There is a lot of talk about referendums at the moment. All of this talk assumes one thing: that the United Kingdom of Britain is still capable of speaking with one voice.
Following devolution, this may no longer be a sound assumption. Supposing, for instance, we had a referendum on the Lisbon treaty and only in England was there a majority against it. It’s not impossible that Scotland, in those circumstances, might argue it had effectively agreed to the treaty and could refuse to reject Lisbon. Equally, suppose we had a referendum on whether we wanted to stay in the EU. England might opt for withdrawal. However, Scotland and Wales perhaps, might refuse to withdraw from the EU along with England if those countries had a majority of pro-EU votes.
The point is, many people are ignoring the fact that the Union is crumbling and the identity of being British is withering. If you ask English people in a pub what their nationality is, most will say English.
To solve this, the REAL referendum we need is to be asked whether we want to be part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The UK is not really a country, but merely an entity that decides things on behalf of 4 separate countries. If we all vote against being part of the Union, all four separate countries resulting from the UK break up would then, by definition, have effectively left the EU. It was the UK that took us into the EU, not the separate countries of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
It may be that all 4 countries would join the EU, but they would be entitled to do so their own terms. We would, of course, in England, then need our own new parliament, or perhaps we could use Westminster. England is the only country in the EU without is own parliament.
The paradox is, that parties who advocate the preservation of the Union and withdrawal from the EU, are, in fact, arguing for an ‘all or nothing’ UK-wide vote that is unlikely in the real world to ever result in the type of outcome they seek. They are in fact ensuring that we never leave the EU.
The quickest way out of the EU (if that is what you seek) is to have a referendum on ending the Union.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I thought that the aim of The CEP was an English Parliament, not a referendum to leave the EU. Obivously our terms of membership would have to be re-negotiated if any of the Countries of the United Kingdom were to declare independence but are we now campaigning for independence? has someone not told me that our aims have changed? or are we in danger of straying from our objective?
November 6th, 2009 at 11:52 amThere is no change in objective.
This was merely a thought-provoking piece which points out that if we had our own parliament and we were independent, we could re-negotiate anything that had been agreed in our name by the British State. Personally I would want to be in the EU, although I would re-negotiate the terms.
In my opinion, an English parliament would need to be the first stage of full independence. Otherwise, we would have too many tiers of government (as they do in Scotland) and the parliament would only have devolved restricted powers and would be pointless. Devolution is the first stage towards break-up of the union.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:50 pmThat is a personal view and not that of the CEP.
the inevitable result of an English parliament will be dissolution of the UK, and as Stuart Eels points out, that will put England’s membership of the EU centre stage. This could happen sooner than might be anticipated if the Scottish Saint Andrew’s Day referendum returns a majority for independence.
The Wessex League,
November 6th, 2009 at 12:59 pm“Zeaxe; owre land and volc”
the inevitable result of an English parliament will be dissolution of the UK, and as Stuart Eels points out, that will put England’s membership of the EU centre stage. This could happen sooner than might be anticipated if the Scottish Saint Andrew’s Day referendum returns a majority for independence.
The Young Wessex League
November 6th, 2009 at 1:18 pm“Zeaxe; owre land and volc”
This is highly unexpected of THECEP, yet I suppose relevant and very much appreciated. I consider myself a ‘devolutionist’ first and seperatist second.
Although admittedly we should be getting a referendum on an English Parliament every 4 years in my world.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:27 pmIt is in essence no different to the SNP demand for an independence referendum. One is considered a matter for debate and the other never considered at all.
And yet it should be, (whatever answer may result).
Because refusing to discuss the restoration of political equality to England via the creation of an English Parliament will otherwise only result in further rises of separatist sentiment.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:43 pmThis is what the CEP now has to aim for. The main parties will not accept an English Parliament within UK so we must go further and propose full independence. The EU question needs to be answered once independence achieved.
