reg

I am no supporter and totally dislike the Tories but I very much welcome there Idea of an English Grand Committee.Naturally any such model would have to have clout but it does represent a way forward.To at least moving things forward at giving England a much needed Voice.DEBATE

Little Englander (sour)

When you consider the following:
Scotland - Parliament
Wales - Assembly (with another referendum on the way to increase powers)
N. Ireland - Assembly
I was going to list all the inequalities brought about by devolution and the Barnett formula but will not insult your knowledge nor intelligence.
So what is there to debate.
Is England fairly represented?. No.
Is a "Grand Committee" of English elected MPs the answer?. No. Unless you consider that England is the equivalent of a golf club or a working man's club.
Debate over.
Now give England a referendum on devolution through an English Parliament, surely we cannot be any less entitled than the Scots.

cassie

Why is the 84% of UK voters in England excluded from all referenda about other parts of the UK?

While the voters in England continue to tolerate this blatent denial of democracy, they'll continue to be ignored!


__________________________________________________

ENGLISH UNIONIST

To quote from my booklet entitled "The State of The Union and Other Articles":-

"To overcome the increasing unrest known as the 'West Lothian Question' one recommends that any exclusively Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish Bills should be given their First and Second Readings on the floor of both the Commons and the Lords and then considered and/or amended by the appropriate Grand Committee (i.e., Scottish Grand Committee/Welsh Grand Committee/Northern Ireland Grand Committee, although such Committees would need to be established in the House of Lords to compliment those already in being in the House of Commons) before being put before each House for the Report Stage and Third Reading, whilst exclusively English legislation could be made in much the same way were an English Grand Committee to be established in each House of Parliament. (UK-wide matters should, as now, be legislated for by Bill with all stages of the Bill being dealt with on the floor of both Houses of Parliament and making primary legislation by non-amendable Orders-in-Council for any part, or all, of the United Kingdom should cease forthwith).

“The advantage this proposal has over devolving legislative powers to locally-elected representatives in the component parts of the United Kingdom is that MPs/Peers’ knowledge and understanding of any one part of the Kingdom is not diminished although the detailed consideration of any Bill would fall exclusively to Members of both Houses directly affected by it to maximise their sense of ‘ownership’ of it without undermining the authority of the United Kingdom Parliament to legislate for part (or all) of the Kingdom.

"The alternative to my proposal is either to replace the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly with 'National Councils' for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, comprising of the X MPs elected for each of the home nations (i.e., 529 for England, 40 for Wales, 59 for Scotland and 18 for Northern Ireland), to sit and legislate on matters particular to their own nation (devolved to them from the United Kingdom Parliament) for part of each month whilst for the remainder of the month those same MPs would return to sit in the House of Commons to legislate on UK-wide matters, or as Reverend Martin Smyth (then Grand Master of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland and Ulster Unionist MP for South Belfast) suggested in his paper 'A Federated People' (published by the Joint Unionist Working Party in 1987), establish a federal United Kingdom with the state governments and parliaments of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each being autonomous from each other and, most importantly, fully independent from the federal parliament and government of the United Kingdom at Westminster.

"Unpalatable though the latter seemed to me a few years ago, one can understand the growing attraction of a Federal United Kingdom as an alternative to both the narrow nationalism espoused by the Conservative Party and the constitutional vandalism practiced by New Labour on non-devolved matters over the past decade, not least Gordon Brown’s recent decision to establish executive offices for each of the regions of England to help facilitate the European Union’s objective of creating a Federal Europe of the Regions in place of maintaining a Europe of nation-states. I should perhaps stress however, that rather than venture down the road to either a federal UK or greater legislative devolution to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English Regions, I would much prefer the United Kingdom Parliament to remain the primary legislative authority for the whole Kingdom and only the responsibility to execute and apply legislation to be devolved to locally-elected representatives throughout the Kingdom".

__________________
THE UNION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, UNLIKE THE EUROPEAN UNION, DESERVES (AND NEEDS) TO BE MAINTAINED AND STRENGTHENED DAILY.

arden forester

The only real solution is that the UK is given four devolved parliaments with the Westminster becoming the federal parliament. MPs at Westminster would only deal with the five major ministries. The Prime Minister plus the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary, Defence Secretary, Home Secretary and President of the Board of Trade who would all be accountable to the House of Commons for taxation, international relations, trade and the security of the nation.

