Britannist

Thank you for your kind comments Andrew. I feel privileged to be allowed to discuss this issue with leading members of the pro-England movement: yourself of course, Kentishman, Cassie and one or two others who post here on this subject.

This is a most interesting section of the forum and I am glad it was opened up.

I am greatly encouraged that debate is taking place here and elsewhere at long last about the future of our country after Blair's sham devolution scam designed to weaken and eventually wipe out England as a country and entity.

As a formerly staunch UK Unionist I have had enough of this very obvious attempt by the europhile ruling political 'elite' to hold down England and the people of England in a devolution set-up within the UK deliberately rigged against England.

We - the 51 million people of England - are the only country in the world of such a population size with no national voice of our own and no say on our own future and destiny. This has to change. And change it is going to.

Britannist

An interesting question Andrew. I think different people within the pro-England movement would give slightly different answers to this. My view is that it should be possible to establish something along the lines of the Swiss model: limited 'small' central Government with the different parts of the country handling domestic matters.

In Switzerland the cantons (counties) handle many matters but I believe that the central Government of Switzerland (Federal Council) and the national Parliament of the Swiss Confederation handle key matters such as finance (i.e. currency, tax), defence, national security, immigration, foreign affairs and a few other things with the cantons dealing with most of the rest.

Here in the UK if the Swiss model were implemented the whole of the UK would have the Pound as the national currency; the UK Government would deal with defence, foreign affairs, tax and immigration - with the devolved Governments of England and Scotland (and the Assemblies of Wales and Northern Ireland) legislating on domestic issues.

An English Government would deal with education, housing, transport, NHS (there would an English NHS), farming, fishing and a range of specifically English matters (many of them legislative areas recovered from the EU which we are going to leave).

The federal system, as we know, works in Canada and Australia and indeed, in those nations, may have actually been largely devised by English people.

Britannist

A very perceptive question from you Andrew. This key and crucial point has also crossed my mind and it cannot be ignored.

It is true that the possibility exists that an attempt by mostly English constituency MPs to take the UK out of the EU could be thwarted by pro-EU elements in other parts of the UK allying themselves with the europhile minority in England (i.e europhiles from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland uniting in the UK National Parliament with a rump of mostly leftist/Liberal 'Democrat' MPs from England to block a vote by mostly English constituency MPs (who represent a majority of English constituencies in the UK Parliament) to quit the EU).

My answer to this problem would be the implementation of the Swiss referendum system in the UK whereby voters can petition for a referendum on almost any matter. As 85% of UK voters are in English constituencies it should be possible for the overwhelmingly eurosceptic and/or anti-EU people of England to determine the outcome of a national referendum on quitting the EU. Only if the voter turnout in such a referendum were extremely low in England but extremely high in the other parts of the UK could such a referendum vote go against the wishes of the majority of the people of England.

The overwhelming majority of the people of Switzerland live in the German-speaking cantons and because Switzerland's German-speaking people are (admirably and quite understandably) anti-EU they delivered a huge 'No' vote in the last referendum they had there (a referendum activated by the people of the country) on joining the EU.

Had the matter been left to the National Parliament of Switzerland and to the 7-member Federal Council (Swiss National Government) it is possible that pro-EU parties from all parts of the country would have united and used whatever Parliamentary procedure they could to get an EU entry Bill approved - despite the fact that a huge majority of the Swiss were and are anti-EU.

Britannist

The federal system works in both Canada and Australia and in the USA too.

If different states are competing within those nations it has not resulted in any problems for the central Government of those countries or for the unity of those entities - not any I have heard or read about anyway.

Of course, an English Parliament would be larger than the Scottish one but Russia being the largest part of the Russian Federation (a huge majority of it, in fact) has not fractured the Russian Federation.

On your point, Andrew, of the scenario of nations within the UK trying to influence affairs in other parts of the Union of the UK - if there were what amounts to a federal UK I think that everyone would be expected to follow protocol that influencing matters in other parts of the Union (ie. by an element in one nation with the UK regarding another part of the Union) would be acceptable on matters or issues dealt with by the UK National Parliament but not on domestic matters handled by the devolved legislatures.

For instance, I would imagine that in the Australian state of Queenland there are no complaints about people in South Australia or Tasmania trying to influence matters on transport, housing, education, health or any other matters handled by the Queensland state legislature.

Britannist

I think that we can get a fair deal for England within the UK just as New South Wales in Australia or British Colombia in Canada are satisfied with being a part of those federal countries.

We here in England may have to move to some form of Federal system within the UK - stopping Scottish constituency MPs from voting on specifically English matters before the House of Commons (whilst being a fair move) does not actually give England an Executive to match the Scottish Executive (now calling itself a Government without any legislation permitting it to do so) which has existed since 1999.

On your point, Andrew, about ruling Scotland (above quote) - what I want is for the English to have the same level of control over our internal affairs as the Scottish now have over theirs within the structures of the UK. We English, of course, do not Govern Scotland - our representatives elected to Westminster (to the House of Commons) Govern the whole of the UK of which Scotland is, of course, a part.

