Should England Have It's Own Parliament?

  • Little Wing replied in the original forum to this topic and said this:


    Yes, England should have its own Parliament. For starters ...

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I then replied in the original forum to this topic and said this:


    When Cameron announced about the "English votes for English laws" change, I was surprised by the SNP reaction in particular. They, the SNP want a separate country, whereas all that was proposed was non-English MPs couldn't veto, have the final vote on a English only law. Seemed pretty reasonable to me.


    What some have warned though and it was John Major who said it when devolved parliaments were originally mooted in the 90s, is that first you have de-volvement, then federal, then separation.


    Looks like we may be going down that path...

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • To which Little Wing then replied in the original forum to this topic and said this:


    H, I am for independent countries. I was an activist for a free England and I helped the then Free England Party all I could to campaign for one.


    Just so you know where I'm coming from.



    Brexit is the first step in independence from the EU. The second step is to take care of one's own people.


    I think this prospect is new to certain factions from outside of western ethnicities and this might explain the aggro you're all getting from those whose noses might be severely out of joint at the idea, and the reality, that Europeans also have ethnicity and heritage. This has been shoved aside by globalists for so long that large numbers of people actually believe that the west is just one large, nasty collective of "white" people with no souls, so significance and no rights. Every other ethnicity is painstakingly worried over and given special rights and privileges, many are given back ancestral land, plenty are being settled on native European land and no one dare say non-Europeans have no status as ethnic groups with human rights. Only "whites" seem to be victims of this unfortunate fantasy. (It's also just a plain old fashioned lie, but that might be a bit strongly worded for delicate multicultural sensitivities, if that isn't in itself a gross hypocrisy.)


    So, we were bashed to hell and gone for raising a hat on a stick above that parapet. But I believe those of us chased off by trolls from the other political axis were pioneers in this field and that soon it will become apparent that Europeans are not one big polyglot of beigeness to be used or abused any way special interest groups may see fit. Europeans are entitled to heritage in the same way others are entitled to theirs.


    If that cannot be comprehended by certain factions then it is those factions that need to wake up to reality. No more bashing people with the very club that is used to gain support for themselves.


    Views like this often cause enormous flatulence in the halls of the status quo, complete with the usual accusations of "bigotry" etc. so this is just my opinion here. Shared by many others.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I then replied to Little Wing's post in the original forum to this topic and said this:


    I'm for independent countries too, I already live in one! But, which one?


    I was born into a country called Great Britain (for short). The countries' flag is red, white and blue. Up until Tony Blair, I had never heard any talk of anything other than Britain. Then devolvement came and it was around Euro '90, that English flags started to appear everywhere. I had never seen English flags flown on such a wide scale before instead of British flags.


    Fast forward 26 years, Scottish nationalists are in power in their own parliament. Welsh nationalists are trying to implement Welsh nationalist laws, especially forcing Welsh schools to teach Welsh.


    We're meant to be one people....


    If we have different parliaments. If we have different laws. If we have different languages. How can we be one country anymore regardless of what the SNP do, or, don't do?

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Little Wing then replied in the original forum to this topic and said this:


    I suspect that the United Kingdom has always been basically a set of muzzles on ancient ethnic hostilities. In every country where these have boiled over you'll find the same underlying stresses. Even America is far too large for a single entity.


    Imperialism creates these and ethnic aggro tries to defeat them. I think it's related to human nature and our need to help the groups to which we belong survive the implosion of a "no boundaries" scenario. There is no such thing in nature, so humans are possibly stretching the limits with this squishing together of groups who don't really like one another at such close quarters.


    Alliances have always been useful and humans will ally themselves with those most like them first and when they ally themselves with others who are not like them there will be an agreed reason for it and these will be classed as "good folk" or "friends". Not blood, but friends. Blood is a bond shared between those most like one another.


    Put mass immigration of totally foreign ethnicities into an already pretty hostile mix and watch the fireworks!


    Too late now to return to the past. What to do? Some will say legislate against those who want their liberty and independence and punish those who dissent. Offer a universal creed in the form of a religion or an ideology to force vast numbers of different people to feel connected through this. For success, invent an enemy of the ideology or cult so that the chosen group will stay together and fight the imposed enemy. Foster hatred. Indulge the obedient. Reward those who worship at the shrine of whatever floats the boat of the elite, who are only interested in enriching themselves and in the power to do so. Invent special relationships that create allies for warfare in order to keep large groups together.


    What to do against this? Recreate folk groups and independent countries. Resurrect cultures that have been suppressed by universalism. Create diversity and shun monoculture. Make friends with whomever you like. Keep your enemies at arm's length and shut your ears to their threats. What is that called? Nationalism.


    The one word that sends universalists running for their swords and their bombers and their soldier pawns. Must fight diversity wherever it raises its ugly bigoted head. Must pretend monoculture and one world is diversity. How to do this?


    Turn ancient saying on its head: Instead of saying "Unity is strength" start saying, "Diversity is strength". Result? People all listen to one or two media outlets so they all start thinking that the monoculture they are being fed morning, noon and night is really vibrant diversity and anyone wanting to be him or herself is an enemy bigot. Diversity is strength!


    This is evil. They aren't promoting true diversity anywhere and they are instead pushing for no borders and one world, one folk and one world government. They are so much like the icon of their hatred that one should really stop a while and consider where they got all their ideas from.


    However, if you can silence a few dissident voices who mention the nakedness of the Emperor and you can condemn them as "insane" and in some instances have them committed, or send out a squad of flunkies who will spread disinformation about them and what they say, you can spend another stretch in the Kremlin or the Forbidden City or any other Palace of once absolute rulers and no one will think you have usurped them to do the very same thing to the people that the once hated monarchs did in their absolute rule.


    This is why bad things happen to good people. Good people aren't thinking straight. Good people are vulnerable to big lies..

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Heero Yuy then replied in the original forum to this topic and said this:


    I think that with increasing devolution of powers that an English Parliament is the logical outcome. Allowing the SNP to produce a majority for laws that only affect England is IMHO a travesty.


    The UK can still be a looser federation unless the SNP really want to go it alone and try to get back into the EU. (Good luck to them) Indeed if the EU starts to disintegrate then the UK may well find a friend in the republic of Eire as a more united bloc.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • And finally I replied to Heero in the original forum to this topic and said this:


    But the problem with going down a federal route is that England would still be the largest and most powerful part of that federation, so in effect could still do what it wanted.


    If the Scots want a independent country because they don't want to be dominated by England, a federal state is unworkable. Most countries which are federal have states are roughly equal in size or in population, or, they have many states like America.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I'm an advocate of a federal UK. I support plans by Lord Salisbury creating a new Act of the Union which effectively turns the UK into a federation.

    http://www.constitutionreformg…CRG-Act-of-Union-Bill.pdf


    What you have effectively is a UK Houses of Parliament with an English Parliament, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly.


    The creation of a new English Parliament I think is overdue, many think it is unworkable but I don't see how it can be any worse than the current system. Have a 533 member Parliament elected under STV with the metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties acting as multi-member constituencies. Maybe have a bicameral Parliament with a 533 member House of Reps and a 90 member Senate with the 9 English regions electing 5 Senators each every five years who 10 year terms.


    In addition you rename the National Assembly for Wales to the Welsh Parliament with Wales having their own legal system and own High Court.


    The Federal UK Houses of Parliament which have full sovereignty over the following listed in the Act of the Union bill:


    1. The Crown.

    Note 1: This paragraph includes—

    (a) succession to the Crown; and

    (b) regency.

    Note 2: This paragraph does not—

    (a) prevent an Act of a national Parliament, or an instrument made under an Act of a national Parliament, from making provision about application to the Crown, to Crown land, to the Duchy of Cornwall or to the Duchy of Lancaster;

    (b) include Her Majesty’s prerogative and other executive functions of

    government; or

    (c) include Crown property

    2. The United Kingdom.

    Note: This paragraph includes—

    (a) the provisions of this Act; and

    (b) the constitutional structure of the United Kingdom, including the

    relationship between its constituent units.

    Explanatory Note: Before introducing this Bill for enactment it will be necessary to consult on how much of the detailed provisions about hereditary revenues and similar matters, addressed by paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, requires to be replicated in this paragraph.