The devolved parliaments would have ten ministries. The First Minister plus Finance, Justice, Education, Health, Transport, Social Affairs, Planning and Investment, Culture & Sports, Agriculture, and Employment.

One of the major criticisms levelled against a devolved parliament for England is that no federation with one country or unit with 85% of the population has ever been a success. But then that implies that England would for ever be fighting with the UK government over money

My thoughts are base around an equality of settlement between the four home nations. Scotland would not feel inferior because the two kingdoms would be of equal standing within the union.

Also the UK parliament would no longer be doling out largesse to the peasants! Each parliament would be taxraising. The UK parliament would have laid down areas of competences.

I would also suggest that the House of Lords is given the role of scrutinising (as opposed to leafing through the papers!) EU legislation (all the while the UK is a member).

The House of Commons would have far fewer members. The current situation of the English being governed by a man who is a part-time Westminster MP in that his workload is significantly reduced by the presence of an MSP cannot continue.

Brown's propensity for undemocratic thought (no referendum, no leadership contest, no real scrutiny of MPs expenses, etc) must be challenged.

__________________
www.ardenforester.blogspot.com
www.westminster-whispers.blogspot.com

cassie

The process started in 1997 must run its course. Anyone who truly believes that any of the three devolved bodies can now be dissolved fails to appreciate the gradual awakening in England to our predicament.

In 1997, we hardly took any notice of what was happening in Scotland and Wales. The daft goings on of Ron Davies were of more interest. Was he going through a mid-life crisis or was it an aspect of Welsh character manifesting itself we wondered? In my opinion, the cat is now out of the bag, the genie out of the bottle - whatever.

It seems to me, that voters in England are pondering what to do. If the expected swing of the political pendulum was taking place, the Tories would be riding high in the polls, in every by-election etc. They are not, which supports my impression that voters are looking elsewhere. We have until May 2010 for this aspect of our political situation to increase and to develop.

What will be the outcome? I don't know, but I do not believe it is feasible for one moment to consider dissolving the devolved assemblies. Indeed, all the speculation being encouraged by vote-hungry parties at the moment is in the other direction - increased powers for Scotland and Wales.

To me, the logic is compelling: nothing short of the powers devolved to Scotland will be sufficient for England and the English - not because I want this, but because I believe it is what very many other English voters want.

The kind of federal parliament advocated by arden might just work initially, but then it is going to come up against two conflicting forces: (1) an increase in the desire of the English to be properly represented resulting in greater assertiveness in such a federal parliament versus (2) ingrained Scottish resentment at almost anything English and certainly against being 'ruled' by the English!

It is inescapable that the people of England account for 84% of the UK. (With currently projected immigration, this will increase!) It is only by denying the English parity of democracy, parity of nationhood, disproportionately fewer resources and less funding, that the UK has survived. Either England and its people will continue to give way in a federal parliament or Scotland will leave. That is really how united the so called United Kingdom is!


___________

Britannist

I agree, Little Englander (sour) - and I am a UK Unionist.

England has never ever had a national referendum of her own open to all the voters of England on any subject at any time in her history (the 1975 referendum on staying in or leaving the EEC/EU was held right across the UK). Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland/Ulster have all had referendums of their own at least once each and sometimes twice.

Regarding an English Grand Committee.

An English Grand Committee in the House of Commons (set up in the way it is being envisaged by many of those calling for one to be established) would not resolve the following matters:

1. Michael Martin, The Speaker of the House of Commons, could be deciding what legislation is specifically English and what is a UK matter - in other words: The Speaker could be setting the agenda of the English Grand Committee.

2. The establishment of an English Grand Committee would not change the fact that England has no Executive of her own to match the powers of the Scottish Executive (which the minority Scottish so-called 'Nationalist' Party administration in Edinburgh now calls a Government).

3. Under the current plan proposed for setting up a Grand Committee for England within the House of Commons Scottish constituency MPs such as Gordon Brown or Douglas Alexander would still be proposing and voting on legislation specific to England within the House of Commons even though they and all other Scottish constituency MPs in the Commons could not vote on those same issues as they affect their own Scottish constituencies.

4. An English Grand Committee could be abolished - or see its remit reduced - by an anti-English UK Government such as one like the Blair/Brown Labour regime at Westminster. It would be much more difficult for an anti-English UK Government to deny England a voice of her own if an English Parliament/Executive had been set up by a national referendum of the English people.