UKIP

Just a short explanatory note about the UKIP Black Ops image that has recently appeared on this blog. Steve Uncles has outed a number of fake English nationalists who together are a part of a covert UKIP cell, codenamed 'UKIP Black Ops', whose sole purpose is to undermine the English Democrats. And according to Steve Uncles I am one of them.

There are, of course, some problems with Uncles' story.

1. The English Democrats do not require undermining from outside agencies, Steve Uncles does that very well from the inside.
2. I am not a member of UKIP.
3. If I was a member of UKIP Black Ops I would not be writing about them now because, as everybody knows, the first rule of UKIP Black Ops is: you do not talk about UKIP Black Ops.

On this occasion I'm happy to humour Uncles, hence the UKIP Black Ops badge.

UKIP are now a party for England and for the Union. At 10:50 in this video is Nigel Farage's announcement that UKIP now support an English parliament.

Well done to Stuart Parr, Eddie Bone, Scilla Cullen, and others from the CEP, who have helped bring this about. I hope that disaffected Tories, Conservatives who have been lied to by Cameron over the EU and English Votes on English Laws, will now switch to UKIP.

Tomorrow (Friday) Harriett Baldwin's Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill is back in Parliament. This is Mark D’Arcy's take on it:

Friday is private members bill day in the Commons, and topping the bill is the Report Stage debate on the Conservative backbencher Harriet Baldwin’s Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill. This takes a stab at giving a partial answer to the West Lothian Question by requiring that in future all bills put before Parliament should contain a clear statement of how they affect each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – including knock-on financial implications. She hopes that this would allow it to become accepted practice that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs would not vote on England-only Bills. The Government attitude is interesting, to put it mildly. The Coalition Agreement includes a promise to set up a commission to look at the West Lothian Question (the issue of MPs from devolved parts of the UK being able to vote on English issues, when English MPs can’t vote on the same issues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) but that commission has yet to be set up. Ministers clearly don’t want the Baldwin bill, and she can expect pressure to withdraw it.

Having, somewhat to her own surprise, piloted the Bill through the the most perilous stage of the parliamentary life-cycle, the Second Reading debate, and through Committee where it was unamended, (although that may owe something to the broken leg suffered by Labour constitutional affairs spokesman Chris Bryant) Harriet Baldwin can now hope to send it off to the Lords. The main way of preventing this would be for opponents to put down a deluge of amendments at Report Stage – and talk out the available debating time. We shall see.

How unfortuante that Chris Bryant had a broken leg and couldn't interfere in English business, as is his way. Would it be churlish to hope that he breaks something else on his way to Parliament tomorrow?

Coincidence or cynical political maneuvering?

Naturally, given that Harriett's private members bill stands a chance of of making it through report stage and on into the Lords, the Government has today decided to announce its plans for a Commission into the West Lothian Question. Most probably with the hope of persuading Harriett to drop her bill, as noted by the BBC:

Ministers would prefer Conservative backbencher Harriett Baldwin's Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill 2010-11 to be withdrawn and the commission left to do its work.

In fact, Mark Harper, the Minister in charge of setting up the Commission into the West Lothian Question, was last seen voting against Harriett Baldwin's bill. Hopefully Harriett will not withdraw her bill. Nadhim Zahawi made that mistake when, under pressure from the Government, he was persuaded to withdraw his St George's Day and St David's Day Bill, opening up the field for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport consultation on bank holidays. Only to discover, months later, that a St George's Day holiday was being ruled out on the blog of John Penrose at the DCMS:

A number of people in the industry suggested we give some thought to shifting the May Day bank holiday to either the autumn half-term, or possibly to become a St. George’s Day holiday in England with equivalent national days off for the other home nations.

Well, we haven’t quite completed the detailed analysis of what people said they wanted, but one thing has been coming through loud and clear. And that is the not-at-all surprising news that a number of people rather liked the idea of a new bank holiday on one or other of the suggested days but that, no, they didn’t want to lose the May Day holiday as part of the deal. An extra day off for everyone every year would clearly go down well, it seems. I think I speak on behalf of the Government when I offer the response "nice try" to that one. We’re all about reducing the deficit and growing the economy at the moment, so the suggestion we write off an additional 20 million or so working days each year is unlikely to send a shiver of delight up the Treasury’s spine, I suspect.

So England can't have a national holiday on St George's Day because we need to reduce the UK debt, and we can't have a fair and transparent funding formula because we need to reduce the UK debt. Hmmm...Any further dithering on the English Question and the Tories may find that UKIP have stolen their clothes. Tomorrow, in Eastbourne, the UKIP NEC discuss a policy proposal from their deputy leader which aims to change UKIP policy to support for the establishment of an English parliament, following private polling by the party that shows that such a policy would be popular with the voters. The Tories may regard themselves as the natural party of England, but by their actions they show that they are not. It's time for someone to step into that void.

