Brexit and Proportional Representation

As I mentioned in my previous post, I believe that the main reason for the impasse we have arrived at in regards to the Brexit situation is Teresa May’s conviction that she has to deliver a Brexit that matches what she (rightly or wrongly) perceives to be the expectations of the majority of Brexit voters (ie. an end to Freedom of Movement and a withdrawal from the Single Market and customs union or, as she often puts it, “taking back control of our borders, our money and our laws”), rather than trying to find a compromise solution that honours the referendum result while taking into account the wishes of the majority of voters from both sides of the debate (eg. leaving the EU while remaining in the Single Market and customs union – the so called Norway option).
I believe this was a fundamental mistake on her part, but it is possible that it stems from the nature of our electoral system itself. We are used to a First Past the Post system of elections in which the winning side has complete power to implement it’s agenda. So a concern to establish, and act in accordance with, the views of the majority of the majority (rather than simply the majority of the electorate) on specific issues, comes naturally to a politician who is used to working within the First Past the Post paradigm.
This type of of ‘winner takes all’ mentality would, perhaps, be less likely to afflict politicians used to working within a system based on proportional representation, which is yet another argument for introducing PR for UK general elections, something that I have previously argued for on this blog.

We must have a second referendum

I've not posted on this blog for ages, as I became very busy finishing off the MA in History that I was studying via distance learning. Now that is finished, and we are facing probably the most tumultuous few weeks in British politics since the second World war, I feel I ought to post something about Brexit, starting with the political events of the last few days.
Last week, various parliamentarians, including the Speaker, Jon Berkow, were accused by elements in the media, as well as many on social media, of hatching a coup to thwart the "will of the people", when the Speaker allowed an amendment to be added to the government's finance bill which would force the government to come back to parliament within three working days, in the event of Teresa May's withdrawal agreement being defeated, with a statement about how they now wished to proceed. This accusation was utter nonsense. In a matter of such vital importance, it was quite right for the speaker to allow parliament (which represents the whole country) to put some pressure on the government (which, being a minority government, represents less than half of the electorate). During the referendum campaign, many brexiters opined that parliamentary sovereignty was the very thing which they felt was threatened by the UK's membership of the European Union, so it is hard to see why they would complain about parliament trying to exercise some kind of check over the executive in these circumstances. (Some brexiters even called this an unprecedented seizure of power by the legislature over the executive. I would suggest that Charles I, were he still around to comment, might not agree with them on that.)
Last night Teresa May's withdrawal agreement Bill was defeated, by 432 votes to 202, the largest defeat for any government in parliamentary history. Jeremy Corbyn has tabled a vote of no confidence in the government, which will be debated and then voted on today, although the government is expected to survive thanks to the support of the DUP. After last night's defeat, Mrs May said that she would reach out to other senior parliamentarians across the house to try to find out whether there was some form of deal that could be supported by a majority in the house, which could then be put to the the European Union.
However, in this afternoon's Prime Minister's Questions, she stated that any new deal must involve an end to freedom of movement. This shows that she is either in total denial, or is being completely insincere in her offer to listen to other parties. The EU have made it very clear that the current deal is the only possible deal on offer if the UK insists on leaving the single market and customs union, and there is no way that Britain would be allowed to stay in those institutions if it does not accept freedom of movement.
For the past two years, Mrs May has let herself be guided by the misguided notion that it is her duty to take Britain out of the single market, out of the customs union, and to end freedom of movement, because, apparently, that was what most leave voters wanted when they cast their vote to leave the EU. This was a fundamental mistake because, as I argued in this post shortly after the referendum, even though many Brexit voters may have been opponents of immigration, the fact that the leave vote was only 52% means that the anti-immigrant brexiters were undoubtedly only a minority of the those who actually took part in the referendum. There is, therefore, no mandate for insisting on an end to freedom of movement or membership of the single market or customs union. Mrs May's inability to see this could potentially lead this country to disaster.
There has been talk recently of a move within parliament to come together around a Norway style deal (something I argued for in the post just referenced), but if Mrs May is intransigent on this then there is no real possibility of it coming to fruition. If she survives today's no confidence vote, then we are left with only two options. Either a 'no deal' Brexit, which almost all forecasters say would be disastrous for the country, or no Brexit at all. Until a few weeks ago, I was opposed to the idea of a second referendum, but since these seem now to be the only two options (unless, against all predictions, today's no confidence motion succeeds) I have now become a supporter. I do not believe that there has ever been a majority for a 'no deal' Brexit. Indeed, the latest polling indicates that staying in the EU is now the "will of the people". It would, in fact, be an affront to democracy if the government were to take us out of the European Union with no deal, without first checking if that was what the majority of the British people wanted.

Has Brexit brought a united Ireland closer?

According to Wikipedia the population of Northern Ireland is 45.6% protestant and 40.2% Roman Catholic. I realise that not all protestants are unionists and not all Catholics are nationalists, but the history of each of those two communities is deeply intertwined with those respective political traditions. An Ipsos MORI poll in 2013 found that 38% of Catholics wanted Northern Ireland to remain a part of the United Kingdom, compared to 35% who supported a united Ireland.
In the EU referendum, the electorate in Northern Ireland voted by 56% to 44% to remain in the European Union.
In Thurday's Northern Ireland assembly elections, the results of which were announced last night and in which the turnout was 65% compared to only 54% last year, the Democratic Unionist Party's majority over Sinn Fein was reduced from ten seats to only one seat, with Sinn Fein's over all vote increased by 4%.
I don't live in Northern Ireland and neither am I particularly informed about Northern Ireland politics but, taking the above facts into account, I can't help but wonder whether the looming 'hard Brexit' has made the prospect of a United Ireland (and hence the six counties that currently comprise Northern Ireland being able to stay in the EU) more palatable to voters, particularly those from among that 38% of Roman Catholics who, in 2013, supported remaining a part of the United Kingdom. In other words, could it be that the UK vote to leave the European Union has brought the prospect of a United Ireland a lot closer than it was before June 23rd 2016.

