Gareth Young invited me to ‘The Future of England’. A debate that followed the annual general meeting of the Campaign for an English Parliament. In plucky fashion it was held in the House of Commons on the day of the State Opening of Parliament. There were more than a hundred crowded into Committee Room 10. I enjoyed it and came away thinking it would last and grow. Not least because it was not the usual gathering of middle-class disenchanted. They were articulate but not Oxbridge, an assembly that could claim to speak for the regular folk of England because it felt representative in terms of class, ages and gender. The only thing missing: ethnic minorities. But the CEP’s vice-chairman David Wildgoose was emphatic that for the Campaign ‘England is for everyone for whom England is their home and their future”.
The meeting opened with an OK occasional, Paul Kingsnorth, who appealed to everything that England needed, not least pubs which, he reported, are closing down at the rate of 39 a week. England he argued, in his speech, to murmurs of approval, is “a huge open wound at the heart of the devolution settlement” and there was an understandable touch of martyrdom in the room.
He was followed by Peter Facey, director of Unlock Democracy but speaking personally, who declared that he is English though his mother was Manx. But he wanted power devolved to the level of the county, from Kent to Yorkshire, rather than to another parliament. He wanted a federal Britain of some kind with local authorities flying as many flags over their battlements as they could – for we have many (if fluttering) identities. It’s fair to say he left the audience as much puzzled as confused as to whether he agreed with them or not.
Then came George Monbiot brilliant but, as so often, a world unto himself. Joking that “the English will put up with anything except an improvement in their lives” he proposed that the Commons be made the parliament for England and the Lords be replaced by a chamber for UK-wide issues as if Tony Benn (not to speak of anyone else) had never been born. He pointed out that top up fees and foundation hospitals had been pushed through parliament thanks to Scottish and Welsh MPs, while these policies had been rejected in their own countries. He might have added 42 Days would not have been passed in any country in the union; only an unrepresentative British assembly voted to undermine habeas corpus.
The main thrust of Monbiot’s call was “You don’t have to be a nationalist or English to support an English parliament. You just have to be a democrat.” Later, in the discussion, he came under questioning and said that “I want to convince people on the left, my fellow radicals, that it is a progressive issue. Let’s make the good, strong democratic case. What more needs to be said?” He assumed that they “have no strong feeling for England" but "have a strong feeling for democracy”. He also explained that it was easier to support the nationalism of small oppressed nations. But England had in the past been associated with the oppression of others. Even when this was done in the name of Britain, the two had been conflated and really the Empire was an English project. There was much resistance to this, even though it is obvious and was a well made point. The participants seemed to feel that England had always been an underdog nation, and the English deprived of their voice, not a mighty and ruthless state once responsible for atrocities and repression that the English felt was, well, English!
At the start Kingsnorth had aroused a cheer when he denounced the embarrassment of having to sing God Save the Queen as the English national anthem in football matches, and he called for us English to have an anthem of our own. It's not hard to guess the front runner for this honour. Monbiot referred to this when he told the meeting that given his rejection of English nationalism he would not stand and sing Jerusalem at the close of the meeting. The point was made to Monbiot and to Facey, that because England is not represented and suffers the democratic vacuum there surely has to be some identification with England and the English as a nation both spiritual (Facey would agree with that) and institutional, for the thing to work at all.
The campaign's call is for a referendum. Its positioning carefully non-party and cross-party. And as Gerry Hassan has just pointed out in CiF, England is being left out of the current constitutional flurry - but this can’t last.
I’m not a member of the CEP as yet, but I certainly was not going to pass up the chance to sing Blake’s hymn.
Comments
Interesting article and I am sure the meeting was even more so. The question of England is certainly only going to become more pressing, partly - I am sure - because of the increasing likelihood of Scottish independence. After all, if the Tories win power next year, it will be in England and if the SNP retains power north of the border, surely calls to separate from a right-wing Eton-based English govt will only strengthen? Whilst Scottish independence is not necessarily imminent (will there be a Scottish Olympic team in London 2012?), it feels inevitable.
As for the national anthem, I always thought "Land of Hope and Glory" would win out. Both it and Jerusalem are Christian in nature - unfortunately, in my opinion - but LoHaG seems less so to me.
Land of Hope and Glory is a British imperialist anthem, hardly suitable for contemporary England. It's about widening the bounds of Empire for pity's sake.
