Category Archives: english devolution

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/

ENGLAND AND WALES: IS IT TIME TO SPLIT THE LEGAL SYSTEM?


ENGLAND AND WALES: IS IT TIME TO SPLIT THE LEGAL SYSTEM?

I recently wrote an article about the above for publication on the Institute for Welsh Affairs’ website “Click on Wales”. It was published slightly amended here >>> England and Wales: is it time to split the legal system? – Click on Wales

http://www.iwa.wales/click/2017/03/england-wales-time-split-legal-system/

Here is my full original article:-

ENGLAND AND WALES – TIME TO SPLIT THE LEGAL SYSTEM?

There are now beginning to be moves afoot to split the unitary “jurisdiction” of England and Wales into two separate national jurisdictions.

In many ways such a split is not as radical a move as it might seem, bearing in mind that there are already separate jurisdictions in Scotland; in Northern Ireland; in the Isle of Man and in the Channel Isles with different Judges, procedures and often different substantive legal rules. Separate jurisdictions do not necessarily cause much practical difficulty in dealing with either civil matters or criminal matters. What it does however mean is that there would be separate legal professions.

Furthermore, even outside the Commonwealth, jurisdictions like Southern Ireland have relatively similar rules.

The jurisdictions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and quite a few others of the old Empire/Commonwealth are similar to. There are also often less differences between their legal systems and the English/Welsh legal system than there is with the Roman Law based jurisdiction in Scotland.

It is more difficult to deal with continental European systems since they are not based on Common Law principles but rather on civil law codes deriving from Roman Law, with substantively different legal rules and often dramatically different legal procedures!

My interest in the splitting of the current unitary jurisdiction of “England and Wales” into two national ones was first raised by a discussion that I had some months ago with a senior Welsh Judge who said that he wants to see a split.

Then, just before Christmas, the Law Society Gazette had an article called in the printed version “A bridge too far” talking about splitting the jurisdictions. The on-line edition was called: English solicitors ‘could pay extra to practise in Wales’. (It can be found here >>> https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/english-solicitors-could-pay-extra-to-practise-in-wales/5059013.article)

Increasingly the Welsh Parliament/Senedd are legislating for Wales, in a way that is different than the legislation for England. There will therefore come a time very soon when it no longer makes sense to have a single jurisdiction.

Putting my hat on as Chairman of the English Democrats rather than as a solicitor I would also welcome separation of the jurisdictions as being an important step in the direction of Independence between our two Nations. In our modern world there is no reason why our two separate Nations should be constrained into the same grossly expensive and inefficient, grandiose and extravagant UK State!

If I were a Welsh solicitor or barrister I would be optimistic about the prospects of a successful separate Welsh Jurisdiction.

As long as the Welsh Government could be persuaded to reduce the currently absolutely ridiculous level of court fees, by which the British Government has been exploiting litigants in the “England and Wales” jurisdiction there would be real benefits.

The Welsh Government would then have the right to run its own Legal Aid scheme. This could be more like the successful Scottish one and less like the unfair disaster that the “British” Government has created.

It should also be pointed out that the Welsh Government ought to want to take-over the judicial appointments system, which in England and Wales is currently very politicised.

Judges here are currently appointed and promoted by the Judicial Appointments Commission. The JAC was set up by Lord Derry Irvine, when he was Tony Blair’s Lord Chancellor, which he publically boasted would prevent the appointment or promotion of “those with reactionary views”. This aim might appeal to you or repulse you depending on which side you stand on politically, but what cannot be denied is that this is an expressly political criterion for the appointment of Judges. It is wholly inappropriate to getting the best lawyers appointed as Judges. It is also contrary to providing the best service to those who use the court system!

Far from being a problem the separate jurisdictions could make the Welsh jurisdiction very attractive and might lead to many businesses having a Welsh-only legal jurisdiction clause in commercial contracts since there would be less expense and less delay and perhaps a better selection of sensible Welsh Judges.

Also from an economic point of view the current arrangements are clearly not working very well for Welsh lawyers as it appears that fees in Wales are dramatically lower than those in England.

A separate and overhauled and sensibly rationalised completely Welsh legal system could well be much more competitive with the English jurisdiction and provide a boost not only to Welsh lawyers but also to the Welsh economy.

As the Gazette article says:- “The buildings are all here (in Wales), the judges are all here. More is spent per head in England,’ said Hughes. ‘At the moment Wales is not gaining [in terms of] access to justice. SMEs in Wales are subsidising multi-million-pound litigation between oligarchs in London. That does nothing for the community in Wales – the fees are not coming back.’

