Peter, the “true colours” of those supporting the campaign for an English Parliament are easily identifiable. They are a single issue pressure group demanding equal constitutional status with our fellow Britons.

You, or anyone else, imagining what that Parliament will decide in the future is irrelevant conjecture, because no one can possibly know.

AJC said “…I can’t say I’m following the logic here? You support EVoEM *because* it won’t work?”

I for one do because it is the only proposal that addresses England’s intolerable constitutional position, without destroying England itself. The Labour/Lib Dem regionalist policy (in the face of opinion polls and referendum results that demonstrate the will of England to be against this) won’t work either, because the English will still have a second class settlement.

Given the choice between two unworkable proposals, I choose the former.

What really gets to me is the fact that there are still people out there saying that the Celtic nations are being subsidised by England; well I'm sorry if that's the case why hold on to us. The nationalists in the Celtic nations want to break up the Union; if we were getting so much money of England why would the 'nats' go for independence? Scotland has another 50 years worth of oil that they can use, in which they don't see any of it at the moment; Wales still has it's coal, slate and water in which again England does pay for but still takes it from them. I am all for an English parliament and the right of the English to control their own affairs. I am also against Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs voting on English matters and vice-versa. Independence is the way forward; if other small nations can make it on their own or within Europe than so can the nations of these isles!

I agree. This is akin to the SNP opposing devolution because it was seen as a half way measure. It turned out to be a stepping stone by giving the Scots a taste of what could happen and the SNP have proved themselves to be capable of Government.

Similarly, EVoEM won't work so it will need to be fixed. The solution will open the debate and one option not on the table will be the intollerable position we're in now.

"Still it is interesting to note the invective simmering within the English Parliament camp because it seems that only full English Independence and, by default, the break-up of the United Kingdom will satisfy some within their ranks."

So what? Some people will only be satisfied with the breakup of England. Major Eu-philes seem happy enough with the breakup of the UK so long as it is into their beloved regions and incorporated into a EU superstate.

The break up of the UK is the only thing that will satisfy some Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish. The same people who complain about English calls for a parliament leading to English independence don't go around playing the Psycho shower scene sounds in the background and making vaguely spooky insinuations about to anything like the same extent.

"Separation from separation from Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland is a mere by-product derived from achieving the true goal, which remains escape from the “Evil Empire”, A.K.A. the EU."

If you say so, people not being able to have more than one goal in life obviously. It's noticeable that we're supposed to automatically accept that escaping the 'Evil Empire' is a wrong doing especially if you're English while doing it.

Iain Dale has linked to this post in his Daley Dozen and said "Gareth Young on Our Kingdom reckons an English Grand Committee could be a Trojan Horse for an English Parliament. Good."

For me to call this a Trojan Horse implies that the Tories end game is an English Parliament and they see EVoEM as a sensible way of achieving that.

I've already responded to Iain Dale to give my reasons why an English Grand Committee is a bad idea. Presumably he now thinks I've changed my mind. I haven't, it's still a phenomenally stupid idea.

The only reason to support EVoEM is because it will irrevocably damage the Union.

Doug may be correct, EVoEM may never get off the ground. It's a seductive policy because it has widespread public support, but the Tories would need an overall majority to implement it - and frankly, if they have an overall majority, why would they bother?

I agree that EVoEM is worth supporting. For myself, as a supporter of the breakup of the UK, it has the additional benefit of rendering useless those Scottish and Welsh MPs - most of whom see it as their duty (and in their best interest) to defend the centralised British state.

I can't say I'm following the logic here? You support EVoEM *because* it won't work? This sounds a bit like the SWP being against gun controls because they'll be needing guns for their revolution: it's a fair enough thing to *think* but it's a bit difficult to *argue for* unless your opponent shares your enthusiasm for the ends. And if they did - why the Torjan horse?

I don't think the Tories will go for EVoEM. Even if they approved of it in principle it will be very difficult for it to work in practice.

EVoEM would work at the moment for Labour as they have a majority of seats in the UK and also in England alone. Currently, government legislation which they proposed for England would go through in England on Labour votes and legislation which they proposed for the UK would go through in the UK on Labour votes.

The problem for a future Labour government is that if their majority is cut they could end up relying on Scottish and Welsh MP's for UK legislation to pass and would not have a majority in England to put through English legislation. This might also apply if they needed the Lib-Dems to form a coalition government as 25% of the current Lib-Dem MP's are not English based.

For EVoEM to work for a future Conservative government they would need an outright majority in England. This is not unlikely if they form a government as they usually have very few MP's outside England but in a coalition with the Lib-Dems they again might be relying on the Lib-Dems' non-English MP's to achieve a majority.

In both cases where a government has a UK majority but not an English one then they will effectively have handed over control of many areas of government which affect about 90% of the population to the opposition.

Then you have the other problem that Scottish, Welsh and NI spending is based proportionately on English spending. An "English only" bill to slash NHS spending would also affect future Scottish funding for Health Services and parties like the SNP who currently don't vote on English only bills would feel duty bound to oppose it.

It also brings in how this would be enforced. A gentleman's agreement between the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib-Dems is all very well but the other parties in NI, Scotland and Wales are not going to stand by if they think that an English bill is going to affect future funding for services in their constituencies. How will EVoEM be enforced?

There is also the problem that many UK bills are essentially English with Scottish, (or NI or Welsh), clauses stuck into them. Would the non-English MP's be allowed to vote to remove these clauses or would the entire bill be voted on as a single entity? In that case the non-English MP's would have the right to vote on it as it directly affected their constituencies.

EVoEM won't work because the structures of Britain and England are too tightly integrated. It's more of a proposal which is being used to buy time and to try and stave off an English parliament for as long as possible. You're quite right to point out that it would undermine the status quo but I don't think it will ever get off the drawing board.

@Dougthedug

The entire premise of your remarks, indeed the rationale underpinning the author's article (which I find interesting but ultimately redundant), is based on the continuation of the insult to democracy better known as "First Past the Post".

2008 will indeed be an interesting year because there is a possibility that by Christmas 2008 the polls could be showing the UK electoral equation firmly back in hung parliament territory - we will have to wait and see.

With electoral reform all bets on the UK's future constitutional direction are off. Still it is interesting to note the invective simmering within the English Parliament camp because it seems that only full English Independence and, by default, the break-up of the United Kingdom will satisfy some within their ranks. This, for me, reveals the true colours of the English Parliament campaign. Separation from separation from Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland is a mere by-product derived from achieving the true goal, which remains escape from the "Evil Empire", A.K.A. the EU.

The only satisfactory outcome is total independence from the back stabbing, money grubbing, anti-English, contemptuous neighbours on these isles. After all, it's the only way to secure a fair and free future for children and their children, etc, etc.

However, the Scots will not leave Westminster by their own free will. For all their whinging about the English and southeners in particular, they just can't keep away.

I was for an English Parliament with-in the Union, but after the attacks on England and the English by the brit establishment I welcome anything that will smash the union.

Terry / Sarah

To pretend that a future England, independent or not, will have no ongoing intimate relationship with its immediate geographical and historical neighbours, i.e. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, or for that matter the rest of Europe, is to enter the realms of never-never land.

You clearly haven't thought through the full ramifications of pursuing your ideology to its ultimate conclusion. We live, whether you like it or not, in an increasingly interdependent and interconnected world, as Alistair Darling and the UK taxpayer has recently discovered to their financial detriment with the Northern Wreck debacle.

Far from breaking-up Britain, a constitutional settlement based on a partnership between inherently equal elements has the potential to reinforce the bonds between said constituent parts of the United Kingdom, for the foreseeable future and, as a virtuous by-product, lead to a fundamentally decentralised structure, no longer dominated by an individual nexus of power and influence.

As for incorporation of this form of decentralised UK geo-political model into a more politically unified European entity, that matter will be for future generations to deliberate upon, democratically, because any such process will undoubtedly unfold at least 50 - 100 years hence.

For once I agree with Peter, there is no such thing as independence. I'd go as far to say that it's disingenuous of the SNP to talk of it, especially as they'd like to keep pound sterling, a common head of state (at least in the short term).

The goal for me is constitutional sovereignty - that doesn't break-up Britain, but relies on the 'common values' (that Brown talks about) and shared heritage to preserve Britain on a fairer basis of sovereignty ceded to the centre.

I'm not sure if AJC's comment is directed at me but I'll answer anyway.

I don't support EVoEM *because* it won't work, but I'm tempted to support it because it is unworkable and will lead to English government or a break-up of the Union.

Obviously there are much better ways of going about achieving an English parliament than constitutional breakdown - I'd much rather federalism - but if the Tories are stupid enough to go for this then it's tempting to give them the rope to hang themselves, and Britain.

"Democracy - surely you remember that - something to do with the people if my memory serves me right?"

Democracy ususally means all of the people - not where the British state or the European Union are concerned.

Peter, my feeling it was April 1st was because we are not even being permitted a referendum promised - the government using the royalist defence of parliamentary sovereignty. If the EU was about popular soveriengty the Eurocrats would not be fearful of a referendum being held here or in any of the other EU countries - as it is, parts of the consti-treaty are already being implemented, before it's been ratified.

"To pretend that a future England, independent or not, will have no ongoing intimate relationship with its immediate geographical and historical neighbours, i.e. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, or for that matter the rest of Europe, is to enter the realms of never-never land."

Which is why no-one has suggested otherwise apart from in your imagination.

Peter, yes England on its own will relate to Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and the rest of Europe etc. But not within the context of a state. Do you get it?

As for the EU - deliberations? Democratic? I'm sorry, have I fallen asleep for three months - it can't be April 1st already...

Sarah - Clearly, you and I are not visiting the same website.

Clearly not as none of these comments indicate that the writers believe they will have no relationship at all with the rest of the UK or the EU or anyone else for that matter.

it is interesting to note the invective simmering within the English Parliament camp because it seems that only full English Independence and, by default, the break-up of the United Kingdom will satisfy some within their ranks. This, for me, reveals the true colours of the English Parliament campaign. Separation from Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland is a mere by-product derived from achieving the true goal, which remains escape from the “Evil Empire”, A.K.A. the EU.

A) There is no reason why the English people should not be independent!

B) I am not surprised English people want to

be independent of the scots considering how the scots have acted towards the English.

C) So you think the EU is an evil empire? Yeah, you do. You stated it. So you must've thought it.

D) What the English decide is up to the English and only the English!

Peter, you address your post to me, but I think you were thinking of someone else. I do not propose, nor have suggested, any of the issues you raise.

I stated that I support the establishment of an English Parliament. Where it goes and what it decides thereafter will be decided by it alone and there’s no point second guessing what will happen.

[...] my 2008 predictive text for Our Kingdom I noted that Brown’s rallying call to Britishness wasn’t working: and there are signs [...]

@ Sarah: "Which is why no-one has suggested otherwise apart from in your imagination"

@gadgie: "I was for an English Parliament with-in the Union, but after the attacks on England and the English by the brit establishment I welcome anything that will smash the union."

@ Little Englander"The only satisfactory outcome is total independence from the back stabbing, money grubbing, anti-English, contemptuous neighbours on these isles."

Sarah - Clearly, you and I are not visiting the same website.

@charliemarks: "Peter, yes England on its own will relate to Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and the rest of Europe etc. But not within the context of a state. Do you get it?"

Yes I get it but any intimate relationship is best conducted on the basis of a formalised structure, that's why we need a written British Constitution and eventually one for the EU as well.

@charliemarks: "As for the EU - deliberations? Democratic? I’m sorry, have I fallen asleep for three months"

No Charlie, you haven't been asleep for three months, just the short time you spent reading (or not in this instance) my post which says "that matter will be for future generations to deliberate upon, democratically" - in other words future generations of Europe's inhabitants, including those residing here. Democracy - surely you remember that - something to do with the people if my memory serves me right?

I entirely agree that EVoEM is a daft and blatantly unworkable idea, based on a complete misunderstanding of the present unsustainable dual role of the Westminster government and parliament (i.e. as the governing bodies for the whole of the UK on all undevolved matters, and simultaneously as the governing bodies for England on matters that have been devolved to the other three nations). Incidentally it is the existence of these two roles which gives Gordon Brown and all the other ministers and MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland their unassailable mandate in (e.g.) health, education and housing in England, alongside their English compatriots -- contrary to what Gareth suggests in his original post.

But if EVoEM is ignorant nonsense, which it is, I don't see how anyone can seriously advocate supporting it, even as a means to a more sensible reform such as devolution to England (which in turn can make sense only in the context of a full federation of the four UK nations). It's certainly the case that the status quo is deeply unsatisfactory and probably unsustainable: but to destroy it by trying to drag it into an even worse state by foisting EVoEM on it is likely to end in the total dissolution of the Union, which only the most rabid mini-nationalists can possibly want: that would quite manifestly be a tragedy for all of us in Britain and in many ways for the EU and for the world.

By all means let's push for reform, but please let it be a durable and constitutionally coherent reform which will preserve the unity of the United Kingdom by uniting its four nations in a formal federation based on the excellent EU principle of subsidiarity -- including, necessarily, full devolution to England, but as a means to the federal end, not as an end in itself.

Brian

http://www.barder.com/ephems/

Iago ap Steffan, what are you implying? "...why hold onto us"? Get out of the old anti English bigoted mindset. You're implying that the English are holding on to wales which of course they aint! So, why say it? All it does is confuse people who are not knowledgable about what's been happening since 1997. It is the scots, welsh and irish who are "holding on" to England.

And, if wales and scotland are so self sufficient why are the welsh and scottish not allowing the English to break away? You should want to be rid of us if we're such a drain on your resources! Of course, the English arent a drain on wales and scotland; the opposite is true! Which is why scottish Gordon Brown sold all of England's gold reserves, stole many English people's pension monies (Five billion Sterling), and refuses to get rid of the thorughly discredited and ridiculous Barnett formula!

Mr Anderson... dear sir, me anti-English??? I think you're the one sending out wrong messages. I am half English; most of my mother's side is English and I have many English friends, some of whom agree that independence is the way forward.
It proves your mindset when you state 'English gold'; is it really yours? For someone who probably wants the Union to continue it's a bit of a silly statement to make. Shouldn't it be British gold? Or more likely the old countries that were once in the Empire. Let me remind you that Wales and Ireland were conquered by England, not voluntarily united with them. As a colonial power the English government made our nations colonies, like the Empire countries. That gold is probably profit made from spices stolen from India, Diamonds stolen from Africa, oil stolen from Scotland or Coal stolen from Wales. As official statistics will show you, our nations are a lot poorer than England. If the UK os so rich, where is our share???