November 6th, 2009 at 8:07 pmWe must keep on target to achieve a fair an equal English Parliament within the union, (a Federal system perhaps) that will satisfy all parties, however it is right that we should also point out that we are rather tierd of this Bigoted,discriminatory UK union towards the people of England and that if parity is not going to be affored to us then we do have the right to END THE UNION. just like the yugoslavs did, they just got fed up with it.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:21 pmThere is a strong argument to the effect that if the Scots voted for independence, their ‘leaving’ the UK would actually dissolve the UK: it’s a Union, so if one party to that Union leaves it, then that Union breaks up. The assumption by the SNP and the British establishment appears to be that the UK would remain intact if the Scots left. But I’m sure this is wrong in law: the Scots going would dissolve the 1707 Acts of Union, and leave three distinct legal entities in place of the Union: England & Wales, N. Ireland and the now independent Scotland.
How this would affect our EU membership in law I don’t know. What could happen is that, in parallel to the Scots being offered a second referendum (confirming the independence deal negotiated on the basis of a mandate obtained in a first referendum), the other countries of the UK would have a referendum on whether to remain part of a reformed ‘United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland’, which would then inherit the legal personality and treaty obligations of its predecessor. That would mean we stayed in the EU. If, however, the majority was in favour of the UK breaking up, I can’t see how any of the UK countries could be bound by the treaty commitments of a now discontinued state.
November 7th, 2009 at 8:08 amin 1707, Wales did not exist in law, being merely part of England (since 1536). the status of Northern Ireland could be interesting, because it is a 20th century creation. we live in interesting times. (Zeaxeland-Wessex existed as a political entity more than a thousand years before either Wales or Northern Ireland.)
in any case, the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be a new entity. since it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which signed up to the EU would the new entity inherit the original UK treaty obligations? surely, those obligations do not automatically belong to the larger entity. logically, neither England (including Wales and maybe Northern Ireland) and Scotland could be bound by obligations entered into by the UK.
it would be like saying that Serbia inherits the residual treaty obligations of the former Yugoslavia (perhaps it does). it might be informative to know where Serbia stands. the former Czechoslovakia might be better example, since it too separated into two elements – The Czech Republic and Slovakia.
The Young Wessex League
November 7th, 2009 at 10:45 am“Zeaxe; owre land and volc”
in response to Chris (posting Number 8). there has never been a federation, as far as i know, in which one element contains more than 80% of the population. such a federation is inherently unstable, that is why the unionist parties will never intoduce an English parliament, and it is why the English Democrats are the only party with a credible strategy for achieving an English parliament. the Tories have nibbled at the bait, (as have UKIP and the BNP), but now they have even dropped the watered down idea of an English grand committee. they understand that the inevitable outcome of instating an English parliament would be the end of the UK. the only way of getting an English parliament is to support the English Democrats.
The Young Wessex League
November 7th, 2009 at 11:06 am“Zeaxe; owre land and volc”
The point I was making is that the case for the English Parliament is actually a way out of the mess we’re in. It’s not just some academic argument.
The constitutional mess we are in is NOT England’s fault – it has been agreed on our behalf by an artificial layer i.e. the UK. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by becoming a separate state. Frankly, I have no time for those who want to perpetually live in the 1950s, basking in former glories. London is now a colonial relic, struggling to cope in the fast-moving world. We have idiots at the helm who are steering us towards the rocks.
I can think of no other supra national body like the UK that governs a number of separate states within the EU. The EU may have had signatures from the UK re the Lisbon treaty, but it’s never had the agreement of a democratically elected English Parliament. I have no doubt that in due course each new independent part of the former UK would decide to be enthusiastic members of the EU, with some opting to go straight into the Euro. But at least they would have the choice.
Once we have an English Parliament we can decide if we want to opt in to e.g. the 1951 Convention on Refugees. We can decide if we want to be in the EU. We won’t be bound by anything that the British Government has decided in the past e.g. continuing with pointless foreign conflicts. I also see no reason why we can’t start unravelling the whole issue of mass immigration. We have been turned into the world’s most densely populated country – we never voted for that.