A legally independent Wales would be able to do ‘imaginative’ things to enhance access, Hughes suggested, such as introduce a contingency legal aid fund. ‘Wales would not be a particularly small common law jurisdiction. If it were a US state, 20 [states] would be smaller,’ he added.

‘The problems of the Wales bill are largely to do with the mania for preserving a fused jurisdiction,’ said Hughes. ‘But the bill is a con. It is not a reserved powers model on any sensible understanding. There is a presumption against competence in private law.

’Since our pamphlet came out the Assembly has come out in support of a separate jurisdiction and the Welsh government is using the arguments we put forward – both economic and constitutional.’

As both an English Solicitor and also as the Chairman of the English Democrats, I welcome these moves. Also if any reader in Wales supports a separate Welsh legal system then I would urge them to write to their Assembly Members and MP to lobby them to support a separate legal system. Do not forget also to write in to Barrister David Hughes, of 30 Park Place Chambers in Cardiff, supporting him as well!

SHOULDN’T DEVO SAUCE FOR THE WELSH GOOSE BE SAUCE FOR THE ENGLISH GANDER TOO?

SHOULDN’T DEVO SAUCE FOR THE WELSH GOOSE BE SAUCE FOR THE ENGLISH GANDER TOO?

The devolved Welsh Government has submitted written arguments to the “Supreme” Court in the Brexit case. My eye was caught by part of their submissions:-

“6. As the Welsh Government recently said in its written evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee’s inquiry The Union and devolution, devolution has become a fundamental and effectively irreversible feature of the constitution:

(i) Whatever its historical origins, the United Kingdom is best seen now as a voluntary association of nations which share and redistribute resources and risks between us to our mutual benefit and to advance our common interests.

(ii) The principles underpinning devolution should be recognised as fundamental to the UK constitution, and the devolved institutions should be regarded as effectively permanent features of that constitution.

(iii) Devolution is about how the UK is collectively governed, by four administrations which are not in a hierarchical relationship one to another. The relations of the four governments of the United Kingdom should therefore proceed on the basis of mutual respect and parity of esteem.

(iv) The allocation of legislative and executive functions between central UK institutions and devolved institutions should be based on the concept of subsidiarity, acknowledging popular sovereignty in each part of the UK.

(v) The presumption should therefore be that the devolved institutions will have responsibility for matters distinctively affecting their nations. Accordingly, the powers of the devolved institutions should be defined by the listing of those matters which it is agreed should, for our mutual benefit, be for Westminster, all other matters being (in the case of Wales) the responsibility of the Assembly and/or the Welsh Government.”


The whole of their submissions to the “Supreme” Court can be found here >>> http://gov.wales/docs/dfm/minutes/cabinet/161125counselgeneralforwalesprintedcaseen.pdf

It is however bitterly ironic that the ‘Counsel General for Wales’ then makes no mention throughout his 28 pages of legal submissions of the dreaded “E” words – ENGLAND or the ENGLISH! 

He also switches hastily to legalistic detail instead of further general statements of constitution principle. 

I suspect that this is because the above quotation would lead naturally to a discussion of fairness, equality and the unfair anomaly that England has no English First Minister, no English Government and no English only Parliament – unlike Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland!

Answers to the “England is too big” to have its own Parliament argument

Answers to the “England is too big” to have its own Parliament argument


I have recently been hearing of several Tory MPs who have been doing the rounds making arguments against an English Parliament.

One of those is Sir Oliver Heald MP, who recently spoke at a meeting of Oxfordshire Conservatives, in which he claimed the reason why England could not have its Parliament and Government like the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish ones was because England is too big at 85% of the population of the United Kingdom. According to him the provision of an English Parliament would apparently lead to the breakup of the Union because Federal States cannot survive where one part of the State is 85% of the Federation.

On hearing this I immediately responded that first of all one of the things that Federal States always do is have measures in place to balance out the dominance of their larger States. So for example in the United States, California is by far the most heavily populated US State and also the richest. However it only has two Senators, just like Oklahoma in the Federal Congress.

It is also the case that Oliver Heald’s argument does not hold water in terms of history.

The reason the Soviet Union collapsed was not because Russia was “too big”. The USSR collapsed because the Soviet system had become economically bankrupt, partly as a result of the Soviet defeat in war in Afghanistan, but also partly because of the attempt to match American defence spending with regard to Reagan’s “star wars”.

Equally Austro-Hungary did not collapse because Austria was “too big”, it collapsed because Austro-Hungary was defeated in war (also because of the idiocy of Woodrow Wilson’s refusal to negotiate with multi-national states!).

