The Lazarus Bill
Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Jack Straw has presented his draft Constitutional Renewal Bill. More on this tomorrow. Unlocking Democracy’s Peter Facey has dismissed it as “largely symbolic” in a press release not yet up on its website. Is it? We’ll learn more tomorrow when Andrew Blick has assessed its sections on the civil service. But note its carefully chosen name. It is not as was once suggested as I recall, a Constitutional Reform Bill. It is certainly not a constitutional replacement bill or even now that one time Labour catch-word a ‘modernisation’ bill. No, it’s aim is to breath life into the old corpse. The smelly dog of parliamentary fixes and expenses is to be renewed by fiddling around with the role of the Attorney General and giving the commons a say on when we go to war. Bring it back from the dead! Never forget William Borough’s sentiments in The Naked Lunch, “Go Home Lazarus”.
But at the same time Michael Will’s, who reports to Jack Straw in the Ministry of Justice, was serenading an open-jawed seminar at ippr - reported on below by Guy Aitchison. Wills is heroically attempting to bring some real life into the political process, plugging in an electric charge of direct participation and a summit that will actually take some policy decisions. We are working in parallel with him to try and work out how the web can help representative democracy. Steve Clift has kindly suggested this kind of work is pioneering, and he should know.
Wills was arguing for a pluralistic definition of Britishness and trying to assess what really matters to people. His speech will be published soon on MoJ and we will link to it when it is. Aside from his overall argument I was struck by two points he made with some emphasis. First, that while delivery of policies is important in politics, it has to be about more than self-interested, instrumental issues. I can’t recall when I last heard a Labour politicians say this so strongly: it is not just about getting into office and “delivering” policies our people want. Second, in the discussion, he recognised the depth of the crisis of disassociation more strongly than perhaps he felt able to in his official speech. two lots of people are leaving the electoral process: the marginal, the poor and vulnerable are ceasing to vote and at the same time the active and engaged who are demanding more than jus ta vote every four years, are also saying time’s up to the old politics. There is thus a double need to reconnect with citizens.
Gordon Brown launched his Green Paper with similar if less eloquent sentiments. A ‘renewal’ of Britishness was needed because of a challenge far greater than updating parliamentary procedures. But hanging over the day were the leaders words are set down in today’s Daily Telegraph. This is a must read text on ‘Why We Must Defend the Union’.
There is no Scotland-only, Wales-only, England-only solution to transnational challenges that range from terrorism to foot and mouth disease, and from avian flu to security and climate change. So for these islands an environmental Union, a security Union and a Union for defence is to the benefit of all.
Consider this definition of Britishness for a moment. Clearly the environmental union that makes a real difference is the European one. Our defence, such as it is, is integrated into NATO and the United States. The only union here that matters is the “security union” - and this points to the policy of re-centralising powers that currently belong to the Scottish government, a process alluded to in Brown’s article and initiated in Straw’s constitutional “renewal” proposals where he announced a Commission to go about this. Hardly pluralist.
And by the way, the Telegraph article in the print version has significant cuts compared to the on-line version, but it does not say that it is an abbreviated text. It’s interesting that Brown’s claim that the benefits of the British union go “far beyond the considerable benefits of European membership” was cut.
Filed under: Gordon Brown
The central question is not “Britishness” or the “British Constitution”, but “England” and what England wants to be when Scotland leaves the Union, which will happen sooner or later. Does England want to remain a neoliberal society with a “constitution” that focuses on symptoms rather than causes? Or does she want to find ways to get beyond the impasse of materialism and modernism, with a constitution that reflects this? For England, all other questions are secondary.
As we’ve come to expect from GB [Gordon Brown], his article in the Telegraph is full of lies, vacuous rhetorical flourishes and contempt for the idea of English nationhood.
1) England is not distinct from Britain; devolution is devolution from England-Britain; the very concept of national devolution for England doesn’t even figure: “I am Scottish and proud of it, but I am no less proud to be British - just as there are millions who are proud to be Welsh and British and English and British too. In recognition of this, 10 years ago we embarked on devolution - ensuring that the smaller nations that are part of the UK have more control over their own affairs. Devolution simply acknowledges the dual identities: Welsh and British, Scottish and British too”. No political acknowledgement of the supposedly dual English and British identities, then; in political terms, there is only the UK and Britain, not England.
