A speech at the first Goldsmith Memorial Lecture on 22nd May 2007, at University College in London.

To read the text please click on the link to the “Governance of Britain” page of the Britain Watch website.

A speech given to the Society of St George, at their annual dinner to celebrate St George’s Day, at the Mere Golf Club in Cheshire, on 24th April 1998.

To read the text please click on the link to the “Nationism” page on the Britain Watch website.

A letter to the Daily Telegraph which was published on 11th June 1985.

Mr P A Newsam’s letter (May 23rd) about the expression of views opposed to so-called multi-ethnic education is quite disengenuous.  Mr Newsam, as an experienced bureaucrat, is perfectly aware of the fact that the expression of views by employees of a Local Education Authority contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy, is a guarantee of reduced or zero promotion prospects at the very least.

Mr Newsam’s assertion that “of course” Mr Honeyford has a right to express his views is nonsense when Mr Honeyford is facing total professional ruin for so doing.  It is also worth reminding Mr Newsam what views Mr Honeyford is being pilloried for.

These are in summary that ethnic minority parents, having elected to come to Britain, have thereby taken on a commitment to British society and culture on behalf of themselves and their children, who should accordingly be brought up to speak the English language.

Also Asian parents should not be allowed to remove their children from school for months at a time, any more than English parents are allowed to.  These are the views of the vast majority of the English people whose land this has been for 1,500 years.

Mr Newsam’s quoting of the 1944 Education Act in the Honeyford case is likewise disengenuous.  Everybody in Bradford knows that the efficiency of the instruction in Mr Honeyford’s school was unquestioned prior to the publication of his views.  Even now Mr Honeyford’s school is oversubscribed.

A letter to the Financial Times, the first paragraph of which was published in March 1970.

Paul Lewis (F.T. March 20th) has got to be joking when he suggests that Britain proposed that French be the sole official language of an enlarged EEC including this country.  Are there no limits to the national self-abasement which “informed” opinion is prepared to inflict on the rest of us?  English is the main world language not only because of the first and second British Empires, but because as a language it has enormous advantages of adaptability and subtlety of expression.  Cannot Mr Lewis see that the French objective all along has been to use the power of other members of the EEC to promote the national ambitions of France, and that any wider recognition of the French language as a medium of communication does just that?  We are in fact in competition with the French on the language issue, and our national interests will be served by aiming to make English the most widely used language in any European community.  I can envisage no limits to the resistance which would be made to any Government which attempted to bind our country to a form of French empire with a capital at Versailles (another Lewis “idea”).

No, the real way forward for Britain is to negotiate not to join an EEC based on the 1957 Treaty of Rome which simply does not suit our interests, or those of Germany for that matter, but to negotiate a new Community of Europe treaty.  Britain’s real interests require a free trade area in Europe, excluding only agricultural products, not an elaborate system of official price-fixing, and more urgently, our interests require a new defence treaty which allows for a complete withdrawal of American forces by about 1974, and which recognises the improbability that American cities will ever be exposed to nuclear attack to save European cities from Russian aggression.

These objectives, one economic, the other military should be the basis for negotiations with the Six.  But the major problem confronting Western States in the years ahead is likely to be social.  Here we have everything to lose by any form of political union with other European states.  We have no wish to add to our own prolems France and Italy’s comunist influenced politics, Germany and Holland’s catholic-protestant struggles, Belgium’s language strife, nor Sweden and Denmark’s obsession with pornography.

Both the Continent and ourselves have something to gain from closer association, but each arrangement should be designed to achieve something definite, like Concorde and the centrifuge project, and not be an airy-fairy wish for closer association for its own sake.  Switzerland, a tenth of our size, though anxious for freer trade, is not panicking about exclusion from the EEC and neither should we.