eurealist.co.uk

The Scottish fishermen are concerned about a proposal from the European Commission. That would allow the Commission to give any unused fishing quota from one country to another.

It is felt that the industry which has already suffered a reduction of more than 50% of its capacity because of the Common Fisheries Policy would be further penalised by this new proposal.

This has led to some complaining that Scotland would be better of negotiating directly with the EU as an Independent member state, and blaming Westminster for not protecting the Scottish fishing fleet from EU legislation.
(more…)

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 |

Alan Cochrane writing in the Telegraph says it is “good to hear the Tory leader reject the populist appeal of English nationalism.”

I find it rather odd that when writing about the elections to the Scottish Parliament it is somehow the English which are to blame for the present mess the Scottish raj which is controlling the reins of power in Westminster has made of the Union.

It was Scottish born and educated Tony Blair and his Cabinet stuffed full of Scots politicians who have created the imbalance in the British Constitutional settlement that has led to the increasing calls for an English parliament in preference to the regional break up of England.

One is tempted to ask what does David Cameron offer the English by way of redress? Are they going to remove the power of the Scottish parliament and the Welsh Assembly? Not on your life, all they are offering us is English votes on English matters (EVonEM) a policy that is shot through with its own problems and does not even begin to address the basic imbalance wrought by Blair and his Scottish cronies.

If Cameron means what he says, and he really does want to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and not England, then he should be suggesting completely dissolving the regionalization adgenda including Scottish and Welsh regionalisation, and undoing the damage already caused to fabric of the nation, that however is not an option the Conservative Leader is prepared to accept.

I said I was going to post on Jonathan Freedland article in the Guardian about the reform of the House of Lords, I do not intend to actually comment on Freedland`s article, except to say he is suggesting a fully elected house and use that as a springboard for my own thoughts. Although many belive the present House of Lords is an affront to modern democracy, and a fully elected House of Lords would be a more effective, legitimate and representative chamber. I tend to think that such suggestions need very careful consideration.

The Lords does not actually need to be elected to have legitimacy, nor does it actually need to be representative, it is in fact allready quite effective in its present form and as Lord Norton of Louth, who has been described as the greatest living expert on Parliament- has recently made clear the White Paper - which was presented to Parliament earlier this month - was a recipe for instability, was disjointed and would actually deliver a second chamber devoid of the benefits of the existing House. It does not explain how the election of 50% of members under a list system will ‘increase its effectiveness’. Or how the House that is proposed will work better than the existing House?” Nor did it provide any empirical evidence for the claim that in many people’s eyes the Lords now lacks the legitimacy to carry out “its current role”.

Perhaps “its current role” is the fly in the ointment? what exactly is its current role, and do we want that to be its role for the future, might well be examined before we launch into yet another round of reform of the second chamber.

Without doubt the Labour government has continued the destruction of the original role of the Lords by assuming it is nothing more that a simple revising chamber, thereby removing its original function as a guardian of the British Constitution and part of a democratic system of government. As over the years more and more powers have been acquired by the elected executive in the Commons, the Lords has been relegated to nothing more than a hindrance on the leaders ambitions. We have in effect actually ended up with in the situation where we have in all but name an elected dictatorship that cries foul every time the Lords refuse to accept its proposals at face value.

So it becomes relevant to inquire exactly what role we would ask our second chamber to fill, if it is to be just a revising chamber whos duty will be to examine the legislation emanating from the lower house for legal flaws before rubber stamping it, then the house ought rightly to be filled with lawyers and as they will have no real powers, it really does not matter how they get to fill their positions, if it makes some people happy why not just elect them for a relatively long period.

If on the other hand if the Lords is going to have real power to prevent an elected administration overstepping its powers, it should be filled with people who are totally independent of the political party machines. If that is the case then how are they to be elected if not with the backing of the major political parties who are in any case so short of members and cash that they are working their way toward forcing the voters to pay for their control of the political system which they have invented to suit themselves.

In reality we should not consider the composition of the Lord’s without considering it’s role and purpose as part of a wider constitutional settlement.

It is generally believed that Britian does not have a Constitution, a misconception the political parties are only too pleased to bolster, as it allows them free reign to do anything they like once there have garnered enough votes to get into power. It is true that that this is in reality the situation, because our governments have simply ignored the existence of any existing legislation which would bind their hands, and all attempts to rectify this misrepresentation and force our governments have been thwarted by what has grown into a self-supporting political elite. Reform of the House of Lords would not change that situation and just as the politicians have removed any blocks to their increased power they will not willingly allow a situation to develop that will confine their determination to rule without being restrained by inconvenient obstructions like a written Constitution, any that manages to get through the political system will be as worthless as the present one has proved to be. In this situation not only is the House of Lords an affront to modern democracy our whole political system of government is an affront to democracy, modern or otherwise.

Before we embark on any further reform of the House of Lords we must decide what is going to happen with regard to the whole constitutional settlement of Great Britain, because depending on the outcome of that, the second chamber might well have a totally different role to play, or there might not be any role at all for a second chamber.

We need to decide if we are going to remain a member of the European Union, if so it would be much better to accept that all of our government power will not reside in Britain but will be decided and delegated from the EU level. In that instance I would have thought that a second chamber would become surplus to requirements, because the EU constitution would be our constitution and it would be the controlling influence on our government and the laws would be checked by the EU parliament and council and backed by the European Court of Justice, in that event we could operate in Britian with a really slimmed down national parliament, with extra powers being delegated from the EU level to the Regional Parliaments.

