Category Archives: english votes for english laws

FORMER LABOUR CABINET MINISTER CALLS FOR AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT

FORMER LABOUR CABINET MINISTER CALLS FOR AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT
John Denham, the former Labour Cabinet Minister, who since leaving Parliament has become a Professor of English Identity and Politics at Winchester University and who has been leading a campaign for Labour to take England and the English nation much more seriously instead of dismissing both as symptoms of racism, has recently given a speech setting out where he now is on the issue of English nationalism.  Here is the link to his speech >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zun7oTXMNPg&feature=youtu.be
You will see he does now call for an English Parliament although he hasn’t as yet got a separate electoral system for it.  He is thinking that this can develop as a process of reform, rather than move straightaway to a full separate English Parliament. 
I don’t think that this halfway separate parliament is a constitutionally viable proposal. I also understand that the Constitution Unit of University College London also don’t think that that is a viable option.  It is nevertheless an important step in the right direction for such a senior Labour figure to call for an English Parliament. 
John Denham has of course been lambasted by the Left and by various others supposedly on the Right, who in fact turn out to be anti any element of Englishness (often because of their own ethnic origins).
The other key point which John Denham makes that is worth considering is that he thinks that the failure to allow a proper voice for the English Nation has led to people who are basically English nationalists but perhaps in many cases haven’t fully realised it, to have, in psychological terms, “transferred” the object of their frustrations from the real cause which is the British Political Establishment, on instead to the EU.  He suggests that this “transfer” has therefore led to the Brexit vote.

Mr Denham then goes on to suggest that those Unionists who were most involved blocking any proper expression of Englishness are to a large extent responsible for the Brexit vote.  That is an interesting ironic thought!

“EVEL” PROVED NOT TO BE EVIL BUT MERELY USELESS!

“EVEL” PROVED NOT TO BE EVIL BUT MERELY USELESS!

Remember when David Cameron’s announced in Downing Street, after the Scottish Referendum, that he thought that we now needed to give a voice to England?  He proposed that the voting system in the House of Commons should be reformed to provide English votes for English laws (“EVEL”).   

Labour howled that this would lead to disaster but our view was just that it wouldn’t prove to be an answer to the English Question.  In particular we thought then it wouldn’t even be an attempted answer to the question of how the Executive operates.  This is because there would be no English First Minister or English Government or even a Secretary of State for England!

Also it was always going to be unlikely that any such minor reforms to the House of Commons would change the fact that the people that get elected as Labour MPs or Conservative MPs are usually people who not only don’t care for England and do not identify themselves as being English.  In fact they often outright hate England!  For an example of this consider the infamous words of the former Leader of the Liberal Democrats, the late Charles Kennedy, who said that he supported the Regionalisation of England because Regionalisation “Was calling into question the very idea of England itself”! 

We thought how is it going to be possible for such people to ever give a proper voice to England?

Now there has been an academic study done by a Left-wing, Cambridge University Politics Department, academic.  Professor Michael Kelly is certainly no friend to English nationalism. However his report is worth reading and a link to it can be found here>>> https://academic.oup.com/pa/advance-article/doi/10.1093/pa/gsy003/4868636 

The extracts of the study that I particularly relished in their vindication of the English Democrats’ positions were as follows:-

“In the light of prime minister David Cameron’s assertion in September 2014 that EVEL would constitute a ‘decisive answer’ to the West Lothian Question that would enable the ‘voices of England [to] be heard’ (Cameron, 2014), and given the level of disagreement which these procedures have elicited at Westminster, the effectiveness and implications of this historic reform demand more careful assessment than they have hitherto received.”

“More significant objections to EVEL, however, concerned its potential constitutional implications. Some contended that this kind of reform would be inherently incompatible with the ethos of a body tasked with managing the legislative affairs of the UK as a whole, by creating different classes of MPs with different rights. As Bryant (2008, p. 674) noted, ‘[t]he standard objection to it is that it would create two classes of MPs … and in so doing it would run counter to the sovereignty of parliament exercised equally by all who are elected to it’.”

“For others, however, devolution to some parts of the UK, but not to England, has embedded an endemic unfairness and helped put the English Question back at the heart of British politics—a view that has been loudly championed by proponents of the idea of an English parliament.”

“With respect to the various practical obstacles that have been feared by sceptics, the evidence derived from the 2015–2017 parliament suggests that these pessimistic predictions have not thus far been realised.”

“We nevertheless found little evidence that the Commons authorities were unduly burdened in this period by the requirement to make adjudications. This is an important observation because it tends to undermine the common claim that it is not practical to identify England-only legislation.”