It has to be Jerusalem. Or, if I had an ounce of musical talent, I would consider setting this to music:
Men of England, heirs of Glory,
Heroes of unwritten story,
Nurslings of one mighty Mother,
Hopes of her, and one another;
Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you --
Ye are many -- they are few.
From the Masque of Anarchy by Shelley.
If I can add my two pence worth.
First of all, could I just point out that Cornwall, as a county, is not 'clamouring for devolution'. A few people of an extreme viewpoint are doing so and until Mebyon Kernow can demonstrate conclusively that they speak for all of Cornwall or, at least a majority, their views should be noted and ignored.
Secondly, this concept of 'the universal right of all peoples, English included, to self-determination' needs explanation. How far does this supposed 'universal right' reach? If it is to county level, as Kernow seem to want, why not to town level, then why not to street level, and then, finally, why not have TOTAL anarchy and reduce it to individual level.
From the top one more time.
Yes I know that the majority in Kernow is still not convinced of the arguments for devolution but the campaign is growing. I base this claim on the following:
1) The petition of 50,000 signatures collected in 2002 calling for the creation of a Cornish Assembly.
2) The opinion polls that put support for Cornish devolution at around 55%.
3) The fact that the Lib Dems, Greens, Mebyon Kernow and many Independents support devolution and together get a majority of the votes. The Lib Dems are the week link in this chain as they tend to simply talk the talk.
Self-determination is a principle and should be applied with reason. Of course total independence for Cornwall would be foolish and unwanted at the moment. However much greater regional autonomy could only be of benefit and would, to a large degree, satisfy the Cornish nations right to self-determination. As for devolving power as far down the line to towns, villages and other communities then I'm all in favour.
Taking personal responsibility has always been a guiding line of thought for me, not you?
If we are going to talk about Englands right to self-determination -a basic right of any nation- then the Cornish nation needs also to be considered and consulted on its future.
If the choice was put to the public of England (and Cornwall) of either an EP or devolved regions (Cornwall being a region of its own) there really would be no choice for me. Equally I'd like to see Cornwall integrated into a con-federal Europe
But to the EU Cornwall isn't a region, the South West is. Of course Cornwall has a distinct identity, which why I, in Yeovil Somerset, have no more or less in common with you (in terms of local economy, social issues and culture) as I have with anyone else anywhere in England (and Cornwall). Which is why devolution on a regional basis makes absolutely no sense but an English Parliament does. A newly established EP should then devolve substantial power on a local (county) basis so that the Cornish can deal with the issues that affect them only and the EP can deal with issues that affect us all.
True change can come only from outside the existing political system and establishment. England has the weakest instititional arrangements at the communal, local level of any developed nation and those in Scotland and Wales are better only in the relative sense that these are smaller countries. The creation of an English Parliament is neither here nor there - it will become every bit as remote from the people as the present one, and any government that it produces will be every bit as authoritarian in its habits and assumptions, unless there is some countervailing, independent source of authority at local level. Yes, we need what the Founding Fathers identified as States, or the Germans would recognise as Laender, provided we do not stop there. The Cornish question could potentially be quite a useful device to jemmy open the toxic possibilities of English unitarism, just as the West Lothian question has slowly blown Britain apart.
The position of England within the "United Kingdom" is analagous to that of Russia within the Soviet Union, or the Czech lands within Czechoslovakia. "Britain" is essentially an empire and its Parliament little more than a Supreme Soviet. English people may have played their part in its creation but it has nothing to offer them now and most of them are, in truth, profoundly alienated from it. Tabloid sentiment may remain attached to the symbols of nation and empire but we should do nothing to collude with it through talk of national anthems etc. A democratic commonwealth of all the people needs no national anthem, and no permanent head of state - how the present incumbents of that position choose to employ themselves in the future is their own business.
England should have a Parliament and there is no logical reason to oppose it. It is time to answer the 'West Lothian' question and that requires that the English have control over their own affairs, free from Scottish and Welsh Socialist. Most people I meet are getting very pissed off by the whinging attitude up north and over west. This is a sore that can but grow.
As to the Cornwall question there is no such question. We read acres of this stuff on here and yet what mandate do they have ? None. Cornwall is a part of England just as Yorkshire or Westmoreland are. The idea of Cornwall as an independent nation is piffle. It is not viable period. We all know this.