If we decide we do not want to swallowed up into the maw of the United States of Europe and opt for a looser association retaining and regaining some of our sovereignty, we would still have to face the left over damage of the EU Regionalisation Program; The Conservatives have promised to disband the embryo Regional Parliaments- Regional Assemblies, they have not as far as I know mentioned the Regional Development Boards, which were set up as the embryo regional civil service to receive and distribute out taxes the EU returns to us. But assuming they do also disband those, we will still be possibly left with the London assembly, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. If we also had an English parliament perhaps the second chamber would be better suited as something approaching a federal chamber with representatives from the separate British parliaments.

If we now leap headlong into further reforming the House of Lords either by fully or partially electing the members, without first deciding the constitutional settlement and the second chambers place in that settlement, we will be devoting a great deal of time effort and money on something which will not improve the effectives of the present chamber and something that could itself become another impediment to creating a new constitutional settlement for the nation state of Great Britian or a group of regions in the in the USE.

There are many who belive that only way out of the mess Tony Blair has made of the British Constitution is the creation of a separate English parliament, give more power to the Scottish Parliament and to the Welsh Assembly which would then become the Welsh parliament, and then to create a smaller federal style government at Westminster. There are problems created by the size of England in comparison to both Scotland and Wales but it cannot be beyond the realms of possibility to organise the central government in a fair a equitably way to meet these problems.

The alternatives to an English Parliament are not really acceptable, the Labour government and its group would like to develop English regions these would become mini regional parliaments but require the break up of England as a political entirety whilst enhancing the stature of Scotland and Wales. And would not in any way address the calls for Scottish independence.

The Conservatives would like to address the English Question and the West Lothian Question by creating a separate parliament for England at Westminster with English MPs only deciding on English matters EVonEM, this would be very difficult to achieve because of the difficulty in deciding which legislation applied solely to England there are also several other problems associated with EVonEM.

The reason for this post is to introduce the difference between those who belive we should have an English parliament and the BNP who belive we should have English Scots and Welsh Parliaments but only indigenous Scots, English and Welsh will have the right to vote in their respective parliaments. In other words the BNP are climbing on the bandwagon of English Nationalism and trying to create something ugly and totally unacceptable. This post from

Little Man in a Toque

the organiser of a news aggregator and blog ring for English nationalist bloggers Witanagemot Club . Put the case and explains the dangers.

The BNP and an English Parliament

The presiding officer of the Welsh assembly has said that devolution in England would help deliver a “United Kingdom in a united Europe.”

Lord Elis-Thomas said giving people in England a similar say in their domestic affairs would help achieve a more secure constitutional settlement.

“There should be a proper English parliament, and that could be arranged very easily if the Commons sat on a Tuesday or Wednesday as an English parliament.”

So we are to be allowed a proper English parliament which would sit for one day a week with dual MPs, that is English members of the British parliament also sitting as members of an English Parliament.

Lord Elis-Thomas is in line with the thinking of John Redwood who also favours a part time English parliament this from Mr Redwoods new Blog

“My view is that all of us elected to the Westminster Parliament for English constituencies should perform a dual role. We should work with colleagues from Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland on Union matters for part of the week, and for the rest of the week, the Westminster Parliament itself should be the English Parliament, where we, English representatives, settle all the matters that are devolved Scotland ourselves at Westminster, without the help or interference of our colleagues from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. The English Parliament at Westminster would therefore create a much more fair and balanced United Kingdom.”

I do not see how it can be considered in any way balanced for Scotland and Wales to each have a separate parliament with separately elected members sitting full time, yet England would only be allowed one day a week where British MP could decide on English matters.

If they want to make it balanced then both the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly should be dissolved and then we could all have dual role MPs and separate days for Scottish Welsh English and British business it would also have the added benefit of saving vast sums of money.

From Little Man in a Toque a letter to Sir Menzies Campbell who has only ever had one email on the West Lothian Question.

Who says

the English do not want their own parliament

that the English don’t want another layer of government

that an English parliament would put the English off politics

As the e-mal explains a recent poll show there is big demand for an English parliament, on the second point “An English parliament does not necessarily mean another layer of government. For starters we can get rid of the unwanted and undemocratic regional layer and replace it with an English layer. Secondly we could look at the feasibility of dual-mandate MPs. And thirdly we can look at the role of the House of Lords with the aim of turning that into a federal and revising chamber, leaving the Commons as the English Parliament.” and did a Scottish Parliament put the Scots off politics?

Very strange polling results in the Telegraph,

“an ICM opinion poll for The Sunday Telegraph has found. Independence is backed by 52 per cent of Scots while an astonishing 59 per cent of English voters want Scotland to go it alone.”

68 percent of English voters and 58 per cent of Scottish voters support for the establishment of an English parliament with similar powers to the Scottish Parliament.

48 percent of English voters – also want complete independence for England, divorcing itself from Wales and Northern Ireland as well.