“The worry that EVEL might create ‘two classes’ of MPs was widely echoed in the debate about these procedures which took place in the House during 2015, and this became a standard complaint among some MPs—particularly on the question of the so-called ‘Barnett consequentials’ of legislation that appeared mainly to affect England. During these debates it was argued that the new procedures would establish ‘two classes of Members of Parliament’, ‘second-class MPs’, or even make some MPs ‘fourth-class’. This complaint also figured in a wider public debate about EVEL which took place in Scotland in 2015, and in a much more limited way in England.”

“The government possesses various mechanisms within the pre-existing procedures of the House of Commons to manage legislative business, including control over parliamentary time and the exclusive power to initiate taxation and spending provisions. Such tools mean that the possibility of an opposition party with a majority in England effectively displacing the UK government on England-only matters remains remote, at least as a direct consequence of these procedures.”

“It remains possible for England-only legislation not to be certified under EVEL. This is illustrated by government proposals to relax Sunday trading rules through the Enterprise Bill in 2016. Although this policy would only have applied in England and Wales, the Speaker’s provisional certificate confirmed that it did not meet the certification tests. This was because the relevant clause also contained material relating to employment rights in Scotland. 
Under EVEL, however, whole clauses are considered for certification, not components within them. This episode demonstrates rather well that, should ministers in future wish to circumvent the veto right provided by EVEL, there is every chance that this could be relatively easily achieved through the ‘tactical’ drafting of legislation.”

“Under EVEL, the backing of the UK-wide House remains necessary even if it is no longer sufficient for legislation to pass. This means that English MPs remain unable to force through legislation against the wishes of UK-wide MPs—a situation that in time may prove unacceptable to some MPs and wider English audiences.”

“This feature can be illuminated through reference to two different controversies that arose during the 2015–2017 parliament. In July 2015, the government laid before the Commons secondary legislation to relax the rules governing fox-hunting in England and Wales. But a scheduled vote to approve this change was abandoned after the Scottish National Party indicated that it would vote with Conservative backbenchers and others against the move, making a government defeat much more likely.”

“Subsequently, the provision to relax Sunday trading rules in England and Wales was deleted from the Enterprise Bill in a government defeat at Commons report stage. This policy achieved the backing of MPs in England and Wales, but it was MPs representing Scottish constituencies (where it would not directly have applied) who ultimately proved decisive”

“To clarify the extent to which EVEL does, and does not, answer the West Lothian anomaly on legislative voting, it is helpful to compare it to the devolved legislatures, and, specifically, to distinguish between two different ways in which these devolved bodies approve legislation in policy areas that are within their competence. The first, and most common, mechanism is for legislation to be introduced into the relevant devolved legislature, where it is scrutinised and voted on by representatives elected from that part of the UK. But an alternative mechanism that has been developed is for the legislation to be passed by the UK-level Westminster parliament, but with the expressed consent of the appropriate devolved legislature under the operation of the ‘Sewel convention’. EVEL has been designed to be, in some ways, analogous to the second of these mechanisms, but not the first. Consequently, English MPs remain unable to force through legislation against objections from non-English representatives and are thus in a ‘weaker’ position than their devolved counterparts.”

“Moreover, legislative voting is only one component of parliamentary activity, and Dalyell’s query is also potentially relevant to these other functions. In the Westminster parliament, these include the opportunity to hold debates, question ministers and conduct formal inquiries—functions which are also mirrored within the devolved legislatures. These can be understood as mechanisms enabling the expression of ‘voice’, rather than simply the right to ‘veto’ proposed legislation. While these tools clearly can be, and are, used by English MPs at Westminster on policy matters that in practice relate only to England, they are not badged, or even acknowledged, as being territorially bounded in this way.

David Cameron, as quoted in the introduction above, argued that EVEL would enable England’s voice to be better heard within the UK legislature. Subsequently, his party’s 2015 English manifesto claimed that the reform would enable ‘English MPs to express their voice on matters affecting England only’ (Conservative Party, 2015, p. 8). Yet it is far from clear that EVEL offers any notable enhancement of the expressive and deliberative power of English MPs, or gives more voice to England in any meaningful sense. 
More generally, there is a palpable sense that the newly established legislative grand committees have failed to provide a discernible English dimension to the legislative process or promote a clearer English voice.”

“During EVEL’s first year in operation, most of the legislative grand committees were entirely perfunctory, with few or no substantive contributions being made.”