My thoughts on A.C. Grayling's letter to Parliament

A friend today drew my attention to this article by the philosopher A.C. Grayling. Below are my comments on the article:

Interesting article but I would want to question a few of Prof Grayling's premises, eg.
1) Is membership of the EU actually a term of the UK constitution (such that we have one)?
2) Should the judgement of elected representatives be given superior weight over that of ordinary citizens even when those citizens have had months to independently study the relevant facts? If so, what does this imply about the intellectual capabilities of 'ordinary people'?
3) The fact that a majority of the electorate didn't vote for Brexit is a good point but people have a right to abstain from taking part in the decision making process and to trust those with stronger views to make the decision on their behalf. Does this really invalidate the decision of the majority of those who did vote?

I did not want our country to leave the European Union but, now that the majority have voted to do so, I think that to ignore their wishes would set a dangerous and highly divisive precedent. Far better, in my opinion, to try for a post-EU deal that sees the UK retain free movement and membership of the single market, thus keeping the best aspects of EU membership while assuaging the concerns about sovereignty held by many of those who voted to leave.

A possible way forward for our divided country

Here's my humble suggestion for a possible way forward for our rather bruised and divided country post-referendum: With the tory brexiters apparently rowing back (at least a bit) from the pre-referendum anti-immigrant rhetoric (and the, admittedly remote, possibility that the tories might not even be in power in a few months) it seems very possible that we could end up with the so-called 'Norway Option' - membership of the European Economic Area (EEA), which is basically the single market, without full membership of the EU. Rather than agitating for a 2nd referendum or for the government to simply ignore the referendum result - which will only lead to further division and bitterness - perhaps the best thing would be for those who voted remain and those who voted leave (apart from those whose leave vote was purely motivated by anti-immigrant feeling which - Jeremy Kyle-esque news interviews with white van drivers in pie and mash shops notwithstanding - is undoubtedly nowhere near all of them) to push for EEA membership as a compromise. Remain voters would surely be pleased that we would get to retain the EU's 'four freedoms' (freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and people) - at least to the same extent that the remaining 27 EU member states do - and those on both sides of the divide with concerns about sovereignty or the so-called 'democratic deficit' would surely be pleased by the fact that the UK would no longer be under the direct jurisdiction of Brussels. True, we would no longer have a vote in the Council of Ministers and we would have no MEPs, but we would undoubtedly still have a pretty significant influence over EU policy due to the size of our population and (once it gets back on its feet) our economy. Those who are obsessed with keeping immigrants out of the UK would not be happy but, considering the leave vote was only 52%, such people are without doubt only a minority of the electorate. I would, therefore, argue that the referendum result does not have to be interpreted as a mandate to reject freedom of movement.

The EU is no threat to UK sovereignty

Here's another analogy about the European Union and sovereignty.

Many people would argue that, in a representative democracy, sovereignty ultimately lies with the people (at least with that part of the people that comprise the electorate). Yet the people do not directly formulate every policy that a national government introduces, nor do they get to vote on every piece of legislation that is proposed in a national parliament. However, if a significant number of constituents are unhappy with the way their government is operating, the latter must take notice of that because otherwise they run the risk of being voted out at the next election, when the people exercise their sovereignty in its most direct sense. When the election comes, if the people are still not happy, the government will fall.
Likewise, the UK electorate do not get to formulate EU law or to vote in the European Parliament. But if a majority of us are happy with the broad sweep of current EU law then we will, democratically, choose to remain a part of the European Union, much like an individual in the UK voting for a political party, whose manifesto she is in general agreement with, to form the domestic government. Similarly, if enough of us are unhappy with the consequences of EU membership, we will democratically elect to leave, either in the upcoming referendum or at some point in the future (as I pointed out in Chapter 1, there is no reason why there can't be another referendum on EU membership in the future - if enough people want one, they will elect a government that offers one), in much the same way that people will vote to depose a domestic government with which they are unhappy.
The foregoing analogy shows that, no matter how democratic or otherwise the internal institutions of the European Union may be, the UK's membership of the EU is no more of a threat to popular sovereignty than is our own national system of representative democracy.

Another analogy about the EU and the 'sovereignty issue'

If I decide to give up going to work, I'll have a lot more personal sovereignty - I'll be able to decide for myself, without any outside interference, exactly what I'm going to do with my time all day long, seven days a week. The downside, though, is that the company I currently work for will undoubtedly cease to pay my wages and that would be something of a disaster for me, since I would no longer be able to pay my rent or even afford to eat. So I suppose I had better carry on going to work, while maybe agitating for better terms and conditions - and, of course, should the time ever come when the benefits of going to work are no longer sufficiently appealing to outweigh the attraction of being able to do my own thing all day long, then I know I will be free to simply hand in my resignation and walk off the job. If that were not the case then I would be no more than a slave.
Similarly, were the UK to leave the European Union, it would notionally regain a certain amount of sovereignty but it would lose the undoubted benefits of full access to the single market (unless it agreed to obey nearly all of the EU's rules - although now with a much reduced say over what form those rules take). However, should the time ever come when the benefits of participation in the single market are no longer considered by the UK public to be worth the price of having to adhere to EU legislation then the country will be free to exercise its ultimate sovereignty and leave the European Union - because that Union is, in the end, a freely made, democratically mandated one and not some kind of old style Empire which forcibly denies independence to its constituent nations.

