Yesterday at ConservativeHome Mr. Mark Field, a Conservative MP, proposed, though with an distince absence of any detail, that we now have an English Parliament. I was profoundly depressed at the number of posters who supported this idea which I believe to be utterly misguided, dangerous to the interests of our country and born of gutless defeatism.
One wonders if any of those who support the idea have actually sat and watched either First Minister’s Questions or perhaps a debate in the Scottish Parliament? Or, even worse, any proceeding of the Welsh Assembly?
These are, with some honourable exceptions, the most excruciatingly embarrassing and numbingly second-rate experiences you will ever have.
That is what awaits you if you go down the path advocated by those calling for an ‘English Parliament’.
Given how low has fallen the stock of the politicians we already have in the eyes of the public, do we really really believe that having another huge talking shop full of them is going to prove anything other than a panacea for the supposed ills of Westminster, which are, I submit, of such a kind that can be fixed by some sensible evolutionary steps in the way in which Parliament.
For there is a question to be posed here which those advocating the radical step of an ‘English’ Parliament must answer? Is Westminster really so broken that it needs not merely fixing but replacing wholesale in respect of a significant part of its work?
Or is it the case that with some quite simple adjustments, some legislative and some procedural, which cost next to nothing compared with the horrendous cost and constitutionally destructive effect of a new, separate ‘English’ Parliament.
The things which have most animated this debate seem to me to be the West Lothian question and the Barnett Formula which overly favours Scotland and, to a lesser extent, Wales at the expense of England. These are matters which are easily fixed by dealing with them internally rather than with the highly risky alternative of having four national Parliaments. The West Lothian question might be dealt with by the establishment of an English Grand Committee for all Bills which affect England only and a similar one for legislation which is intended to apply to both England and Wales. Whilst notionally such an arrangement would still leave it open for Scots MPs allied with English and Welsh Contras to vote down the committee’s conclusions on Third Reading in practice such a breach of what would become a convention of Parliament would ensure electoral oblivion of the offending party in England and would thus not be attempted. This might require the employment of a number of clerical/administrative posts but that would pale into insignificance against the cost of a full blown Parliament.
The Barnett formula is even easier and merely requires the political will and a pen to alter it. Given that Labour, because of its national electoral interests in Wales and Scotland will not make anything other than cosmetic changes to the Formula, this will require the election of a Conservative Government [for which the advocates of an English Parliament should be expending their energies rather than planning for the creation of an institution which will threaten not strengthen the Union] to effect. Altering the Barnett formula will, as far at least as Scotland is concerned, force them either to dispense with all the luxuries they enjoy as a result or fundamentally to alter their whole approach to how their budget is is expended. In other words it may force them to join the real world and undergo those bits of the post-79 revolution which have, because of Labour’s dominance there, somewhat passed them by. If Scotland is forced to come up with the money from its own pockets, the voters there might well start to understand the virtues of a party which espouses conservative virtues once again. This Scotsman’s desire for thrift has not entirely disappeared and radically overhauling the Barnett formula may force him to reassess the wisdom of a high-tax, pubic sector job supported economy.
Quite apart from all that an English Parliament along Mr. Field’s lines, the detail of which is strikingly absent from his piece, will not solve the problem for a moment. The nature of tax-raising and funding in England has not been explained in the least. Nor has the issue of how remaining matters would be dealt with at Westminster proper. Indeed Mr. Field’s piece is very much “Wow, here’s a good idea, let’s have an English Parliament Chaps, that will solve all our problems, ok!”. There is absolutely no sense that the knock on effects of such a proposal have been thought of let alone answered. Anyone with a knowledge of the US Constitution will know that the conflict between States Rights and Federal law is one of the most productive and extensive areas of litigation before the US Supreme Court and that awaits us if this daft idea ever gets into operation.
The EU will be the first to be delighted. They will see this as a fatal weakening of our body politic and will lick its lips in anticipation of being able to play one off against another and the chance to pick us off one by one: just wait to see how Scots fishermen get favoured over English ones when the EU is looking for support from Scotland for some project, to give an example.
Let us be clear: this proposal is a defeatist one, which some on the right are pushing because they have lost heart at the prospect of ever being able to govern the UK again. Our political enemies must be heartened by this series of posts. They will understand that the morale of some is rock-bottom.
But the worst of this is the strong sense that England will, for the first time since the 14th Century be divorced from the centre of power. England’s laws have, since there has been a Parliament, been made at Westminster in a form we can still recognise, by the Lords and Commons assembled. Let the Little People go, if they will, but the governance of England has, for better and sometimes for worse, been done from Westminster.
One thing that a Conservative administration can address and which will also reduce the democratic deficit is to deal with the electoral imbalance that requires a far greater number of voters to elect a Conservative MP as compared with a Labour MP.
It ain’t broke, so why fix it?
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
Wednesday, August 8, 2007 at 9:15 am
Toque
But it is broke. If it weren’t then we wouldn’t be having this discussion, and you wouldn’t be proposing an English parliament (operating within the UK parliament) with the power to hold the UK executive to account, but with no executive of its own.
The English Parliament should remain at Westminster, its historic and spiritual home.
If there’s any moving to be done it should be the UK Government that leaves. A UK Government based in the north would stop the Celtic nats complaining about the London-centric metropolitan elite.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007 at 9:54 am
Anonymous
If the people of England want an English Parliament rather than the current totally vacuous British Parliament then surely its our sovereign right.
And we don’t need to create a new Parliament – we already have one – Westminster was an English Parliament before it became the sham British one we currently have – rid Westminster of the imposters and job done.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007 at 11:14 am
Anonymous
Top up fees were brought in on the votes of Scottish and Welsh MP’s.
They forget their socialist principals when it comes to the English. Let them pay for their own nationalism and we’ll pay for our own. Home rule for England.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007 at 11:45 am
Terry
It is broke, so let’s fix it by treating all the UK citizens equally.
The Scots have a Parliament, the Welsh have an Assembly that is moving towards being a Parliament. The English do not have a Parliament.
How on earth should we rectify this situation? (clue, rocket science it ain’t!)
Thursday, August 9, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Anonymous
“Let us be clear: this proposal is a defeatist one, which some on the right are pushing because they have lost heart at the prospect of ever being able to govern the UK again. Our political enemies must be heartened by this series of posts. They will understand that the morale of some is rock-bottom”
“Let US be clear”? You do not speak for me. “Defeatist”? How? “Lost heart”? Wrong! I can’t think of anything that animates me more than the prospect of the English running their own country. And, I might add it will be the first time since 1066 that the English have had self-determination!
“[They have] lost heart at the prospect of ever being able to govern the UK again”
See, you just don’t get it mate. Firstly, why would the English want to govern the UK? I do not want to see England in that position ever again. Thinking about it, it has never been the English governing the UK. It has been combinations of English, scottish, welsh and northern irish who have governed the UK.
You obviously don’t know that we have big hearts.
I don’t think we have the right to govern other countries, in the UK or elsewhere, which is one of the reasons why many millions of English people are mad right now, i.e. they dont think people (Blair, Brown, Darling, Morgan, Prescott, Hain) from other countries have the right to govern us either!
“But the worst of this is the strong sense that England will, for the first time since the 14th Century be divorced from the centre of power”
What? We don’t have any power in our own country. I am totally against the present situation.
“England’s laws have, since there has been a Parliament, been made at Westminster in a form we can still recognise, by the Lords and Commons assembled”
So what? England had laws before the Normans. Westminster was created by the Normans! The English had their own form of parliament way before Westminster. It was called the Witangemot! Plus, the demonic EUrolanders make the laws not Westminster. Something the English need to change. A person should be able to be judged by his peers not twelve state appointed so-called judges.
“It ain’t broke, so why fix it?”
I am afraid it is broke! Look at what new labour were able to do to the house of lords? What a joke. All they did was swap people. They were able to take out people who they knew would disgree with them and put in bent yes men and women! IT IS BROKE! And of course, that isn’t the only undemocratic thing they have achieved at Westminster! I can think of many. I mean, come on Gordon Brown should not be PM! You know this is true. Blair stood in parliament and lied through his teeth about whether new labour had accepted donations or not. He lied! It is broke!
Thursday, August 9, 2007 at 8:28 pm
The Huntsman
This last – Anonymous- poster is terribly excitable. Not for him measured debate. Reeks of the BNP.
Try putting your energies into getting us a referendum on the EU which is of greater importance than breaking up the Union.