UPDATE

Just noticed this on Mark D’Arcy's blog:

Harriett Baldwin WILL press ahead with her bill. She says the Government needs to give much more detail about its Commission. And the Speaker has only selected four of the Labour amendments for discussion at the Report Stage of her Bill - which will make any attempt to talk out the available debating time rather harder, particularly because the selected amendments are all on quite narrow points.

Good decision, Harriett.

The UK Independence Party has today (21.3.06) launched its plans for fair representation for all Britons by calling for the creation of an English Parliament.

Party Chairman, David Campbell-Bannerman said: “The current system of national parliaments for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland has created a serious imbalance which is regularly exploited by the Government as it rams through English legislation using the votes of Welsh and Scottish MPs, whose constituents would not be affected by the outcome.

The UKIP solution, revealed by Mr Campbell-Bannerman is to scrap the existing Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament, and re-constitute them without the expensive buildings, using Scottish, Welsh and Irish Westminster MPs. English MPs would form the English Parliament. All MPs would sit for 3 weeks at Westminster, followed by one week’s plenary on devolved issues within the devolved parliaments/assemblies.

Mr Campbell-Bannerman continued: “UKIP is a UK wide party, and is proud of it. The time has come, however, to treat the English fairly by creating an English Parliament and putting England on a par with Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.

“The Government’s tinkering with the constitutional settlement of the United Kingdom has created a serious democratic imbalance which requires urgent attention. The solution is not a series of small regional governments housed in shoddily built yet hugely expensive new offices, but a cheaper, more democratic use of existing institutions and elected representatives.”

The UKIP answer to the West Lothian Question

1. UKIP is the true party of the UK. We believe that each part of the UK should be treated fairly and equally, in terms of policy and representation, and that the present structure has failed to solve the ‘West Lothian Question’.
2. National parliaments/assemblies should be retained - should that be the continued wish of the people of those individual nations - but regional government and regional chambers, particularly the English regional chambers, be dismantled. However, all measures passed under devolved powers by devolved bodies that would act to disadvantage one part of the UK over another (such as free tuition fees/dental fees/free nursing care) will be made subject to referral to UK Westminster Government for final approval. Devolved powers would be altered accordingly.
3. UKIP is the true party of localism and local democracy – we will give the people the power of national referendums and give local bodies local independence and control of schools, hospitals and planning.
4. UKIP will fight for the distinctive British means of government – a strengthened House of Commons, a reformed and elected House of Lords, the well proven and historic system of county councils, metropolitan, town, district and parish councils.
5. UKIP will act to remove unnecessary and costly tiers of government and not just talk about it as other parties do.

National policies:

1. Scotland

• UKIP will scrap all MSPs and have Scottish Westminster MPs sit in the Scottish Parliament, returning all savings made in a council tax refund. UKIP will also scrap all MEPs on leaving the EU.
• Scottish Westminster MPs would sit 3 weeks in Westminster, with some Scottish Parliamentary committee meetings; followed by I week’s plenary in the Scottish Parliament.
• UKIP would restore UK Westminster control over high level, common matters across all departments, with small UK-wide departments for education, health, home affairs, transport etc. Delegated powers to national bodies would be trimmed accordingly
• UKIP will give consideration to demolishing the ugly and unpopular Scottish Parliament building, and sell the site for housing. The Scottish Parliament will be moved to more appropriate refurbished, historic buildings.
• UKIP will restore the Scottish regiments, and disband the EU- driven Euro regional army structure. UKIP will use savings from leaving the EU to spend on strengthening defence.
• UKIP will argue for Scottish ships to be built in Scottish yards [ NB loss of contract to Poland nearly closed Ferguson’s Yard ].

2. Wales

• UKIP will abolish the Welsh Assembly and scrap all Welsh Assembly members. Welsh Westminster MPs will sit in a new Welsh National Council, sitting alternate months in North and South Wales, and returning all savings made in a council tax refund. UKIP will also scrap all MEPs on leaving the EU.
• Welsh Westminster MPs will sit 3 weeks in Westminster, with some Welsh National Council committee meetings, followed by one week’s plenary in the Welsh National Council.
• UKIP would restore UK Westminster control over high level, common matters across all departments, with small UK-wide departments for education, health, home affairs, transport etc. Delegated powers to national bodies would be trimmed accordingly.
• UKIP will close the present ( leaky ) new Welsh Assembly building with more appropriate and less costly temporary facilities in North and South Wales.
• UKIP will restore the Welsh regiments, and disband the EU-driven Euro regional army structure. UKIP will use savings from leaving the EU to spend on strengthening defence.

