Comments on: Justice Committee: No English Parliament http://www.thecep.org.uk/wordpress/2009/05/25/justice-committee-no-english-parliament/ CEP News Blog Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:31:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: britologywatch http://www.thecep.org.uk/wordpress/2009/05/25/justice-committee-no-english-parliament/comment-page-1/#comment-2143 britologywatch Thu, 28 May 2009 15:19:51 +0000 http://www.thecep.org.uk/wordpress/?p=810#comment-2143 "While an English Parliament could address one aspect of the English question in terms of giving England a similar constitutional status to Scotland within the United Kingdom, it presents issues of balance because of the sheer size of the English population and because it would require a Government and First Minister for England in addition to the United Kingdom Government and Prime Minister". There is much that could be said to unpick the assumptions behind such a statement. But what never fails to amaze me is the sheer double standards: they're saying that an English Parliament and Government would be problematic because of England's disproportionate size within the Union as a whole; and yet, they have the gall - elsewhere - to argue that it is <i>because</i> of England's overwhelming size that its interests are adequately represented by the UK parliament. But wouldn't it be more logically consistent - from their point of view - to say that such a Union parliament must of necessity be dominated by English interests - hence being no better than a separate English parliament? The answer, as we know is simple: give the people of England the democratic choice - English Parliament or Union Parliament. But just like the referendum on the European constitution, they don't want to give us a referendum on a new constitutional settlement for England, because they know they'd get an answer they don't want. “While an English Parliament could address one aspect of the English question in terms of giving England a similar constitutional status to Scotland within the United Kingdom, it presents issues of balance because of the sheer size of the English population and because it would require a Government and First Minister for England in addition to the United Kingdom Government and Prime Minister”.

There is much that could be said to unpick the assumptions behind such a statement. But what never fails to amaze me is the sheer double standards: they’re saying that an English Parliament and Government would be problematic because of England’s disproportionate size within the Union as a whole; and yet, they have the gall – elsewhere – to argue that it is because of England’s overwhelming size that its interests are adequately represented by the UK parliament. But wouldn’t it be more logically consistent – from their point of view – to say that such a Union parliament must of necessity be dominated by English interests – hence being no better than a separate English parliament?

The answer, as we know is simple: give the people of England the democratic choice – English Parliament or Union Parliament. But just like the referendum on the European constitution, they don’t want to give us a referendum on a new constitutional settlement for England, because they know they’d get an answer they don’t want.

]]> By: Scilla http://www.thecep.org.uk/wordpress/2009/05/25/justice-committee-no-english-parliament/comment-page-1/#comment-2119 Scilla Mon, 25 May 2009 10:47:47 +0000 http://www.thecep.org.uk/wordpress/?p=810#comment-2119 The Committee also stated, my comments are in brackets; “The implications of having an English Government and First Minister as well as a United Kingdom Government and Prime Minister have not been the subject of much public discussion (We must make them so) and are politically significant. Approaches which make the UK Parliament into a federal parliament or treat English laws differently at Westminster raise questions about the nature and role of the second chamber which need to be considered as part of the discussion of Lords reform (indeed they do): clarification would be needed about whether, and if not why, the Second Chamber should consider "English" laws when it did not consider the laws of Scotland (well that is what happens now!).” The fact that they have mentioned an EP as an alternative answer, and, in my opinion, not completely dismissing it because they reflected on the role of the second chamber and federalism, shows just how important it was for the CEP-represented by Mike Knowles- to have given written and oral evidence to this Select Committee, otherwise I doubt they would have mentioned an EP at all. It is these types of pronouncements that will get us to our goal much more quickly than setting up a political party, which some have advocated for us. Our task is never to let up on the pressure and to make sure that we push the debate in the direction we desire and not to accept a fudge. In addition we have the Government funded think tank the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) urging mainstream politicians to do more to recognise and engage with a growing sense of Englishness. Clearly the best way to do this is to set up English Insitutions including an English Parliament. The Committee also stated, my comments are in brackets; “The implications of having an English Government and First Minister as well as a United Kingdom Government and Prime Minister have not been the subject of much public discussion (We must make them so) and are politically significant. Approaches which make the UK Parliament into a federal parliament or treat English laws differently at Westminster raise questions about the nature and role of the second chamber which need to be considered as part of the discussion of Lords reform (indeed they do): clarification would be needed about whether, and if not why, the Second Chamber should consider “English” laws when it did not consider the laws of Scotland (well that is what happens now!).”
The fact that they have mentioned an EP as an alternative answer, and, in my opinion, not completely dismissing it because they reflected on the role of the second chamber and federalism, shows just how important it was for the CEP-represented by Mike Knowles- to have given written and oral evidence to this Select Committee, otherwise I doubt they would have mentioned an EP at all. It is these types of pronouncements that will get us to our goal much more quickly than setting up a political party, which some have advocated for us. Our task is never to let up on the pressure and to make sure that we push the debate in the direction we desire and not to accept a fudge.

In addition we have the Government funded think tank the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) urging mainstream politicians to do more to recognise and engage with a growing sense of Englishness. Clearly the best way to do this is to set up English Insitutions including an English Parliament.

]]>