I get the impression that it's completely defensible to the folks over at Labour. What I don't get is why there is some argument about having MPs fill two roles. Why not just a completely separate English legislature (parliament, whatever) based somewhere else. Birmingham? Manchester? Sheffield?
Sever the Union?
- Thread starter Quackers
- Start date
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
It's a money thing, Mr Sup. I'm pretty sure of it.
Even with devolvedthingies assemblies, you still need Westminster.
And without a grassroots demand for regional assemblies in England, you're never likely to get them, imo. As far as I can tell, there is no real demand for them.
All people really want (and that not much) is Scottish MPs not voting on matters that only concern England, given how many Scots seemed to seriously consider independence.
Even with devolved
And without a grassroots demand for regional assemblies in England, you're never likely to get them, imo. As far as I can tell, there is no real demand for them.
All people really want (and that not much) is Scottish MPs not voting on matters that only concern England, given how many Scots seemed to seriously consider independence.
Yes well, you know the saying. Freedom isn't free!
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
The other issue sup may not be aware of is that an MP only represents 100 and change k souls. There are just way to many of them to be a federal type gov. It really is quite easy to go see your MP. If we introduce another level of gov we need to cull c. 80-90% of the mps.
Or perhaps, only MPs from their country can vote on laws pertaining to them? So, only Scottish MPs in the Commons can vote on Scottish matters, English MPs on English matters, and so on.
That sort of arrangement should be quite easy to arrange.
That sort of arrangement should be quite easy to arrange.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Sounds great in theory, but try getting Labour to amputate themselves. Not gonna happen. Basically this 'solution' means that there is potentially one English governing party and one British governing party in the same parliament. Actually could lead to better government of England, by forcing more working together, but would have lots of knock-on constitutional effects that would have to be resolved first.
How exactly is it defensible?
"Yeah we want to keep the Scottish MPs, who are more likely to come from Labour, to keep on voting on purely English matters. But we don't want to allow English MPs, who are more likely to be Conservative, to vote on purely Scottish matters."
Does that sound defensible to you?
Well no, not to me. I specifically said it's defensible to the folks over at Labour.
Well yeah Labour would like disenfranchise Conservative-leaning voters as much as possible while maximizing the power of Labour-leaning voters. Just like all parties. But from there to actually being able to defend such an absurd position is a long way!
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
My guess is that getting an English parliament would be the nail that seals the coffin of English dreams of grandiosity. They may have lost the Empire, but at least they still rule over those Scots and Welsh and northern Irishmen (sort of). But an own English parliament would make the English not really different to those Scots, Welsh and Irishmen and hence plastically solidify that England is in the end just one of several members of the union and not even the boss of a country like Wales.
The point is that there are no purely Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish matters debated in the Commons, because those countries have their own assemblies.
But right now the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irishmen are more the boss of the English than the other way around.
Mise
isle of lucy
What? No, that's not true at all.
The "simple" solution would be to have a separate English assembly, whose members do not sit in Westminster. Our current MPs then become part-time, only convening on matters that concern the whole country. I doubt that people would want another 400+ elected politicians ruining the country in our name, though.
Well they get a say on purely English matters while the English don't get a say on matters that purely concern them. Otherwise they have equal rights. So they're more politically powerful than the English. What is wrong with this line of thinking?
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Well, not much. The only thing that's apparent to me is the overwhelming majority of the British population is English, or rather living in England. So, I don't think it's very significant that the Welsh, Scots, and Irish have "a bit" of a say. Although it's true that they do, at the moment.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Which brings us back to the good old question. What constitutes for "English"?
In practice, though, control of the House of Commons rests with the government, and the election of the government rests entirely (if not Labour) or mostly (if Labour) with the English.
Similar threads