Regarding your comment, Andrew, about independence for England (from the UK). If the English people want that then we must have it. And - if Labour do not give equality to England with Scotland within the UK - that is what the people of England could well be asking for in larger and larger numbers in the not-to-distant future.

To avoid the scenario of our Union of the UK falling apart it is extremely important that England be given constitutional and financial equality with England so that separatist (i.e. anti-UK) feeling in England declines.

Andrew Constantine

Britannist

But federal unions seem generally to have a number of approximately equal states forming part of their Union. Does any one American, Australian or Canadian state predominate in the way that England with her over 80% of the UK population would?

The federal government in most federal sytems is often quite powerful, partly because no one state can challenge it.

Switzerland is an interesting case study. Cantons do have separate tax systems, and there is a very weak federal government. But Switzerland also has a policy of strict neutrality, so disagreements about whether to join or quit the EU, or the UN cannot be decided by the federal government but go to plebiscite.

In the UK, there are already some national diverging outlooks on both domestic and foreign affairs. These divergences are about central issues: we for example are dead against membership of the EU while others especially in Scotland (perhaps seeing the EU as a counter-balance) are very much in favour. Hard to see a UK federal government ever patching the divide on this issue.

And you suggest that the federal UK would still have the pound. That means that defining decisions about money supply, interest rates and exchange rates would in effect be made to suit England's interests. The Scots do not like that position even now, but receive the Union dividend and huge UK central government expenditure spent in Scotland as compensation. But with strict fiscal autonomy (an English Parliament would be expected to look after England, and not the other home nations), it might suit the Scots to have the Euro or their own currency.

I think we should also accept that however worthy and historic the Swiss cantons are, they do not compare to what have been formidible nation states like England and Scotland. I do not expect England in my ideal plan of the future to have the level of autonomy and independence ... of a Swiss canton!

And while "states' rights" is an issue in most federal unions, often the states were set up as part of the creation of the federal government (and sometimes as in the US, after it).

In sum, the potential for the UK to develop into a federal state looks pretty limited. It fact the prospects seem so poor and the possibility of dangerous tensions arising seem so likely, that it strongly suggests it might be better to go for a clean break.

There is no reason why "the Scots and the English should not be the best of pals", unless we experiment with another dysfunctional union between them.

The arguments for our independence seem stronger the more we examine them, would you not agree?

Kind regards, Andrew

__________________
Andrew Constantine says: The EU is a French-German racket and is incompatible with democracy. An independent England will quit the EU forthwith.

Free England Party - Independence for England
http://www.freeengland.com

Signatory to The English Claim of Right
http://englishclaimofright.com

Andrew Constantine

Britannist

I cannot see these working when the subject of the referendum touches on national interest. For example:

The English might vote that the pound be retained: the Scots might see their economy better served by the euro.

The English might want to have tighter definitions of citizenship and to stop foreign immigration: the Scots might wish to have a bigger population and more foreign workers.

The English might wish to retain nuclear weapons: the Scots not.

In all these cases, England's 85% share of the vote should give an outright majority for their most popular policy position and hence the final say. Would the Scots tolerate such a situation? I do not believe they would.

Independence seems more and more the best result. That way the Scots decide what they want - and get it - and the English decide what they want - and get it.

Regards, Andrew

__________________
Andrew Constantine says: The EU is a French-German racket and is incompatible with democracy. An independent England will quit the EU forthwith.

Free England Party - Independence for England
http://www.freeengland.com

Signatory to The English Claim of Right
http://englishclaimofright.com

Britannist

Yes that is certainly usually true - but some federations have very powerful parts with huge populations such as Germany's North-Rhine Westphalia with about 20 million people (a third of the population of what was 'West' Germany) and Ontaria state in Canada with about a third of the population of Canada. New South Wales and Victoria states in Australia - both next to each other - have a combined population of about 40% of the overall Australian population making the south-east of Australia the dominant part of the federation.

Russia, of course, is the overwhelming majority of the Russian Federation but this has not led to the fracturing of the Federation.

Canada is 75% English-speaking but the French-speaking province (state) of Quebec has twice voted to stay in the Federation of Canada.

Britannist

And plebiscites are what I want here too (as I wrote earlier in this thread) - it would be hard for the voice of England to be suppressed in a national UK referendum on EU membership because we are 85% of all UK voters (the majority of Northern Ireland's people would almost certainly vote to quit the EU if they detected before the referendum vote that England was going to vote to come out of the EU strait-jacket).

Britannist

Of course, Andrew, the Scottish people know that the last thing the people who run the euro are going to is run it to suit the interests of the people of Scotland.

The biggest share of Scotland's exports go to England/Wales (one or the largest import markets in the world) and it is in Scotland's interests to keep Pound Sterling as the national currency of Scotland.

I also do not think the people of Scotland would vote to get rid of the Pound for it would mean - apart from many other disadvantages of being in the euro - that Scotland would no longer have her own banknotes.