3. England

• UKIP will solve the ‘West Lothian Question’ by creating an English Parliament, but not through a new and wasteful new building, but by reserving days at Westminster for English-only debates and issues – called ‘English days’.
• Existing English Westminster MPs would sit in the English Parliament
• UKIP would restore UK Westminster control over high level, common matters across all departments, with small UK-wide departments for education, health, home affairs, transport etc. Delegated powers to national bodies would be trimmed accordingly
• UKIP would recognise de facto ‘English-only ministries' ( such as Department of Education bringing forward an English only Education Bill ) by creating an English Executive. There would be an English First Minister, but he or she would be a UK Westminster MP.
• English Westminster MPs will sit 3 weeks in Westminster performing their UK-wide duties and English Parliament committee meetings; followed by I week’s plenary in the English Parliament.
• UKIP will disband all English regional chambers and replace Regional Development Agencies. English county councils, district councils and parish councils will all be saved and strengthened.

4. Northern Ireland

• UKIP respects the unique circumstances applying in Northern Ireland, and supports the Good Friday Agreement. We will retain and support the Northern Ireland Assembly in its current form, and encourage its recommencement.
• In the long term, as circumstances allow, UKIP will seek to treat Northern Ireland in the same manner as all UK home nations, by replacing Northern Ireland Assembly members with Westminster MPs, returning all savings made in a council tax refund. UKIP will also scrap all MEPs on leaving the EU.
• UKIP will restore UK and Irish regiments, and disband the EU-driven Euro regional army structure. UKIP will use savings from leaving the EU to spend on strengthening defence.

Local Policies:
5. Local elections

• UKIP will disband all English regional chambers and replace Regional Development Agencies with strategic groups formed of county or unitary authorities. We will save and strengthen English county councils, unitary, metropolitan, district and parish councils, to bring government closer to the people.
• UKIP will cut the unnecessary Government Offices of the Regions
• UKIP will act to remove unnecessary and costly tiers of government, and not just talk about it ( as the Tories do – who are often in control of regional bodies they could do away with )
• UKIP opposes EU-driven regional government in all its forms: amalgamation of historic police forces, regiments and council planning powers
• UKIP is the true party of localism and local democracy – we will give local bodies local independence and control of schools, hospitals and planning – where local people’s needs are constantly being overridden by EU and UK bureaucrats
• UKIP will use savings from leaving the EU to cut council tax – our aim is to replace council tax with a local sales tax, illegal under EU laws.

ENDS

Back in April I complained about the lunacy of UKIP's devolution policy, a policy that would scrap Scottish and Welsh self-government and replace it with grand committees for Scotland and Wales, and restore symmetry by also creating an English grand committee.

UKIP's dreadful showing in the Scottish elections (UKIP doubled the share of the vote that they achieved in 2007 by standing 29 candidates in 2011 instead of the 10 they stood in 2007) caused me to reactivate an email discussion that I was conducting with a member of Nigel Farage's staff.

Nigel Farage's office, 24th March 2011

Dear Mr Young

Thank you for your "plea" - but I think you'll find that UKIP does propose an English Parliament (together with parliaments for Wales, Scotland and Ulster) composed of the Members of Parliament for constituencies in each of those parts of the United Kingdom.

Please see UKIP-Manifesto (2010)
15 Culture & Restoring Britishness
· End support for multiculturalism and promote one shared British culture for all
· Be fair to England by introducing an ‘English Parliament’, ending the discriminatory Barnett Formula and making St George’s Day a national holiday in England
· Ban the burka and veiled niqab in public buildings and certain private buildings
· Require UK schools to teach Britain’s contribution to the world and celebrate cultures, languages and traditions from around the British Isles
· Scrap political correctness in public affairs

Me, 24th March 2011

Take a look at the quote that you have sent me. As you can see 'English parliament' is enclosed in inverted commas. This is because it is not an English parliament that UKIP propose but is in fact an English grand committee sitting within the UK Parliament.

Inverted commas placed around text are used to indicate another sense or meaning of a phrase rather than the one initially suggested, or often to convey humour or sarcasm.

So are you being funny or sarcastic, or are you just trying to fob me off as if I was some sort of ignoramous who doesn't know the difference between a parliament and a grand committee?

Nigel Farage's office, 25th March 2011

Dear Gareth - technically, you are right; but why should this arrangement not serve the purpose?

PS - I reject your aspersions

Me, 25th March 2011

"technically, you are right; but why should this arrangement not serve the purpose?"

That was a valid question back in the 1990s, read the speeches of Malcolm Rifkind or Michael Forsyth, or the minutes of Thatcher's government, they all ask that very question.

The valid question now is "why are UKIP still asking that question?"