“The failure of EVEL to facilitate any meaningful English voice also illustrates the dangers that can arise when different arguments for reform are conflated. There is a risk that ministers have ‘over-claimed’ in talking up what this kind of reform can achieve, and this could well lead to problems of expectation management in the future. As one MP opposed to the procedures told us, ‘any political advantage the government have got by doing this will be dissipated pretty quickly once people realise just how insignificant a measure it actually is. It just tackles one tiny part of the English Question.’”

“On the larger question of whether these procedures provide a meaningful form of English representation at Westminster, our research leads us to a more sceptical response. EVEL has not eliminated the basic territorial anomaly associated with legislative voting in the House of Commons, which has been exacerbated by devolution. Nor has this new system managed to provide a more visible kind of symbolic representation for the English. In this sense, despite the considerable energy expended on these changes and the inconvenience they have caused for parliament and government alike, it is not clear that they have fundamentally changed the rules of the legislative game along the lines anticipated by their supporters.”

Former Labour Cabinet Minister calls for proper recognition of English interests

 Former Labour Cabinet Minister calls for proper recognition of English interests

John Denham, the former Labour MP and a former Labour Cabinet Minister, who is now the Professor of English Identity and Politics at Winchester University has called for recognition within Labour of the English nationalist movement.  In doing so of course he admits that at present the Labour Party doesn’t properly recognise England at all, and is reluctant to mention the ‘E’ word, let alone give us our rights as English people. 
His article is a good one, and I put it below, but one area of course that is not mentioned at all is the idea of the English Nation. 
Labour are willing to discuss the idea of the Scottish Nation and the Welsh Nation, but they are not prepared to recognise the ideas that England has its own Nation – let alone the English Nation has its own country, namely England!
It has been interesting also to see that John Denham has encountered flak from Far-Leftists within the Labour Party who do not like him raising the ‘E’ word!
His intervention is therefore welcome for the health and progress of the English movement – even if he feels he can’t fully come out as an English nationalist yet!
Below is the article.  What do you think?

DevolutionEnglandEnglish Votes for English LawsJohn DenhamNational Education ServiceScotland Bill

20 years ago, Parliament was debating the Scotland Bill. Within months, both Wales and Scotland were well on the way to their own elected governments. From then onwards, England’s education, health, social care, bus, environment and agriculture policy was distinct from that of its neighbours.
Reading Labour’s recently published 2018 policy consultation, you would never know devolution had even happened. Of eight papers, only one – on health – can even bring itself to use the word ‘England’. The policy consultation is a constitutional dog’s breakfast that ignores the challenges of making policy within a devolved UK. Most documents seem to refer to England, but don’t say so. Others wander blindly across UK, devolved and unresolved policy areas without asking party members how to manage the complications that will inevitably arise.
Education policy is devolved, so presumably the ‘National Education Service’ is only for England, but we are not told that. No one could imagine Welsh or Scottish Labour writing policies that don’t mention Wales or Scotland, so why can’t our Labour Party talk about England? The consultation on housing, local government and transport – all devolved matters – is subtitled ‘giving people the power’. It talks about local devolution. Is this devolution within England, or devolution in every part of the UK? We can assume that it is about England, but why not say so?
‘Greening Britain’ (sic) covers energy policy (not devolved) and air quality (devolved). It covers agriculture, which will become hugely contentious – in theory, it is devolved, but effectively most policy is made in Brussels. With Brexit, the powers will be returned to us: should they go straight to the devolved administrations? Cardiff and Edinburgh say ‘yes’, but many in England would want to maintain a single UK market for farm produce. It’s an ideal question for policy consultation, but the document doesn’t even mention the issue.
The policy paper on poverty and inequality is mainly about UK-wide policy, though it covers some devolved issues. ‘Protecting our communities’ ranges across English, Welsh and UK responsibilities, without making the distinctions clear.
Labour will pay a price for this confused lack of clarity. We cannot change Britain, or any part of it, without an understanding of where power lies now and a clear view of where it should lie in the future.
The 1997 Labour government did not make a serious attempt – despite John Prescott’s best efforts – to shift power and resources out of London. England saw no constitutional change (except, ironically, in London). England needs devolution today because the last Labour government, of which I was a part, failed. Labour members should be asked about the governance of England as a whole: how power and resources will be devolved, how laws for England are made, and about England’s relationship with the rest of the UK.
The party must stop talking as though England and Britain are the same thing. This lazy confusion feeds nationalist propaganda in Scotland, discourages party members from thinking about England’s needs and makes us sound out of touch with millions of voters.
The confused policy documents obscure the reality that England is the only part of Britain permanently ruled by the UK government. It’s a constitutional arrangement that allows a Conservative government to bribe the DUP while taking free school meals from English kids. We should at least be asked whether we want this to continue, but the papers avoid any discussion of how England’s laws are made (including the thorny issue of English votes on English laws).
The idea of a federal UK raised in the 2017 manifesto has disappeared.
Wales and Scotland have radical traditions. England has its own. ‘’For the many not few’ echoes popular English campaigns for land and homes, for protection from exploitation, for justice and rights, using self-organisation and co-operation. Labour could draw on such stories that are embedded in communities across the nation, but only if we can call the country, England, by its name.
While not all voters are bothered whether we mention England by name, plenty do care. They know where they live, they are proud to be English and they want to know what a Labour government will do for England.
In narrow electoral terms, Labour hasn’t won the popular vote in England since 2001. By the time of the next election, we will have been behind the Tories for 21 years. We are 60 seats behind the Conservatives and we won’t be in government unless we win more English votes. In 2015, we were badly damaged by claims that Labour policy for England would be dictated by the SNP.
At the next election, we need an English manifesto that sets out exactly what Labour will do in England; the policy consultation should be the starting point for that manifesto. Labour has gained a narrow lead on ‘best party to represent England’ but that support is dwarfed by those who can’t identify any party that stands for England. Making it clear that we know what country we are talking about and not being afraid of mentioning its name won’t guarantee victory, but it would be a good start.