'Owly' writes:
This neatly sums up what for me is the main obstacle to supporting the Campaign for an English Parliament. I would like to see an English parliament -- and, just as important, a separate English government -- but not so as to weaken the links between England on the one hand and Scotland and Wales (not to mention Northern Ireland) on the other: rather to strengthen those links and to make them more durable and more democratic: and thus to head off the looming danger of the disintegration of my country. ('My country' is of course the United Kingdom every bit as much as England.)
In short, half-baked devolution, which is what we have now, needs to be completed by the transformation, over at least 20 years and possibly longer, of the UK into a full-blooded federation, with the present Westminster parliament and government becoming the federal legislature and executive, and a new separate parliament and government for England, with full domestic powers exercised by all four nations' parliaments and governments, and only limited powers (mainly foreign affairs and defence) devolved upwards to the federal level. It's only in that overall context that a "parliament for England" makes good constitutional sense. It's also the only conceivable solution to the West Lothian question and the only possible way of removing the many other anomalies stemming from the uncompleted process of devolution. If the institution of an English parliament is primarily to rid England of the interference of those "whingeing" Scots and Welshmen, it's a highly suspect bit of narrow chauvinism and I for one want no part of it.
I should add that George Monbiot's ideas for making the house of commons an English parliament and the house of lords a federal organ of some kind are so weird that I can't believe he means them seriously. (The Tories' proposals for "English votes on English laws" are almost equally barmy, but that's another story.)
Brian
http://www.barder.com/ephems/
Sadly I was unable to attend.
But if this report is to be believed, then the foundations of the effort are well set and can only grow in power to get something. It will become all the stronger the more it is denied.
As for England the oppressor, two things to note.
First England was invaded, its English ruling class replaced, its population subject to rape, pillage and murder, its language banished from court and a law passed to permit a Norman to kill an Englishman with impunity. So oppression, like so much in life, begins at home.
Second, when one has the power to defend oneself from oppression, one has the power to oppress others if they do not. What a nation does with that power is a measure of the character of that nation.
Zen9 said: "First England was invaded, its English ruling class replaced, its population subject to rape, pillage and murder, its language banished from court and a law passed to permit a Norman to kill an Englishman with impunity. So oppression, like so much in life, begins at home."
One could easily say the same about the Briton ancestors of those whining Celts, particularly the Welsh, who were invaded by raped despoiled and eventually conquered and assimilated by the Angles , Saxons and Jutes.
If you have to go back to the time of William the Conqueror to find justification for this bizarre trope about the opressed English.....
Well, an English parliament, fine, since the "regions of England" are meaningless gerrymanders, and it would be within the logic of the other devolution institutions-but wouldn't an English Parliament just replicate the domination of the UK by the south-east one level of government down?
Inguaevonic speakers (North Sea Germanic a branch of West Germanic) where living on south eastern Britain when Caeser turned up. They had crossed decaded or possibloy centuries earlier. Their relatives back on the continent where part of the Belgae confederacy.
When the various other Inguaevonic speakers (Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Warni etc...) turned up they acted as a catalyst that saw these settled people change from Romano-British to Anglo-Saxon.
This is why the archeology does not point to large scale migrations from the continent during the Volkerwandurung. Rather people stop being Roman and start being Anglo-Saxon.
Which is not to say there was'nt violence or ill feeling between Germanic peoples and Celtic peoples, which goes a long back. But it was not a simple clear cut process in any way, and certainly not the one you've described.
Oppression of the English ended because it was convenient to stop it having lost territories in France, and because of intermarrige it was no longer clear who was Norman and who was'nt.
But the attitudes of the Normans towards the people they ruled can be said to have lasted a lot longer than the distinction between them and those they ruled.
During the Putney debates it was remarked that they had finaly removed the 'Norman Yoke'.
However oppression of the English is no argument to give them a parliament as surely as it is no argument to give to any other people, nor is it an argument to deny them such either. The argument for that is one of principle, that a people should have such a body, and denying them it when others have such is to abuse that people. As surely as denying one people a representative body that is for them while giving such to others is to be biased against that people and treating them in an unequal manner.
As for southeastern domination, thats an issue for how such a parliament is constructed, and the architecture of its relationships with other bodies.