As Oliver Heald’s suggestion as to how to cope with England being “too big” is to split up England into “Regions” of one sort or another (the latest being “City Regions”), my response to him, and any of his ilk, is that any question to which the answer is to split England up is the wrong question.

If the choice is between splitting England up or splitting up the United Kingdom, I have no hesitation in demanding that the split is that of the vastly overrated, expensive, grandiose and laughably decadent United Kingdom.

When it was suggested, before the First World War, that Ireland should have Home Rule and the then Liberal Government forced through Home Rule legislation, Tory troublemakers stirred up Ulster with cries of “Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right”. How much more justification would we English have to fight if the cry was to split England up? Perhaps we should have a cry that “England will fight and England will be right”?

I mention the bloody history of Irish Independence intentionally because unthinking Tory unionists like Oliver Heald MP need to remember that it was Tory intransigence and the refusal to grant the reasonable request for a devolved Irish Parliament and instead the call for Ireland to be split which led not only to the bloodshed of the struggle for Independence but the still worse Civil War. This has stained Irish politics with blood ever since.

The idea that patriotic Englishmen and Englishwomen will not only indefinitely allow England not to have its own proper voice of political expression but also quietly sit by whilst over a thousand years of English history is discarded and England is broken up, is simply crazy. In fact it is not only crazy but it is utterly irresponsible!

Labour’s Scottish Leader, Kezia Dugdale, declares WAR on England!

Labour’s Scottish Leader, Kezia Dugdale, declares WAR on England!


Recently the BBC was lauding one of their Labour pets, the Scottish Labour Leader, Kezia Dugdale, who was making what was hailed as an important speech at the Labour supporting Institute for Public Policy Research “think tank”. Here is a link to that speech >>> Kezia Dugdale on her plan for a federal UK – YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2DY1r93KHI

It is remarkably poor and ill thought out, but what caught my eye was this comment in the starry eyed BBC news coverage.

Labour’s Kezia Dugdale makes proposals “with the objective of adding English regionalism to existing devolution” in a federal UK!

So there we have it ladies and gentlemen Labour’s Scottish Leader has declared WAR on England. For what else is it, when a leader of one nation calls for the dismemberment of another nation, but a declaration of war against that nation?

History is full of many instances of lesser provocations than moves to dismember a country being considered, in St Thomas Aquinas’s terms, a cause (“Casus Belli”) for a “just war”.

I wonder what it is about the “very idea of England” (per Charles Kennedy) that so many Scottish leaders seem to find objectionable?

Are they perhaps still fixed on a rematch of the Battle of Flodden? I suspect that there would be many in England who would be up for that fight! And the result would be the same!

(Kezia Dugdale is also quoted as follows:-

“Kezia Dugdale has CALLED for a “new Act of Union” in a bid to “save the UK for generations to come”.

The Scottish Labour leader outlined her plan for a “federal solution” for the UK in a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research in London.

It would see extra powers for English regions as well as Holyrood via a “People’s Convention” for the UK.

The SNP said Labour had been promising “federalism max” for years but had “consistently failed” to deliver.

Ms Dugdale tasked former UK justice secretary Lord Falconer with exploring a federalist approach following the UK’s vote to leave the EU in June.

Her deputy Alex Rowley has called for Scotland to “move beyond narrow unionism and nationalism” and wants Scottish Labour to campaign for “home rule within a confederal United Kingdom“.

Ms Dugdale pointed out that the 1707 Act of Union still underpins the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK, arguing that there should be a new act “for this new century”.

She said: “The time has come for the rest of the UK to follow where Scotland led in the 1980s and 1990s and establish a People’s Constitutional Convention to re-establish the UK for a new age.

“The convention should bring together groups to deliberate on the future of our country and propose a way forward that strengthens the UK and establishes a new political settlement for the whole of our country.

“Some may say this is unrealistic, but it would follow the model of the Scottish Constitutional Convention which, without government support, established the basis for the settlement that delivered a Scottish Parliament in 1999.

“It would also – for the first time – provide a coherent approach to answering the question of how our country is best governed.

“I would not want the convention to just deliberate and report, but to produce a new Act of Union which would reaffirm the partnership between our nations and renew it for the future. After more than 300 years, it is time for a new Act of Union to safeguard our family of nations for generations to come.“”

Here is the link to that article >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38223719)

Consultation on what an English Parliament might look like – what is your view?


Consultation on what an English Parliament might look like – what is your view?

The issue of an English Parliament continues to rise up the scale of answers and of information and in response to this the Constitution Unit of University College London is consulting on it. Here is their briefing. Do complete their form!