Here is a link to the original >>>https://labourlist.org/2018/04/john-denham-why-does-our-labour-party-refuse-to-talk-about-england/

English National Anthem Private Members Bill 2016

English National Anthem Private Members Bill 2016


Last week the English Cause took a useful step forward with a Private Member’s Bill calling for the official establishment of an English National Anthem passing its First Reading to go onto the Second Reading and all to considerable media interest.

The effect of the Bill getting a Second Reading, which has been scheduled for the 4th March, does not mean that it will in fact become law. The text of the draft Bill can be found here >>> English National Anthem Bill 2015-16 — UK Parliament

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/englishnationalanthem.html
 
Above there is a useful diagram of the legislative process for a Bill relating only to England as this Bill must implicitly do.

It was interesting to see the British National Mass Media reaction. Some of which was reasonable and at least gave us English nationalist activists a chance of making our point. For example here is a link to my interview on Radio Essex >>> https://youtu.be/Z2-GVqSJ6Uw.

Also here is the BBC Daily Politics discussing the issue with the sponsoring Labour MP for Chesterfield, Mr Toby Perkins.


Watch Melanie Phillips’ reaction which deviates from her usual good sense on a variety of topics including the rising threat of Islamism to European Jews like her and to Israel, here is the link >>> https://youtu.be/Z6X_Sf8pcl8.

Melanie Phillips also wrote this article which was perhaps the most vitriolic of the articles against there being official recognition of a specifically English National Anthem. Here is the article:-

“Encouraging each nation to sing to its own song will fuel the rise of divisive nationalism


The Labour MP Toby Perkins has proposed the introduction of an English national anthem for use at sporting events in place of God Save The Queen.

In the Commons on Wednesday, his private member’s bill was granted a second reading. With the exception of the Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, MPs nodded the idea through.

Although such bills have little hope of getting anywhere, this is surely how the UK gets dismembered — by MPs nodding along.

What is being urged upon us is a national anthem for England. But our nation is the UK.

Yes, its component countries have ancient histories and distinct cultural characteristics. But we are none of us citizens of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. We are citizens of the United Kingdom.

Perkins says he is not hostile to God, the Queen or the UK. The Almighty and Her Majesty may be relieved to hear that. Nevertheless, this proposal will make the UK’s break-up more likely.

Perkins says the increase in devolved powers to Scotland means it’s time to establish that the UK is composed of four separate nations. (He implies that Northern Ireland is a separate nation, but let’s not step into that particular minefield.)

He doesn’t seem to realise this will help fragment the British national identity he says he wants to preserve.

The danger of Scottish independence is greatly enhanced by the risk that England will help push Scotland away. Increased powers for Scotland have fuelled the call for an English parliament and a rise in divisive English nationalism. Distinct anthems and flags help to swell that separate sense of identity.

Perkins says that Scotland and Wales have their own anthems in Flower of Scotland and Land of my Fathers. That’s because they have nationalist movements born from their desire to differentiate themselves from England.

England largely defines Britain. When people talk about British characteristics they admire, such as fairness, tolerance, emotional restraint, chivalry, team spirit or old maids cycling to church, they’re talking about England.

As Perkins himself said in the debate, Britain and England are often used synonymously. That’s why England causes such resentment in Scotland and Wales.

It’s because of that English dominance that Scottish or Welsh “national” songs can’t hurt the UK. But if England starts asserting its separate identity, that will be a powerful force for fragmentation.

Advocates of an English anthem say that now Scotland and Wales have abandoned God Save the Queen, England is out of step. Well to put it another way, if the England teams were no longer to sing the national anthem, who would?

The Union Jack, they note, has virtually disappeared from Wembley in favour of the cross of St George when the English football team is playing. But that is surely a matter for alarm and regret. It means the union is fading.

The national anthem is not a team song. It is a statement of allegiance to the Crown, a declaration of loyalty by teams or individual competitors to something bigger than the England they represent. It is an acknowledgment of the ties that bind us all.

Teams reflect the distinct national cultures that make up the UK. These cultures have important parts to play in making up Britain’s national story. The UK binds them together precisely because it sublimates their separate identities. More separateness will only disunite the kingdom.

Maybe, though, it’s just too late to stop this progressive fragmentation. Perkins’ bill is the third parliamentary attempt in recent years to introduce an English anthem.

Jerusalem, with words by William Blake and music by Hubert Parry, was the song chosen by the public for English athletes competing in the 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi. And it’s the favoured candidate for the new anthem.

But this merely illustrates the incoherence of the proposal. For Jerusalem is as much misunderstood as it is (rightly) beloved. If anything, the poem was a satire on nationalism. To all the questions it asked about whether Jesus built Jerusalem in England the answer was emphatically “no”.

Blake, a visionary and prophetic genius, battled the church, the monarchy and the army, denigrated reason and expressed a revolutionary desire to transform England. In 1803 he was charged with having “uttered seditious and treasonable expressions”, although he was acquitted.

Nevertheless, his poem was set to Parry’s stirring music during the First World War at the request of the poet laureate, Robert Bridges, to “brace the spirit of the nation” because he was worried about collapsing morale due to the carnage in the trenches.

It is therefore an anthem claimed by both Corbynistas and conservatives. It is a source not of unity but of ambiguity, argument and division.

The proposal reflects the crisis over British national identity. People no longer know what that is. A national English song won’t tell us.

In his witty contribution to the debate, Jacob Rees-Mogg coyly alluded to the Flanders and Swann song, The English. Its words include these: “The rottenest bits of these islands of ours/ We’ve left in the hands of three unfriendly powers/ Examine the Irishman, Welshman or Scot/You’ll find he’s a stinker as likely as not/ The English the English the English are best/ I wouldn’t give tuppence for all of the rest.”

Here is a link to the original >>> Save our anthem from these knavish tricks | The Times

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4665772.ece#commentsStart

“Scottish votes for English Stores”


Here is the Guardian’s views on the recent Sunday trading fiasco in the House of Commons 

“Scottish votes for English Stores”

The article is right on some very key points about the failure of the Government to get through its proposed changes to the Sunday Trading Law. 

However it downplays the most important constitutional point; which is that this incident has already proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the Government’s EVEL rule change to Commons procedures has failed its very first test even in its own terms – let alone in terms of an answer to the whole English Question! 

Here is the article:- 

“The interest of Scottish Nationalists in the hours that English grocers keeps is more plausibly interpreted as simple mischief-making. Many things are wrong with society, but a shortage of shopping opportunities is not one of them. Some supermarkets open 24 hours midweek, and the big chains operate small stores that open whenever they like. Credit cards can purchase anything at any hour online. Subliminal ads drive commerce into every last corner of life, and many workers feel a pressure to do shifts at times when families would traditionally have been together. There is, then, a good case for clinging on to one of the last legislative defences against a shopping free-for-all – the residual Sunday trading laws of England and Wales. It is, however, plain weird that the government’s plans to scrap them ran aground on Scottish Nationalist opposition on Tuesday.

For one thing, the SNP is intervening to salvage something that Scotland itself has never had: there is not, and never has been, any general bar on Sunday trading north of the Tweed. For another, this separatist party used to claim a “self-denying ordinance” against meddling in “England-only” matters. True, the complexities of the Barnett funding formula have always provided for a bit of ambiguity and opportunism in determining territorial scope. The SNP managed, for example, to oppose Tony Blair’s foundation trusts in the English NHS. Before May’s election, it said it would oppose “privatisation” in the same English service, on the questionable grounds that outsourcing would inevitably lead to cuts down the road, and then feed into Scotland’s block grant.