2) Equal treatment for England with respect to devolving / decentralising power means regionalisation: “it makes sense also to look at the relationship between the nations [=Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland] and regions [of England only] and whether it strikes the right balance as we strive to meet and master new global challenges. That’s why against the background of big changes at the UK level a review of Welsh Assembly powers has taken place, why reform continues in Northern Ireland, why, as we have previously said, we support a review of devolution as proposed by the Scottish Parliament and why England’s needs must be fully recognised not least with [if only with] more powers and freedoms for our great cities and stronger say for local people over the issues that affect them in their own communities”. No hint of a suggestion that there could even be a discussion about an English parliament; the only option GB considers and dismisses is the undesirable and unworkable compromise of an English Grand Committee.
3) Lies, lies and lies: “The advantages of our economic Union - with no barriers to collaboration in trade, in enterprise and scientific invention, and in education - are also well understood and go far beyond the considerable benefits of European membership. Just one example: today with four fifths of Scottish financial services jobs depending on giving the best service to English bank and savings customers, Scotland’s success in the financial sector is possible only because of the Union”. Wrong: these things could exist and flourish just as much without a unitary state or even any new federal Union. There’s no explanation of how the current Union makes any difference to these things within the context of the EU and the global financial-services sector - which is doubtless why the reference to the benefits that “go far beyond the considerable benefits of European membership” was deleted from the print version. Just too stupid to be taken seriously.
David, aka Britology Watch
I agree David, the context of the EU makes most of GB (aka Two Flags) claims about the benefit of the Union meaningless. On the environment for example the Scottish Govt is currently proposing set a mandatory target of cutting emissions by 80% by 2050:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/Climate-Change/16327/Climate-Change-Bill far in advance of anything New Labour are suggesting.
The World Wildlife Fund have said of it: ‘Scotland’s Climate Change Bill may be the most important piece of legislation in our lifetime. It could establish our nation as an international leader in tackling climate change’.
So what benefits is he talking about? His massive expansion of nuclear power?
On the issue of security he is also having a laugh. Blair and Browns illegal disaster in Iraq has caused us to be a ‘terrorist’ target.
His speech is gibberish. Constitutional hogwash.
Mike: do be careful here. Your point on the environment is very helpful and interesting esp for thoseof us south of the border. But it wasn’t a speech it was an article. Its timing important as it set out his framework as Straw and wills advanced (in very different ways) the Green paper commitments. Calling it “gibberish” and “hogwash” is just making a noise. It diminishes your own arguments. It’s even worse than David saying “Lies, Lies, lies”. With intelligent and interested readers this kind of language is unnecessary. With unconvinced readers it is counter-productive.
Anthony
Point taken Anthony. My frustration is born from the surrealism of the sentence: “So for these islands an environmental Union, a security Union and a Union for defence is to the benefit of all” from a govt responsible for new nuclear, Iraq and Trident 2.
Point taken, Anthony - spoken in anger. Shall we say ‘disingenuous’ and ‘duplicitous’ instead? GB appears to acknowledge England’s nation status but then he excludes any possibility of that status ever being adequately reflected in political structures, institutions or even discussion. The national institutions he deigns to accept are British, Scottish, Welsh and Irish only. He’s also dishonest about the relevance of the Union at an international level. Frankly, he’s completely muddled about what Britain is at this level, which is related to the fact that he’s inconsistent about the nation status of the constituent parts of the UK. So Britain is, or functions at a level that could be described as, transnational, multinational and international (’internationalism’ being defined as a core British value); and Britain itself is described as being both multinational and as a nation (in fact, he uses the word ‘country’).
All part of his underlying vision of an ‘integral’ Britain of nations and regions that he is so obfuscatory about in the Telegraph article because he knows the ‘British’ people don’t want it.
David, aka Britology Watch
More evidence of the benefits of Gordon Browns “Environmental Union”, from John Vidal writing in the Guardian today, the (British) Govts own advisors don’t believe them anymore: “Jonathan Porritt, chair of the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) and self-styled “critical friend” of the government, is clearly weary of Whitehall’s hypocrisy. Last week, the SDC gave its annual report on how the government was performing against its own green targets, and the poor man could not bear even to comment. “I find all this so depressing that I now hate having to comment on it . . . For five years, the government’s performance has been rubbish . . . systematic hypocrisy - lecturing everybody else but barely lifting a finger oneself - just doesn’t make any sense,” he said