Brussels hold 'em

Essentially, my view on the question of whether or not the United Kingdom should remain in the European Union boils down to this: at present, there are no significant EU laws that I strongly disagree with. Should that situation change and the EU introduce legislation that I consider bad enough that it is not worth the benefits of EU membership (eg. direct access to the single market) then I will not hesitate to switch sides on the issue and go back to being opposed to UK membership of the EU.
The other day I heard someone on the radio point out that, were the UK to leave the European Union it would probably be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to rejoin; whereas if we remain in the EU for now, we can always leave at a later date if need be. I totally agree with that analysis.
To put my view as succinctly as possible, for anyone familiar with the rules of poker - why fold when you could simply check?

EFTA/EEA (or, can we afjord to take the 'Norway Option'?)

In a previous post I explained how, from initially holding quite strongly Eurosceptic views, I had come to believe that membership of the European Union does not, so long as the UK is free to leave the EU at any time should it so wish, represent a diminution of the overall sovereignty of the Westminster parliament. It merely involves a pooling of sovereignty in specific areas of policy in order to facilitate a sovereign decision to be part of a 'club' which brings with it the benefits of free trade within a single market.
Recently, however, I have been looking into the possible arrangements being put forward by those campaigning to leave the EU. One such option is for the UK to apply to become a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and so continue to trade within the European Economic Area (EEA). I have to confess that until fairly recently, although I was aware of the existence of EFTA and the EEA, I did not know much about how they worked, or, to be honest, which countries were involved.
I now know that the EEA countries - Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein - while not being members of the EU, have an agreement which allows them pretty much full access to the single market. In return they are obliged to mirror most EU legislation, including the requirement for freedom of movement for EU citizens. If this option were on the table at the referendum as the form that a 'Brexit' would take, I can see that it might be very tempting for those like myself (and, I believe, a large proportion of the UK electorate) who are in favour of the single market and open borders within Europe but wary of the more political aspects of the EU and of the concept of 'ever closer union'. (As things stand, most ‘leave’ campaigners seem to be of the view that the UK should negotiate its own specific trade arrangements with the EU rather than take advantage of the existing arrangements within EFTA and the EEA.)
However, as far as I can see, the only real advangtage of trading with Europe through the EEA would be that the UK would retain the ability to negotiate its own Free Trade Agreements with other countries - a role that it currently has to leave in the hands of EU trade negotiators. And some might say that this is not an advantage at all, considering the number of seperate trade deals that the UK would have to negotiate from scratch. There are a few aspects of EU law that we would not be required to implement but, it seems to me, the only particularly significant opt out is the fact that EFTA countries are not part of the Common Agricultural Policy or the Common Fisheries Policy. (I must admit that, as a former Londoner who now lives in the Home Counties, about as far from the sea as it's possible to be in Britain, I really don't have much experience of farming or fishing although I understand that there are both advantages and disadvantages to EU membership for those engaged in these industries.)
The downside of EEA membership is that, although EEA countries are consulted about potential new EU legislation, they do not have a 'seat at the table' when such legislation is made. As one country in 28, the amount of clout that the UK has when it comes to decisions about the final form of new EU laws and directives is debatable but as one of the more economically powerful of the EU countries and with the financial importance that the city of London has, I suspect our influence is very significant. There is no doubt that there is always a danger of increasing centralisation with a supranational body like the EU. There is a kind of gravitational pull exercised by larger political entities over smaller ones, where the powers of the latter are always in danger of being sucked up and taken over by the former. However, to attempt to address this problem by leaving the club is not, in my opinion, the appropriate solution. As we have seen, unless we want to do serious damage to our economy by excluding ourselves from the single market, we will still have to abide by most EU laws whether we are members or not. The best way to ensure that the principle of subsidiarity is adhered to and that the EU does not encroach on areas that are best left to national governments is to foster a strong culture of democratic engagement amongst domestic populations, so that national governments know exactly how much power their home electorates will tolerate being ceded to Brussels and that they will be punished at the ballot box if they do not stand up to the EU where necessary. Without a strong democratic culture, it makes little difference whether we are in or out of either the EU, EFTA or any other political organisation - economic and political elites will have a free hand to act as they wish without any fear of being held to account.

