The End of England solution

Gareth notes and responds to a paper by Robert Hazell of the The Constitution Unit, University College London. Mr. Hazell’s paper effectively suggests that an English Parliament would not be a viable solution to the current constitutional mess in the UK caused by New Labour’s prejudicial devolution settlement where the English are the only people without political representation for their nation as a nation.

Mr. Hazell suggests that this is the case because there are too many people in England for their own parliament and because some other federal nations in history failed to pull off what Hazell considers similar settlements. ”No federation has operated successfully where one of the units is so dominant”, he says.

He is effectively saying that there are so many English people that they should not expect to be treated in the same way as a nation with fewer people. He is also asking the English to look back into history and learn a lesson, that lesson being that these other nations have failed and, consequently, so will you. Don’t even go there. You’re not that good.

His logic is that if we are to accept this history lesson on the terms mentioned we should break England up into smaller units, that way the problems with the unequal devolution settlement will be solvable. Of course the very thing that campaigners for proper political representation for the English want, their own parliament for England as a nation on a par with those given to other nations in the Union, will not be afforded to them. It is a solution that instead of solving the English question makes it a question that is impossible to ask because a united England will no longer in reality exist. Nice solution Mr. Hazell.

Hazell’s suggestion that the English consider history as a reasoned argument against equality is extraordinary. Extraordinary because he fails to do the very same thing when suggesting the End of England solution. I wonder how many lessons lie littered throughout the battlefield of history for Mr. Hazell to pick through. I mean this is not the first time that a nation’s people have been treated unequally in comparison with others. What lessons can history teach us about that? This is not the first time that balkanisation has been suggested or carried through. What lessons can history teach us about that? This is not the first time the demonstrated wishes of a nation have been ignored. There are skeletons everywhere in histories closet.

There is also one premise behind the paper that needs to be outed so we know where everyone stands. That premise is that if we had to choose between the Union and England the Union must take priority even if that means the transformation of England into a collection of regions. That’s what we are talking about and it is a choice that has come about entirely because of New Labour’s handiness with the parliamentary pink slip.

Fascinating really. The UK parliament has devolved issues to the Scottish parliament. It also represents a dominant force in Britain when compared to that very same Scottish parliament. They tell us it’s marvellous and, apparently, completely workable. Yet if the English were to have a parliament it would be too dominant. There’s a word Mr. Hazell ignores. Devolution. Some issues have been devolved to the Scottish parliament. How does Mr. Hazell expect the English to dominate the Scots on properly devolved issues when the UK parliament cannot?

Though it pains me to say this I cannot in all faith resist doing so. There are people who are intent on taking bites out of England and there is a Hazell nut in every one.