    3. Parliament.

    Note: This paragraph includes—

    (a) elections to Parliament;

    (b) the practices and procedure of Parliament;

    (c) Parliamentary privilege.

    4. The following Acts—

    (a) the Scotland Acts 1998 and 2016;

    (b) the Government of Wales Acts 1998, 2006 [and 2016];

    (c) the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

    5. Ministers of the Crown.

    Note 1: This paragraph includes—

    (a) appointment of Ministers of the Crown;

    (b) codes of practice and conduct governing the behaviour of Ministers of the Crown.

    Note 2: This paragraph does not prevent an Act of a national Parliament, or an instrument made under an Act of a national Parliament, from conferring functions on,

    or altering or removing functions of, Ministers of the Crown (where there is legislative competence to do so).

    Foreign affairs

    6. Foreign affairs.

    Note: This paragraph includes—

    (a) diplomatic and other relations with foreign countries;

    (b) consular matters.

    7. International treaties and conventions.

    Note: This paragraph does not include implementing, enforcing and complying with treaties and conventions once entered into.

    8. Membership of the European Union.

    Note: This paragraph does not include implementing, enforcing and complying with obligations of European Union law.

    9. The European Economic Area.

    Note: This paragraph does not include implementing, enforcing and complying with obligations of the European Economic Area.

    10. Defence.

    Note: This paragraph includes—

    (a) defence of the realm;

    (b) the naval, military and air forces of the Crown, including reserve forces;

    (c) visiting forces;

    (d) international headquarters and defence organisations;

    (e) war (including the law of war).

    11. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

    Rights

    12. Human Rights Act 1998

    Economic affairs

    13. Central Bank functions.

    Note: This paragraph includes—

    (a) Bank UK;

    (b) the exchange rate with non-UK currencies;

    (c) the issue and circulation of money; and

    (d) all functions conferred on Bank UK by Part 8 of this Act.

    14. Monetary policy.

    Note: This paragraph includes all functions conferred on Bank UK by Part 8 of this Act.

    15. Government borrowing.

    Note: This paragraph includes—

    (a) borrowing by the government of the United Kingdom;

    (b) borrowing by non-central governments in accordance with Part 8 of this Act; and

    (c) the provisions of Part 8 of this Act referring to borrowing.

    16. Currency.

    Note: This paragraph includes—

    (a) coinage;

    (b) bank notes;

    (c) legal tender.

    17. Regulation of financial services.

    Taxation

    18. The central taxes listed in section 8.B.1 (as amended by Finance Act from time to time).

    (a) income tax

    (b) corporation tax

    (c) inheritance tax

    (d) VAT

    Law and order

    19. The Supreme Court.

    Note 1: This paragraph includes—

    (a) the appointment and tenure of judges; and

    (b) practice and procedure.

    Note 2: This paragraph does not prevent an Act of a national Parliament, or an instrument made under an Act of a national Parliament, from making provision—

    (a) conferring jurisdiction on the Supreme Court (directly or indirectly);

    (b) removing or altering jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court by or under an Act of that legislature, or by an instrument made by the relevant regional Government.

    20. National security.

    Note: This paragraph includes—

    (a) terrorism (including cyber-terrorism);

    (b) treason.

    Home affairs

    21. Nationality.

    Note: This paragraph includes the acquisition of national statuses by naturalisation or otherwise.

    22. Immigration.

    Note: This paragraph includes—

    (a) the Immigration Rules (under section 1 of the Immigration Act 1971);

    (b) temporary immigration;

    (c) deportation;

    (d) visas and other entry requirements;

    (e) issue of passports and other travel documents.

    23. Extradition.

    24. Emergency powers.

    Public service

    25. The Civil Service.

    Note 1: This paragraph includes—

    (a) appointments to the Civil Service;

    (b) other matters of practice and procedure and administration of the Civil Service;

    (c) codes of practice and conduct governing the behaviour of the Civil Service;

    (d) disciplinary procedures in the Civil Service;

    (e) the relationship between the Civil Service and the national Parliaments and governments.

    Note 2: This paragraph does not prevent an Act of a national Parliament, or an instrument made under an Act of a national Parliament, from conferring functions on, or altering or removing functions of, officials of the Civil Service.