The reasons given for the support for an English parliament

60 per cent of English voters complained of higher levels of public spending per head of the population in Scotland

The West Lothian Question, 62 percent of English and 46 per cent of Scots voters are concerned about the affects of Scottish devolution on the British Parliament. “Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, said: “In England, people quite rightly resent Scottish Labour MPs bossing them about on English domestic legislation. England has as much right to self government as Scotland does.”

“In the sporting arena, 70 per cent of English people said they would support a Scottish team playing football or rugby against a nation other than England. But, when the question was put to Scots, only 48 per cent said they would back England with 34 per cent supporting their opponents, no matter which country it was.”

That last, points to what I see as strange about the results, if 48 percent of English want complete independence for England the final figures do not make sense because

“The poll showed that the English are more likely to think of themselves as British than the Scots are. Only 16 per cent of English people said they were “English, not British“, compared to 26 per cent of Scots who said they were “Scottish, not British.”

Like all polling much depends on who asks the questions, who they choose to ask, what choices are offered, and how the raw results are manipulated For instance what other constitutional arrangements were offered to the respondents. What is clear from this polling is that many people are now very concerned about the constitutional settlement of the United Kingdom after Mr Blair and his colleagues have created the problems in the first place.

A further point about polling is how the results are interpreted; the headline could have been 84 percent of English people think of themselves as British instead of England wants its independence that would put a totally different spin on the results and indicate a different preference for a constitutional settlement.

The Campaign for an English Parliament has just issued a full report on the devolution process, going by the title of

DEVOLUTION FOR ENGLAND

A CRITIQUE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY POLICY

‘ENGLISH VOTES ON ENGLISH MATTERS’

The report details the devolution progress to date and explores some of the problems that have been created by the New Labour devolution process.

The report argues that The Government’s devolution programme had two fundamental guiding principles:

distribution of governmental power from the centre to constituent parts.

distribution on the basis of nationhood.

Importantly it says that England was completely left out of the devolution programme.

Which is perhaps not entirely surprising considering, according to Jim Naughtie who informs us time and again in his book The Rivals, Gordon Brown was the engine behind the whole devolution campaign. „It‟s Gordon‟s passion,‟ Naughtie quotes Tony Blair as saying in 1997. „So we‟re doing it”

Instead Scotland now enjoys the best of both worlds.

It remains firmly in the Union with its status and power within it enhanced, and with increased subsidies from the English taxpayer, yet it is independent of the rest of the Union and its government in areas of really major governance.

We are not talking about minor matters. Scotland now has full self-government in the most major areas of public policy:

education, health, local government, social work, housing,

training, agriculture, fisheries and forestry, sport and the arts,

economic development including the administration of

European Structural Funds, tourism, many aspects of transport,

the legal system and law and order, most civil and criminal

law, prisons and the fire services, and various lesser matters.

It is not just an astonishing degree of independence within a Union which is denied to its other constituent nations; it is also one in which one of those other nations, namely England,

subsidises most generously.

Of the £45.3 billion spent in Scotland in 2003-4 only £34 billion was recovered in taxation.

The £11.3 billion difference, which works out at £2200 per head of population in Scotland, was paid by the UK Parliament.

If tax revenue from North Sea oil is excluded, namely £4.3 billion, there still would have been a £7 billion gap, which equates to a £281 surcharge on every English taxpayer.

One has to hand it to Brown and co. They have pulled of the biggest and brightest coup in the Union’s 300 year history.

Not only is there the gross political and constitutional injustice of the English Question

and the West Lothian Question,

There are also the financial aspects.

As we have seen, Scotland does not pay its way. Only by reason of the immensity of the grant being paid by the Exchequer out of its UK revenue to the Scottish Parliament can it afford to provide

the educational, health and social benefits it now enjoys which are not being made available in England.

There are free eye tests for all regardless of age, free personal

and social care for the elderly, highly specialist cancer

treatments available across the whole of Scotland, free bus

travel throughout Scotland and free central heating installation

for pensioners, and free prescriptions for 19-25 year olds.

Scottish university students do not pay either tuition fees or

top-up fees which in England can be as much as £3000 a year.

They don‟t pay them even if they are at an English university.

No EU students (except the English, Welsh and Northern Irish)

pay them either. English students at Scottish universities

however must pay £3600 yearly in tuition fees for four-year

degrees while Scottish (and EU) students pay nothing in

advance and just £2000 after graduation. In addition there is

the -now notorious- Barnett Formula, brought in in 1978 to

check the rise of Scottish nationalism and the SNP

(interestingly the same argument used with UK MPs to sell the

devolution legislation of 1998). By reason of that Formula

alone, each Scottish person is in receipt of at least £1300 more

per head expenditure than English people (Public Expenditure

Statistical Analyses 2005). The Formula‟s advantages over

England enjoyed by Scotland are of course enjoyed by Wales

and Northern Ireland as well in varying ways, although

Scotland‟s devolution setlement outdoes both.

The Report then explains “The West Lothian Question” and “The English Question”

And “THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY POLICY” (EVoEM)

Before a critique of the policy “DEFECTS OF THE POLICY”

“EVoVM has two practical difficulties. The first is deciding which MPs will be entitled to vote on which bills.” The second practical difficulty is deciding which constituents will be affected by any particular bill.”

CEP argue that EVoEM will not adequately address either the West Lothian Question or the English Question but will in fact bring UK government into a state of confusion and ridicule and possible chaos. Neither can EVoEM ever be an adequate forum for the people of England or an effective champion of their concerns. Or give England its own representation within the European Union.