What might an English Parliament look like? The Constitution Unit is consulting on the design options

Posted on November 24, 2016 by The Constitution Unit

The Constitution Unit has recently begun work on a new project examining the design options for an English Parliament. This was once seen as an unrealistic proposal but support has grown in recent years and it therefore now deserves to be taken more seriously. Nonetheless many major questions about what an English Parliament might actually look like remain unaddressed. In this post Jack Sheldon and Meg Russell set these questions out and invite views on them through a consultation that is now open and will close on 27 January 2017. 

Calls for an English Parliament have long existed, but frequently been rejected by academics and mainstream politicians. Although a Campaign for an English Parliament was set up in 1998, as the devolved institutions were being established for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the idea did not get off the ground. A central argument has been that such a parliament, thanks to representing almost 85 per cent of the UK’s population, would, in the words of the 1973 Kilbrandon Commission on the Constitution, result in a Union ‘so unbalanced as to be unworkable’ (para 531). As critics such as Vernon Bogdanor (p. 13) have pointed out, no major existing federation has a component part this dominant, and unbalanced federal systems (e.g. the former USSR and Yugoslavia), have tended to fail. Elites have thus often proposed devolution within England, rather than to England as a whole, as the preferred solution to the ‘English question’, and considered an English Parliament an unrealistic proposal. As the Constitution Unit’s Robert Hazell wrote in 2006, ‘An English Parliament is not seriously on the political agenda, and will never get onto the agenda unless serious politicians begin to espouse it’. 

Growing salience of the English question 


But various factors have increased the salience of questions around England’s place in the devolution settlement, and the idea of an English Parliament has gained new friends as a result. One factor is the gradually greater powers of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly beyond those bestowed in the 1990s – including legislative powers in an increasing number of fields and significant tax-raising powers. This means that a growing amount of business at Westminster concerns England (or sometimes England and Wales) alone. In turn, this brings the famous ‘West Lothian question’, concerning the voting rights of MPs elected from the devolved nations, more to the fore. The Conservative government consequently introduced a form of ‘English votes for English laws’ (EVEL) in 2015, through changes to House of Commons standing orders. But the new arrangements have been rejected by opposition parties, so might not survive a change of government. Furthermore, the version of EVEL that has been introduced does not actually prevent Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs from vetoing English-only legislation. It is therefore far from clear that this will prove to be a satisfactory long-term solution. 

Another contributing factor is growing interest in the future of the Union pre- and post- the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. Various unionist politicians, pundits and other political observers have considered how Scottish demands for greater autonomy may be satisfied within the UK, and federalism is being increasingly discussed. The EU referendum result has led some such as Professor Jim Gallagher (Director-General, Devolution Strategy at the Cabinet Office from 2007–10) to suggest that the devolved nations, whilst remaining within the UK, might each pursue different relationships with the EU post-Brexit. Heavyweight political support for something similar has come from former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and former Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander. The threat of a second Scottish independence referendum, announced by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote and repeated since, means the government needs to take such proposals seriously. This would clearly require the consequences for England to be addressed.

A third factor is a growth in English, as supposed to British, national identity among the population. Professor Michael Kenny argued in his 2014 book The Politics of English Nationhood that politicians needed to ‘accept and speak to the implications of this shift’ (p. 239). Already we know from polling that those identifying as English rather than British were more likely to support UKIP and the Leave campaign, leading mainstream politicians to consider how to increase their appeal among patriotic English voters. The English question has traditionally exercised Conservative politicians in particular, but it is now within the Labour Party that these issues are being most urgently discussed. Recent manifestations include an e-book, Labour’s Identity Crisis: England and the Politics of Patriotism, edited by former Shadow Education Secretary Tristram Hunt, and a new group of MPs, Red Shift Labour, which has published three reports on how the party can improve its English appeal. A central message is that Labour must be more prepared to embrace English identity. As yet there is little agreement on how this should be achieved, but constitutional solutions are among those being discussed. 

Support has grown for an English Parliament, but no detailed blueprint exists 

Hence 10 years on from Robert Hazell’s comments, the idea of an English Parliament commands significantly more political support. On the Conservative side the most persistent advocate has been John Redwood, whilst other prominent supporters include David Davis, now Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, and Lord Salisbury. Within the Labour Party Frank Field, a longstanding exponent of an English Parliament, has recently been joined by the former shadow cabinet members Tristram Hunt and Chuka Umunna. John Denham, who served in Gordon Brown’s cabinet and established a Centre of English Identity and Politics at Winchester University in 2015, is open-minded towards the idea. The Scottish National Party are also favourable, and Paul Nuttall, widely expected to win the UKIP leadership election, has pledged support for ‘an English Parliament for English people’. Of course, many other politicians remain convinced by the case against an English Parliament, and neither the Conservative or Labour leaderships appear close to support. But the growing interest across the political spectrum means that the idea deserves to be taken more seriously than previously. 

