"I'll consider anything that makes the political elite accountable to citizens" wrote Gordon Brown. Stopping unnaccountable Scottish MPs from voting and speaking on English matters, and from participating in the government of England, would seem like a good start in achieving that. Like Meatloaf Gordon Brown might consider anything, but he won't do that. But what will the Liberal Democrats consider?
Dear Liberal Democrats,
Given the sudden interest in constitutional reform is there any chance of getting the ‘English Question' on the political radar? An English parliament offers the opportunity of ushering in many of the constitutional reforms that are suddenly being discussed, and probably represents the best chance of a more deliberative democracy. Until people begin to think the unthinkable and talk seriously about an English parliament - even if only to advocate asking the people how they wish to be governed instead of imposing top-down solutions - I tend to think that serious constitutional reform is off the agenda. Not because an English parliament is necessary for reform, but because opposition to an English parliament is so often predicated on a desire to prevent serious constitutional reform and a rethink of what it actually means to be a multi-national United Kingdom. Talk of an English parliament raises all the difficult questions that the political establishment wants to - and will - avoid at all cost. All the more reason to raise them then.
Political authority has been hived off to Scotland, Wales and NI which makes this current crisis of legitimacy as much of an English constitutional crisis as a British one, especially because the dreadful prospect of English self-government has prevented Labour from ever asking the dreadful English (the rump of Britian) how they would like to be governed (a mistake that Cameron appears destined and willing to repeat). However, in calling for the English - as a nation - to be consulted on how they wish to be governed the Liberal Democrats could quite legitimately tap into a popular national mood that increases the likelihood of a citizens' convention for the whole of the UK (because England cannot be considered apart as Scotland was).
Devolution to Scotland, Wales and NI redistributed power between political elites, it did not transfer sovereignty in any way from State to People. By virtue of England's size and history a constitutional debate on England is also a constitutional debate on the UK which involves the whole UK. The 85% of the population who live in England can affirm their commitment to the Union and, at the same time, initiate radical change to the centre in a manner that the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland cannot (unless it is by voting for separation) due to their periphery and size relative to the whole. It is change to the Anglo-British centre that can transfer sovereignty from State to People, and not just for England but for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland too. You Lib Dems have a word for this, you call it federalism, it is your policy.
The Liberal Democrats could advocate this ‘National Conversation for England' within a wider UK context on the pretext that the English deserve the same right to constitutional self-determination as the Scots (which is unequivocal) but on the understanding that the whole of Britain will be involved, as they would have to be. If it's left up to Cameron and Brown then there will be a staid British solution, which means a Westminster solution, and the opportunity for radical constitutional reform will be missed for another generation.
Your former leader, Menzies Campbell, when he appeared on Sky News, made it clear that he supported a constitutional convention that could look into the issue of Scottish MPs' voting rights, and he did so again when he wrote to declare that "England deserves no less [than Scotland]. It is time for an English constitutional convention".
The Hansard Audit of Political Engagement has found that the issue of Scottish MPs voting rights is the constitutional issue that most people are dissatisfied with (although MPs' expenses may now have overtaken that), yet it's the one issue that the Westminster Establishment shy away from, repeatedly. Let the people decide, in particular the people of England who have yet to be asked.
Yours,
Gareth Young
PS. The most recent poll by Populus (Anniversary of devolution, May 2009) had support for an English parliament at 41%, with 15% opposed and 44% unsure. 52% supported banning Scottish MPs from English votes.
Comments
The Liberal Democrats don't recognise the existence of England, only EU-regions. They still recognise the nations of Wales and Scotland though.
Lib Dems dribble copious amounts about "localism" but they only believe in local government provided that government is local to Brussels.
Nu Labor, Tories and Lib Dems are all institutionally Anglophobic.
Doug, you're probably right, which is why they I wince whenever I hear them talking about serious radical reform.
If they fail to address the English Question, then they are not being radical. They're not really democrats either because they're shying away from asking the people.
They are still locked into the idea of a UK of nations and regions, Scotland, Wales, NI and various bits of England.
I wonder if this would change if the UK rejected the Lisbon Treaty or, if the Lib Dems had their way and we had a referendum on the EU and the UK voted to withdraw from the EU?
There're a lot of Lord Newby's in the Lib Dems, but I do sense that the atitude of Charles Kennedy, as expressed here, is changing.
CEP member David Wildgoose made a speech to the Lib Dem fringe a year ago and got a fairly good reception.
This from the Lib Dem Twitter feed:
"@GuyAitchison Thanks for the link. The "English question" would be considered as part of the constituional convention we've long called for."
Interesting. Strange that Clegg doesn't ever mention it.
When the Lib-Dems consider the English Question within a Constitutional Convention they will try to revive the failed idea of regional assemblies. This is what they mean by federalism. Brown is seeking the same goal 'by stealth' through Parliamentary select committees.
There is certainly 'a debate to be had' about over-centralisation in England. This is not inconsistent with an English Parliament. The return of powers to local councils, cities and even regions could be accomplised under the aegis of the English Parliament.
Labour's devolution gave Scotland and Wales national assemblies. There is no democratic case for treating England differently, perhaps because it is 'too big'. The UK is a mulitinational state and England is one of its component nations. Home rule to Scotland and Wales should be followed by the offer of home rule for England.
Those who protest that domestic self-government for England would 'threaten the Union' should remember that the Union does not rest on democratic consent. Wales was annexed between 1272 and 1536. The 1707 agreement between the English and Scottish Parliaments was hardly an equal bargain and was not between what we could recognise as democratically elected parliaments. If the Union is to continue, it should rest on the consent of the people and if that was obtained it would continue even with an English Parliament. The opposition to an English Parliament does not lie with the people of Scotland and Wales - surveys show that majorities have no problem in accepting such a development. The opposition lies with those Unionists who refuse to put the continuation of the Union to a popular vote.
