|
> Home
> News cuttings >
St George
Yorkshire Post
“Not now; not tomorrow; not in any kind of future we can see.” Well, that’s that then. Thanks a million Charlie. Next business!
Such was the airy and regal dismissal of the concept of a Parliament for England from Charlie Falkoner, Lord Chancellor, erstwhile room-mate of Tony Blair, and guardian of the constitution.
The Scots –he’s one of them though his accent is hardly broad Glaswegian- and the Welsh need protection from the English. So, presumably, do the Northern Irish (though I thought they rather needed protection from each other in that beautiful but tormented province). But the English, 80 per cent of the British population, do not need protection.
That, in all its stark clarity, is the Falkoner thesis. No Parliament for England. It would create a federal UK (why is the term “federal” used to denote extreme centralisation in Europe and extreme decentralisation in the UK?) and the break-up of the Union.
But the issue of who governs England won’t go away as easily as that. To understand why let us imagine we are a couple of years down the road from here. Gordon Brown, at last, is in No 10, talking more and more about “Britain.” Ming Campbell is leader of the Liberal Democrats. David Cameron has shrugged off the Tory whingers and is hammering out the core policy agenda. The Scottish Nationalists, Welsh Nationalists, and various Ulster Parties are fighting their local wars. There might even be devolved government in Belfast. An election is looming.
Of the leaders of those parties only one is English – Cameron. Gordon Brown and Ming Campbell and all the others represent Scottish constituencies. On any matter which has been devolved to Edinburgh they have no say whatsoever. But when the self-same issues arise for England they have the same power as any other MP.
In short, not merely do they have the vote on purely English matters, but they do NOT decide on the identical issues for Scotland- that falls to the Parliament/Assembly on Edinburgh and Cardiff in their super new palaces.
Now we should not exaggerate the extent of devolution. The two big areas devolved to Edinburgh are education and health. Social security, pensions, tax, and, of course, law and order, defence and foreign policy, remain “reserved” matters. In Wales the devolved powers are much more dilute.
But over quite large areas of policy Her Majesty’s Government is a government for England alone. Education and health, where its powers are purely over England, are the two issues which the public lists as its top priority and which, increasingly, are defining the contemporary political battle-field. This Wednesday’s vote on the government’s education bill is a battle both for the future of the government (and the legacy of the Prime Minister) and the soul of the Labour party. It applies exclusively to England but its fate could, ultimately, lie in Scottish hands.
Let us now fast-forward another year or so. Let us speculate that Gordon Brown has won a general election in Britain with a vastly reduced majority but that Conservatives hold the majority of English seats. Over a major range of issues he can only command a majority thanks to his Scottish Labour MPs.
We have arrived at the big question- how legitimate is that government? It has a name: the West Lothian Question.
Basically there are four answers: do nothing; empower the English regions; disbar non-English MPs from votes on purely English matters at Westminster (the Tory solution); or set up a Parliament for England.
The Labour Government is in favour of the do-nothing approach, translated into high constitutional theory by Falconer. It tried English regional government, but got a whopping bloody nose from the only region it even dared have a referendum – the North East.
Both remaining solutions have huge difficulty, not least in defining what is purely English (higher education funding, for example, impacts on the thousands of students who cross the border to go to university.)
I believe there are two powerful arguments against an English Parliament achieved either pragmatically by de-barring non-English votes from English matters in Westminster or formally by establishing a new institution.
The first is the disproportional size of England within the Union – A size which previous Conservative Administrations used to roll out policies across Scotland on the back of English votes. Assertive nationalism on the part of a small minority is often irksome and small-minded but, ultimately, irritates rather than undermines. To empower England would, I fear, make the whole notion of the UK unsustainable.
The second, linked objection, is that it would make it very difficult to maintain stable government. If a party won the general election but was unable to deliver the majority of its policies where would that leave the whole idea of UK-wide elections for a UK Parliament? The road to separation would beckon ever more openly.
So I believe we English have a decision to make. If we value the idea of the Union we are going to have to roll with the punches occasionally landed from Scots/Welsh/Irish politicians in varying combinations. If we are not willing to carry the burden of size let us unfurl the flags of St George and sing Land of Hope and Glory. We will have decided that the Union is no longer ours for the keeping.
© Yorkshire Post
|
previous page