Nonetheless, there remains no detailed blueprint for what an English Parliament might actually look like – compared, for example, to the proposals produced by the Scottish Constitutional Convention which formed the basis for the design of the Scottish Parliament. Hence we have recently begun work on a new project at the Constitution Unit, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, that seeks to address this gap. The project follows the Unit’s influential work on the design of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly in the 1990s. We will not be advocating for or against an English Parliament – there are strong arguments on both sides and it is ultimately for politicians to decide which case they find more convincing. Instead we will undertake an objective analysis of the options for the detailed design of such a body, in order to inform future deliberations. Whilst some proponents have addressed some design questions they often disagree on key points, while other major questions remain largely unaddressed. We will ask (and – as indicated below – are seeking views on) questions including the following: 

Should an English Parliament be established as part of a settlement to bind the UK together in a more stable way, or to facilitate English independence? Many supporters of an English Parliament are motivated by a desire to prolong the Union in the context of pressures for Scottish independence. Frank Field, for example, has written that an English Parliament is ‘the only way to save the UK’. Yet there have been recent moves towards supporting English independence among some of those campaigning for an English Parliament. The English Democrats have come out in support of independence and Eddie Bone, the Campaign Director of the Campaign for an English Parliament, has suggested that ‘English independence might be the only way forward’. 

Should an English Parliament be separately elected, or should it be composed of English members of the House of Commons holding a dual mandate? The first of these is favoured by the Campaign for an English Parliament, and would mirror arrangements in the existing devolved nations, but the second commands significant support among advocates of an English Parliament, including Conservative MPs John Redwood and Andrew Rosindell.
What powers should an English Parliament have? Most proponents agree that these should be equivalent to the powers of the Scottish Parliament, but in some models, for instance that proposed by Conservative MP Teresa Gormanin the late 1990s, an English Parliament would be responsible for everything except foreign affairs and defence. 

How many members should there be in an English Parliament, and within what structure? Under the dual mandate model mentioned above the number of members would clearly be determined by the number of English members of the House of Commons (currently 538). Were a separate English Parliament to be established it might be different – the Wilberforce Society, for example, has proposed a 180-seat English Parliament. The body might also be either unicameral or bicameral. 

What electoral system and boundaries should be used for an English Parliament? Alternatives to first-past-the-post have been used for other devolved parliaments in the UK, but it is not certain that this would also be the case for an English Parliament. The dual mandate model obviously implies the use of first-past-the-post (so long as that system continues to be used for Westminster elections), whilst many leading advocates of a separate English Parliament have not been clear about what electoral system they envisage being used. 

Where should an English Parliament sit? Some supporters of an English Parliament suggest that it would be based at Westminster (either in the House of Commons or House of Lords chamber) but others, including the singer Billy Bragg, have proposed locations outside London. 

Should there also be an English government and First Minister? This is a key demand of the Campaign for an English Parliament and would almost certainly be a feature of any separately elected English Parliament. However, under the dual mandate model the UK government might continue to perform the role of the English government. The Conservative Welsh Assembly member David Melding suggests that, under his version of the dual mandate model (pp. 244–245), a UK government lacking a majority in England could either form a coalition to secure an English majority or seek to govern England as a minority administration. 

How should an English Parliament be financed? The Barnett formula, used to determine the level of public spending in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, would not work for an English Parliament with powers equivalent to those of the existing devolved institutions, as it is based on the UK government’s English expenditure. Hence a new funding model would be needed.
How should an English Parliament relate to sub-national bodies such as city-regions? In debates about how to respond to the English question an English Parliament and regional devolution within England are often presented as alternatives. But in practice might it be desirable to have both? 

What implications would an English Parliament have for the UK parliament and government? Many proponents of an English Parliament suggest that the establishment of an English Parliament should lead to a reduction in the number of members of the UK parliament and perhaps even the abolition of one chamber. Frank Field, for instance, suggests reducing the UK parliament to a Senate of 250 members. In a report published in 2015 the Constitution Reform Group, headed by Lord Salisbury, stated that ‘it will almost certainly be a design specification for any new English Parliament proposal that it results in and accommodates at least a corresponding reduction in the size and cost of the Westminster Parliament’ (p. 23). A separate English Parliament would clearly also have major implications for Whitehall.
We are aware that there will be a range of views on these questions. We are hence today launching a consultation that will close on 27 January 2017. This is not about whether or not there should be an English Parliament but about how such a parliament should be designed were it to be established. It is also designed to tease out the diversity of views, and get a sense for whether there is any viable model around which proponents might unite. 