Each of the British natiions, including N. Ireland, must be free to leave the Union if it wishes. Those which elect to remain must entitled 'to determine the form of government that best suits their needs', that is through a devolved assembly or through Westminster government.
No solution which fails to ask the people of England how they wish to be governed can be considered democratic and is as such in conflict with the 1976 Convention, Article 1, which recognises the right of peoples to self-determination.
I pretty much agree with Ian's eloquent analysis, although I wouldn't like to pre-judge what the Lib Dem thinking is on the English Question: I'd rather they tell us. At the moment they're staying silent on it from what I can tell.
A very good analysis by Ian. Crucial to this is not whether the Lib Dems support an English parliament, but whether they are honest enough to ask the English whether they want an English parliament.
Failure to do so would make any 'citizens convention' a fraud, which is what makes the silence deafening.
Clearly there is enough public demand for the matter to be discussed, in fact there is much more demand for this than for many other constitutional questions.
Yes indeed it's a good analysis. It's often been said of me and other Cornish campaigners that we are opposed to an English Parliament. Not true.
However if the people of 'England' are to be given a constitutional convention to decide their future form of government I can only hope this would seriously consider the interest Cornwall has shown in devolution (50,000 sig petition plus various opinion polls) plus its legal de jure constitutional position as seperate from England (www.duchyofcornwall.eu).
The people of England (and Kernow) should be given the choices of what they want, but if the majority go for an EP accept in Kernow where Cornish devolution proves more popular, would it be possible to have regionalism for Cornwall as well as an EP or will we simply be ignored again?
Cornwall is an historic nation and should be treated as such, and just to make things clear: if the people of England want an EP then they should have it.
The Cornish Democrat
That's better Philip.
And in return: If the people of Cornwall want their independence then they should have it.
Toque,
I've only ever supported the idea that the people of 'England' should be given the right to decide their own fate, and that this should include regionalism as well as an EP.
Aside from this I've pointed out that an EP would do zero for Cornwall, its economy and culture.
When you say 'independence' that should in fact be qualified as recognition as not being part of England.
The Cornish Democrat
I thought you wanted 'independence' within the EU - to be a nation within the EU, like the SNP want for Scotland.
I support the idea that the people of England should be given the right to decide their own fate, and that this should include independence, regionalism as well as an EP.
If the UK does break up then Cornwall may only have a choice of independence or being a semi-autonomous part of England. Unless there is some sort of Celtic League, which I can't honestly see Scotland going for.
It's all hypothetical anyway.
Personally that's what I'd like to see but clearly that's a long term project. In the interim period an assembly like that of the Welsh would do. Of course if the de jure legal status of the Duchy could be fully rebooted through some form of legal action then we'd jump straight to the position of crown protectorate.
If the UK broke up leaving the Duchy of Cornwall still stuck onto the toe end of the Kingdom of England then I would campaign for greater home-rule and eventual independence with direct adhesion to the EU, but others might prefer to remain a protectorate of England.
It's all up to the people of Cornwall.
As far as English nationalism goes you know I think there is great willingness within Cornish, Welsh and Scottish circles to see people like yourself, Paul Kingsnorth and others create a respectable English nationalist party. An English Radical Party perhaps, taking the best of people like Devolve, CEP etc. An EP plus radical decentralisation. Not one or the other but both.
Allied with the Celtic nationalists and the Greens (perhaps within the European Free Alliance) we'd go along way don't you think?
Come on -The English Radicals- its waiting to be created.
The Cornish Democrat
Dear Mr Young,
Many thanks for your email. Nick has asked me to contact you on his behalf and I apologise for the delay in responding. I hope you will understand that, due to the sheer volume of correspondence that Nick receives, it can take us some time to reply.
In answer to your question, Liberal Democrats recognise that the advent of devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland poses difficult questions for the governance of England within the Union. Solutions, however, are in many ways equally problematic. The 'English votes for English laws' solution is extremely complicated - partially because the
Speaker would have to decide whether issues were England only; England and Wales; Great Britain; England, Wales and Northern Ireland; or UK-wide. Given the fact that changes in spending on English services which would be devolved in the rest of the UK directly affect the devolved administration's budgets, this is by no means a simple question. More fundamentally, in situations where English MPs had a
majority of one political colour and the House of Commons as a whole another, it would mean that the government's writ would not run over most of its legislative programme.
An English Parliament would address some of these points, and we would not necessarily rule it out. However, it does beg the question of why we should wish to create a new level of government covering nearly 85% of the population. This might be a logical response, but it does not meaningfully move power closer to the people, which is the ultimate
point of devolution. Furthermore, given the different levels of powers allocated to the different devolved assemblies, inconsistencies would still remain. We believe this question should be a matter for our proposed Constitutional Convention.
Thank you once again for emailing us.
Kind regards,
XXXX XXXX
Correspondence Manager
Office of Nick Clegg MP
There are no intellectual argument that either Labour or the LibDems can deploy against establishing a parliament for England (which includes Cornwall). The reasons they either oppose the notion or are lukewarm or even against it is not from principle: it is for party reasons. But then again, devolution was always about the Labour Party, never about principle and country. Nor should we believe their protestations of interest in democracy. As memory serves they, together with the Labour Party, promised a referendum on the EU Constitution. Just because you bring something back bound in a different cover and with a different title doesn't absolve you of your commitment no matter what Clegg, Brown et al say. If it has web feet, feathers and quacks it's still a damn duck and the public know this all too well.
Post new comment