What the BNP and UKIP can’t understand is that they seek to preserve the very union that has put us in this situation. They represent the PAST. We need a new party of the FUTURE that is Euro-realistic and that seeks a totally independent English state. And that new state would be a big change, a new chapter in our history. To get REAL change I would move the parliament outside London. I would do as the Australians did with Canberra, create a new city somewhere and put the parliament there. London can then be a museum to the Unionist British Empire days. I have no doubt it would be a major tourist attraction.
November 7th, 2009 at 6:33 pmYou make some valid points ‘Tim Hunter’ So help us in the quest for an English parliament by supporting the ED’s.
November 8th, 2009 at 11:43 amHowever, i profoundly disagree with moving the English parliament (when we achieve it) away from Westminster. It was the English Parliament before Union so should return to it’s original role. Besides one of the first objections raised against an English parliament is cost. So why give our enemies that justification?
Cost is a hypocritcal argument in my opinion, especially how Westminster has doubled in cost (250 million) in the past 10 years.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:41 pmNo, I won’t support the EDS because you are anti-EU. I want to be in Europe trying to reform it.
As for the cost of the EP, we would be building something that would be a new beginning and something that would last for 100s of years, so I think we can afford to do that. The proceeds could come from selling off London based buildings like Westminster.
If you build on to an existing institution you never really get any change.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:02 pmI think Tim has made a good point that the BNP and UKIP are trying to preserve a union that has got us into this current mess.
It really won’t make any difference whether we are in the EU or not. The Westminster system is awful. I would rather have English independence within the EU than the current biased UK.
November 8th, 2009 at 3:00 pm” No, I won’t support the EDS because you are anti-EU. I want to be in Europe trying to reform it. ”
You are ‘avin a laugh of course?
November 8th, 2009 at 6:22 pm14Comment by “George Ireland”
Cost is a hypocritcal argument in my opinion, especially how Westminster has doubled in cost (250 million) in the past 10 years.
What cost another £250M to build????
November 8th, 2009 at 6:25 pmI don’t think so.
It was built hundreds of years ago.
No Daggs, you misunderstand, Westminser doubled in cost in order to run it, this includes security, salaries, MP expenses, travel etc… I never mentioned building it.
But judging by your reaction you seem very shocked about it too. I could even link you David Cameron clearly stating that it did if you so wish.
November 8th, 2009 at 8:30 pmNo George i was being facetious!Because Tim Hunter suggested a new building for an English Parliament.
November 8th, 2009 at 10:00 pmI am trying to point out that a new English parliament building would cost squillions, and our enemies use that as a reason to deny us our own Parliament. Therefore we should simply take Westminster back.
In what way would the EDP implement an English, Westminster based, Parliament? Would Scottish,Welsh and N. Irish MPs still be there?
If you propose there are only English MPs at this Westminster parliament, presumably you favour break up of the union, then. If not – in what way would the union still exist? Please clarify:
- Position on English Parliament
- Position on the Union.
I know your position on the EU.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:08 pmthe English Parliament used to meet in Nottingam, hence the importance of the Sheriff of Nottingham in the Robin Hood tales. Nottingham as the location of the English Parliament would have a lot to recommend it.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:25 pmAre there any historic – or large enough buildings remaining that would be suitable?
A friend of mine said that Winchester would be a good choice.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:36 pm21Comment by “Tim Hunter”
In what way would the EDP implement an English, Westminster based, Parliament? Would Scottish,Welsh and N. Irish MPs still be there?
If you propose there are only English MPs at this Westminster parliament, presumably you favour break up of the union, then. If not – in what way would the union still exist? Please clarify:
- Position on English Parliament
- Position on the Union.
I know your position on the EU.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Tim, forgive me i don’t intend to be rude. If this response is aimed at me? You are completely missing the point(s)
November 9th, 2009 at 1:29 pmWe don’t need a new building for a proposed English Parliament, we have one, Westminster.
If/when we gain an English Parliament, the other UK nations will have to retreat to their own Parliaments.