It should be stressed that our consultation is not an opinion poll where responses will be counted up in order to measure the balance of opinion. We are seeking fairly detailed responses and particularly encourage responses from those who have given these questions considerable thought, and/or who have expertise in areas such as electoral systems, federalism, subnational government or devolution finance. We very much look forward to reading what respondents say, and this will guide our research as well as helping us to formulate our conclusions. We plan to publish our report late in 2017, and before then will include updates on the Constitution Unit blog. 

https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/s?s=45751
About the authors
Jack Sheldon is a Research Assistant at the Constitution Unit, working on the Options for an English Parliament project. He is also editor of the Constitution Unit newsletter and blog.
Professor Meg Russell is the Director of the Constitution Unit.

“Home Rule” for England called “Racist”!

“Home Rule” for England called “Racist”!

This is our Press Release:-

It is a measure of the state of England that the disgraceful article below could be published, apparently in all seriousness, here in Essex!

Click here to view the article >>> ‘Racist’ signs appear on Chelmsford roundabout near Three Mile Hill calling for ‘Home Rule’ | Essex Live

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “It is absolutely disgraceful that anyone living in Essex should describe calls for Home Rule for England as “racist”. It is legally a so called “Hate Crime” for these offensive and insulting Anglophobic discriminatory remarks to have been publicly made.

Robin continued:- “The English are as much entitled to Home Rule as any other nation on earth. Any person living here who thinks otherwise should seriously consider whether they really want to live in England!”

Here is the text of the article:-

‘Racist’ signs appear on Chelmsford roundabout near Three Mile Hill calling for ‘Home Rule’


Signs have been spotted plastered around a Chelmsford roundabout, showing a St George’s Cross and calling for ‘Home Rule’.

At least three of the placards are visible on the back of road signs around the Widford roundabout, near Indian Nights restaurant and Three Mile Hill.

A woman, who wished to remain anonymous, reported the appearance of the signs to Essex Live and said: “They are quite high up and I hadn’t noticed them before so I assume they are new.

“I saw the first one and it took me a second to realise they were political, I turned my head round to check the back of the other sign as we headed down Three Mile Hill and was quite shocked to see another one – showing it was an actual campaign of some sort rather than just one person putting up one sign.

“I was quite shocked and disgusted, I know Chelmsford is more right than left, but I’ve never seen something so blatantly inciting racial politics and hatred.

“I was also concerned about who is putting them up – is it a new group in town?

“As someone of Irish descent, the phrase “home rule” and the irony of the whole thing was not lost on me.”

Since Britain voted to leave the European Union incidents of hate crime sharply increased across Essex.

In the week after the vote, 39 hate crimes were reported to Essex Police, up from 21 in the previous seven days and higher than the 31 incidents reported in the same week earlier.

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats

Why should English lawyers want England to leave the EU?

As part of my contribution to the campaign to come out of the EU I have been trying to get the English nationalist view across and got this article published in the Solicitors Journal. ISSUE: Vol 160 no 15 19-04-16

In discussion: Brexit

With debate over the UK’s continuing participation in the European Union hotting up, Solicitors Journal invites its readers to explain which way they are voting come the 23 June referendum. Can they persuade you?


Sir,

When asked why English lawyers should want our country to leave the EU, I would respond that lawyers should be the best and most loyal citizens. Any good citizen should be proud of his or her country. In the case of England, we have much to be proud of.

When our English nation state’s great founder, King Alfred, promulgated his great legal code circa 893 AD, he expressly based its legitimacy upon Christian values and upon the free traditions of the English nation. This code set the course of English legal development on a very different jurisprudential path to that of our continental neighbours. Thus, even before England was unified, in 927 AD under Alfred’s grandson, Athelstan, English law was already developing along the path of common law, resting upon the customs of the English people.

Our Anglo-Saxon forbearers also set us on the path towards another English constitutional contribution to the modern world: representative democracy. Their system of representation by means of consultative assemblies, culminating in the great council of the nation, the Witan, is the root of our democratic system.

This was supplemented by Magna Carta’s affirmation of the right to a fair trial, and its arguably more important contribution to the idea of the rule of law. This is unlike the continental jurisprudential legacy of Roman law derived from the Institutes of Justinian, the legacy of imperial tyranny, where individuals’ rights are only those which have been permitted by law. Implicitly, the civil law state is claiming to be antecedent to all rights.