Instead of a way of holding the union together EVoEM contains the seeds of the break-up of the Union. It will introduce into the House of Commons an essentially divisive, indeed destructive, element which does not exist at present.

The Union Parliament is the Union Parliament. EVoEM would turn it into something else: a part time Union Parliament and a part time English Parliament,and will not provide England with its own Executive.

So Jack Straw and couple of Scotish MP`s think that the Tories proposal for English votes on English matters is” utterly disgraceful, anti-British, unpatriotic” and “would lead inexorably to the break up of the United Kingdom.”

One is tempted to wonder why it is that those same people do not see a problem with allowing Scottish Mps to vote on matters which do not relate to their own constituencies, that is also “utterly disgraceful, anti-British, unpatriotic” and “will lead inexorably to the break up of the United Kingdom”

Of course the EVoEM is an attempt to rectify the problem created by transferring powers away from Westminster to the Scotish parliament, if Jack Straw and co wish to prevent the break up of the UK perhaps they will consider taking back those powers so that all legislation passed in the UK parliament affects all of the people of the UK not just some of them.

Or they could set up an English Parliament.

Guardian

Until a few years ago I, like most English people, thought of myself as British. Being English was something we did in our spare time, and gave little thought to. How times have changed.

The Blair Government, devolution and the rule of a majority in Britain (the English) by a minority (the Scots) have all sharpened up the English mind and, with it, the desire for a sense of English national identity. This will be wonderfully apparent tomorrow, when we celebrate the Feast of St George. Again, 10 years ago, this was an event recognised, it was said, by only fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists. Today people whom even Dave would find unexceptional like to mark their English identity. In pubs from Cornwall to Cumberland, flags and banners of

St George will be proudly paraded. The red cross of our patron saint is found on the bumpers of countless cars. After centuries of being made, for alleged reasons of good taste, to submerge our national identity or even feel ashamed of it, it is out in the open.

What has always amazed me is why we should feel bad about it. I remain unclear as to what hideous crimes the English people have committed. If we have been so oppressive to the Scots, or the Irish, or even the Welsh, then why do so many of them choose to come to live and work in our country? Of course, what Labour affects to call “ordinary people” have very few hang-ups about being English, or, if they happen to have the misfortune to come from somewhere else, with the English. The whole sense of shame we are meant to feel about our identity has been manufactured by politicians, and, as usual, for their own sectarian ends.

Devolution is perhaps the greatest of the many lies perpetrated by this Government. Gordon Brown, who is keen on keeping a vestige of something called the United Kingdom so he can have something better than Scotland to be prime minister of, frequently claims devolution has strengthened the idea of Britishness. As with his economic claims, this is utter rubbish.

The main reason the English have been forced to recognise their own identity is that, from the moment this Government came to power, the proclamation of the identities of the Scottish and Welsh in particular were forced down our throats. Now, being a tolerant people, we English don’t mind that: but we expect, being a fair-minded people, to have the right to do the same ourselves.

Labour fears the English identity because it represents a challenge to the Scottish-dominated Government that has run this country since 1997. Since devolution, there is absolutely no justification for Scottish MPs to vote in divisions at Westminster on issues that, in their own country, are settled in the Scottish Parliament. Yet they do, and they do because, in an increasing number of instances, Labour would not win votes there on solely English matters without the entirely improper help of Scottish votes.

So far, the renaissance of our national identity has, I am happy to say, taken an entirely benign course. It is about cheering on our football and cricket teams, eating roast beef and drinking pints of real ale. I am deeply in favour of all those things. But I am also deeply in favour of the rise of an English national consciousness that dictates a fair political deal for England: and that is not happening.

Realising it was losing this argument, Labour tried to palm us off with regional assemblies. As an intelligent people, we did not fall for that. What we want, and deserve, is an English parliament at Westminster, where English matters are decided solely by representatives of the English people. And the jolly Feast of St George is the ideal day to make a resolution to ourselves, and to our rulers, that we shall not allow our swords to sleep in our hands until justice is done, and we are given equality with the Scots.

Telegraph

 Quite often we are offered academic reports and studies from diverse academic organisations, which carry with them the assurance that these are nothing more than impartial academic discourse.

This must be the case because they were prepared and presented by independent academics, whos only thoughts are to report honestly and fairly on their particular subject. Of course because these are no more than truly independent academics, they have no particular political view point and they only offer an honest non-partisan assessment of the case in question. This inevitable makes it difficult to question the findings of these “independent” reports, what gives these reports power is their academic origin,thus implying or openly stating independence and objectivity.

Yet the EU spends millions each and every year on educational and research projects in the UK, these funds are distributed to organisations within the academic education establishment on the condition that they must deal with the issue of European integration”. Further research funding comes from our own government.

If for instance we take the UCL which includes The Constitution Unit run by Robert Hazell.

The Constitution Unit claims on its web page that it is the UK’s foremost independent research body on constitutional change. The Constitution Unit specialises in constitutional reform and comparative constitutional studies. It is independent and non-partisan, and the centre of a wide network of national and international experts.