Do you seriously believe that you can scrap the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly? James Gray, the Shadow Scottish Secretary of State, was hounded out of his job for suggesting such a thing.

Nigel Farage's office, 25th March 2011

G -I just wondered what your response would be. We think it would serve the purpose, obviously.

As for doing things the incumbent parties would never do - that's what UKIP is in business for.

Me, 25th March 2011

It may in theoretical terms 'serve the purpose' - though that's debatable - but it's unachievable and it makes UKIP deeply unpopular in Scotland

I lived in Scotland until recently so I know that UKIP are on to a loser with this policy. It's less of a far-fetched policy in Wales but it's a loser there too. Even the English - disadvantaged by devolution - have not shown any desire to have the Scottish and Welsh governments scrapped, quite the reverse in fact.

Call me a realist but I'm more interested in vote-winning policies that are popular with the public and therefore achievable.

Nigel Farage's office, 25th March 2011

Dear Gareth - the EU was quite popular with the public before we got going, but EU-regional government (for that's what the present assemblies are) never really has been. UKIP believes that its "Grand Committees" will serve their turn electorally and, once established, their political purpose also; but that won't be until we are in government and rid of the EU - and if we can do that, what can't we do?

Nigel appreciates your concern, which I'm sure is well intentioned. No-one likes all of UKIP's policies. I'm not happy with several of them; but we must pull together or pull apart. Anyway, UKIP is going with "grand committees"

Me, 25th March 2011

I can see that we're going to have to disagree over this.

As a parting favour, would you point me in the direction of the polling data or the research papers that support UKIP's belief that the Scots and Welsh would like to abolish their nationally mandated parliaments and governments and replace them with grand committees?

Nigel Farage's office, 25th March 2011

I shall have to ask the Policy-Unit. Hopefully, they will respond to you direct.

Me, 7th May 2011

I never did receive any information from the Policy-Unit.

Following on from our discussion, do you have any news on how UKIP performed in the Scottish elections?

Nigel Farage's office, 7th May 2011

I daresay there is no polling-data. We certainly have no money to commission any. I would call this an intuitive judgement.

We did better than ever in the Scottish elections - 7th out of 18, beating BNP and NF combined -but there's still a long way to go, obviously

Me, 7th May 2011

Intuitive judgement? Good one, that's funny!

As you may have heard the Scots have elected a majority SNP government, which makes UKIP's policy seem even more crazy than it was previously.

You're right about one thing, there is no polling data to support UKIP's position. In fact all the available data undermines UKIP's position because it shows that the Scots want to keep Scottish self-government and increase its powers.

So UKIP's insane policy on devolution is based on a feeling in Nigel Farage's waters rather than the result of any research or evidence. Little wonder that their results are appalling. Case closed.

Recently UKIP officials have been on the telly making dicks of themselves. Here's Nigel Farage explaining how UKIP will abolish the Welsh Assembly Government (a few weeks after the Welsh nation voted to extend the powers of that Government), and here's Lord Monckton explaining how UKIP will abolish the Scottish Government.

Now of course UKIP don't quite put it in those terms, they don't say that they will abolish the Scottish and Welsh Governments, merely that they will abolish MSPs and AMs. They also disingenuously suggest that they will retain the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. This is what they tell Scottish voters in their 2011 Scottish manifesto:

We will -

• Retain the Scottish Parliament
• Replace MSPs with Scottish Westminster MPs

Curiously the Welsh manifesto has noticably different wording:

We will -

• Renew the Welsh Assembly, but in a far less costly form
• Remove the Assembly Members, who are overpaid and underemployed
• Replace them with Welsh Westminster MPs meeting a week a month in Wales

If you replace MSPs with MPs you no longer have a Scottish Parliament, instead you have a Scottish Grand Committee of 59 Westminster MPs who sit in what used to be the Scottish Parliament building for one week a month. And a Scottish Grand Committee is, as you may remember, what Scotland had before it voted for its own Scottish Parliament. And the Scottish people voted for a Scottish parliament because (and here I quote the UKIP manifesto):

We want our.... Scottish nation.... to run [its] own affairs without interference from distant, unelected bureaucrats with no understanding of our nation or of the Scottish people’s needs and hopes.

I cannot for the life of me understand UKIP's devolution policy. I suppose it might appeal on a very superficial "anti-politics mood" level to certain people, and given that the three main parties are now all pro-devolution to Scotland and Wales it may be that UKIP see reactionary unitary-statism as the only niche available to them. It's a shame because they could differentiate themselves from the big three parties by advocating an English parliament. I suggested this a few weeks back when I wrote to Lord Monckton, head of UKIP's Policy Unit, to offer my opinion that an English parliament elected under a form of proportional representation would be a better policy for UKIP than their current dog's dinner. His reply follows.

Dear Mr. Young, - Thank you very much for your comments on the possibility of an English Parliament. The difficulty that we have with this is the staggering cost of layer upon layer of government. We have MEPs, MPs, national-assembly MPs and local councillors. We are the most over-governed nation on Earth. I am not convinced that the voters in any of the four pillars of the kingdom would be in the least concerned if their national-assembly MPs were swept away and their elected MPs met in the various assemblies one week a month to decide on those matters devolved from Westminster to the four regions. It is the fact, not the modality, of devolution that people are keen on.

At the moment, therefore, UKIP's clear policy is that regional assemblies (with the possible exception of Northern Ireland) should be formed from Westminster MPs meeting one week a month. This would save a fortune and would actually strengthen the devolution of powers to the four nations, because MPs serving in both assemblies would be more inclined to cede powers from Westminster to themselves than to altogether separately-elected bodies. - Monckton of Brenchley

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

My reply.

Dear Lord Mockton,

I fear that you are out of touch with public opinion in Wales, and extremely out of touch with public opinion in Scotland. Make no mistake, your current policy makes UKIP practically unelectable in Scotland.

An English parliament does not necessarily mean more politicians. The House of Lords might soon be elected by proportional representation, which fact has led some Lords to suggest that the upper house might become viewed by the public as the more democratic and more representative of the two chambers. Paddy Tipping went further and said:

"Let us consider what would happen if there were two classes of Members of Parliament, and certain MPs could not vote and, in particular, speak on certain issues. If there were a rival Chamber up the Corridor, where Members from across the United Kingdom, however they were elected or selected, were able to speak, there would be a case for people to say, "We are the legitimate Chamber of the United Kingdom, and you Commoners down there are a de facto Parliament for England." That is the threat. I do not say that that situation will arise, but we need to explore the issue."

Impose English votes on English Laws, or turn the Commons into an English Grand Committee, and you're heading for a situation whereby the upper house, proportionally elected, becomes viewed as the more British of the two chambers - non English MPs will be marginalised in the Commons, and will consequently be marginalised in the Government. Divide the Commons along national lines at your peril

It makes far more sense to make the Lords a British parliament (with far fewer numbers than it has at the moment), members of which will form the British government, and have powers of scrutiny over the devolved national parliaments, and to allow the Commons to be an English parliament by removing non-English MPs and cutting it in size.

Gareth

To which Monckton replied:

Since I live in Scotland and have travelled and spoken widely north of the Border, I ken fine that though the voters want a Scottish Parliament they don't necessarily want the cost and duplication of having separately-elected MSPs. The political class wants that, because it's more jobs for the boys, but the people who pay for it don't. There was vast dismay at the cost of the Numptorium Building, and it was widely (and correctly) assumed that MSPs simply didn't have the experience or maturity between them to execute a project on that scale properly. What the people of Scotland want is a Scottish Parliament with people of experience and ability in it, and they don't care whether the people in it are MPs or MSPs as long as the powers are devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

I can't speak for Wales, but the recent vote on more powers for the Assembly indicates that it's the powers that people are keen about, and the constitution of the Assembly is a secondary consideration - but one which greatly concerns UKIP because we're looking for ways of bringing the monumental cost of government in the UK under some sort of control before national bankruptcy overtakes us.

Nigel Farage's view on this is quite clear: the people want assemblies in all four nations of the UK, and ought to have them, but the assemblies should be manned by MPs from the nations concerned.

The question of whether a House of Lords elected by proportional representation has more democratic legitimacy than a House of Commons elected by first-past-the-post or AV is entirely separate from the question whether, one week a month, the House of Commons would be the home of the English Parliament.

Everyone has his favourite policies, and no doubt having an English Parliament separately elected from the Westminster Parliament is one of yours. However, the leadership strongly disagrees, chiefly on ground of cost and useless duplication. For the reasons in my previous note, which you do not acknowledge or address, devolution would be more likely to happen, and would be more likely to be effective, if MPs were in effect devolving powers from themselves at Westminster to themselves in their regional assemblies. There it is, I'm afraid: at some point the policy has to be decided upon, and this one has been decided upon, for good reasons. - M of B

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

My reply:

Lord Monckton,

Thank you for your response. It would appear that we will have to disagree.

I lived in Scotland myself until recently and I never met a Scot who shares your views, though I suspect we mix in different circles. The question of whether grand committees are a better form of devolution was a valid question back in the 1990s, read the speeches of Malcolm Rifkind or Michael Forsyth, or the minutes of Thatcher's government - they all ask that very question, repeatedly.

The valid question now is "why are UKIP still asking that question?"

You'll never get to scrap the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, just ask James Gray http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4563591.stm

Regrettably UKIP will pay an electoral price for continuing to ask the question, which will set you back in your efforts to win a referendum on the EU. I for one will not be sitting by the radio excitedly awaiting news of the abolishment of the Scottish Parliament and Government because that news will never come, but don't let my hard-nosed realism dampen your enthusiasm for flogging a dead horse.

Gareth

I hope that the Scottish and Welsh voters make UKIP realise that their devolution policy is unpopular, and that UKIP go back to the drawing board to devise a policy on an English parliament. However, judging by Monckton's admission that UKIP don't expect to win any seats, I suspect that UKIP already know that their policy on devolution is unpopular in Scotland and Wales but don't give a shit because they know they're essentially an English party and they're too lazy and intellectually vapid to consider the alternative.

I've just signed the People's Pledge and have been asked to distribute this email.

I have just signed up to the People's Pledge, a new campaign that will force MPs to give us a referendum on our relationship with the EU.

The People's Pledge is supported by people with a wide range of views on the EU: those who are enthusiastic about British membership, those who are sceptical and those who actively seek to leave the EU. The campaign is cross party too, with supporters from all the main political parties.

Please add your name to theirs.

Go to http://www.peoplespledge.org/ and sign up to add your name to others in your constituency who want their MP to support a referendum on our EU membership. You will also be able to see whether your MP has yet pledged their support for a referendum, along with details of how they voted on every major EU-related issue over the last few years.

Remember, many MPs have majorities of just a few hundred votes, so every person that signs the People's Pledge WILL make a difference.

English nationalists should sign up to this and abide by their pledge when it comes to the next general election. It is the professed view of many in the Euro-sceptic right (Conservative Party and UKIP) that the Campaign for an English Parliament plays into the hands of EU-federalists by undermining Britishness and the Union. I have a lot of correspondence to support this, but this one from Jeffrey Titford is a classic example:

We share your concerns about the undemocratic regionalisation of England and understand your desire for an English Parliament. However, we don’t believe that now is the time to campaign for a separate English institution because it would play into the hands of the European Union, which is behind the drive for regions. It is the EU that wishes to see Britain divided up into euro-regions, each reporting to central command in Brussels for funding. May I recommend Lindsay Jenkins’ excellent new book ‘Disappearing Britain - The EU and the Death of Local Government’ (published by Orange State Press) for further details of that particular plot.

I believe that Britain should firstly withdraw from the European Union before debating the issue of whether England should have its own Parliament. Brussels would certainly welcome another institution to deal with, that further undermines central government in our country.

Thank you for letting us know of your concerns.

Best wishes.

Stuart Gulleford
Political Advisor to Jeffrey Titford MEP

I say 'professed view', it may not, of course, be their actual view - politicians are famously adept at fobbing people off with invented obstacles to proper representative democracy (see AV referendum).

However, if the EU question were to be resolved one way or the other I believe that we would suddenly see a hell of a lot of previously silent English nationalists appearing from UKIP and Eurosceptic Tory ranks. Presently the question of Europe holds back resolution of the English question.

And in a less obvious way I suspect that the lack of an answer to the English Question has delayed any answer as to our relationship with the EU - post-imperial England is yet to decide what manner of nation it wants to be, which fact, whether by accident or design, also leaves the British question unresolved.

Anyway, if what you want is a public discussion on Britain and its democracy, sovereignty and identity, please sign the People's Pledge and force our political class into having that discussion instead of their continuous piecemeal constitutional fudges and sleights of hand that diminish our sovereignty and democracy.

Barnbrookgate continues.

Cliff Dixon casts doubt on the offical version of events that Mssrs Tilbrook and Uncles put forward:

Oh dear - This post has all the fingerprints of a certain Mr S Uncles all over it.

"Following the invitation by Derek Hilling the national party secretary of The English Democrats to Richard Barnbrook" - What invitation? Derek and the rest of the NC were unaware that Barnbrook would be addressing the meeting on Saturday. I have a copy of the agenda sat in front of me now, and of the 17 points on it, not one regards a certain Richard Barnbrook addressing the NC of The English Democrats. A vote of no confidence in Uncles was proposed at the meeting, and deemed not admissable as it was not on the agenda - Barnbrook was only allowed to address the NC because it was pointed out that Item 12 (Membership applications from ex BNP members - CV?/RC?) could be used to justify it, and as he doesn't drive and had to be ferried up by another NC member, he shouldn't be left to sit in the foyer on his own (A joke was cracked that we could have a whip round for his train back if necessary)

If I attended as a guest of Roger Cooper, why was item 4 on the agenda titled "Allegations of improper conduct against Steve Uncles - CD & SU" ? Would a guest be on the agenda? Indeed, why have I been at every NC meeting in my capacity as Roger Cooper's deputy for the last 6 months, and have held his proxy vote on the previous 4?

Nigel Farage casts his net over dissaffected English Democrats supporters:

"Some weeks ago I received a message from the South East Chairman of the English Democrats, Steven Uncles. He requested a meeting with me to discuss electoral cooperation.

"At the time I was dubious and delayed answering. However, with their acceptance of Richard Barnbrook, originally elected to the GLA for the BNP, I am adamant that at no point now or in the future must the UK Independence Party be linked with the English Democrats.

"With this move, the English Democrats have put themselves beyond the pale. As a non-racist, non-sectarian party UKIP, at all levels, must have nothing to do with them.

"We urge all English Democrats who feel as we do about this to join UKIP now."

The ranting Alan England retaliates on the English Democrats' little known blog:

What is so absurd about Nigel's outburst is that it continues a long established line of UKIP hypocrisy. SEE: The hypocritical party It seems that Mr Farage would have us believe that UKIP does not actually recruit BNP members.

[...]

WE URGE ALL THOSE IN UKIP WHO WANT A REFERENDUM FOR PROPER PARLIAMENT FOR ENGLAND IN ADDITION TO A REFERENDUM ABOUT CONTINUED EU MEMBERSHIP TO JOIN THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS ~ NOW!

And Nick Griffin casts doubt on Richard Barnbrook's suitability as a BNP candidate and alludes to an addiction to alcohol:

I have no idea whether you really intend to join the EDP, with its boasts of Muslim candidates and totally undemocratic structure. I would have thought that the fact that they were only able to gain one tenth of our vote in Oldham last week, failing even to beat the Monster Raving Looney Party, would have made even you recognise that there is no possibility of their serving as a vehicle for your ambitions and needs.

In truth, however, that is irrelevant. What matters is that you think that it is acceptable to use the threat to join them to try to blackmail the British National Party into giving you what you want.

It is not acceptable. Your letter confirms your utter selfishness and total unsuitability as a candidate on the British National Party GLA list next year. Over the last few months we have made enormous strides in London . We are building a dynamic team and developing campaigning techniques that, taken together with the likely collapse in the Tory and LibDem votes, give us a very good chance indeed of winning at least one seat.

[...]

The only thing that could make me reconsider would be if, rather than going off to another party, you went to seek the medical and support help for your alcohol problem which I have repeatedly counseled and even arranged for you, went through with it and came back to us with medical proof that you had actually accepted, confronted and conquered the disease which has stolen your dignity and decency.

Your promises and pleadings are worthless, for we have heard them all before, including when you were selected to lead our list in the first place subject to your firm undertaking to stay off alcohol and our mistaken belief that you had overcome the problem. Only real action by you to secure a sustained change can now save you from self-destruction and lead me and the British National Party to reconsider the position.

What a particularly unpleasant soap opera this is, and one from which only Cliff Dixon can emerge a winner.

See also: BNP Barnbrook joins English Democrats

UKIP intends to stand for the Stormont Elections in May 2011.

Writing at Bloggers4UKIP Stuart suggests that this is a UKIP attempt to help "normalise politics in Northern Ireland". I disagree.

UKIP's policy of scrapping Assembly Members for Northern Ireland and replacing them with dual mandate MPs could have serious repercussions for the province's fragile peace. Under UKIP's policy the 108 Members of the Northern Ireland Legislative Assembly would be replaced by just 18 Westminster representatives elected on a UK mandate.

And as Stuart mentions, UKIP's moronic Britishness policy is "an outdated concept of enforced British nationalism that borders on cultural imperialism", one that is likely to divide the population along sectarian lines.

See: The British Question: UKIP and Devolution

Dr Andy Mycock, Britishness raconteur, has an interesting post on New Labour and the English Questions over at Our Kingdom. He highlights UKIP's policy on an 'English parliament'.

The only party with a truly UK-wide profile that explicitly argues for an English parliament is UKIP. They propose that an ‘English Westminster MPs would meet monthly to discuss English only issues in an English Parliament’, a partial solution that is unlikely to appease campaigners for an English Parliament and others seeking English independence. UKIP are also hindered by their limited appeal in domestic elections, a problem shared with other fringe parties who support the creation of an English parliament such as the BNP and English Democrats. This suggests it is unlikely that a sustained political party-based campaign for an English parliament will emerge in the immediate future.

Given Nigel Farrage's revelation that he supports an English parliament [actually a Grand Committee of UK MPs with English constituencies] within a 'federal' [federal in a very, very - extraordinarily - loose sense of the word] United Kingdom, it's worth posting a reminder of UKIP policy.

In his address to UKIP’s 2006 Party Conference, Vernon Coleman told the audience that "The English desperately needs a party to represent them" and that UKIP should "fight hard" for an English Parliament.

Look at the results of any election. UKIP gets very few votes in Scotland or Wales. Most don't fly union flags in Scotland. Many Scottish and Welsh nationalists genuinely believe that they are one step from independence. In reality, they are further from independence than they've ever been and if they had any sense they would be fighting against the EU with all their might.

We need to fight hard for an English Parliament, where Englishmen and women can decide the fate of Englishmen and women. It is outrageous that Scottish MPs can introduce legislation on health and education which don't affect their constituents. And it's equally absurd that anyone should consider foisting a Scottish Prime Minister on us.

The present UKIP position, evolved from David Campbell-Bannerman’s 2006 press release, advocates dual-mandate governance and a consistent UK-wide approach, in contrast to the present constitutional asymmetry.

The UKIP Solution

• The Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly will be retained but MSPs and Assembly Members for Wales and Northern Ireland will be scrapped.
• An ‘English Parliament’ [a Grand Committee of UK MPs with English constituencies] will sit in the present House of Commons on ‘English Days’ to debate English affairs and English legislation.
• Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Westminster MPs would sit as members of their respective national parliaments/assmblies (129 MSPs would therefore be reduced to 55 dual mandate Scottish MPs, the 60 Welsh Assembly members would be replaced by the 32 Welsh Westminster MPs and the 108 Members of the Northern Ireland Legislative Assembly will be replaced by 18 Westminster representatives).
• For some time in every month, assuming 1 week, the national bodies of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would meet in plenary within their home nations, and conduct additional committee work during Westminster weeks or recesses, as necessary.
• The unicameral nature of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish national chambers would be addressed by the House of Commons when it meets as the UK Parliament (the dual mandate chambers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be scrutinised by Westminster MPs).
• England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will each have their own First Minister selected from among their Westminster MPs.
• Devolved powers would be amended to prevent any UK citizen being disadvantaged in another nation within the UK (for example it would not be possible for Scottish universities to charge English students for services that they provide for free to Scottish students and students from other EU nations).
• Dependent on function Whitehall will be reorganised into either UK-wide or English departments. For example, a UK Department of Health will specify common standards, frameworks and approaches for the NHS across the UK, but national bodies will hold the Northern Irish NHS, Scottish NHS, Welsh NHS and English NHS to account at the national level.
• UKIP would seek a fair and balanced new alternative to the Barnett Formula based on rural, suburban and urban criteria, and on need, not arbitrary measures.

[Source (pdf)]

UKIP’s proposals raise a number of interesting questions.

1. Would the UK parties still have (for example) both a Scottish manifesto and a UK manifesto, and; which of these manifestos is a Scottish politician being elected and held to account on?
2. Do dual mandate MPs suffer from a conflict of interest; does a chamber comprised of dual-mandate MPs have any power of independent thought and action; can they 'speak for England'?
3. Are UKIP's proposals actually achievable; do the Scots, Welsh and Irish actually want their national bodies, comprised of representatives with an explicity national mandate, replaced by dual-mandate British MPs, and; if they don’t, could a Westminster government realistically impose this compromise upon them?
4. Would the English vote for a dual-mandate ‘English Parliament’ or would the English prefer the real thing, and; should England be offered that choice?
5. What powers would a First Minister have, and; would he/she have a cabinet and could those cabinet ministers also be ministers in the UK cabinet? In addition, would there be enough MPs in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to form a cabinet and government from politicians of one party, or even all parties?
6. Would UKIP's proposals improve governance and scrutiny of legislation and post-legislative executive action.

UKIP 'solution' (and the Tory's 'English Votes on English Laws') should more correctly be termed answers to the British Question, rather than an answer to the English Question. Only the English people can answer the English Question. UKIP seeks a British solution to the asymmetry and unfairness of the multinational UK constitution, and the Tory solution simply aims to mitigate the unfairness in the House of Commons.

But whether you call UKIP's solution an answer to the English Question or an answer to the British Question, the fact is that it is a non-starter. In 2005 Conservative Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, James Gray MP, suggested the same policy of dual-mandate governance as UKIP. So conscious were the Conservatives of Scottish public opinion on the matter that he was forced to resign shortly afterwards. It is almost impossible to imagine a scenario by which the Scots or Welsh will give up home rule, and equally impossible to imagine a scenario in which Westminster can impose dual-mandate MPs upon them.

Given that fact I'm afraid that UKIP have devised a policy that is superficially equitable but unachievable (because at least one of the English, Scottish, Welsh or Northen Irish public will not consent to it) and which, even if it could be implemented, is unworkable in practice. Not that this matters to UKIP because they haven't got a snowflake's hope in hell of forming a government.

If you want a real belly laugh, take a read of UKIP's 'Restoring Britishness' policy statement attached.