By contrast, we cherish England as the ‘land of liberty’ and of the ‘liberties of the freeborn Englishman’, in which our freedom is only limited by express law as the foundations of our constitution and legal system. The 1689 Bill of Rights completed our unique representative democratic tradition.

It is no wonder, therefore, that all good citizens, patriots, and lawyers who care about England should be united in calling for an exit from an institution founded on jurisdictional principles so at odds with the rights and liberties of Englishmen and Englishwomen.

It was a policy blunder to have gone into the EU in the first place. The aim of the British establishment in doing so was to try to maintain its own pretensions of grandeur – to strut on the ‘world stage’ as a great power. It was misguided folly for ordinary people to have ratified that decision in the 1975 referendum, but now we have the chance on 23 June to triumphantly reassert our freeborn rights and liberties by voting to leave. Let us do so and let the nation stand proud again.

Yours faithfully,

Robin Tilbrook

Robin Tilbrook is principal solicitor at Tilbrook’s Solicitors in Essex and chairman of the English Democrats @RobinTilbrook

Here is a link to the original article >>> In discussion: Brexit | Solicitors Journal

EVEN LABOUR BEGINS TO WAKE UP TO THE ENGLISH QUESTION


EVEN LABOUR BEGINS TO WAKE UP TO THE ENGLISH QUESTION


Those who have been long in the Cause of English nationalism will recall a time even to mention that you were English or that you wanted to preserve England or cared for the English Nation was to be accused by Labour of being racist.

That does still occur but now Labour opportunists are beginning to realise that their career structure may be in ruins if they don’t start at least some English patriotic noises!

Before we move onto the present I think it is worth pausing to remember that John Prescott, when he was Labour’s Deputy Prime Minister of the Blair Government, claimed in an official response:- “There is no such nationality as English”.

We all also had to put up with Gordon Brown monotonously referring to the country as “The Nations and Regions of Britain” with England being the “Regions”.

I could easily come up with many other quotations that show that Labour simply thought that anybody who dared mention Englishness was even more “bigoted” than the poor ordinary Labour supporter who dared to express a bit of concern about the effects of mass immigration, whom Gordon Brown got recorded as privately calling a “bigoted old woman!”.

Now however we have one of the brightest sparks in Labour, Tristram Hunt, calling for a referendum on an English Parliament. This is an interesting development and deserves a bit of nurturing but on the basis as was recently pointed out to me by a Welsh Professor of Politics; who told me that:-

“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 calls for an English Parliament being taken up by any part of the British Political Establishment.

However this is how George Eaton of the formerly strongly anti-English New Statesmen magazine put the issue. Here is the article:-

Whatever the solution, Labour can’t ignore its English problem

Those who disagree with Tristram Hunt’s proposal of an English parliament must suggest alternatives.


Most of the reasons for Labour’s general election defeat have been well-rehearsed: its leader wasn’t viewed as an alternative prime minister, it wasn’t trusted to manage the economy and it was at odds with voters on welfare and immigration. But there is another failing that has received far less scrutiny: the belief that the party was anti-English. The problem was visible as long ago as 2005 when the Conservatives won more votes than Labour in England and has grown consistently worse. As post-election polling by GQR found, 57 per cent said they were were “quite concerned”or “very concerned” that the party “put people from other countries before the interests of England”. The rise of Scottish nationalism and the concurrent rise of English nationalism have cast Labour adrift.

Despite this, as former cabinet minister John Denham recently wrote on The Staggers, the Beckett Report on the defeat failed to take account of this new political landscape. Its call for a “vision for Britain”, he noted, neglected those “who either don’t see their country as Britain or only partly as Britain”. Unless it accepts this new reality, voters’ alienation from the party will both widen and deepen.

Denham, whose former seat of Southampton Itchen was lost to the Conservatives (leaving Labour with just 12 of the 197 seats south of the Severn-Wash line), has founded the Centre for English Identity and Politics at Winchester University where Tristram Hunt will speak tonight. In his address, the former shadow education secretary will call for a referendum on the adoption of either an English parliament (his preferred option), regional assemblies or English Votes for English Laws (“the jury is still out”). A public vote, he will say, would allow England to “experience the same kind of democratic awakening” as Scotland and Labour should “lead it”. The political logic is clear: by advocating a referendum, the party will signal that it trusts voters (having opposed a vote on the EU) and is at ease with the politics of English identity.

At present, he will say: “Our sense of Englishness matters to us more and more, and the Labour Party has fallen on the wrong side of that cultural divide. According to Jon Cruddas’s review into why the Labour Party lost the 2015 General Election, since 2005 voters who are socially conservative are the most likely to have deserted Labour. They value home, family and their country. They feel their cultural identity is under threat. They yearn for a sense of belonging and national renewal. Tradition, rules and social order are important to them. And, tragically, they feel that Labour no longer represents them, or understands their lives. In short, they felt we didn’t value England, and were not on the side of the English.”

