Hereward

Greetings to ALL!!

I am an ENGLISHMAN and one of those strange individuals [heavy irony here ] who believes in true democracy, the essence of which is predominance of the interests and wishes of the majority NOT oppression of the majority under the guise of not oppressing minorities!

I believe that BRITISH interests are being largely overlooked and discounted because ENGLAND (where over 83% of the UK population lives) has permitted unrepresentative minorities to capture control of Parliament and cede power to foreign countries and foreigners! Too many Westminster seats are occupied by Scots and other foreign born individuals. (How many Scottish seats are occupied by ENGLISHMEN?)

It is only when a large majority of English parliamentary constituencies are represented by the ENGLISH, that BRITAIN has any real chance of extricating itself from the EU and introducing control over its own borders and economy. None of the three main political parties want an ENGLAND Parliament because they are controlled by Scots and that would focus too much attention on ENGLAND & the ENGLISH.

Instead of fruitlessly seeking support amongst the 7 million or so voters in N Ireland, Scotland & Wales , UKIP should concentrate it efforts on the 37 million voters in ENGLAND!

Serious consideration should be given to supporting the campaign for a Parliament in ENGLAND and for ENGLISH citizens to be given equality within the British Isles!!

Britannist

Welcome to the forum, Hereward.

Would you accept English only voting on English only legislation before the House of Commons (as an alternative to the establishment of an English Parliament)?

Some English people may be in favour of more English self-determination, but against the costs of building and running a new Parliament?

Hereward

No, at the least I demand parity.

Funny, isn't it, how so many 'political solutions' leave England and the English in an inferior position? The provinces will continue to deal with devolved matters: education, health etc, and they will continue to receive a disproportionate amount of funding under the widely discredited Barnett formula. Laws are passed by the British Parliament which we are required to obey, but frequent exemptions are granted to superior citizens eg Sikhs being given dispensation from wearing crash helmets (even though their religion does not require them to ride motor cycles!) or not permitting sheep and goats being slaughtered by by having their throats cut and bled to death (a practice forbidden on the ground of cruelty to all but Judaists and Muslims) or banning foxhunting etc on the ground of animal cruelty. Of course English culture, customs and practices are of no importance whatsoever and, where deemed necessary, must give way to alien or minority equivalents!

In my opinion, parity here means dismantling (Oh, alright, disassembling) existing regional assemblies OR giving the whole English electorate a referendum on whether it also wants its own assembly.

I regard your suggestion as merely a first step on the road to restoring some degree of fairness. A desirable first step which would English MPs to determine the arrangements for any referendum in England without the interence of MPs in Scotland and Wales.

Regrettably, the unbending stance of UKIP to oppose even the holding of a referendum about this, is as serious an error as that of Iain Duncan Smith (another well known Englishman) in refusing a referendum on the Euro if in power because, as he said, "There would be no need for one. We have no intention of joining the Euro." This, from the Leader of the Conservative Party which wangled Britain INTO phpbb_the then EEC with the connivance of individuals such as Woy Jenkins and Shirley Williams without seeking the direct endorsement of the British people! So much for democracy! It is no good moaning about the lack of democracy in the EU, if you don't practice what you preach!

Thorry to be tho dithagreeable! :wink:

mkpdavies

Wrong. UKIP are commited to holding referendums, as long as there is a popular mandate for one.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Britannist

Thanks for your reply, Hereward (of 19.7.2005 at 8.16 am).

I have long believed that the campaign for self-autonomy for the English (at least over her domestic/internal affairs) could prove to be electorally popular with the voters of England.

I’ve not yet voted in the poll establishing an English Parliament (discussion taking place in a separate thread on this forum).

Before I decide how to cast my vote (in the forum poll on the issue of an English Parliament) – could you address the following points I’ve raised. I am an English patriot and the questions are not put to you in any hostile manner – I ask them so you can help me how to vote in the forum poll on an English Parliament. As I’m sure you’d agree, setting up an English Parliament would be a serious constitutional step requiring thought from all those considering the matter:

1.

Establishment of an English Parliament will isolate Unionists in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland who favour a unitary United Kingdom with no rival Parliaments/Assemblies to Westminster. Do you agree or not?

2.

English voting on English only issues in the Commons (on all matters except British Defence and UK Foreign Affairs) achieves the same objective as those demanding the formation of an English Parliament separate from the House of Commons. Why set up an English Parliament with its own building, staff, MP’s at such a high cost – if self-autonomy for the English people over all England only internal domestic affairs can be realised in the House of Commons (by England only voting)?

What would you do with the House of Commons if Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales left the United Kingdom? The English Parliament would be operating separately from the (House of) Commons in different premises. Unless of course, your aim is to have the House of Commons as both the UK Parliament (dealing only with Defence/Foreign Affairs) and as the (separate) English Parliament (handling all English matters except Defence/Foreign Affairs)? Would that not be an insult to the English people – to have to share usage of the House of Commons with MP’s from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – nations/entities with their own separate parliamentary premises?

3.

What’s the difference between the self-governing Channel Islands and Isle of Man (not part of the UK but running their own affairs apart from Defence/Foreign Affairs) and England doing the same (as Jersey/Guernsey and the Isle of Man) through its MP’s voting on England only legislation (except for Jersey/Guernsey and the Isle of Man) in the House of Commons with England part of the UK?

4.

Is not your eventual aim (and those of many campaigners for an English Parliament) the dissolution of (end of) the UK?

5.

Would not the result of your policies be the break-up of the UK even if that were not your ultimate aim?

6.