EU thought experiment

Imagine that the European Union does not exist, and never has done (a nightmare scenario for some, a beautiful dream for others!) Now imagine that another country (let's say Switzerland, for example) offered to pay the United Kingdom £70 billion per year on condition that we copied all of Switzerland's laws and implemented them into UK law - but only in certain fields (say, human rights, health and safety, immigration, employment rights and VAT) and that, following a referendum, the UK agreed to enter into such an arrangement, on the understanding that our parliament could vote to break off this arrangement at any time.
Now, it is perfectly possible that a majority of people in the country might not like one - or even all - of the laws made for us by Switzerland but still choose to retain the arrangement in order to receive the £70 billion annual payoff. And it is equally possible that a majority could decide that the Swiss-made laws were too onerous and no longer worth the money, in which case they would elect a government to take us out of the arrangement with Switzerland.
The point of this analogy is not to argue that the UK benefits financially from the EU (although I am pretty confident that it does, through the single market and its associated advantages) but to show that at no point in the scenario described above, whether the UK public like or dislike the legislation imposed on them by Switzerland, whether choosing to retain or abandon the arrangement with Switzerland, does the Westminster parliament cease to be the sovereign decision-making authority for the UK and at no point does democracy cease to operate or the will of the UK electorate cease to be implemented.
What this shows is that by 'contracting out' some legislative powers to the European Union, the ultimate sovereignty of the UK parliament in Westminster is in no way negated or diminished.

This week I am mostly voting to remain in the European Union

I used to be very opposed to the UK’s membership of the European Union for reasons that I outlined in this post back in May 2013. However, over the last couple of years I have become more sympathetic towards the EU and, as things stand, I intend to vote to remain within the European Union when the referendum on UK membership takes place on 23rd June this year.
In the post linked to above, I gave two main reasons for being opposed to the European Union: Firstly, its size, and the concomitant diminution of my power as a voter (as well as the fact that the size of a government may be inversely proportionate to its efficiency of operation and may also make it more liable to 'capture' by corporate interests which are more capable of lobbying etc. compared to members of the public, for whom a continent wide government seems - and in many ways is - distant and remote). I still think this is a problem, and national governments should, in my opinion, work hard to push back against the inevitable gravitational pull of a large, centralised EU and try to make sure that only those powers which are relevant to the continent as a whole are retained by that institution. However, one of the big issues of our time is the increasing power of transnational corporations and the best chance that people have for holding these institutions to account is through a continent wide approach. The EU population (and therefore the number of consumers in the market) is nearly eight times larger than that of the UK. This means that the EU has eight times the bargaining power (and eight times the clout) of the UK when it comes to negotiating with - and regulating and taxing - the financial powers that be. Also, a united front among European countries when it comes to minimum levels of taxation, health and safety standards and workers' rights is the best way to prevent a race to the bottom as individual countries fight to retain profitable businesses within their own borders. At one time it may have been possible for governments to provide public services by taxing workers’ incomes in order to pay for them. However, over the last 30 years, an increasingly high percentage of the profits of industry and commerce has gone to owners and shareholders as opposed to workers, which means that in order to continue to provide good quality services it will increasingly be necessary for governments to be able to tax companies’ profits at a reasonable level. At a time when the power of corporations is growing, then, transnational unity among governments is surely a rational response.
The second reason I gave for being against the EU was the fact that there is no common language for Europe, which limits the possibilities for continent-wide public debate, so making it harder for the EU electorate to hold the EU institutions to account. I still think this is an issue, but a far less serious one than I used to think. This is because, as long as the UK parliament is the sovereign body in this country, then there is no actual threat to democracy from the EU. If we, as a country, choose to pool some of our sovereignty with other European countries then that is a decision that has been democratically arrived at through our own national institutions and one that we could reverse at any time - again through our own democratic institutions - should we, as a national electorate, so wish. Notwithstanding the fact that George Osborne recently described the upcoming referendum as settling the question of the UK's EU membership (or non-membership) for 'a generation' (and I have heard other politicians describe it as settling the question 'once and for all'), the fact is that even if the forthcoming referendum results in the UK remaining in the EU, should a majority of the UK public decide at any point in the future that it wishes to leave then there is nothing to stop it from voting in a government which would take the country out of the EU. What I am trying to get at is that it is okay to 'outsource' some of the functions of government to an institution which is perhaps less than optimally democratic, provided the decision so to do is arrived at democratically and that there are democratic procedures in place for reversing that decision. (To put it bluntly, if the United Kingdom’s domestic political system is sufficiently democratic that the ‘public will’ is reflected in government policy, then should the majority of the UK electorate at any given time wish to leave the European Union, the government will respond accordingly and implement that wish. In such circumstances, membership of the EU cannot be construed as any kind of threat to the sovereignty or self-determination of the UK and its citizens. However, if the UK’s domestic political system is not sufficiently democratic that the ‘public will’ is reflected in government policy, then to leave the EU with the intention of returning to a more democratic, responsive and popular form of government would be an exercise in fantasy and futility.) Incidentally, I think it is this non-compulsory aspect of EU membership that differentiates the EU from the traditional idea of an Empire and also helps to ensure the principle of subsidiarity – that is, the principle that the EU should only intervene in matters where national governments acting alone would not be sufficiently effective.
The advantages of EU membership in terms of free trade and a single market (and of having a seat at the table that decides on the rules of that single market - rules which are necessary to prevent a race to the bottom in terms of health and safety and working conditions) and in terms of encouraging inward investment into the UK are so great that, in my opinion, it is worth pooling a certain amount of our sovereignty in the manner described above, in order to retain these.
Finally, there are two additional reasons why I would like the UK to remain in the EU. Firstly, I have friends (and will soon have a relative through the marriage of one of my nephews) who are legally resident in this country because of the freedom of movement that our EU membership brings. Even when I was opposed to the EU I was not against the freedom to live and work in the country of one's choice, but I fear that should the UK leave the EU there could possibly be a threat to the right of these friends and relatives to remain in the UK or to become UK citizens should they so wish.
Secondly, there is a very real possibility that, should the UK withdraw from the EU, Scotland would vote to leave the UK. Not only that, but if Scotland were to be admitted to the EU as an independent country while the rest of the UK was outside of the EU, then there could be an actual border complete with customs and the need for passport controls between Scotland and the rest of Britain. A similar situation could obtain with regard to the island of Ireland, where a vote for the UK to leave the EU could result in the reinstatement of border controls between Northern Ireland and the Republic, undoing one of the achievements of the peace process.