    26. Political parties.

    Note 1: This paragraph includes legislation about the regulation and funding of political parties.

    Note 2: This paragraph does not—

    (a) prevent an Act of a national Parliament, or an instrument made under an Act of a national Parliament, from referring to membership of political parties (for example, in requiring parties to be consulted or represented for specified purposes); or

    (b) prevent a national Parliament from making arrangements to make

    payments to members of political parties, or to political parties, in

    connection with the performance of national Parliamentary duties



    The four devolved Parliaments would be able to legislate over everything else, for example, the Scottish Parliament would be able to have it's own minimum wage, provided it isn't lower than the UK one. Any issues that seriously result in clashes with Federal and National (English, Scottish, Welsh, NI) governments can be disputed at the UK Supreme Court.


    England may be the most powerful but an English Parliament wouldn't be able to legislate on Scottish, Welsh or NI affairs and vice versa. Have the UK Parliament mainly legislate over the 26 powers listed above as well as sharing responsibility of regulating businesses, medicine, dentistry, railways (ones that cross borders) etc similar to how the EU regulates the EU economy. I think it would be good and I think we will also see a reducement in nationalism as Scotland, Wales and NI would have a lot more power over their own affairs and England will no longer have to fear of non-English MPs voting on England only issues.

  • Great first post, Creme Eggs.:thumbup::thumbup:


    When the SNP have argued in the past against devo-max in favour of full independence for Scotland, is that if a UK parliament retains control of key taxes like income tax and corporation tax, that, in effect, despite devolved powers, controls what the other parts of UK like Scotland can spend on things like education and health.


    I assume more powers will be devolved to Scotland, so although it might not be called a federal state, in some respects it will be. But other countries with "proper" states like America and Germany do control local taxes, they just have an extra layer of federal taxes on top.


    I think this all come down to money. Who pays what and how the money is controlled? Looking at that link, it talks about distribution of money using a system sounding very similar to the Barnet Formula that we have now. I'm not sure such a system would be sustainable under a federal system. Why should Scots get more per head than the English, as is the current system, under the "new" federal system?


    Plus, an equal number of appointments from the "states" will be on a new funding committee, but the revenues that these people oversea, will not be equal. England will always pay more than anyone else, due to its far greater population, so why should there be equal representation on this committee?


    I can't see else anything wrong with the list you posted, and we do appear to be moving in that direction, but I don't really see how a federal state can work. The four states are not equal and never will be.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I totally support it , it really should have people on the streets demanding it , the fact that it would be a Conservative run government is the only reason I can think that we are denied democracy.

  • Thanks for your reply.


    I think you raise a good case about the Finance/funding Committee (or whatever it's called). I'm personally not that bothered whether we would have that or not as I don't think it is necessary but I wouldn't worry much about it as to me it's just each nation having three MPs voicing opinions on central finance, the Govt and Chancellor make the last call, it's not like it's a Senate where the four nations have the same amount of reps, get a vote and the Chancellor must obey orders. They just state their feelings on behalf of their home nation. It would just be them recommending things like federal/central funds for schools in poorer areas across the UK and such and then the Chancellor makes the final call.


    And the funding system he purposed seemed to be that it would be based on a mixture of per capita (e.g per person getting lets say £6000 each, wouldn't be that exactly) and then something like the US and EU do with having additional "federal" funds/spending for things like poorer schools, universities, cultural things, rural economies, farms etc funds that would be given to devolved Parliaments/local authority areas to be used for certain things. The devolved Parliaments would control all other taxes so to have additional rates of income tax like Scotland has, excise duties etc.

  • I still think the funding would be the main sticky issue and it just sounds like a renamed Barnet forumua to me. English MPs, like they are increasingly saying, would cry that if Scotland wants more money per head because of demographics or higher poverty, then it should provide it itself.


    I think the cost of Scotland becoming independent both in financial, security and other reasons would be so severe, that MPs could be persuaded to go down the federal route if the question of Scottish independence were to raise its head again, but I don't see any immediate appetite to change the constitution to the extent of having a federal country.


    I've only skimmed the link you provided, but is there a clause for a full separation of one of the "states" or any clauses in there as to what happens if one state does declare independence. Thinking of the situation in Spain today.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment.