Devolving England: The Symposium Conclusion by Garbo.
Over the past week or so the Wardman Wire has been running a symposium on the question of English devolution. It turned out to be a far fiery issue than anyone first thought it might…
It seemed the only common ground that any of the writers, or those who commented for that matter, had was that the current situation of the West Lothian Question was not satisfactory. It creates a democratic deficit and has handed too much democratic much power, albeit sometmes theoretical, to Scotland. Surely, between us the great and the good from the WW could come up with a solution.
Well, between us we came up with an English Parliament at Westminster, more regional democracy in the UK, reform is needed but we don’t need more politicians, making some small tweaks but generally sticking with the status quo or not bothering do anything because our government has no powers to devolve any more anyway as they are in Brussels. In short, we all had our own ideas to sort out this rather strange thing we call the British constitution.
I suppose therein lies the problem. Britain has never had a constitution. It has never had a revolution. It simply evolved over time with little bits of democracy added here and the odd conventions slowing creeping in there. There was no master plan. There was no end goal. It was just something that happened over time very pragmatically and as events changed and demanded. The result is a web of contradictions, confusions and rather odd ceremonial moments. It is this very nature of the British system that on the surface seems its greatest weakness yet in reality is actually its greatest strength: it is flexible, malleable and can respond effectively to change.
Look at the EU Treaty – they tried to write a constitution to encode our rights and liberties. In theory it is a great idea and you would have thought the cornerstone of democracy. The problem is, it is fantastically long, complex and boring. Your average MP hasn’t read it nor understands it – let alone your average man on the street. We should be proud of this wonderful unwritten constitution in the same way we are proud of the mad, eccentric greats that make up our long list of Great Britons. It is just brilliantly unconventional.
It is bonkers that we call it a democracy in many senses, yet we have more control over our future than a country like the US who has a democratically elected representative at just about every level you can imagine. They just lack the flexibility though thanks to their Bill of Rights and two thirds majorities.
But what has this to do with English devolution I hear you ask. Well, we have all these solutions and yet no agreement. I suspect polls would show that most people in England now do want to have their own parliament and, as is the British way, if that is what we want, then we shall get it – because we can do these things so easily and democratically without having to worry about constitutions and the like. It is how Scotland and Wales got their Parliament/Assembly and it will also be the reason we get ours if we so wish. So be it Dave’s solution or Thunder Dragon’s or anyone else’s, what we can take comfort in is that we are still the masters’ of our destiny (Mr Hockney may disagree here!).
But a word of warning: The more we try to engineer democracy rather than let it evolve I fear the closer we get to losing what makes British democracy so unique. Personally, I think that would be a shame.
Thanks to Dave Cole for organising this series and those who took part through both writing pieces and also joining in on the debate – I think it has been a great success.
Look out for Dave’s final words on the series tomorrow afternoon
But Garbo, we do of course have limits upon what we can do in local government imposed from outside and enshrined in laws which are impossible for our law makers here in the UK to alter, amend or repeal. We cannot have an English Parliament because it is completely contrary to the EU regional structure which is now enshrined in law and is the complete basis for the development of our governmental bodies. This situation is revolutionary not evolutionary and has dispensed with the old idea of us evolving our own laws and structures. We cannot do this any longer, and the devolved bodies are part of an ongoing plan, not some new pathway defined by our own constitutional dottiness.
Scottish and Welsh (and indeed London) ‘devolution’ followed a pattern of developing regional structures which included English regions established under the Tories. These were established through EU requirements regarding regional bodies which are not beholden to national governments and which were based upon the regions as outlined in EU legislation developed since the early 60s. Those ‘regions’ included Scotland (UKM), Wales (UKL) and London (UKI). Also bizarrely shaped regions like the South East (UKJ). New devolved bodies have to mirror those regions, indeed they exist already but are simply unelected for the most part - England cannot be one because its size breaks the rules of population, apart from anything else. And England has to have these regional bodies whether elected or not. I was indeed told when I was on the London Assembly that we could not even change the shape of the emerging sub-regions without asking permission from the EU first. Oddly, I am not sure that that is (yet) true but it emphasises the degree to which in the official mind the EU is a major player in the shape and structures of our government below Westminster level.
The Government in its White Paper ‘Your Region Your Choice’ said ‘that it is not necessary for a region to have a strong historic identity to create a modern one,’ adding boundaries will ‘generate a good deal of fervour’ but no one will be able to come up with better ones so the ‘standard regional boundaries are right.’ That begs the question of whose ‘standard’ boundaries. The answer is Eurostat, the EU’s statistical service in Luxembourg, as outlined above.
A system was finally enforced throughout the EU by regulation and is based upon population size. The excuse for this was the enlargement of the EU. Until we understand that the emergence of devolved bodies for Wales, Scotland and London are part of this regional policy and not part of some open-ended ‘anything can happen now’ approach, we will not grasp that an English Parliament cannot happen even if we do wish for it.
Those who want to know more about this should look further into the EU treaties as they refer in very detailed fashion to the role of the regions and how they should develop (specially regarding funding from the EU and their independence from nation state government…but of course very subsidiary position the central instruments of government in the EU) and also at the statements and development of EU regional policy in the 60s and 70s as well as the realities of the Scottish and Welsh situations, and indeed London. The EU was officially entitled ‘the European Union of the Regions’ at Maastricht 15 years ago. I realise that the European Union is a bit of an inconvenient elephant in the rowing boat and that it is very easy to dismiss it as ‘foreign affairs’ and ‘nothing to do with our government’, also that eurosceptics can become rather strident and insistent on the subject and that ‘everything leads back to the devils in Brussels’. So it is tempting to kick its involvement into the long grass and ignore the restrictions it places on us, but it is fast becoming the entire motor for this area of government and it is by understanding this that we will grasp what is and isn’t possible. Otherwise we debate in a vaccuum and might just as well talk about Region UKI (sub region South West) landing a Man on the Moon (that’s Richmond and Twickenham etc with their very own Neil Armstrong to you and I).
With apologies for the length of this reply.
Damian - I am against creating an English Parliament - not least because it is simply not possible to implement it. I do take you points on Europe, though I must say I am not nearly as sceptical of the EU as you are but I do hold some concerns. I do think there is a desperate need for a time for reflection and that the institions should be allowed to evolve rather than have so much forced upon us.
I think, though perhaps for different reasons, that we might agree the EU is a far bigger issue for England than an English parliament.
Garbo, agree totally, but I would say it has nothing to do with being sceptical or not. My argument is not really sceptical in this instance - it relates to the facts as to how we are governed and what we can/cannot do. An EU supporter could use those same facts and say “Yes, good idea, we do not want our politicians at national level controlling things, it’s a good idea to have these regional bodies dealing direct with the EU etc etc.” But there is almost an omerta to not discuss them, and it is either because many do not understand how we are governed today, or that the truth is too uncomfortable or large to get a handle on. So then there is a tendency to revert to a mix of personalities and ideal-worldism instead of the hard facts as to how something can be done, and to what degree. Like you, I incline against an English Parliament, but it doesn’t matter. Even if all MPs in Parliament voted FOR one, it could not have even the powers of the unelected North East Assembly because it is with the institutions of Brussels that the defining power to innovate lies…