Devol u-turn? (Part 2)

In part 1 of this post I outlined some of the questions and doubts I’ve had lately about regional devolution. Below are the conclusions I have come to after giving these issues some more consideration
It’s true that if regional authorities are given tax raising powers similar to those that have been promised to the Scottish parliament then there is a risk of a fiscal and economic 'race to the bottom' – but in this globalised economy, competition to attract business and investment is inevitable anyway. With devolution, however, there could be a complementary 'race to the top' as, with the increase in local accountability and scrutiny that should accompany its implementation, regional politicians compete to be the best at using revenue as efficiently, and as beneficially to their electorate, as possible. And they would be aided in this by the possibility of emulating examples of best practice that would accrue from the diversity of approaches to governance that would proliferate under a system of regional devolution.
As for the matter of Conservative domination of the East of England region, hopefully any devolved regional assembly would be elected using a proportional system, as in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This would go some way to reducing the extent of the Tories’ dominance. Also, the very fact of devolution itself would hopefully spark a greater level of local involvement in politics, both in terms of activism and of voting, which could have an unpredictable effect on the current political status quo in the region. Nevertheless it is still highly unlikely that any regional government for the East of England would be anything other than a Conservative government.
One possible counterbalance to this Conservative domination of the region could be the retention of an important role for central government in a devolved UK, in terms of guaranteeing a certain level of protection for vulnerable groups within society. The best solution, in my opinion, would be for central government to have the role of establishing overall policy in regard to such areas as the NHS, public investment, benefit levels etc, while the regional assemblies take responsibility for local implementation of those policies on the ground. This could be quite an effective system, helping to counter the effects of over-centralisation that have often been a problem in the past. In fact, many of the regions have deeply ingrained traditions of support for one or other of the main political parties although the UK electorate as a whole has, over the last 100 years or so, regularly replaced central government of one political stripe with that of another. It is, therefore, in the interests of democracy that central government retain its role as the main tier responsible for major areas of policy – the alternative would be the potential disenfranchisement of all those who, like myself, would find themselves stranded in political ‘enemy territory’.
After much consideration, then, I still believe that there are huge benefits that could be derived from the introduction of regional devolution in terms of enhancing democracy and bringing power closer to the people and that the potential disadvantages could be offset by putting in place the proper checks and balances – and in particular by the establishment of a system of proportional representation in the election of regional governments – to prevent the existing political demographics of England from holding back that potential increase in popular involvement and democratic empowerment.

Devol u-turn? (Part 1)

I have long been a supporter of regional devolution, but recently, particularly in light of the problems resulting from the government's austerity policies, I have been tempted to wonder whether regional devolution might perhaps turn out to be not such a great thing for the low paid, for vulnerable members of society or for public services. The reason for my concerns is related to the new powers that the government has offered to grant to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament is to be given new tax raising powers, including the power to set income tax levels. If regional devolution in England is to be fair, and particularly if it is to address the real or perceived problems resulting from the 'West Lothian question', then similar powers would eventually need to be granted to the English regional authorities. But one possible concern is that this could result in a 'race to the bottom', as competition developed between regions to attract businesses and high wage earners. Businesses would be able to use the threat of relocation to force regional authorities to cut taxes to below optimum levels - and reduced taxes could mean that help for the low paid and funding for public services would suffer.
In short, I have been wondering if devolution isn't merely a case of offering people a bigger slice of a potentially much smaller pie. Wouldn't it be better to aim for unity and solidarity, rather than fragmentation, among those bodies that are charged with raising taxes and funding public goods?
Another concern is that, while I fully understand why the people of Scotland and Wales chose a greater level of self government rather than rule from London, as a council tenant in a low paid, public sector job, I'm not sure that I really want to find myself living in a self-governing, self-funding East of England region (I am assuming that the nine existing administrative regions of England would almost certainly be the structural basis for any level of regional devolution which takes place). Politically, this region is totally dominated by the Conservative Party, who currently hold 52 of the 59 seats represented in the Westminster parliament. As someone with centre-leftish political views, I can’t help the words ‘turkey’ and ‘Christmas’ popping into my head when I think about what regional devolution, which I support in principle, could mean for the region in which I live. My fear is that, under a Conservative dominated regional authority with powers similar to those of the Scottish government, policies such as increased private sector involvement in the NHS and the slashing of public sector budgets would proliferate and those who oppose them would have very little recourse at all. While I fully support the idea of regional devolution in principle it would seem that, for pragmatic reasons, regional devolution in my neck of the woods is not something I should be hoping for any time soon – any more than a Conservative supporter living in Scotland, whatever her views on Scotland’s relationship to the rest of the UK, would have been likely to welcome the prospect of an independent, SNP dominated Scotland.
These are some of the questions and doubts I've had lately about regional devolution. In part 2 of this post I will outline my conclusions about the issues I’ve raised.

Reply from Helen-Mary Jones AM

Dear Andrew,
Thank you for your message.
I am, of course, fully aware of the exact constitutional position, but it is rather hard using the term "the UK parliament legislating on England only matters"' or "the UK government acting on England only matters" each time one has to make a distinction between England only policies and those of devolved governments. English Parliament or English government is useful shorthand.
I cannot speak for other nationalists on this but it is my personal belief that it is most unfair for MPs from Scotland to vote on matters that have no effect on their constituents and only on communities in England. I will feel the same way about MPs representing Welsh constituencies if the referendum on March 3rd is passed and the National Assembly's lawmaking powers are effectively clarified. In this context I am pleased with the decision of my colleagues in Westminster, the Plaid Cymru MPs who have not spoken or voted on England only matters since devolution. I support the idea of an English Parliament in principal, though I can understand that at this point there would be some difficulty in putting this in to practice because the current model of devolution is so asymmetric, with each of the three devolved administrations having such different powers. Hopefully that will change.
I hope this clarifies position on this matter.
Yours sincerely
Helen Mary Jones AM
Sent from my BlackBerry

In defense of PR

Further to my one-before-last post, in which I advocated voting for the Liberal Democrats in order to help bring about a situation where a hung parliament might lead to the introduction of PR, and in light of the fact that both Labour and Conservative campaigners have been frantically highlighting the perceived dangers of hung parliaments (and therefore, by implication, of PR, which tends to lead to a hung parliament [or, more positively, a balanced parliament]), I intend, in this post, to address the main criticisms that I have heard people make about the concept of proportional representation as a means of electing the national parliament.

Criticism 1: PR is less likely to deliver an overall majority to any party, and therefore leads to coalition governments which are both weak and impossible to vote out.
- One of the advantages that many people claim for the first-past-the-post system is that it usually delivers a government with a majority of seats in parliament, thus enabling it to get its planned programme of legislation enacted into law without too much difficulty. But surely the notion of one party holding a majority of the seats in parliament is only justifiable if that party is supported by the majority of the electorate. If it is not supported by the majority of voters then effectively what we have is a group of people representing a minority of the population, forcing their will onto the majority. That doesn't seem very democratic to me. A coalition government may be weak, in the sense that no one party within the coalition may be able to achieve everything it would like to, and in the sense that its actions must involve negotiation, bargaining and compromise, but that is inevitable in a situation where politicians are representing a public with a diverse range of political viewpoints, and must surely be preferable to one party lording it over the legislative chamber without a genuinely democratic mandate from the voters. Decisions arrived at through negotiation and compromise may even sometimes be better than those which originate with one party and then enjoy free passage through parliament by virtue of a majority. As for the argument, which is sometimes made, that a coalition government can never be voted out, this is only true to the extent that the electorate can never be 'voted out'! A coalition government, elected using proportional representation, needs to hold the confidence of a parliament which reflects the political 'shape' of the electorate as a whole and, unlike the zero-sum game of first-past-the-post elections - where the representatives of one part of the electorate hold total power for a period and then lose all power, to be replaced by the representatives of another part of the electorate - under PR a coalition government, while it may not necessarily be so easy to vote out, will, if it wishes to continue in power, change it's composition to reflect the changing political demographics of the electorate. Of course, if a large enough part of the electorate become completely disenchanted with the coalition government then, following a general election using PR, the new government (whether it was a coalition or not) would, no doubt, look very different to the previous one.

Criticism 2: PR would lead to political stalemates, with governments unable to act because of the lack of a clear parliamentary majority.
- This is really a very similar criticism to the last one and, while it's true that under PR it is often harder to get legislation passed, this is, in my opinion, no bad thing. It is felt by many people that there are already far too many laws on our statute books and, as mentioned in my previous answer, the need for negotiation and compromise is an important way of ensuring that any legislation which is passed is as acceptable as it can be to the public as a whole. In the devolved parliaments and assemblies of the UK the various parties involved in coalition governments are learning to thrash out compromises and come to agreements which, though they sometimes do take a long time to arrive at (eg. the decisions involving the handing over of police powers to Stormont) do, as a result of the compromises involved, tend to have the support of a broader section of the electorate than they would do had they been foisted on the public by a government which, while not being supported by the majority of voters, nevertheless held a majority in parliament.

Criticism 3: PR would allow minority parties, such as the BNP, to hold a disproportionate amount of power.
- It's true that under PR a situation could arise where a minority government might need to strike a deal with an unpopular minority party in order to get a proposed piece of legislation passed through parliament. This does mean that small parties could potentially hold a very small amount of power (though only to the extent that the more mainstream parties would be prepared to compromise with them - the more extreme ideas of parties like the BNP would almost certainly not be up for discussion) but it would not be a disproportionate amount of power. The ability any small party had to influence decisions made in parliament would be in direct proportion to the level of its electoral support, and that is how it should be in a democracy, even where parties representing those with deplorable and offensive views are concerned. The proper way to address the problem is to work to eradicate racism and other offensive attitudes and viewpoints from society; then there will be no chance of them having any influence in the realm of politics.

Criticism 4: PR takes away the connection between MPs and local areas as MPs do not represent particular constituencies under PR.
- This is, in my opinion, the strongest argument against PR but also the most easily dealt with. The system of PR which I am most in favour of (and which is, I believe, the one favoured by the Lib Dems) is the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, which delivers a result which is both proportional in party terms and keeps the connection between individual MPs and local constituencies. For a detailed explanation of how STV works, see here.