The relationship policy between the nations of the UK according to ED policy, we would become a Federation, with a UK body created to deal with UK only policies. I agree with this policy but, if Scotland declares independance, things change.
The UK body would need a home. Many suggest the House of Lords (it IS under used
So the ED basically want to create a British Parliament? and let England have Westminster?
November 9th, 2009 at 1:40 pmWinchester was the capital of Zeaxeland-Wessex and later of England, but the court transferred to London in the 11th century. it could be the capital of England again, but it is too far south. it could be the capital of a revived Zeaxeland-Wessex, but these days it is overshadowed by London. It still has the geographical advantage within Zeaxeland-Wessex of being central between the two extremities of Zeaxeland-Wessex, i.e., Kent and Cornwall.
Nottingham is geographically quite central within England. it has good road and rail links to the rest of England, and it has history on its side.
The Young Wessex League
November 9th, 2009 at 3:11 pm“Zeaxe; owre land and volc”
London was always an alien city since it was established as a trading post by the Romans. the native capital was Colchester. Boudicca burned London to the ground during the native uprising.
Nottingham is in the heart of England.
The Young Wessex League
November 9th, 2009 at 3:22 pm“Zeaxe; owre land and volc”
The EDP position, then offers no solutions. It doesn’t seem to be any different to the UKIP position, for instance. You are obviously unionists who seek to add an extra tier of pointless English government with no real powers.
For there to be any point in creating devolved parliaments, they would need tax raising powers and control of key policies like defence etc. If you seek to devolve such powers, the UK federation would have nothing to. If you do not seek to devolve such powers then the English parliament would be pointless.
It’s a dog’s dinner, which would look hardly any different to what we have at the moment. The point about moving it out of London is that we would then have the opportunity for a radically new start.
It’s amazing how often with these ‘second tier’ parties, if you start to probe and challenge just a little, they are found to be wanting of basic coherent positions on key issues. We all know they don’t like the EU. I am clear about that bit.
Want we still DO NOT have yet is a party with a clear position of total English Independence, like the SNP.
BTW, it’s worth mentioning yet again that these are entirely my own views – I am not in any way speaking on behalf of the CEP.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:43 pmTim. I don’t see how you can call the ED option of a federal UK with four national Parliaments a “dog’s dinner”
Surely what we have now is a dog’s dinner?
I suggest the ED position is perfectly coherant if you look at it.
I really can’t see how it can be construed as unionist when it’s clearly federationist.
As i said earlier it could be the Scots will vote for independence. Should that happen policy would have to change.
On a personal note (not ED policy) If the three ‘main’ parties continue to pretend there is no problem with the current unbalanced devolution. I can see the independance arguement gaining strength.
There is no reason to move any future English Parliament anywhere. Westminster was ours and should be again. As i keep trying to tell you there will be no build costs, thus blowing one anti arguement straight out of the water.
There is a party pursuing total English independance: The Free England Party.
If you don’t support ED policy, i’m sure the FEP will welcome you.
To George post 25
November 9th, 2009 at 5:55 pmHow can we create a British parliament? That’s what we have now, i thought you knew that! And yes England gets Westminster (back)
Just checked. The Free England Party are for withdrawal from the EU so that’s no good to me (I know you euro-haters reckon you can’t govern yourselves while you are in the EU etc. etc.). If you can’t govern yourselves while you are in the EU how come we are allowed to make such a mess of defence and finance policy? We mess both those things up purely ourselves.
BTW I agree that Nottingham could be a good location for the English Parliament. It’s reasonably central.
November 9th, 2009 at 6:13 pmWhat on Earth is “Zeaxe” and “Zeaxeland”? Never heard of it!
November 9th, 2009 at 6:41 pmTim post 30
Then it looks like you will have to found the Nottingham English Independance within the EU Party.
Good luck with that
November 9th, 2009 at 8:22 pmIn fact, if it comes to regional bias I would prefer to base the EP in Yorkshire. BTW did you know that we claim Robin Hood was actually from Yorkshire and we have an airport named after him?
November 9th, 2009 at 8:28 pmAncient language of the King Alfreds “Wessexers”
November 9th, 2009 at 8:53 pmhe is still hiding in the reeds…………
English Parliament in Winchester or Salisbury ? or York
Zeaxeland-Wessex, or simply Zeaxe, corresponds to the historical earldom of Wessex as it was in 1066, as opposed to Thomas Hardy’s mythical “Wessex”. It equates to the government’s South East and South West regions taken together. (Kent was added in AD 824, Cornwall in AD 830, and Herefordshire early in the 11th century)
One UK-wide policy from which Zeaxeland-Wessex suffers is the business of altering the clocks twice a year to suit the Scots. That results in more deaths on the roads, and more heart attacks among Wessexers, and does harm to our economy.
The Young Wessex League
November 10th, 2009 at 11:23 am“Zeaxe; owre land and volc”
under the Romans, Upper Britain was ruled from Cirencester and Lower Britain from York. Leeds is the largest city close to the old capital of Lower Britain. (in those days, Britain did not include what has become Scotland. Scotland was Pictavia/Pictland and the Scots were still in Iverne/Ireland. the old name for Great Britain was Albion. [the "Great" in "Great Britain" is merely a reference to size, to differentiate it from "Little Britain", i.e., Britanny].).
Nottingham is between the Roman cities of Cirencester, York and London. it has a lot going for it as the site of the revived English Parliament. the present Palace of Westminster only dates from Victorian times.
The Young wessex League
November 10th, 2009 at 11:40 am“Zeaxe, owre land and volc”
we are unlikely to move in one step from an English parliament to full independence. there will be a period of maybe tens of years in which some kind of federal set up prevails.
as Tim Hunter says the point of moving the English parliament out of London is to make a radical new start.
the federal parliament would undoubtedly remain at Westminster with fewer functions and fewer MPs and civil servants. moving the English Parliament out of London to Nottingham (or Leeds, altho Nottingham being more central would reduce [English] MPs’ travelling expenses ) would result in financial savings.
the inevitable result of an English parliament will be the break-up of the UK, because there cannot be a federation in which one elment makes up 84% of the population. The English Democrats’ position regarding the UK can only be an interim one. Because that is the case, for English nationalists to set up overtly separatist parties such as the FEP is is not necessary. the English Democrats can carry the day.
The Young Wessex League
November 10th, 2009 at 12:05 pm“Zeaxe; owre land and volc”
the English Democrats are the established party. they have the head-start. don’t divide the movement for an English parliament, be a little patient, don’t splnter and the EDP will surprise the world in next year’s general election, given half a chance. the party’s membership is increasing by leaps and bounds, as folk recognise the limitations of the unionist parties such as UKIP, the BNP and the Conservatives, and their inability or unwillingness to do what is needed.
The Young Wessex League
November 10th, 2009 at 12:16 pm“Zeaxe; owre land and volc”
comment 37: If the EDS position is an interim one then that is possibly OK apart from their position on Europe. However, I would like to know what the difference is between a Federation and a Union.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:16 pmthe UK is a union; it is not a federation. at the end of the 19th century, the Liberals toyed with turning the UK into a federation, but with Irish Home Rule the need as it was perceived disappeared.
if the UK were reconstituted as a federation, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be separately represented in a federal parliament, with each nation free to reach its own arrangements with the federal government.
if England was given a parliament, the UK would almost certainly be forced to become a federation. that federation would not last much more than a few tens of years, because of the difference in the size of the English population (84%) and that of the other countries. either the English would resent not having influence commensurate with the country’s size, or the small partners would resent being dictacted to by a more assertive England.
the English Democrats’ willingness to contemplate the break up of the UK sets them apart from unionist parties such as the Conservatives, UKIP, and the BNP, which must always resist the establishment of an English parliament and the consequent move to a federation. anyone who wants an English parliament must throw in their lot with the English Democrats Party.
The Young Wessex League
November 11th, 2009 at 11:32 am“Zeaxe; owre land and volc”