The UCL web site states that; The Constitution unit has had a major influence on the Governments constitutional reform programme, publishing a series of major reports and briefings on devolution in Scotland and Wales, regional government in England, parliamentary reform, reform of the House of Lords, incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights, freedom of information, referendums and electoral reform. The unit is a major resource for government and for a wide range of other interests. It will continue to act as a source of independent and expert information and advice.

The UCL website claims it has a growing influence on policy making at local, national and international levels, through diverse bodies such as the Constitution Unit, the Centre for Transport Studies, the School of Public Policy, the Centre for South East European Studies, the Environmental Change Research Centre and the International Centre for Health & Society.

Looking at the funding however gives a slightly different slant on the independence picture, we find that apart form general funding from HEFCE to the tune of £10251000 in 2004 and £10686000 in 2005. The UCL also received research grants from the British government totalling £1385000, and another £281000 from the EU in the same two year period.

Future plans for UCL Funding
from 2005 to 2008, UCl have sought funding for research of £210k from the ESRC, UK government and devolved governments. The ESRC Research Resources Board has offered £105k and the Scottish Executive £30k. The UK government (DCA, Scotland Office and Wales Office) are still considering whether to offer the remaining £75k.

It is not for me to question the independence of the academics, but when so much of their funding is derived from central government, devolved government and the EU, it does leave them open to questions of probity.

But if they are not financially independent, then perhaps their papers and publications show a degree of independence.

The EU has several funding lines open to universities one of which is the The Jean Monnet Program cosponsored by the European Commission to promote teaching about European integration. Sponsors working papers, research projects.

This from the Bruges Group on the Jean Monnet organisation;

The Bruges Group is an independent all-party think tank. Our independence is our strength allowing us to be free to follow our own policy agenda and put the national interest above party political considerations.

Nowhere, in the torrent of papers emanating from Jean Monnet courses, on the conference agendas, in the publications that pour from the word processors of Jean Monnet professors, will you find any reasoned (or any) arguments as to why the UK should leave the EU, why the euro should not replace the pound, why Euroscepticism is a legitimate and honourable political activity. You will not find Eurosceptics - prominent or otherwise - invited as guest lecturers on Jean Monnet courses, you will not find Eurosceptic tracts used as core teaching material (except for the purposes of rebuttal) and you will not find UK Independence Party MEPs addressing Jean Monnet conferences.

The “debate” is totally one-sided. It is, therefore, not a debate. It is propaganda, paid for by the British taxpayer, delivered by academics who - as was seen from the examples of their work in the British media - purport to be objective and impartial, but who are not.

Politically, the significance of this is profound. In the absence of a steady stream nationally-orientated policy ideas, contrasted with the flow of ideas on “European” themes, the EU is seen as the “only game in town”. This reinforces the myth that the future lies with “Europe” and lends credence to propaganda that there is no alternative to membership of the EU. As ordinary people become steadily more disillusioned by the policy vacuum, “Europe” wins the game by default.

To those of us who have studied the ways of the EU, all of this has a weary familiarity. The insistence of the EU on cross-border collaboration between universities - making funding conditional on such arrangements - exactly parallels its regional policy, where funds are made conditional on cross-border co-operation. What is happening in academia is a variation on the theme of “perforated sovereignty”, whereby sub-national organisations are encouraged to build contacts with like organisations in other member states, by-passing their national governments and thus diminishing their authority.

The Bruges Group also has some details of other (now out of date) involvement of the EU in UK Academic institutions; The Leeds Metropolitan University website, for example, promotes its Business School and one of its departments, the Policy Research Institute, proudly boasting of “prestigious clients”, including the European Commission. It cites DGV as its “client”, the Directorate responsible for the European Social Fund.

Manchester University’s website parades a dedicated “European Policy Research Unit”, under its School of Government, heavily supported by EU funds. Simon Bulmer, one of the university academics, contributes to the EU’s ARENA programme, the programme of Advanced Research on the Europeanisation of the Nation State. In 1997, he delivered a paper on the “New Institutionalism”, analysing the Single Market and EU Governance.

Hull University proudly advertises its EU-funded “Euro Information Centre Humberside”, one of twenty similar centres in the UK, which claims to be a “first-stop-shop for information on European policies, programmes and legislation”. But the pride of place in Hull goes to the Centre for European Union Studies (CEUS), founded in 1990 under the directorship of Professor Juliet Lodge and now under the direction of Dr Mike Burgess. It obtains finances from a variety of EU programmes and the university also directed the UK-wide Jean Monnet Group of Experts on the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference.

York University hosts a Centre for Defence Economics, which boasts of having undertaken research for the European Commission. It also has a Centre for Experimental Economics which claims to have been financed from a number of sources, “most notably the Economic and Social Research Council of the United Kingdom and the European Commission”.

Lancaster University’s Management School has received funding from a variety of EU programmes. It received €300,000 over a two-year period from the European Commission’s Human Capital and Mobility (HCM) programme, and funding from the Training and Mobility of Researchers (TMR) and NECTAR programmes.

The University of Sheffield, which supports a “European Research Office” and hosts the web-site “Focus on Europe On-line”. In a foreword to this publication, the University’s Vice Chancellor, Sir Gareth Roberts FRS, proudly proclaims that the issue in which he writes “…continues to show the University of Sheffield’s commitment to achieving excellence in research by integrating the European Dimension in all areas of activity”.