All the evidence is that the SNP will lose a straightforward referendum on Scottish independence if this is held next year, after a UK general election. However, if the other parties at Holyrood are stupid enough to veto the poll, this will keep the agenda very much alive. Alternatively, if a three-option referendum is approved (current status quo, Calman or independence), independence might emerge as the most popular option of the three, even if not with an actual majority. That could be a clever way for Salmond to engineer a 'mandate' for independence talks and to claim that an unpopular Tory government is once again denying the will of the Scottish people.
Whatever happens there, I think the long-term momentum towards Scottish independence is irresistible, whether it takes two, ten or 30 years. But we in England can't hang around waiting for the Scots to decide our fate. Whatever one thinks of the opinion polls that have been conducted over the years - and they all seem to point to majority support for some sort of English self-government - there isn't yet any mass movement in favour of an English parliament: it's not something that has even begun to be discussed in the mainstream media. I think most people in England would regard an EP as something of an irrelevant or whacky idea because they still think of Westminster as 'their' parliament, notwithstanding the present alienation and disaffection towards the old place.
And yet, there is a groundswell of unease in England about Parliament being unfit as a democratic, representative body for England; our English liberties being eroded; English culture and identity being denied; the loss of many remaining English institutions and icons, such as the pub and village post offices; immigration, multi-culturalism and the establishment's Britishness crusade effacing English-national identity; etc. etc. It would just take all of that to be connected to the political problem - the gross inadequacy and venality of the parliamentary and party-political process - for an English parliament to suddenly become a goer.
How about this scenario: the Tories win a slim majority or plurality in a hung parliament (weak mandate); do nothing about real constitutional reform; more scandals involving abuse of parliamentary privileges are dug up, and the Tories rely on non-English MPs to push through unpopular spending cuts in England; the SNP wins a mandate to pursue the independence agenda (perhaps via the three-option referendum mentioned above); and the England football team wins the World Cup . . .. There'd definitely have to be the hand of God in that, though.
Tks for comments. Why are the British political class opposed to a Scottish referendum if, as aka David says, the Scots are bound at the moment to reject independence? I suspect the answer is that their simply having one, the decision on it, the build up to it, the mobilisations around it, the debate that would have to be had across the rest of the UK, would pose the question: 'Why can't the English have a referendum on whether they want their own parliament within the union?" Given that in England too, there is a majority for the Union, why indeed? Here I think, I can't provide any hard evidence however, there is a fear. The British political class (which includes many drawing family ties from from Wales, Scotland and Ireland) is that the English are much more likely to shrug off the union than the smaller nations.
Wrong. The reason why England wasn't given a Parliament of its own in 1997 is quite simple: the Labour Party wouldn't have been able to control it. And now one of the reasons we see all this nonsense around this topic is again due to the politics of the Labour Party. They thought that they could control Scotland and Wales, that they were eternal Labour 'rotten boroughs', but it isn't working out quite like that, as many of us predicted. Also if you give England a Parliament then you must reform public spending. It is English gold which now pays for devolution, but twas ever thus - Scottish monarchs loved English pensions. So lets reform the Barnet Formula and even out spending, maybe separate out tax receipts etc. But the left wont do this nor will they like it when it eventually has to be done. Like everything else Blair and Brown touched they buggered it up.
I think that statement encompasses a large chunk of why an English Parliament will never happen. Even the supporters of more English democracy can't all bring themselves to promote English culture and a single English parliament. The Scottish Parliament was driven by a sense of Scottish identity not a feeling that there is not enough local democracy in Britain.
There still seems to be an aversion to England as an identity in South Britain.
PS. Can you make logins easier? It took me a while to work out that the only way to login was to go to the forums where there was a login screen. I opened "Opendemocracy" in Firefox, Opera and finally Internet Explorer in a vain attempt to find a login link on the homepage or on the article page before I tried going to the forums page.
Thanks for flagging this up Doug - it's being looked in to.
So that' why Mebyon Kernow got about 17% of the vote in the Duchy in the EU election and trashed Labour? Or why 50,000 people signed a petition calling for Cornish devolution or why 55% supported the creation of a Cornish Assembly in an opinion poll. Equally I could ask you why 30% of our kids prefer to describe themselves as Cornish rather than English or British? Please don't confuse your intolerant English fascism for an evenhanded and clear view on the Cornish question: http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/philip-hosking/next-steps-for-cornish-constitutional-convention
Perhaps it makes your brain boil to think people don't want to be English but you're just going to have to get used to it.
"Jemmy" away. Cornish campaigners are ready and waiting to work alongside anybody with common interests.
Please don't confuse your intolerant English fascism for an evenhanded and clear view on the Cornish question:
Funny how you rush to use the 'f' word. But you should reflect on who it is that is using the language of 'race', 'ethnicity' and 'nationalism' here: it aint me. Having had personal experience both of Welsh and Scottish Nationalism I can tell you it is much closer to Fascism than you would like to admit, and your brand of Cornish Nationalism is no different. You prove that it is founded on hate of the English and of England. So it is in Wales and Scotland.
What personal experience have you had of Welsh and Scottish Nationalism? A ridiculous assertion like that cannot be left hanging in mid air.
You may call yourself 'The Cornish Democrat' but you appear to be anything but. I have read acres of your sepal and it is all based on 'race, ethnicity and nationalism' as I pointed out. When someone disagrees with you it is you who accuses that questioning voice of being an 'English Fascist'. It is you that is the fascist here, not me. I have questioned your assertions and it would seem the facts bear out my contention that the so called 'Cornish Question' exists more in your mind than in reality. I would also suggest you read your own parties constitution for your comments and attitude would seem to be at variance with it.
In the recent EU elections the turnout in Cornwall was 409000 of which you (your Party) gained 6.8% or 11538 votes. UKIP gained 23.6% of the vote and the Conservative Party gained 27.6% with 46589 Votes. You didn't even get 7% of the vote, so it seems that the people of Cornwall do not share your views at all. It is you that is making out that all the people of Cornwall are demanding self-determination, independence etc etc etc. This is plainly not true.
http://mudhook.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/cornwall-election-results-2009
Oh right ALL based on race ethnicity and nationalism is it. Give a few examples of my intolerance towards any other group or minority can you? No of course not because you are simply making it up as you go along.
It's not that you disagree with me its that you are intolerant of the very question being debated. You cannot stand us putting a question mark over what you think of as England.
MKs Average poll in contested seats was 17% in the Council elections. So 17% of the people in Cornish seats supporting MK in the Council elections is of no importance for you? When any English nationalists can claim the same......
http://www.mebyonkernow.org/?q=news/206
Their EU election results can be seen here. Beat Labour! Trashed the BNP and English Democrats. Really need to work with the Greens more like the Europe Ecologie group in France.
http://www.mebyonkernow.org/?q=news/207
But clearly all the people of Cornwall do not share my views or think of themselves as Cornish. Of course I accept that. It is evident however that you cannot accept that not everyone wants an English parliament or even to be part of England.
And don't forget our 5 Lib Dem MP's who have promissed to campaign for a Cornish Assembly. Have you read Dan Rogersons Government of Cornwall Bill?
You talk all the time about 'ethnicity', 'race' etc to underpin and give credence to your version of Cornish Nationalism. It would seem obvious that the people of Cornwall feel and believe that Cornwall is an integral part of England, as indeed it is. Because I questioned your support I was automatically labeled an 'English Fascist'. That would seem to be clearly racism - my view was not valid because I was English. Why else would you use such language ? So anyone who disagrees with you or questions your support is automatically a fascist ? Shows how poor your argument really is.
In the Local Elections you obtained 4% of the vote and got 3 seats. The Tories got 34% of the vote and 50 seats. UKIP got 3% of the vote. So it is just 4% of Cornish people vote for you. As the Conservatives are the largest party on the new unitary authority it would seem that they speak for far more Cornish people than you do. Or is it that because the Conservatives are a unionist party they don't count ?
In the EU elections far more of the people of Cornwall for whom you claim to speak supported UKIP, so it would seem we should take far more notice of them than you. Or are you saying that UKIP, which seems to be diametrically opposed to what you want, is of no consequence too ?
owly,
I mentioned Cornwall in relation to a debate on England's future and you dismissed my points as piffle and wrote....
This is not debate or very democratic. It is simply trying to tread under foot the opinion of someone you disagree with. Intolerant to all dissent on your vision of England. Equally it is no secret that English nationalism is infested with neo-Nazi groups like the English Defence League and England First.
In the local elections MK got the following:
Mebyon Kernow – the Party for Cornwall
Not the best I'll admit but improving, but add this to the score to the Greens and many independents who support devolution and you get the picture. Equally the Lib Dems talk up Cornish devolution even if they have a tendency to let us down.
I've never said or claimed that Cornish nationalism is the majority opinion but unlike you I have not tried to write off a significant minority opinion either. Your comments about UKIP and Tory also need to be seen in perspective. Considering Tory, Libdem and Labour are all opposed to the creation of an English Parliament, following your own logic, it doesn't bode well for your campaign does it? Please note the Tory/Indy controlled Cornwall Council has just decided to make road signs bilingual Cornish/English.
You're wasting your time CD. Owly is big on accusation but low on substance. Note the accusation of Fascism against Welsh and Scottish Nationalists but an inability to come up with any substantiation whatsoever.
It is an indication of the mountain we have to climb when an Englishman says that the "UK" is, after all, his country too [as well as England]. In truth, Britland does not belong to him - it is he that belongs to Britland, under its oligarchic but unwritten constitution that has never been exposed to public debate or popular consent. We are subjects, not free citizens, of a political entity whose only rationale is that it has always existed time out of mind. It exists, so far as one can tell, solely to perpetuate itself and the poltical class that thrives off it. Were someone to propose today that 50 million people should voluntarily unite with two much smaller nations and an arbitrary section of a third one (to be defined by religious preference) it is unlikely that the proposal would command much support. We could further undermine support by proposing that in this wonderful new union there should be no effective democratic partipication other than quinquennial plebiscites to ratify the composition of a puppet Parliament chosen mainly by and from the political class and controlled almost entirely by the Government. Why does anybody feel any loyalty to this monster? What has it ever done for us? I have never been asked if I subscribe to these arrangements but if I ever am the answer will be no.
Well said Jim. You really should check out the Unspoken Constitution if you haven't already:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/stuart-wilks-heeg/unspoken-constitution-20
It's a satirical document showing what the UK constitution is really like in all it's undemocratic absurdity -it's written from the perspective of "We, the elite". There's also a wiki version that anyone can contribute to.
It is indeed very clever and very funny. Perhaps ridicule is the best weapon against the British empire - which is unlikely to be brought down by rational debate and counterargument, not so long as so many people remain attached to its symbols and past glories. I remember being involved in this project to redefine "British values", and the only one they could come up with was tolerance (for which read apathy). Now I think maybe it is more like Stockholm Syndrome, in which the victim comes to identify with their oppressor.
An English Parliament makes complete sense whether it is part of a federal UK, or as a wholy independent country, but the big problem is that the UK establishment will fight it tooth and nail.
I have always believed that the establishment's antipathy towards the European Union (here I mean the real European Union of shared borders, shared sovereignty, single currency, and not just the free trade aspects of it) is centred around the fact that it has exposed the United Kingdom for what it is: a union of four separate European nations that happen to share these islands. And that makes the UK establishment extremely uncomfortable - suddenly the lie of a single 'country' has been exposed, and the draw of independence for the several nations becomes ever greater, particularly as they will all feel relatively secure in the knowlege that the EU can give them an umbrella of security, a voice on the world stage and a clear legal framework to live with and co-operate with their neigbours in safety in a much looser framework than the straightjacket imposed by the over-centralised UK.
Ireland, Luxembourg and Denmark are all perfect examples.
Thinking laterally though, modern Europe gives so much flexibility, and it is up to us English to demand not only a proper democratic system for our country - which necessitates the creation of a Parliament - but to consider the possibilities that fall short of independence.
No longer is it necesary to choose between total independence as a single unitary state or union with another country. The UK and Ireland have no border control on the frontier for example, nor do the various Schengen member states (some of whom are EU, some of whom are not EU members); The Republic of Ireland and Norther Ireland have some degree of power sharing. They also run tourism together.
It is possible to have separate currencies, or to retain the same. England and Scotland could both choose to retain the current monetary union if it suited, using either the Pound or the Euro; or one could adopt the Euro, the other keep the Pound. Benelux (Netherlands, Begium, Luxembourg) have many common arrangements that go beyond EU rules.
England and Scotland could if they wished adopt a Schengen style single visa system for non-EU/EEA nationals, could choose to keep one army, with a common foreign policy (or not).
But what all of these options will entail is a willingness for the new English Parliament to be willing to work together with Scotland, Wales, Ireland etc, rather than simpy make the rules up themselves and force their neighbours to accept the outcome. This means less power for national politicians, as more will have to be done multilaterally, and that will be a new thing for our politicians. The views of others have to be considered, lobbied, persuaded. Bad news for politicians, but (I would argue) good for their peoples/electorates.
Interesting points Julian - it's refreshing to hear from someone who is both pro-English Parliament and pro-EU, as the two so rarely seem to go together.
So glad you are both so in favour of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
Indeed - I was in favour of a referendum.
It is not the prospect of an English Parliament as such that turns me on, but the prospect of independence from the United Kingdom. Some sort of legislature would seem to be called for in that context but I am not tempted to get overexcited about a body whose first instinct is going to be to pass yet more laws for us all to obey, unless its powers are carefully limited.
It seems inevitable that the relationship between an independent England and the Europe of the Union would be somewhat more mature than at present simply because so much of the tension is driven by the perceived threat to "British" sovereignty and instititions. No Britain: no problem. I have no illusions about the EU being a model of democracy - I have worked there - but it is at least a pluralist system which Britain is not.
It is shocking to drive these days across border-free Europe and then to encounter the frontier of Gordon Brown's Britland where officialdom may strut, pose and generally make a nuisance of themselves to the travelling public. If you ask me to choose between freedom of movement and having old Queen Liz' head on the currency I know which I prefer.
Most of our problems come down to the post-imperial pretensions of the British state. I don't think a democratic England would insist on having a seat on the Security Council, or an army to match with all its resulting wars, deaths and heartbreak.
Jim, I'm sorry to say you show a stunning ignorance of your own countries history. The tensions you mention with the European Union and Britain are not caused by 'Britain', but by a tension between continental notions and those found in ENGLAND. Have you never heard of the common law, Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus etc etc etc which were all features of the development of England and not Britain. They are variance to what you find on the continent. And one has to ask what care the continental powers have taken to the differences between these two systems - answer, not a lot. The very notion of Liberty is quite different in England than it is in continental Europe. Your praise for all things European should be tempered by the understand of recent European history - remember that not so long ago the whole continent was steeped in tyranny, from which it was rescued by silly old Britain.
As to your complaint about Passport controls to abolish these has been of great advantage to criminals, terrorists and asylum seekers etc. They should never have been abolished in the first place.
Magna Carta would be the one that enshrined the principle that nobody should be put to death without due cause, except the common people.
I don't think the historical record confirms that Britain won the second world war - that would be Stalin and the Americans.
English Patriots should sign The English Claim of Right
http://www.englishclaimofright.com/
Anthony, I am sorry you found my speech confusing maybe it is because I was not clear or simply that you came in late.
Let me try to be clear. I am proud to be English. I believe that we do need to be more confident in our identity and disentangle Englishness from Britishness. But in the same way that you can be a proud Scot and against Scottish independence, I am a proud Englishman who is against a English Parliament with the same powers as either the Scottish Parliament or even worse the Welsh Assembly.
This is not because I don’t think the English have the right to have a Parliament if they want one, or because I think an English Parliament will destroy the UK. It is simply because I believe that England is too centralized and that power needs to be exercised closer to the people. Devolution from 60 million to 50 million is not decentralization for me, simply change one form of centralization for another.
In most other democracy's of our size power is decentralized to sub national unites with real power. I want a decentralized England not because it is good for Britain, but because it is good for England.
England has a bigger population than Spain, but my friends who campaign for a English Parliament want to have the same model of governance as Scotland a country with less people than London. What is appropriate for Scotland or Wales is not necessarily appropriate for England. When I hear people advocate an English Parliament I mainly hear an argument for national equality. To put it simply Scotland has one so why shouldn’t we.
So instead of an English Parliament I believe we need an English Devolution Enabling Act. Which would offer the people and communities of England the same powers that are on offer elsewhere in the UK. The Act would outline what powers were available and how they could be drawn down. It would also state that if powers were drawn down that they could only be taken away we the express permission of the people of that community.
Under such a settlement if campaigners for an English Parliament could persuade say 5% of the English people to sign a petition to establish a English Parliament then they could have their referendum.
But so could campaigners for a Cornish assembly or people who want more power for London, Birmingham or Essex. I believe that given the choice people will prefer to have power at a more local level. But I am willing to accept that I maybe wrong and that my fellow English people will choose to swap a centralized UK for what I fear would be a nearly equally centralized England. If so at least it will be the democratic choice of the English People.
I said in my speech that campaign's like Unlock Democracy and the Campaign for a English Parliament should be allies not opponents and I truly believe that. Our real opponents are those who defend the status quo and not each other.
Anthony, I am sorry you found my speech confusing maybe it is because I was not clear or simply that you came in late.
Let me try to be clear. I am proud to be English. I believe that we do need to be more confident in our identity and disentangle Englishness from Britishness. But in the same way that you can be a proud Scot and against Scottish independence, I am a proud Englishman who is against a English Parliament with the same powers as either the Scottish Parliament or even worse the Welsh Assembly.
This is not because I don’t think the English have the right to have a Parliament if they want one, or because I think an English Parliament will destroy the UK. It is simply because I believe that England is too centralized and that power needs to be exercised closer to the people. Devolution from 60 million to 50 million is not decentralization for me, simply change one form of centralization for another.
In most other democracy's of our size power is decentralized to sub national unites with real power. I want a decentralized England not because it is good for Britain, but because it is good for England.
England has a bigger population than Spain, but my friends who campaign for a English Parliament want to have the same model of governance as Scotland a country with less people than London. What is appropriate for Scotland or Wales is not necessarily appropriate for England. When I hear people advocate an English Parliament I mainly hear an argument for national equality. To put it simply Scotland has one so why shouldn’t we.
So instead of an English Parliament I believe we need an English Devolution Enabling Act. Which would offer the people and communities of England the same powers that are on offer elsewhere in the UK. The Act would outline what powers were available and how they could be drawn down. It would also state that if powers were drawn down that they could only be taken away we the express permission of the people of that community.
Under such a settlement if campaigners for an English Parliament could persuade say 5% of the English people to sign a petition to establish a English Parliament then they could have their referendum.
But so could campaigners for a Cornish assembly or people who want more power for London, Birmingham or Essex. I believe that given the choice people will prefer to have power at a more local level. But I am willing to accept that I maybe wrong and that my fellow English people will choose to swap a centralized UK for what I fear would be a nearly equally centralized England. If so at least it will be the democratic choice of the English People.
I said in my speech that campaign's like Unlock Democracy and the Campaign for a English Parliament should be allies not opponents and I truly believe that. Our real opponents are those who defend the status quo and not each other.
Personally, my doubts about an English Parliament are to do with what good can possibly come of having another layer of assembly populated by essentially the same people who think that government is about passing laws for other people. (To that extent I prefer the Welsh model, but look how hungry they are for more powers to oppress their electorate! Wonderful new laws to make things either compulsory or forbidden.)
It is instructive to look at the United States, a political system that was put together with the faults of the British one very much in mind. Democracy is hard wired in at every level - so that when we look at the failings of Washington, it is important to remember that Washington simply does not matter to 90% of the people 90% of the time. When a State is constituted, it is divided into counties for administrative purposes. As communities grow they have the right to "incorporate", and take possession of such public services as they see fit. That is why even quite small towns will have their own schools, utilities and (vitally) police force. It is not for government (whether state or federal) to tell them what they can and cannot do: they just help themselves. They hollow out the pre-existing structure of counties, until at some point these may be abolished.
I expect someone will comment that the American system is bad because they have no NHS and our authoritarian system of government is a price worth paying. Well, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has for some years had a system of mandatory, universal health insurance which is every bit as good as anything you will find in Europe. In all the reporting of Obama's struggles over healthcare, I have not seen this mentioned once. It just goes to show how centralist is the mindset of our commentariat, even when it is observing other systems of government.
But England had in the past been associated with the oppression of others. Even when this was done in the name of Britain, the two had been conflated and really the Empire was an English project.
For me this is where issues of class and nationality clash. The English as a whole are expected to bear some sense of guilt for what was done in their name by the rich and powerful of all the UK nations. Because the rich and powerful of the other nations, particularly in Scotland, were more than willing to join the venture whilst the average working class Englishman had little knowledge and less say in the atrocities that were being committed in his name.
This really shoudn't be relavent. These things happened generations ago and I'd much prefer to leave the past in the past. But sadly it become suddenly and uncomfortably relavent when confronted by some of the horrendous 'English-bashing' that I occasionally come across on political blogs, generally by ex-colonies, especially in America and Australia.
For me an EP is an opportunity to leave all this in the past and create a fresh-faced, newly matured, progressively democratic England.
Post new comment