Crossofstgeorge Debate

[English Democrat]

Dear Steven

David has asked me to reply to your email of 25 May and to apologise for the delay. David supports the abolition of voting rights for Scottish MPs on English-only issues.

Kind regards



Iain Dale
Chief of Staff to David Davis

DavisD@parliament.uk

Strange !!!!!!!!!!!!! - when he wrote.........................

Equality for the English
Rt Hon David Davis MP

Those members of the Parliament at Westminster who are committed to preserving the United Kingdom have to face a ferociously difficult question. Now that the Scots and Welsh have decided to have devolution, how do we deliver a fair deal for England, and do the best job of preserving the Union.

William Hague has, quite rightly, announced that an incoming Conser-vative government would respect the outcome of the referenda. But Labour's compromise proposals are a consti-tutional mess. They do not solve the so-called West Lothian question, the problem of Scottish MPs voting on matters that solely affect the English, whilst the English MPs cannot vote on similar matters that solely affect the Scots. This treats the English (and to some extent the Welsh) very unfairly.

Nobody should doubt that the English feel as passionately about their country as do the Scots or Welsh. The willingness of the English to subordinate their 'Englishness' to the greater interests of the Union is a measure of the strength of their commitment to that Union, not of any weakness in their love of their own country.

The best demonstration of this is the extent to which the English have been willing to make sacrifices in the interests of the Union. For example, on the basis of population, Scotland has fourteen more MPs than it would have with English-sized constituencies. In terms of public expenditure per head, Wales receives one sixth more money than England, Scotland a fifth more, and Northern Ireland a third more. Neither should the clamouring of the Scottish Nationalists to the contrary confuse us. Even if we, quite wrongly, allocated all the North Sea revenues to Scotland, they would still be receiving a net £6 billion from the English taxpayer. In addition - unlike England - Scotland and Wales have their own Cabinet Minister to represent their own unique interests, as well as all the other Scots and Welsh members that have occupied positions in every Cabinet in modern times.

There are, of course, reasons for these differences, and the English have accepted them because the vast majority place enormous value on the Union. They recognise the energy that the United Kingdom has gained from the amalgamation of the talents of all parts of the Kingdom. They recognise the huge advantage in all areas of endeavour - scientific, literary, military, commercial or political - which arises out of their hybrid vigour. They know that the United Kingdom is very much more than the sum of its parts.

Which is why Labour's proposals are potentially so disastrous. The Govern-ment is meddling with a finely balanced structure, which has historically worked to everybody's advantage. They are taking the risk of starting a process that will unravel the tightly woven fabric of our country. If it goes wrong, this process will be slow at first, but will accelerate under the pressure of the discontent and disunity that devolution will stir up.

The compromises that Labour are putting together to achieve their ends, whilst still maintaining their political advantage, will exacerbate this dis-content. Those Welsh people that want an Assembly will resent the stronger Scottish institution. As for the English, Labour's attempts to provide supposed "fairness" with regional councils is, of course, nonsense. It will not solve the West Lothian question. They will simply create soulless regional bureaucracies; bleak outstations of Brussels.

Nobody could with any serious constitutional sense equate, say, a Yorkshire and Humberside regional council with the Scottish parliament. The constant constitutional mess that we are being offered in exchange for our heritage and history is not going to satisfy anyone.

It is no accident that Labour's proposals fit well with the wishes of the European Commission. In the federalist lexicon, the nation state is seen as the source of many evils, from unemploy-ment to war. Whilst this dogma is unsurprising given the history of some parts of Europe, it is an ideology wholly unsuited to the United Kingdom, a country that has enjoyed hundreds of years of democracy, peace and tolerance under one national government.

The nation state is the strongest manifestation of the democratic will of the people. It is a moral concept, indissolubly tied to the emotional identity of the people, and is not an administrative convenience to suit Labour's apparent urge to bypass Westminster by every means possible.

Accordingly, if this change is inevitable, then the people of England deserve nothing less than equal treatment. And, the people of Britain deserve a constitutional settlement that is at least logical. Otherwise, it will unravel under the pressure of its own inconsistencies.