Most Labour MPs will likely disagree with Hunt on the need for an English parliament (“how very silly” shadow leader of the Commons Chris Bryant told me). Many argue that there is little demand among voters for a new political institution and that England’s size makes a separate body incompatible with Westminster. But those who disageee with Hunt’s solution must offer their own. The EU referendum, the SNP’s hegemony in Scotland and the possibility of a second independence referendum will all raise the salience of the English question. And arithmetic alone dictates that Labour must transform its performance in England. With no sign of a revival in Scotland, almost all of the 106 gains the party will need to make after the boundary changes will be here.

But many MPs believe that Jeremy Corbyn, far from answering the English problem, struggles to even recognise it. They lament how often his failure to sing the national anthem is raised by voters and fear that his stances on immigration, Trident and foreign policy are widening the divide between them and the electorate. Corbyn has struck a consciously patriotic note in several speeches, declaring in his Labour conference address: “[It’s] because I love this country, that I want to rid it of injustice – to make it fairer, more decent, more equal.” But as Hunt suggests, far more dramatic intervention will be needed to begin to solve the English problem.

(Here is a link to the original>>>http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/02/whatever-solution-labour-cant-ignore-its-english-problem)

“ENGLISH DEVOLUTION” MINISTER SHOWS LITTLE INTEREST IN THE ENGLISH QUESTION

“ENGLISH DEVOLUTION” MINISTER SHOWS LITTLE INTEREST IN THE ENGLISH QUESTION.


Back on the 8th August I wrote a blog article suggesting writing to the new Minister appointed to oversee English Devolution, Dominic Raab. Here is a link to my article>>>Robin Tilbrook: UK Government appoint “Under Minister” responsible for “Devolution” to England

http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/uk-government-appoint-under-minister.html

It appears that the Minister for English devolution has so little interest in the English Question that he cannot even be bothered to sign off the reply!

Most of the answers we have had so far have been standard holding letters but one member got the reply below. What do you think?

Here is the text of the letter:-

Thank you for your email of the 24 August to Dominic Raab MP regarding English ethnicity, English Votes for English Laws and the Barnett formula.

Shortly after the General Election, the Prime Minister announced that the Government will implement the Smith Commission Agreement in full. The cross-party talks were convened to consider the devolution of further powers to Scotland, and culminated in the Smith Commission Agreement. Once the new settlement for Scotland is operational, the Scottish Parliament will be responsible for more than 50% of its funding.

The Scottish Government will therefore have greater accountability and autonomy; changes in the Scottish Parliament’s funding will be increasingly determined by changes in Scottish tax and the importance of the Barnett-based block grant provided by the UK Government will therefore decrease.

It is worth noting that levels of public spending throughout the UK – including comparisons between regions in England – recognise the fact that costs are different because there are different demands on services and benefits, depending on local economies and circumstances.

The Prime Minister has been clear that the United Kingdom should remain as one and that if we are to govern our nation in the best interests of the whole United Kingdom it is important that devolution is balanced and every part of the UK has a fair say.

The devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has led to changes in the constitutional settlement and the question of the fairness of that settlement to England must now be addressed. However, the Government does not believe that a federal UK or an English Parliament is the answer. The Government believes in a strong UK Parliament for a strong UK. The creation of an English Parliament could significantly weaken and diminish the role of the UK Parliament by reducing its workload and its status. The Government thinks it right and proper that English MPs should have a decisive role to play in the passage of legislation that affects only England. However, creating a separate English Parliament would mean that MPs from other parts of the UK would be denied the opportunity to contribute to debates and would therefore diminish the current decision-making process rather than enhancing it.

On 2 July, the Government announced its plans to implement ‘English Votes for English Laws’ to strengthen England’s voice, just as devolution has strengthened the voices of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland within our Union. The proposals will be debated soon and decided upon by the House of Commons.

Under English Votes for English Laws, every MP would continue to have a vote on every Bill. However, the key change would come into effect when the Commons considers England-only measures on matters which have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Norther Ireland Assemblies. English MPs would have the decisive say in Westminster. This provision would also extend to English and Welsh MPs where measures apply to England and Wales and are on matters which been devolved elsewhere.

You can read more about the Government’s proposals at the website:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatins/english-votes-for-english-laws-proposed-changes

For the matters raised on immigration, please write directly to the Home Office who leads on the immigration policy.

I hope you find this useful.

Policy Support Team
Constitution Group, Cabinet Office