In the case of Sunday trading, however, the SNP is falling back on an even shakier support – a claim that supermarket chains would respond to their new commercial freedoms in England by eroding Sunday premiums in workers’ pay in Scotland. Who knows? Cross-border employers may, conceivably, have responded first by rewriting English contracts in the way conjectured, and then have further decided that this was a propitious moment for ironing out differences with Scottish contracts. But even if this highly speculative scenario played out, it would reveal highly integrated British businesses which would, one might have thought, be most effectively regulated by integrated British governance. But this is not, of course, an avenue that the SNP would want to go down.

The interest of Scottish Nationalists in the hours that English grocers keep is more plausibly interpreted as simple mischief-making. After all, the SNP bloc – which swelled from just six to 56 MPs in May – lost no time in using its new clout to scupper Tory hopes of weakening the semi-effective English hunting ban. The sentiment may have been noble, but since Scotland has long had its own separate ban, what distinctively Scottish locus could there possibly be? Protecting the odd fox in the Borders that may stray into Northumberland?

No, the aim is to render the UK in general and England especially that bit harder to govern, and thus provoke irritated English Conservatives to begin wondering out loud whether the country would be tidier without the Scots. The government has rammed its “English votes for English laws” procedures through the Commons, but the whole House still votes on third reading, so the potential to make trouble remains. With a tiny Tory majority that relies upon several rebellious MPs, the SNP is not going to let constitutional niceties stand in the way of its efforts to pull down the shutters on the union store.”

Here is the link to the original article>>> The Guardian view on Sunday trading: Scottish votes for English stores | Editorial | Comment is free | The Guardian

EVIL BE TO HIM WHO EVEL THINKS IT?


EVIL BE TO HIM WHO EVEL THINKS IT?


There is the famous story of how, in a fit of petulance, Edward III decided that his Order of Knighthood wasn’t going to be of the Arthurian Roundtable but rather of the Garter, when his courtiers sniggered at a garter falling off Edward’s mistress’s stocking and which he had bent down to pick up. He is said to have responded ‘Honi soit qui mal y pense’, the motto of the garter (meaning evil be to him who evil thinks it).

The Conservative’s House of Commons procedural EVEL tinkering which gives predominantly Conservative MPs a veto in the House of Commons over Bills which the Speaker of the House certifies as being English only has caused a flurry of comment. Some of it utterly hysterical, especially from the Scottish contingent, whether they be SNP or Labour; also, indeed, some Scots representing English seats for the Conservative Party and also the Northern Irish Unionists and Welsh MPs commentators. Generally English commentators tend to think that it is a fairly minor alteration which is merely a nod in the direction of English interests.

As English Democrats we of course say it is far too little to give a proper voice to our Nation’s interests. However one of the more interesting and thoughtful articles written about this has come from the Economist’s constitutional commentator, writing as Bagehot’s Notebook. I reproduce his article below but I think the importance of the article is that it highlights two significant issues.

One is that there is a fundamental choice facing English people in the fairly near future. This is whether the English Nation is happy to be broken up into some sort of bogus regions; whether they be the nine EU “Regions” or Osborne’s half baked “Northern Powerhouses”. What the article shows is that the only viable alternative to Regionalisation is Independence. That is very much the English Democrats’ analysis too and that is, of course, one of the reasons why, as English nationalists, we support English Independence.

The other point that he mentions, but has not yet fully thought through, is the new politicisation of the role of Speaker.

The current Speaker, John Bercow, with his background considering himself to be British not English, will be very likely to certify that any bill where there is any doubt is a British Bill and therefore all MPs have equal rights over it. But when John Bercow stands down or is replaced there will inevitably be a much more hotly contested election than before to be the next Speaker. English MPs, who are moving in the direction of English nationalism, will want to make sure that the next Speaker is much more concerned about English interests than John Bercow is.

On the other hand the Scottish contingent is certain to want a Scot, whether he represents a Scottish seat or an English seat, to try to make sure that there is never a veto on Scottish MPs having a full say on anything which they want to have a say on.

In the meanwhile here is the Bagehot article from the Economist :-

English-only votes set Britain on the path to federalisation—or break-up

Oct 22nd 2015, 17:54 by BAGEHOT

THE House of Commons has just voted in favour (by 312 MPs to 270) of English votes for English laws (EVEL). Superficially a piece of legislative housekeeping—it became law by standing order—this measure fundamentally changes the way the United Kingdom functions. The country should be an unwieldy, unstable beast: few multi-part polities in which one segment is much mightier than the other work out. But Britain’s union, 84% of which is England, has lasted for three centuries because the English have for centuries allowed their political identity to be blurred into that of the British state (as I argued more fully in a recent column, pasted below this post). Today’s vote draws a line under that; a faint one, perhaps, but a line nonetheless.

Its roots lie in the febrile final days of the campaign leading up to Scotland’s independence referendum last September. Polls suggesting that the Out side was narrowly ahead panicked unionists in London, who issued a “vow” promising extensive new powers for Edinburgh. On the morning after the In victory David Cameron, in a speech outside 10 Downing Street, argued that it was also time for England to gain some self-determination. The moment had come, he argued, for EVEL: a system giving MPs for seats in England precedence in parliamentary votes no longer relevant to the devolved parts of the United Kingdom that now control swathes of their own domestic policies (most notably Scotland). The Conservatives used this pledge to tar Labour, opposed to EVEL, as the vassal of the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP) in the run up to the election in May. Duly elected with a majority, the Tories have now enacted it.

I struggle to find the measure particularly offensive. It is wrong that Scottish MPs get to rule on bills concerning, say, only English hospitals. Banning them from participating in such votes would create the risk of two separate governments; one English, one British (in the event of a Labour government reliant on its Scottish MPs, for example). So EVEL rightly gives English MPs a veto, but also requires all bills to pass the House of Commons as a whole. As compromises go, it could be worse.

Still, the risk of a “two-tier” Commons is real. In a chamber where all are notionally equal Scottish MPs will be less powerful than English ones. EVEL greatly inflates the role of the speaker, whose job it will be to decide whether a bill is English-only—and thus whether the English majority should wield a veto. In practice, he will generally rule on the side of Britishness. This, and the fact that further fiscal powers will soon travel north to Edinburgh (meaning that even budget votes could generate expectations of an English veto), will eventually render EVEL insufficient. It seems to me that this movie has two possible endings.

The first, happier one is federalisation. Giving England power over things that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland already control would clear the way to a Parliament and government in Downing Street responsible only for matters affecting all British citizens equally: foreign affairs, defence, monetary policy and so forth. An English Parliament risks exacerbating the problem that for centuries has been smothered in the mushy blur of Englishness and Britishness: the unworkable rivalry between any English government and a British one. But English devolution could yet take different forms. Sub-national authorities in England are already assuming powers unthinkable a few short years ago: Greater Manchester will soon run its own health service, for example. The long-term solution to Britain’s constitutional quandaries is probably a federal system in which Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Newcastle, Bristol, Cardiff, Southampton, Edinburgh and Belfast meet together, on equal terms, in London.

The second and more likely possible outcome is separation. English self-denial has been the glue holding the union together. It is melting. Both EVEL and the broader rise in an English sense of identity (comprehensively outlined in a 2012 paper by the IPPR, a think-tank) suggest that the United Kingdom is experiencing a great normalisation. Its constitutional imbalance is finally asserting itself. A ship that has sailed forth for many years despite a strong tilt is finally listing towards the waves. Last year’s Scottish referendum—and the strong appetite for a rerun evinced at the recent Scottish National Party conference—suggests that it is already taking on water. EVEL may prove the point at which it tips too far; at which England’s reemergence accelerates and at which the ship capsizes.

Bagehot

EVEL = English votes for English laws

In the light of the Conservative leadership’s turgivations and proposals for English votes for English laws it is interesting to see what the Whitehall Civil Service briefing on EVEL says.

Here is the Ministry of Justice’s internal briefing:-

The Government has announced its plans for changes to the process through which legislation is approved by the House of Commons.

Civil servants play an important role in preparing, refining, publicising, implementing, and enforcing legislation. As a result these changes are likely to impact on the work of a number of teams across the Department.

‘English votes for English laws’ will mean that bills, parts of bills and secondary legislation will be subject to a different Parliamentary process in certain circumstances.

The proposal will be implemented through changes to the internal rules of the House of Commons, and will be put to a vote before the summer recess, after which the change would come into effect. If approved, English votes for English laws would affect the way the Civil Service develops and delivers legislation.

How will it work?

The Speaker of the House of Commons would certify all bills, clauses or statutory instruments. A new Parliamentary process would then apply where the Speaker deems a bill, clause or schedule applies to England or England and Wales-only and relates to matters that are devolved to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

The legislative process is then the same up to and including Report Stage – all MPs would continue to debate and vote together. The only exception to this is bills that are deemed England-only in their entirety will be considered at committee stage only by English MPs.

After Report Stage there would be a new process of consideration. This would allow only English, or English and Welsh, MPs to debate and vote on the relevant measures, thereby giving their consent or vetoing them. This process would also include a separate dispute-resolution process where the whole House and the English and Welsh MPs disagree. After this the bill would continue to Third Reading as before.

Secondary legislation would also be subject to the new rules. Those statutory instruments certified as entirely English, or English and Welsh will require the consent of the relevant MPs as well as the whole House if pressed to a vote on the floor of the House.

A more detailed explanation of the new process can be found on GOV.UK. Parliamentary process is complex and the Cabinet Office will circulate guidance to Departments following the approval of the House.

What does this mean for us?

If approved, this would mostly affect teams that prepare new legislation and work on supporting securing its progress through Parliament. It would also affect policy makers, who would need to consider carefully which parts of the UK their policies apply to and how best to legislate on them.

The Cabinet Office will be working closely with teams that could be directly affected to ensure they fully understand the new process and how to use it. If the proposals are approved, there will also be workshops for staff and learning opportunities available on Civil Service Learning will be updated. All staff are encouraged to make the most of these opportunities to familiarise yourself with the new process, even if your work may not be directly affected. As civil servants, we will need to be particularly conscious of this new process when speaking with stakeholders and seeking to gain support for legislation in Parliament.

These proposals will attract significant interest, particularly in the devolved administrations. It is therefore crucial that we are all consistent in how we communicate the policy externally. The Cabinet Office Press Office will lead on media handling so consult them about any media enquiries.

More information will be available but for further advice any teams working on legislation which will be introduced imminently should speak to the PBL Secretariat for primary legislation or the SI Hub in the Cabinet Office for secondary legislation.

EVEL – THE BRITISH ESTABLISHMENT TAKES ITS FIRST STEP TOWARDS THE RECOGNITION OF ENGLAND

EVEL – THE BRITISH ESTABLISHMENT TAKES ITS FIRST FALTERING AND HESITANT STEP TOWARDS THE RECOGNITION OF ENGLAND


Last week, William Hague, on behalf of the leadership of the Conservative Party, took the first formal step that any part of the British Political Establishment towards recognising the legitimate grievances of England and the English Nation over their exclusion from the whole devolution process.

EVEL, or English Votes for English Laws, is rather a puffing, faltering little step but as Scottish National Devolution has shown once national recognition has been offered, a process has begun which must inevitably lead in the direction that English Nationalists will approve of.

As was recently pointed out to me by a Welsh Professor of Politics, Plaid Cymru’s traditional position before any party had started to talk about national devolution for Wales was as follows:-

“You’ll recall that the traditional view in Plaid Cymru was that they should say yes to anything that recognised Wales as a unit as that would lead – inevitably – to more. They weren’t wrong!”

In the circumstances English nationalists can unequivocally approve of there being a first step taken by the British Political Establishment. 

We should however be under no illusion that it is done for any reasons of love for England! 

Let us not forget that the person charged with the production of this little concession is the same William Hague who, when he was the Leader of the Conservative Party in 2002 said:- “English nationalism is the most dangerous of all forms of nationalism that can arise within the United Kingdom, because England is five-sixths of the population of the UK.” Leopards famously do not change their spots, nor, I suggest, do Brit/Scots like William Hague – even if they masquerade as Yorkshiremen!

ENGLISH NATIONALISTS CAN CELEBRATE A MERRY CHRISTMAS EXPECTING A BETTER NEW YEAR!


ENGLISH NATIONALISTS CAN CELEBRATE A MERRY CHRISTMAS EXPECTING A BETTER NEW YEAR!


I would like to wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. I am glad to be able to do so after a year that has seen several developments which give some cause for optimism that events and the mood of the country are beginning to visibly move towards the need for a whole England/English National reform of our politics!

The General Election next year gives a focus to our efforts in the coming year but it will be after the election that the most interesting developments are likely to work themselves out, especially in the light of current opinion polls.

Before then we have the interesting prospect of much more England focussed debates following on from William Hague’s EVEL White Paper! All treats for us!

Wishing you and England too a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!


IPPR Report on Englishness

IPPR Report on Englishness

Here is the IPPR’s long awaited report on the rising sense of Englishness and its political impact.  
The research was done in April but the publication was kept back so as not to give advantage to the SNP in the Scottish Independence Referendum. 
The IPPR is a Labour think tank so their focus is on issue that Labour should take into account in developing their electoral strategy.


The report is worth the read for all English Nationalists as it does give clear statistically based guidance on the contours of the developing political English nationalism.