eurealist.co.uk

The short answer is because the Labour party would loose influence over England because they would never gain a majority in an English Parliament. And it would make Westminster even more redundant that it already is, if that were possible.

But Helen Goodman decided to opt for the longer answer in her reply to a letter posted on Little Man in a Toque

The Government does not believe that it is necessary to establish a separate ‘English’ Parliament to balance the current devolution settlements in the United Kingdom as England is already the dominant partner and English interests are fully represented.

I believe this is somewhat evading the point the UK government speaks for the people of Britain the Welsh Parliament for the Welsh, the Scottish Parliament for the Scots, and the NI Parliament for the NI, no one speaks for the English.

Of course if English interests are fully represented in the British parliament then so too are the others, but they also have totally devolved matters which they decide in their own parliaments, whereas in England those matters are not devolved. The conclusion of that argument would be to dissolve the other regional parliaments, because those interests are represented in the British Parliament.

The Government accepts that the current devolution settlement is ‘asymmetrical’, in that it provides for separate and distinct representative bodies for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but not for England. However, constitutions throughout the democratic world are similarly asymmetric, as the protections needed for minorities are not the same as those for a majority. The result of this arrangement is that there is greater ability for local decision-making and policy formulation at a localised level, hence the divergence in policy delivery across the countries.

I rather think that other constitutions are not relevant, that is a matter for them, we are interested in Britain and our constitution. Which used not to be unbalanced until the devolution process was stalled. Sorry the protections needed for minorities are not the same as for majorities? We are all British our protections are for the British. How does it protect the Scottish minority to separate their medical care from the rest of Britain? The result of this formulation is there is greater ability for local decision making except in England.

A fundamental principle of our constitution is that all MPs have equal rights in Parliament whether they represent English, Scottish or Welsh constituencies. The Government does not accept the proposal for English votes for English laws. To do so would be to create two distinct classes of MPs - those who could vote on all matters before the House, and those whose voting rights would be curtailed by virtue of constituency location. MPs play a representative role in considering legislation, considering the welfare of the UK as a whole, rather than narrow geographical interests, and it is right that all MPs continue to have equal voting rights on all matters before the UK Parliament.

But the devolution process has already broken the fundamental principal by creating two distinct classes of MPs – those that are accountable to their constituents and those who are not - in all devolved matters Scottish, Welsh and NI, MPs are not accountable to the English voters, yet they are voting on matters which do not affect their own constituents and only affect the English.

Well the last is not strictly true is it, on all devolved matter MPs are not considering the welfare of all the British but only the narrow geographical interests of the English.

The Government is also of the view that even matters which may appear confined too England may have an impact on the United Kingdom as a whole. For instance, the funding settlement with the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, means that what is decided on public funding in England affects Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We believe these are national issues for the United Kingdom and should be debated at the national Parliament by all MPs representing the United Kingdom, not by subsets depending on the location of their constituency.

But Helen Goodman also believes that subsets depending on the location of their constituency can and should debate regional issues except England.

Helen Goodman ends with - I hope this has been helpful - it certainly has Helen it helped me to understand that you are playing with words.

The Scottish dominated Labour executive has created a fission in our community.

One which it seems quite happy to accept as a basis for a constitution, an imbalance in our system that will drive a deep wedge between our countrymen, whilst at the same time creating the impetus and vehicle for further erosion of our nation state, as the Scots and the Welsh use their devolved parliaments to further the cause of their nationalism and their independence and separation.

And what of the Government’s Green Paper, The Governance of Britain - the first step in a national debate on further constitutional reform!

Oh good even further constitutional reform, as if they had not already done enough damage.

What has this Scottish dominated government got to offer England - well nothing really - a strengthening of the regionalisation process that has already been rejected as being unacceptable to the English, and further dismantling England into 9 separate regions, now where have we heard that one before.

Technorati Tags:
England. English Parliment, regionalisation, Scottish Parliment, devolution,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |