the Islamic world to resist attempts to democratise or Westernise — provided the states do not support terrorism and are not mistreating their own people.
  • Similar to changes put into effect several decades ago, this party believes the map of the entire Middle East should be redrawn so that current national areas are replaced with same-faith zones and regions of common ethnicity, so that whatever the form of religion or culture preferred by an individual, they will always be able to find a modern, well-equipped, prosperous zone within the Middle East in which to live and make a settled life according to their beliefs.
  • There should initially be no need to accommodate other religions. As people change their beliefs they should be allowed automatic passage to a different faith zone. As a genuinely settled peace took hold, small numbers of those of different beliefs could be introduced. Later still, if the peace was still preserved, the numbers could steadily be increased.
  • Whilst it should not be imposed, democracy would then have its best chance of breaking out, since within each faith or ethnic zone, democracy would then only need to accommodate the compromises and differences WITHIN a single faith or ethnic tradition, rather than across and between competing ones.
  • A settled, stable Middle East would then be in a position to attract significant international trade and investment further improving the living standards and lives of citizens
  • Ideally the entire Middle East (outside of Israel) would be a de-militarised zone, with no significant armies, military equipment or bombs — and certainly no nuclear weapons. UN peacekeepers and weapons inspectors could monitor and ensure compliance with this policy.


This approach would also be one most likely to reduce the flow of refugees to other countries often ill-equipped or unwilling to accommodate them — for the mutual benefit of all.

THESE ZONES WOULD ALSO BE SAFE AND APPROPRIATE PLACES TO WHICH THE MORE EXTREME MUSLIMS AND OTHERS WANTING TO LIVE IN A WAY FUNDAMENTALLY AT ODDS WITH WESTERN CULTURE COULD EMIGRATE, AND TO WHICH THOSE CHARGED WITH TERRORIST OFFENCES IN THE WEST COULD BE DEPORTED.

UKRAINE

The war in Ukraine has been a most appalling tragedy. A nation just escaped from the clutches of communist Russia and seeking a bright new future for itself as a western-facing democracy, now lying in ruins with possibly 400,000 Ukrainian men dead. With a mighty Russian opponent willing to agree a peace deal shortly after the start of the war, a compromise deal should have been agreed long ago.

We would support those urging Ukraine to come to reasonable terms with Russia and to no longer allow itself to be used as a pawn, or its youth as canon fodder, in the globalists' dubious geo-political strategy. A self-governing military neutrality is infinitely preferable to pointless annihilation.

CHINA AND RUSSIA

A policy of treating China and Russia according to their deeds should be pursued, with both countries exerting significant international influence yet in many ways remaining unreformed in spite of many years of co-operation, assistance and trade with the West. Both countries should be urged to desist from opposing international attempts to bring peace and democracy to troubled parts of the world and a strict limit placed on imports from China to avoid further decimation of the essential UK manufacturing base. However, both nations are immensely powerful and will be dominant 'players' in world politics for decades to come. Every effort should therefore be made to take the stands that must be taken whilst respecting their position and whilst seeking to build a cordial, solid and enduring relationship built upon the economic and political values that they now (claim) to share with the West.


A SINGLE GLOBAL LANGUAGE ENCOURAGED

Over the very long-term, freedom, peace and prosperity will surely be given their very best chance of success if the differences between nations are reduced, particularly in the area of language. Support will therefore be given to moves encouraging all nations of the world to learn to speak a single language. Given its established dominance across the globe, the English language with phonetic spelling and simplified grammar would perhaps make an ideal choice !