The enemies of the English (‘Tony’ B-liar’s Lie-bour Party, Kennedy’s Laboural ‘Democrats’ etc) will campaign to stop the establishment of a unitary English Parliament saying it would be hugely expensive (though probably much less so, in reality, than an England broken up INTO phpbb_a series of EU regional statelets – which is the stated policy of B-liar and his puppet Kennedy). Do you accept that the europhile opponents of an English Parliament are going to tell the voters (of England) that they do not need another ‘layer’ of government. Presumably your response will be to tell them that another layer of government can go instead – namely the EU. Am I right?

7.

Is it not a fact that many campaigners for an English Parliament are not against membership of the EU and do not actually campaign for withdrawal of the UK/England from the EU? We would end up with an England in the EU – rather than a UK outside it? Right or wrong?

8.

What sort of electoral system would you use for elections to an all-England legislature (Parliament)? You will be aware that differing voting systems produce wildy different results.


9.

What would your view be if an English Parliament (as an example) expressed its opposition to the EU – but the UK Parliament voted to remain in? The UK Parliament would have the final say because it controlled British Foreign Policy. The fact is, you can’t really have full control over English affairs alongside a UK Parliament, can you? The two could not co-exist easily. The result would be the end of the UK Parliament (and consequently, of the UK), wouldn’t it?

Look forward, Hereward, to your answers to the questions contained in the seven sections above.

Britannist

Correction to my last posting (above) - Hereward posted at 2.28 pm on 18.7.2005 (not 19th inst.). His posting, of course, was not in fact a reply - as I incorrectly stated (in my last posting).

Hereward

I will address Britannia's questions, but first may I point out that I am just a single individual. I can only speak for myself, and my opinions do not carry any great weight. It should also be borne in mind that a separate English Parliament make take a number of forms, depending on the constitutional arrangements actually put in place, who can guarantee what they will be? Similarly, who can guarantee precisely those powers which will be devolved?

1. Are they isolated (whatever is meant by that) already? Why should they be "isolated" by the establishment of an English Parliament, if they were not before? Conversely, if they are already "isolated" (and I am not sure what is meant by that), then it will not be the establishment of an English Parliament which has isolated them. Ultimately, it may depend upon the exact constitutional arrangements put in place.

2. These are details which, perforce, will be determined by Parliament in Westminster. I can only guess what the outcome might be, and how would that help?

3. Quite simply, I do not know.

4. For what it is worth (not very much I guess!), I would not want (indeed I would strongly oppose) the break up of the UK. In my opinion, Britain can be at its best (eg militarily) when it is united. When its component nations, the Irish, the Scots and the Welsh combine with England, it becomes a formidable force in many ways. However, it has been ordered that the Scots and the Welsh may separately organise certain of their affairs, and equity and fairness would require that the English should be accorded similar powers.

5. To be pedantic, I do not think you should regard my opinions as policy. Even so, I do not believe that the establishment of an English Parliament itself could lead to the break up of the UK. In that event, it would be due to other factors. It could be argued that, by denying English citizens any opportunity to say whether they wanted their own parliament, the pressure could build up to the extent of eventually precipitating the disintegration of the UK. However, that line depends upon the desire being there in England for a separate parliament which, it has to be admitted, has yet to be established!

6. Sorry, but again I must say that I do not know what arguments will be deployed, but opponents of a new parliament may well argue as you suggest. The important point is which arguments will prevail. In my humble opinion, proposals for an English Parliament should be accompanied by an assessment of how local government would be affected together with proposals for "rationalising" lower tiers. In my area, for example, there is a county council and within it district councils and a unitary city council. Consequently, there seems great scope to reorganise tiers to extend the principle of having a unitary authority, but I would not be prescriptive at this distance.

7. You are probably correct, but surely the key is where the power lies? Your argument applies equally to the Scottish and Wales Assemblies. Even so, this is an issue to be determined at Westminster.

8. As I said above, I would not be prescriptive about the voting system. What I would say, however, is that we are supposed to have a system in which constituencies elect someone to represent them - a member - in a first past the post ballot. This system has become distorted by political parties in two ways (i) the "members" now tend to represent their respective parties first, and their constituents second; and (ii) some idiots aggregate all the votes cast for the various parties' candidates and argue that the "first past the post" results do not reflect voters' wishes. My own view is that, ultimately, it would not really matter what voting system is used if MPs were really more accountable to those who elected them. Big debates about PR versus "First past the post" are, to my mind, a diversion from looking at measures to increase accountability and democracy. One of the potentially most effective ways of increasing democracy (ie voter participation) is the greater use of referenda for major issues provided always that they are organised properly, with integrity, and carry widespread public confidence. It is a good feature of UKIP's policies to expressly espouse the use of referenda where there is demand for them.

9. The situation you describe would not arise quite simply because an English Parliament would be given no power to determine certain prescribed issues, of which the UK's membership of the EU would be one. It would not be appropriate for issues such as EU enlargement, adoption of the Euro, whether the Second Chamber (The Lords) should be wholly elective or not etc to be considered by an English Parliament.

I hope that my answers help clarify the situation, but I can only repeat that they are merely my opinions and, no matter how pompous and conceited I may appear in offering them, they carry no more weight than yours.

Britannist

Hello from England (Hereward) introduce yourself section

Thank you so much, Hereward, for your swift and detailed reply to my long list of questions. I am very grateful for you spending time on a full and interesting reply. You are right, Hereward, referendums may determine some English policies. You are also right in that the finer details of establishing an English legislature may be determined only when the matter becomes a ‘mainstream’ political issue.

Events, of course, also play a part. If the Scottish Nationalist Party took power in the Scottish Parliament (something I certainly do not wish to see), that would further aggravate the people of England. The SNP would cause as much trouble for the union (UK) that it could.

I’m hoping to post a message to the thread “Should UKIP support an English Parliament” (in the British politics section of this forum). See you there.