If each of the other nations of the United Kingdom is going to have its own parliament , then England's choice should be no less. If Labour truly believes that this is the proper future for the people of Scotland and Wales, their logic must mean the same for England. This means equal treatment in all respects. Not just financially, although we should have funding equality for England, Scotland and Wales. Nor just in Westminster representation - although we should have that equalised from the next election, not in fifteen years time as Labour propose.

The people of England deserve no less than the same choice as the peoples of Wales and Scotland last September: a referendum on whether they want a parliament of their own. In their own words, Labour should trust the people - in this case the people of England. An English parliament, on the same basis as the Scottish one, will be the minimum that the English people are likely to be satisfied with.

Anything less will lead to disaffection and discontent, to a belief that the English are being treated as second class citizens in their own land. If Labour wanted to bring about the dissolution of the United Kingdom, that disaffection would be the way to do it.
_________________
Click for English Democrats Site
Tel: 0907 004 1066 (24hrs)

[wonkotsane]

Just goes to show, you can't trust politicians. Don't forget, the Tories are even more unionist than Labour and you can bet there were a number of conversations explaining that the new leader of the Tory Party would have to show "certain qualities".

My blog about this: http://blogs.vbcity.com/wonkotsane/archive/2005/06/08/2113.aspx
_________________
English first, British second

Stuart Parr aka wonkotsane
Wonko's World Blog

Tour of Britain
Traitor Blair
Lame Duck
Minority Rule
Sepp Blatter

[Versus]

Shame. Maybe he has to say that though if he has any chance of being the party leader.
_________________
-

[Deleted]

What a wanker

http://www.toque.co.uk/blog/archives/2005/06/treachery.php

[Harper]

I think what we are seeing is David Davis the poltician. Once a leading politican makes this an issue, the media will follow suit. He still is on the fringes his position is unsafe and he doesn't need a media storm sorrounding his appointment. I'm encouraged that Mr Dale is not only onboard, but is his chief of Staff. This is not a one-man show - it is a campaign.

An English Parliment will effectively supercede Westminister as the centre of democratic life in England. This would completely overshadow 'British' Westminister. What if the British want money like for a pet-project like Africa. Could we see a battle between an English Parliement versus a British one. Who calls the shot the English or the British?

What matters to the people of England is good government, economy, education, transport and health, the very things devolved to an EP. It would mean the present day Westminister would have to be scaled down to a point, where perhaps it will only meet once a week. So what do we do with the 650 odd M.P's for the rest of the week. They cannot even set up a surgeries where people's concerns are not of an international nature, but a local one. Ironically, English votes on English only matters, is the ONLY way to keep a federal U.K alive.

Yet the public I am convinced will not pay for 650 MP's doing nothing four days a week. So we scale them down, but how? Two elections, one of minor and one of major importance? Two prime ministers, and again perhaps vicious fighting on who pays what. Not to mention the fact that either way the Scots will recieve a full salary even though they only work one day a week. I can't see how the masses will be sold this logic and a two tier system is something English people are strongly against.

I argue that Blair knew all along that devolution was the death of the Union. Being Scottish he knew the best thing for his beloved nation and indeed the future happiness of Britian is becoming independant Nations. I think that this was, the plan all along. The quasi-Nationalism today in England is of course something instigated by the political happenings in Westminister. The only thing that would moves the masses of English to action, is by making them the underfunded dog. He knows how the Tories tick. They would never move to Nationalism, without, having a bloody good reason to-do-so. He has given them them the reasons, more than enough ammunition. He said 15 years and if the Tories get in next, he's not too far off. And when he hands over to Brown in two years time he's going to have a very enjoyable retirement. It was Brown afterall, that signed the checks. Clever-lad.

[Phoenix]

[Versus]

[Scaffold]

That is a big stinky pile of shit.
Any ideas about bringing Winston Churchill back to life?
By the way, what does Margaret Thatcher think of English question? Did anybody ask her opinion about that?

