Why Labour should support an English parliament

A devolved body could aid the party's revival in England.

The former Labour cabinet minister George Robertson declared that devolution would "kill nationalism stone dead". Instead, it turned out to be the biggest threat the Union has ever faced. Devolution has given the Scottish National Party [SNP] the platform it needs to fulfil its dream of disbanding the United Kingdom.

Alex Salmond is proving just as adept at manipulating English public opinion as Scottish public opinion. The Campaign for an English Parliament , which I chair, has noticed a sharp increase in calls for English independence in line with the SNP’s campaign for Scottish independence. A ComRes survey for Newsnight showed that 36 per cent of people in England (and 47 per cent of skilled manual workers) now want England to become an independent state and to break up the United Kingdom.

The devolutionary problem is that it is too easy for nationalist politicians to indulge in political point scoring by blaming Westminster for their problems. And at a time of unprecedented public austerity these tensions are exacerbated yet further.

There are now distinct differences in state provision, including health, education (most notably tuition fees) and elderly care, between the different nations of the UK. These divisions are deliberately emphasised by nationalist politicians with the aim of inflaming national passions. And not only ostensibly nationalist politicians. Rhodri Morgan, Labour’s former First Minister for Wales, declared that his aim is to "make the English feel jealous". But it is encouraging to hear Carwyn Jones now talk about the need for an English parliament.

The Union will only survive if it treats all its citizens fairly and equally. We need a solution that is fair to all the UK's constituent nations, and that allows us to separate what divides us, from what unites us. If this is done in good faith, then there is no reason why a renewed Union cannot be cemented. At least, if it is done early enough, and before attitudes have hardened too far on all sides and the talk of independence becomes too entrenched

The only answer to these problems is to reinstate an English parliament matching those parliaments already granted to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As Tony Benn proposed in his 1991 Private Member’s Bill "The Commonwealth of Britain", this would mean national parliaments dealing with the issues that concern the individual nations of the United Kingdom. Just as there is no better way to drive a wedge between us than by treating the people of England as lesser citizens, there is no better way of reinforcing the UK family than by recognising our individual needs and treating us all equally.

The problem is that Westminster MPs will not vote for an English parliament that takes away most of their domestic powers. This is naked careerist self-interest. The remaining federal responsibilities would only need a much smaller Union parliament or, in other words, one with fewer MPs. And so even though every MP lost from the Union parliament could be an MP gained by an English parliament, they don't want to take the risk of voting themselves out of a job.

There are other arguments against the restoration of an English parliament, of course. But they fall apart under the slightest scrutiny. The first of these is that an English Parliament would be inevitably dominated by the Conservative Party. Yet the same was said about the "inevitable" Labour domination of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments, which simply did not happen. Democracy has a tendency to find a balance. An English parliament would be accompanied by a resurgent Labour movement in England under an English Labour Party, which in turn would improve the party’s standing in Westminster.

Labour established devolution in the first place in order to defend Scotland and Wales from what it saw as the depredations of an over-mighty Conservative parliament at Westminster. The same opportunity is now presenting itself. For instance, England's forests were put up for sale by the coalition but the forests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were all protected by their respective parliaments.

The second argument is that the current problems with the restored Scottish parliament would be replicated in a restored English parliament. This is unlikely as long as the resentment now building in England is dealt before the Scottish independence referendum. Labour cannot wait, procrastination will be fatal. National Devolution has emphasised the fault lines within the Union. Indeed, rather than trying to deny that these exist it is necessary to cement the Union along these lines by going still further and creating a federal state - the only practical way of separating what divides us from what unites us.

Nor is England "too big" for a federation to work. A federation would directly address the problem of an out-sized England because English voting weight would affect only England itself. If a federation with England wouldn't work then a Union without a federation's protections certainly couldn't - except of course it did, for nearly 300 years before being undermined by devolution.

In his book Will Britain Survive Beyond 2020?, the Welsh Conservative Assembly Member David Melding argued: "The best way to preserve Britain as a multi-national state is to accept that the UK...requires a new settlement. This settlement will need to be federal in character so that the sovereignties of the Home Nations and the UK State can be recognised in their respective jurisdictions". Henry McLeish, the former First Minister of Scotland, was also the man who saw the Scotland Act through Westminster. When speaking to the Calman Commission (on Scottish Devolution) he said that the English need a voice, and that he doesn't think that our current asymmetrical devolution can be sustained. Furthermore, and I quote: "We must move towards some balanced framework, a quasi-federal framework, where it can make some sense rather than the English feeling aggrieved. At the end of the day, their grief and their anger spills over on to us."

It's not too late to resolve the problems that devolution has caused. But time is short. What do you chose – dissolution of the UK or a federal UK? If the latter, then action is urgently needed.

Eddie Bone is the chair of The Campaign for an English Parliament.

"An English parliament would be accompanied by a resurgent Labour movement in England". Photograph: Getty Images.
Getty
Show Hide image

What type of Brexit did we vote for? 150,000 Conservative members will decide

As Michael Gove launches his leadership bid, what Leave looks like will be decided by Conservative activists.

Why did 17 million people vote to the leave the European Union, and what did they want? That’s the question that will shape the direction of British politics and economics for the next half-century, perhaps longer.

Vote Leave triumphed in part because they fought a campaign that combined ruthless precision about what the European Union would do – the illusory £350m a week that could be clawed back with a Brexit vote, the imagined 75 million Turks who would rock up to Britain in the days after a Remain vote – with calculated ambiguity about what exit would look like.

Now that ambiguity will be clarified – by just 150,000 people.

 That’s part of why the initial Brexit losses on the stock market have been clawed back – there is still some expectation that we may end up with a more diluted version of a Leave vote than the version offered by Vote Leave. Within the Treasury, the expectation is that the initial “Brexit shock” has been pushed back until the last quarter of the year, when the election of a new Conservative leader will give markets an idea of what to expect.  

Michael Gove, who kicked off his surprise bid today, is running as the “full-fat” version offered by Vote Leave: exit from not just the European Union but from the single market, a cash bounty for Britain’s public services, more investment in science and education. Make Britain great again!

Although my reading of the Conservative parliamentary party is that Gove’s chances of getting to the top two are receding, with Andrea Leadsom the likely beneficiary. She, too, will offer something close to the unadulterated version of exit that Gove is running on. That is the version that is making officials in Whitehall and the Bank of England most nervous, as they expect it means exit on World Trade Organisation terms, followed by lengthy and severe recession.

Elsewhere, both Stephen Crabb and Theresa May, who supported a Remain vote, have kicked off their campaigns with a promise that “Brexit means Brexit” in the words of May, while Crabb has conceded that, in his view, the Leave vote means that Britain will have to take more control of its borders as part of any exit deal. May has made retaining Britain’s single market access a priority, Crabb has not.

On the Labour side, John McDonnell has set out his red lines in a Brexit negotiation, and again remaining in the single market is a red line, alongside access to the European Investment Bank, and the maintenance of “social Europe”. But he, too, has stated that Brexit means the “end of free movement”.

My reading – and indeed the reading within McDonnell’s circle – is that it is the loyalists who are likely to emerge victorious in Labour’s power struggle, although it could yet be under a different leader. (Serious figures in that camp are thinking about whether Clive Lewis might be the solution to the party’s woes.) Even if they don’t, the rebels’ alternate is likely either to be drawn from the party’s Brownite tendency or to have that faction acting as its guarantors, making an end to free movement a near-certainty on the Labour side.

Why does that matter? Well, the emerging consensus on Whitehall is that, provided you were willing to sacrifice the bulk of Britain’s financial services to Frankfurt and Paris, there is a deal to be struck in which Britain remains subject to only three of the four freedoms – free movement of goods, services, capital and people – but retains access to the single market. 

That means that what Brexit actually looks like remains a matter of conjecture, a subject of considerable consternation for British officials. For staff at the Bank of England,  who have to make a judgement call in their August inflation report as to what the impact of an out vote will be. The Office of Budget Responsibility expects that it will be heavily led by the Bank. Britain's short-term economic future will be driven not by elected politicians but by polls of the Conservative membership. A tense few months await. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.