Why I'm going to vote Lib Dem

I'm not particularly keen on the idea of voting for Gordon Brown's New Labour, but as a low paid worker in receipt of Working Families Tax Credits I don't trust the Tory party either, even with their new 'non-nasty' image. The obvious solution is to vote for Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats, but it would be nice if there were more choice available other than the big 2 and slightly less big 1. There are other parties of course, but a vote for one of the smaller parties would seem like a wasted vote as they have very little chance of electoral success under the current voting system.
But it's precisely because of this last point - the notion that to vote for a small party (ie. any party other than Labour or Conservative or apparently, now, the Lib Dems) is to waste one's vote - that I have decided to vote for the Liberal Democrats; not necessarily out of a desire to see that party form the next government but in the hope that, in the event of a hung parliament with the Lib Dems holding the balance of power, they will use that power to push for a system of Proportional Representation to be brought in for future general elections. I voted Lib Dems in 2005 for the same reason, only this time I think there is far more chance of this actually coming to fruition. The introduction of PR would completely change the nature of politics in this country and would break the stranglehold of Labour and Conservative, making room for those who dissent from the views of the major parties to have their own ideas and opinions taken seriously within the political arena.
In other words, people such as myself, who might, all things being equal, be inclined to vote for one of the smaller parties, should, in my opinion, give serious thought to refraining from voting for the natural party of their choice in this election and consider instead voting tactically in order to bring about what would be far more amenable circumstances for said party at the next general election. Call it an electoral investment, with a very worthwhile dividend to be reaped in 4 or 5 years time. A vote for the Liberal Democrats in 2010 could be the springboard for a far more meaningful vote for one of the smaller parties in a few years time.

Regional devolution for England

In this post I will argue that the best solution to the so called 'West Lothian Question' (ie. the constitutional anomalies arising from the devolution settlement that was implemented in the UK in the late 1990s) is the adoption of a system of regional government for England.
As I commented in my first post on this blog, a parliamentary system of 'English Votes on English Laws' would introduce as many new problems as it solved by potentially creating a parliament within a parliament, with one party being in power in the larger body (the official UK parliament) and another holding the majority in the smaller entity (the de facto English parliament.
The establishment of an actual English Parliament could also lead to problems, as the population it served would be about five times the size of that of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland put together and its geographical territory would also be larger than that of the others. The Unted Kingdom would have become a type of federation, with one of its members dwarfing (and thereby, very likely, dominating) the other three.
By giving powers to regional authorities (perhaps the same powers as the Welsh Assembly or even the same as the Scottish Parliament, with a Government and a First Minister for each region) not only would the 'West Lothian Problem' be solved but also the power of each citizen would have increased as government would have been brought that much closer to the people.
The main arguments that I have heard or read against regionalisation are (a) that it is undemocratic and would involve regional agencies appointed by central government, (b) that it would 'break up' England into a number of small administrative units, instead of having a unified national parliament like Scotland and (c) that it would create a situation whereby various parts of the UK are forced to compete with each other for favour or funds from central government.
Objection (a) has no bearing on my argument, as I am arguing for regional authorities which would be elected by the populations they serve and be accountable to their electorates (as well as being under the ultimate authority of the UK Parliament, which is itself, of course, accountable to the UK electorate).
As for objection (b), by bringing in regional government we would be in a situation where there was no overall government for England, but where all parts of the UK were subject to the ultimate authority of the UK Parliament. This is basically the situation all of the UK was in for almost 300 years until 1999 and most people in England didn't have a problem with the fact that there was no one political body representing England during that period. It is only the democratic anomalies resulting from devolution in Scotland and Wales that have led to the desire of some people for an English parliament as a way of addressing the perceived unfairness. With the democratic deficit resolved by powers similar to those of the Scottish Parliament being given to the English regions, I believe that any existing demand for an English parliament would fall away once again.
As for objection (c), that regional government would lead to competition for favour or funding from the UK Government, well, isn't that what already happens with local government? And don't different parts of England already compete for these things, anyway, through their elected representatives in the UK Parliament? Competition isn't necessarily always a bad thing anyway, and much of the problem could be resolved by giving the power to raise taxes to the Regional Parliaments, enabling them to be largely locally funded rather than having to get money from Westminster, although there would be a role for central government in guarding against any glaring regional inequalities and in helping to prevent the tendency of resources to be concentrated in and around London and the South East.
I'm not in favour of central government imposing regional devolution on the population of England against their will and I realise that the people of the North East overwhelmingly rejected the idea of regional government when John Prescott tried to sell the idea to them. However, I think the objections may have been in part to do with the fact that the form of regional government that New Labour were proposing involved taking powers away from local councils and also with the perception that this was another tier of politicians being imposed on people, with a concomitant burden of bureaucracy and taxation. In principle though, I see no reason why people might not be persuaded to support a truly democratic, fair and accountable system of regional government for England, with powers migrating downwards from central government towards the regional bodies, as a way of returning a sense of fairness to the UK constitution post devolution.

NHS Constitution for England

The Westminster Parliament is currently debating the Health Bill (introduced 15th January 2009) which, amongst other things, proposes that "all NHS organisations, as well as third sector and independent organisations providing NHS care, should be legally required to take account of the NHS Constitution in performing their NHS functions."
Yet the NHS Constitution itself states that it "applies only to the NHS in England. The devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are responsible for developing their own health policies."
It may not, in itself, be a big issue but it still seems wrong that whole swathes of MPs will be voting to enshrine into law something that their own constituents have opted out of.

