Anthony Barnett (London, OK): I arrived at the CEP – the Campaign for an English Parliament - annual conference yesterday as Mike Knowles was summing up his introduction asking why the 550 English MPs don’t stand up for England. I had to leave early as the gathering was questioning Simon Hughes MP. For an overview of the day see the CEP's blog. I’ll blog tomorrow about one thing Hughes said. Here are some bullet points:
It was small and old-fashioned. After a week of unprecedented interest in things English, with books and programmes, and even a Billy Bragg concert, I had expected greater energy, numbers and youth. That does not mean the call for an EP is wrong but that (IMHO) it has not yet risen to its opportunity.
There was no real discussion. The agenda followed a traditional custom of a speaker who addressed the audience. Brief questions then followed. There was not a sense of issues that need to be addressed, or differences that need to be resolved, or of a strategy that needs to be debated.
A chill could be felt when Simon Lee spoke in a thoughtful way about Brown’s policy on Britishness. (Lee’s book on Brown has been reviewed in OK by Peter Oborne here.) Lee explained that he supported the call for an English Parliament. That this was not about identity. Emphasis on race or immigration will destroy the cause (this drew loud applause). Unlike Paul Kingsnorth, Lee told the conference, “I am not an English nationalist”. The argument had to be pitched in terms of “democracy, accountability and citizenship” (e.g. the massive devolution to unelected bodies) and connected to the “real politics of health care, public services and peoples lives”. “I am supporting this campaign”, he argued, “but it must be about how we are run democratically… a debate about the quality of government not about waving flags”.
I asked a question. Could Simon Lee think of any example of democratic citizenship that was not associated with a nationalism – surely there had to be a civic nationalism?
He granted the point to some degree and generously pointed out that in his notes for his speech, copies provided, he had quoted from my 1997 book This Time (where I’d said that there will be a “need for an Englishness that is not Thatcher’s. A renovated, enlightened Britishness will not be sufficient”).
He explained that he was very impressed in Canada at the way it was the democratic process that led to patriotism. “I am a patriot. I love Elgar. But I am not a nationalist. I love my country, but I am not saying that it is better than any other.” This drew an audible gasp from many in the audience.
Lee was followed by Bob Peedle of the Royal Society of St George and Editor of its journal England’s Standard. “I represent the flag waving tendency” he told the conference to loud cheers of relief by many.
It was delightful to have them both speaking – but they were not asked to dialogue.
The most interesting moment for me was a fascinating address by Canon Kenyon Wright, who was one of the leading organisers and spokesman for the Scottish Constitutional Convention. I have asked him to send me his paper, which I hope we can publish in OK. As I recall, when the Convention published its Claim of Right and its appeal for a Scottish Parliament two decades ago, the joke in Edinburgh was “They may have the guns but we have the Canon”.
I blogged briefly from the Conference before my connections crashed about his wise advice. There are some prompt and neat responses. I still think what he said poses a huge problem and highlights a significant difference between the two processesso far. The Scottish one was pro-EU. It sought national independence within and by means of the European Union. Whereas the CEP gathering yesterday had a populist anti-European tone. I take Terry Heath’s point that there are also pro-EU members like him present. But to take Simon Lee’s argument: if the call for an EP is to be founded on democracy and citizenship, what line should it take on the EU?
A couple of the comments to my post yesterday score points against the SNP - which did trade on grievances and was anti-EU at first. These miss a really important feature of the Scottish process. Canon Kenyon Wright was talking about the Scottish Constitutional Convention which initiated the process that led to the Scottish parliament - which the SNP boycotted. The Scottish Parliament is not the product of the SNP. It came about thanks to a very broad alliance. Even though it is now the SNP under Salmond that has given it a true voice.
It is entirely possible that Scotland will have a referendum soon and vote for independence whereupon the existing British setup of the House of Commons will become England’s parliament by default. I am not sure that the CEP will be entirely happy with this. Or Labour could engineer a snap referendum in which the Scots endorse membership of the Union (with stronger fiscal powers for Holyrood) and then a long struggle for an EP will really begin. Either way, a very broad coalition will be needed if England is to enjoy democracy. How will this fit with the manifest democratic deficits of the EU which itself is a dynamic process?
I am not taunting or attacking the CEP by making this argument I am trying to think openly about an issue with big ramifications.