Aston University’s Business School in Birmingham, which claims to be “one of the largest and most successful business schools in Europe”, also boasts of funding from the European Union. The London School of Economics hosts the “European Institute” and is a member of the “Community of European Management Schools”, all handsomely provided with EU funds.

Reading University runs the Graduate School of European and International Studies, with a director who occupies the Jean Monnet chair, using EU funding for projects on the likes of “European Citizenship and Constitutionalism”. Its Centre for International Business History is undertaking an EU funded project called CEMP (Creation of European Management Practice), which aims to judge “to what extent education, research and consulting contribute to the homogenisation of management knowledge from Europe”.

With EU funding, Cranfield University in Bedfordshire is coordinating a survey into “Human Resource Management” and is undertaking research on the “Euro Human Resource Manager” in collaboration with establishments in Germany, Spain and Slovakia. It is seeking to profile the education and training needs of personnel managers and to determine perceptions of future developments in the personnel role. Its Institute for Advanced Marketing counts as its leading sponsor the European Commission.

Surrey University’s Centre for Environmental Strategy, on the other hand, advertises its participation in a project called “Clean Development Mechanism” researching greenhouse gas emissions. This was funded by DGXII of the European Commission and involved six institutions across Europe.
Even the traditional universities are not immune from EU blandishments, with the prestigious Biosciences High Level Group (BHLG) launched by the Commission, boasting three Cambridge scientists amongst its 11 members: Professor Sir Tom Blundell; Prof. Derek Burke; and Prof. Anne McLaren.

The message should be clear to all of us, when an academic paper is presented as being from a Non-partisan and independent unit, then we perhaps ought to take that with a very large pinch of salt.

The EU has created a network of funding possibilities for both teaching and for research which is conditional on there being an EU dimension to the work. If this were not the case then where are all those academic papers suggesting why the UK should leave the EU, why the euro should not replace the pound, why Euroscepticism is a legitimate and honourable political activity, what are the benefits of an English parliament in a devolved Britain.

The English Question
Thanks to the Blog Great Britian not Little England for the link to this report from Publius: The Journal of Federalism by Robert Hazell.

Devolution to Scotland and Wales throws up related questions about the government of
England. Does England need to find its own separate political voice? Does England too need devolution? There is little demand for an English parliament. ‘‘English votes on English laws’’ commands more support but would be impossible to implement in practice. Despite the setback of the Northeast referendum defeat, the future will see further development of regionalism in England. Regional government is the only institutional solution that could help to give England a louder voice and also help to decentralize the government of England. But it is not inevitable. There is no logic in the process of devolution that requires the English to have devolution too.

England is the gaping hole in the devolution settlement. Some argue that devolution will not be complete, and the settlement will not stabilize, until the English Question has been solved. Others believe that England can be left out indefinitely and devolution confined to the Celtic fringe. This article aims to explain the different formulations of the question and to analyse one by one the range of different answers.

The English Question can be divided into the following groups of subquestions:

1. Strengthening England’s place in the Union:
_ Does England need to find its own separate political voice, to rebalance the louder
10 political voice accorded to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland?
_ Could this be supplied by an English parliament, ‘‘English votes on English laws,’’
independence for England?

2. Decentralizing the government of England:
_ Does England too need devolution, to break from the excessive domination of the
15 central government in London?
_ Can this best be supplied by elected regional assemblies, administrative regionalism,
city regions, stronger local government, elected mayors?

3. Continuation of the status quo:
_ Or do the English want none of the above, with no separate representation or
20 political voice, and no share in devolution either?

These questions have come onto the political agenda as a result of devolution to
Scotland and Wales. They are big issues, issues that will determine the future shape
and nature of the United Kingdom as much as the future government of England.

Devolution has already profoundly changed the United Kingdom’s system of
government, but it extends to only 15 percent of the population. England, with
85 percent of the population, for the moment is left out. If the English ever choose to opt in, the choice they make will have huge consequences not only for the government of England but for the whole future of the Union.

As devolution was a top down exercise imposed and assisted by central government, it is wrong to now look for a grass roots movement calling for the English to opt in, the English preferred the status quo that was as part of one union, this union has now been partially dismantled.

This erroneous argument is followed through into the rest of the report; Hazell, it seems is quite happy to accept the results of the governments top down forcing of the issue in Scotland and Wales, but now asks the English people to start a grass roots movement in order for the English people to exhibit a desire for devolution.

Different Versions of the English Question

Improving the Government of England or Strengthening England’s
Place in the Union? The ‘‘purely English’’ version of the English Question asks: How can we improve the government of England? Interest in regionalism as a possible solution goes back to Fawcett (1919) and Cole (1947) (Tomaney, forthcoming). It springs from long- standing concerns about the poor performance of many of England’s regions,especially in the North, and the difficulties faced by central government in finding effective policy instruments and institutions to drive up regional economic
performance. Successive governments, Labour in the 1970s and Conservative in the1980s, had given up on local government as providing the solution because of its lack of political will and lack of effective capacity. More and more functions were
transferred from local government to centrally controlled public bodies, many
operating on a larger scale at regional rather than local level. In 1994 the Conservative government led by John Major took regionalism a step further by bringing together the regional outposts of four central government departments into new government offices for the regions, with common boundaries based on the Treasury’s eight standard regions of the Northeast, Northwest, Yorkshire and Humberside, West
Midlands, East Midlands, East Anglia, Southeast, and Southwest.