Cameron wants to play Happy Families with the UK

Last night David Cameron came to Watford to speak to members of the local community in an unscripted question and answer session as part of a series of meetings under the banner of 'Cameron Direct' which are being broadcast live over the internet on the Conservative Party website. Incidentally, I think this is a healthy development, a return to 'hustings' type politics and away from the stage-managed, spin-ridden performances we have come to expect in recent years.
I am not a resident of Watford, but I work there and one of my colleagues is a Tory councillor and she agreed to smuggle me in. I was determined to ask Cameron a question in connection with his recent decision to adopt Ken Clarke's proposal for an English Grand Committee to make unchallenged amendments to laws affecting only England (a half-hearted and relatively ineffectual non-solution, in my opinion, to the problem of asymmetric devolution) and after half an hour or so I managed to catch Mr. Cameron's eye and was allowed to ask my question.
The question I put to him was, "If you win the general election, will you be fair to the people of England and bring in 'English Votes on English Laws', or will it just be 'English Votes on English amendments', as Kenneth Clarke is proposing?"
(I realise that EVoEL isn't the best solution to the WLQ but I wanted to highlight the fact that the Clarke proposal falls short of even that.)

Here is the full text of Cameron's response to my question, interspersed with my thoughts in italics:

"Well, I think the Kenneth Clarke plan is the right one, I mean let me first say what I won't do. I don't want to have an English Parliament. We've got, frankly, enough politicians, paid enough, with enough big salaries and all the rest - we do not want a whole new English Parliament alongside the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament (sic) and the existing Westminster Parliament.
- Thanks for telling us what we do or don't want, Dave. No need for a constitutional convention, then -
So, how do we deal with this issue that you rightly raise of when, um, English - given that Scottish MPs (sic) in the Scottish Parliament deal with health, education and housing
- erm, don't forget policing, justice, the environment, arts, agriculture etc -
- how do we deal with the issue that when the Westminster Parliament is looking specifically at English health, education and housing, that English MPs have the decisive say. How do we that? Well, I think the Ken Clarke plan is a very good one. We don't want to create a situation where there are two classes of Member of Parliament, and make it too divisive.
- I'm tired of hearing this argument. There are already two classes of MP. Those who can vote on domestic matters affecting their own constituents, ie. English MPs, and those who can't, ie. MPs for Scottish or Welsh constituencies -
We want to keep the United Kingdom together, I think that's important. But what Ken has said in his proposal to me is, look, when the Westminster Parliament's talking about education you just make it sit as a Grand Committee with just English MPs that discuss that bill, and have a convention that when it comes to the whole House of Commons at the end of the process that they don't overturn what the English MPs have done,
- He's trying to make it sound like Scottish / Welsh / Northern Irish MPs won't be able to vote on English legislation, but that's not true, it's only the amendments made by English MPs that will be protected -
and I think this idea of conventions and processes working in our flexible constitution has worked very well over centuries and I think we can make this work as well. What I don't want to do is kind of have a big row between England and Scotland.
- Who said anything about a row? Dave, do you really think the people of Scotland are going to get stroppy if they're not allowed to participate in governing England's domestic affairs, even though they have their own Parliament and Government for Scotland? -
This is the United Kingdom, it's like a family, and I want to keep the family together. Families fall out over lots of things like money and arrangements like this and I don't want to inflame the situation so actually we end up seeing the United Kingdom become the disunited Kingdom. I want to try and keep the family together
- Surely the best way to keep a family together is to treat all the members fairly -
because I think we are more together - England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland - than we are if we start to break up."

I sat politely through all this, waiting for Mr. Cameron to invite me to respond to his answer, as he had done with all the previous questioners (and did with those who came after me). I wish now that I'd just butted in and interrupted him, because when he'd finished his response he just moved straight on and took another question. To me, this is a sign that he is aware of the weakness of his position and doesn't really want to discuss it.
I think the Tories want to palm off the policy they have adopted as not really being any different from straightforward 'English Votes on English Laws', so as to give the impression that if they come to power then the West Lothian Question will have been satisfactorily answered, which is rather dishonest in my opinion.

The whole question and answer session can be viewed here. My question is at approximately the 32 minute mark.

There is power in a Union

Many of those who support the idea of an English parliament consider themselves to be English Nationalists, a term which I certainly would not apply to myself. Some see the enemy as the Unionists, those who continue to believe in the idea of Great Britain and who retain a loyalty to the concept of the United Kingdom.
I think this attitude is mistaken and I see no antipathy between a belief in the continued viability of a unified Britain and the notion of constitutional fairness. The architects and supporters of the unfair devolution settlement are the real nationalists, for they are the ones who have seen to it that the 'United Kingdom' is no longer united. They are the ones who have ensured that the UK parliament now contains two classes of MPs - those who can legislate on domestic matters affecting their own constituencies and those who cannot because such matters are now the remit of the devolved parliament/assemblies. They are the ones who refuse to extend equal privileges to all the constituent nations of the UK and who have created a situation whereby the degree of democratic influence a UK citizen has over how he/she is governed depends on whether or not he/she lives in one of the 'proud, historic nations' of the UK or merely in one of the 'regions'.
The people responsible for asymmetric devolution have put the interests of individual UK nations above those of the UK as a whole. To wish to help limit the damage and remedy the unfairness by advocating equal constitutional rights for all citizens of the UK makes me, far from an English nationalist, a believer in, and supporter of, the United Kingdom.