P.S. Where could I read the e-mail of 25th May to which Davies replied?
_________________
March on, join bravely, let us to't pell-mell
If not to heaven, then hand in hand to hell.
W. Shakespeare

Boris for PM! Heffer for Home Office! Out of the EU!

[English Democrat]

As to the exact e-mail I sent, then I a pretty sure I sent it either via the UK Parliamentary Web Page, or the Conservative Party Web Page - so I don't actually have a copy in my Sent items.

The Question I asked was simply

"What is David Davis' position on an English Parliament"

===============================

Be interesting to see the response if any one else does it !

Regards


ED
_________________
Click for English Democrats Site
Tel: 0907 004 1066 (24hrs)

[Militant_Tory]

delete

[isca]

English Democrat asked:

[Ocean Curl]

I'm not so sure Davis is not just playing an intelligent political game. Consider that his main leadership rivals are Scots; if he plays the English Parliament card then he will give ammunition to his opponents who can then justifiably say "he does not stand for traditional Tory values". These Scots, Rifkind, Fox etc will have to be kept on board by the Davis election team and may be offered deals on shadow cabinet places and it is also worth remembering that he is not addressing us but talking to the Tory party MP's.

A good rule of thumb is that Tory MP's are political cowards, they will never vote for anyone who proposes anything radical just look at their last three leaders to see what i mean. Another example of this can be found in the example of Anne Widdicombe, she is quite popular in the country but unpopular with Tory MP's because she is not considered safe. The Tories do not like extremes and believe me although an English Parliament may seem like so much common sense to us it is tantamount to the reinvention of the wheel to the Tories.

However, if he has changed his mind then all I have to say is that the man is a complete Git.
_________________
I'm Steve Wyatt and i am English.

[Harper]

Electing a leader of a political party is the same as getting a new manager. In Davis case some Tory M.P's are whinging, some calling the man a bully and some just detest him. It is this fact, that heartens me, that this is man to change the Tory C.V.

They look to be changing the rules, only allowing Tories M.P's to vote for the new leader. Bit of pity in the sense that Davis commands a strong grass root following. Whether his colleagues will now go for a more softer-option is a slight concern.

The election is going to take place in the Autumn which initially seemed a long time to wait. But I think this is a good thing. The speed in which NL have acted in furthering lawmaking powers in Scotland and Wales, will have given these measures time to solidify in the commons.

[isca]

May I suggest that it is a fruitless exercise to concern oneself with whether David Davis or any other prominent Conservative MP is in favour of an English Parliament. Indeed, it would be interesting to discover whether Davis actually regards himself as English; if he doesn't, he is hardly likely to say so!

True, the Party was at one time called the "Conservative & Unionist Party" but found it expedient to drop the suffix. Despite this history, I believe that Conservative activists are realistic (cynical?) enough to change position if a groundswell of opinion in England begins to show itself - but not before!

How is the desire to have an English Parliament to demonstrate its existence if there is no political party arguing the case, with candidates of its own seeking support? Less than one million of the 36 million voters in England are members of either the Conservative or the Lib Dem or the Labour Party, so there is great scope to recruit members and support from the other 35 million!

Harper said:

"They look to be changing the rules, only allowing Tories M.P's to vote for the new leader. Bit of pity in the sense that Davis commands a strong grass root following. Whether his colleagues will now go for a more softer-option is a slight concern. "

but the constitutional position is (in theory at least) that the prime minster is the member who can command a majority in the Commons Therefore, it follows than any group or party should elect its leader from its MPs in the Commons. MPs have been elected. Why should a few (at most) hundred thousand political activists elect a leader who might become the next prime minister for the rest of us? It is bad enough that English (and other) voters seem unlikely to have a say about who succeeds Blair as prime minister.

[Harper]

Davis is the only candidate that has written on record demanding, an English parliment, for it's citizens. Weighty words that could fall like a ton of bricks if he retracts.

I think the Tories have payed a heavy price in allowing Conservative Members voting on the leadership. I said it more out of irony, that they have changed this whilst Davis - the front-runner is clearly in the lead.

I still believe, if he's elected he will call for an English Parliment. And if this is the case then as far as NL is concerned - the parties over.