English masses show little concern about devolution in Scotland and Wales and no demand for devolution for themselves (Curtice 2001, 2006, forthcoming). In November 2004 that was dramatically confirmed by the ‘‘No’’ vote in the Northeast regional referendum, when the voters in the Northeast region rejected the government’s proposals for an elected regional assembly by four to one, despite strong campaigning by the deputy prime minister in this solidly Labour region.

The rejection of the government’s proposals is not evidence that that there is little concern about the devolution process, rather it is evidence that the governments proposals for regionalisation were unacceptable.

Prof. Hazell offers us some alternative roads forward and looks at the support both in elite circles and in the general public and the likelihood that any of them may be adopted.

An English Parliament which has low support and an English parliament would risk being as overburdened as Westminster and equally remote. More on this later

English votes on English laws which has good support 60% in England and 50% in Scotland which might be because it was Conservative party policy

English independence which has negligible support. Hard to envisage England unilaterally declaring independence from rest of the United Kingdom

Decentralize government of England regional assemblies

Hazell claims this has a 25% support with the public, considering the only area that was allowed a referendum; the NE rejected the proposals by a 4/1 margin I cannot see how this figure can be supported, opinion polling perhaps, but that ignores the NE result which showed the polling to be totally out of touch with the real answer at the referendum. And a point Hazell makes later on the issue of Local mayors.

Administrative regionalism
This is regionalisation by the back door ie. Regional chambers exist, and powers and functions slowly growing and of course is Labour party policy with little public knowledge.

City regions
this has minimal support and apparently need not cover whole of England

Revive local government
Politicians all pay lip service; no party has strong proposals Public seem to share some of national politicians’ mistrust of local government competence

Elected mayors
Low. Very little support among local councillors High in opinion polls, less when tested in local referenda Might also be linked to city regions.

Having posed his questions the professor now attempts to answer them;

An English Parliament
An English parliament would appear to be a neat solution to the fundamental asymmetry in the devolution arrangements. It would create a federation of the four historic nations of the United Kingdom, each with its parliament enjoying significant devolved powers.

But it is one thing to create such a federation, quite another to make it work. The fundamental difficulty is the sheer size of England by comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom. England, with four-fifths of the population, would be hugely dominant.

On most domestic matters the English parliament would be more important than the Westminster parliament. No federation has operated successfully where one of the units is so dominant.

I find these arguments to be less than compelling, of course the English parliament would be more important on domestic issues than Westminster, that is the idea behind devolution in the first place. Is the Scottish parliament not more important than Westminster on domestic issues.

If the size issue is important and means the new federation would not work then how are we to understand the EU were Germany with 82.5 million and France with 59.9 million massively outnumber Malta with 398,534 or Cyprus with 780,133. So how is it that an English parliament would unbalance a proposed UK federation when this does not seem to matter at the EU level.

Professor Hazell does make one good point about an English Parliament here that he seems to dismiss on other points and that is; “Perhaps because of this lack of elite support, mass support for the idea of an English parliament remains low and shows no sign of increasing.” Not only is there no elite political support, but this follows through into the main stream media, there is also no coverage for an English parliament, in fact the only real coverage is for regionalisation regional assemblies.

English Votes on English Laws: Westminster as a Proxy for an English Parliament
In contrast, English votes on English laws is a proposition that does command some
elite support and considerable mass support. Polling data consistently show that
between 50 and 60 percent of people in England agree that Scottish MPs should no
longer be allowed to vote on English laws now that Scotland has its own parliament
It seems only logical and fair, since English MPs can no longer vote on matters devolved to Scotland. Even a majority of Scots support restricting the voting rights of Scottish MPs in this way (Curtice 2001, 234). But the difficulties of implementing such a policy seem insuperable, at both a technical and a political level.

Proffor Hazell says; The technical difficulty is identifying those English laws on which only English MPs would be allowed to vote Strictly speaking there is no such thing as an English law, in the sense of a Westminster statute that applies only to England.

That is a point, however it would be quite feasible to note which particular laws did not apply to Scotland because that power had been devolved to the Scotish parliament.

On the political front Hazell sees even more problems;

“Proponents of English votes on English laws tend to underestimate just what a huge change would be involved. It would create two classes of MP, ending the traditional reciprocity whereby all members can vote on all matters. It would effectively create a parliament within a parliament”

Well yes of course it would be a huge change, but then the problem has been brought about by the devolution process itself a huge change, which has created a problem in that Scottish MPs can vote on proposals which have no affect on their own constituents. So we already have two classes of MP`s those that are accountable and those that are not.

The U.K. government might not be able to command a majority for its English business, leading to great political instability.

I do not see this as a great problem if not enough English MP`s are prepared to vote for a policy that only affects England then that policy fails.

English votes on English laws would suddenly become a critical issue if (as
may happen) after a future election Labour formed a government with a narrow
majority and depended on Scottish and Welsh MPs to get its legislation through.

Well this is exactly the point is it not, if the Labour party has to rely on Scots and Welsh MP`s voting for something that does not affect them then that is also wrong.

Hazlle says that :
The Conservatives have fought two elections on a platform of English votes on English laws (in 2001 and 2005) and have tried to arouse the English. The English have failed to respond. Although opinion polls show majority support for English votes on English laws, it is not a high-salience issue. It would become salient only if the government used the votes of Scottish and Welsh MPs to force controversial or unpopular measures upon the English. Its salience would depend on how the media reported parliamentary votes upon the issue.

This issue was not at the forefront of either of the two elections mentioned, also the labour party is in power at Westminster only because of Scottish and Welsh votes.

Two Other Possible Answers to Votes on English Laws
Reduce the number of Scottish and Welsh MPs to reflect their reduced role at Westminster after devolution and more proportional voting system.

Neither of these options offer an answer to the west Lothian question, they only reduce the affects.

Independence for England
English independence is the third and most extreme institutional solution that would
ensure the English have a louder political voice. If it is impossible to give the English a political voice within the Union, the argument goes, they need to break free from the Union and establish their own English state.

This idea is dismissed out of hand because it has no elite support. However if the idea is to dismantle the UK as a political unit then perhaps support for this option might well be something that will grow in the future, especially if support were to grow for Scottish independence.

If the English Are Denied a Louder Political Voice, Does English Nationalism Need Some Other Outlet?

Identity and institutions mirror each other. Englishness is commingled with Britishness in the English people’s sense of identity and in their political institutions. To combine Englishness with Britishness is not necessarily a sign of confusion. It is a reflection of reality. We cannot readily disentangle Englishness from Britishness in our history or in our institutions. It is better to accept them for what they are, deeply intertwined, and to allow the English to celebrate being English and British. Their political allegiance is to Westminster.

There is a lot in this particular observation, the English as a rule do consider themselves British, the problem is that Britian itself is changing, and it is those forced changes which will put the English in a position of having to choose, would they prove willing to tolerate these political anomalies and suffer rough justice in their parliament, at the hands of the Scots and Welsh MP`s who do not have to face the consequences of their votes in their own constituencies.

The fact that the English consider Westminster as their parliament is very much dependant on that parliament being the “one parliament” for the whole of Britain, that is no longer the case, if the concept is Britishness is to be devalued, as this becomes ever more evident, then the English may well not be relied upon to accept the situation.

Elected Regional Assemblies
At the elite level, elected regional assemblies have been supported by Labour and the
Liberal Democrats but opposed by the Conservatives and by the business community.
Mass support has always been much harder to gauge, with some opinion surveys
suggesting quite high levels of support.

Then in November 2004 came the referendum result in the Northeast. The region
had been chosen by the government as the most likely to vote ‘‘Yes’’ to a regional
assembly because of its strong sense of regional identity, proximity to Scotland,
remoteness from London, and long history as a Labour heartland. Yet the
government’s proposals for an elected regional assembly were decisively rejected by
four to one, on a surprisingly high turnout of 48 percent.

This of course the Governments preferred option and the one that has already been set in motion by the establishments of a system of administrative regionalism. The people of the North East put a spoke in those plans to roll out elected assemblies. But of course this will not stop them passing ever more powers to the regional quangos in the hope that they can point to them in future referendum as being the de facto local government so we will be offered a choice of having elected representation at this level. We are already seeing more moves in this direction with the “restructuring” of police forces and fire Brigades.

Administrative regionalism describes the growing array of unelected government bodies that operate at the regional level. A dense network of policy actors has gradually grown up in each region around the three main pillars of the government office, regional development agency, and regional chamber. The government offices for the regions have become the main regional outposts of central government, with representatives from nine government departments. The regional development agencies have seen big increases in their budgets for economic development since their creation in 1999.

City Regions and Elected Mayors

City regions, sometimes linked to elected mayors, have never quite made it on to the political agenda….. Finally, some of the arguments advanced against city regions are similar to those advanced against regional assemblies: that they are essentially technocratic, of interest to elites not ordinary people, and at best a patchwork solution.

Neither do they answer the major problems caused by devolution.

Strengthening Local Government
The main alternative to regionalism as a policy solution for excessive centralization is to restore powers and functions to local government. Local government has become increasingly the creature of central government. The English structure of local government, with large county councils and smaller districts in rural areas and unitary 30 local authorities in most towns and cities, has been subjected to successive reorganizations since the 1970s that have left it battered and demoralized.

Quite, in its surge toward regional government or the break up of England if you prefer, central government has done everything it can to make life difficult for local government instead of supporting local government it has been steadily denuded of its powers which. There is very little likelihood of this trend changing because to do so would be to offer an alternative to the governments desire to break up England into regions.

Regionalism Remains the Best Answer to the English Question
Regional government in England is the only solution that offers an answer to both
versions of the English Question. It could help to give England a louder voice within
the Union, and it would help to decentralize the government of England. But it could
achieve the first aim, of giving England a louder voice, only if there were elected assemblies with strong powers and functions. The stronger the better. The stronger the powers, the louder would be England’s voice within the Union, because they would be a closer match for the much greater (although varying) powers given to the devolved assemblies in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

Well there is a surprise! I just did not see this coming.

But Regionalism Is Not a Complete Answer
Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have powers to make laws in their devolved
assemblies and substantial executive powers over major public services such as health, education, and local government. English regional assemblies would have had no lawmaking power and no executive powers to speak of. The difference can be seen in
terms of their budgets. T