Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Thu

24

May

2007

Here’s a Big Idea for Gordon Brown
Thursday, 24 May 2007 08:52
by Brian Barder

Our prime minister-elect needs to shake up politics by coming into office with a Big Idea: one that's new and original, not already under contract to David Cameron or the Lib Dems (still less espoused by Tony Blair), ideally one that will remove the albatross of the West Lothian Question from his Scottish shoulders and give his government a distinctive, controversial and exciting flagship policy from the start.



Here it is.

Today's Independent publishes a letter from me which offers Gordon Brown just what he needs:

Brown's chance for a historic reform

Sir: Our prime minister-elect half-promises a written constitution, but without revealing what might be in it, apart from reducing the powers of our over-centralised government, and giving local people and their institutions more control over their lives. As a Scottish MP, Mr Brown must also be anxious to find an answer to the West Lothian question and to avoid the calamity of Scottish secession from the UK. And he must be casting around for ways to rekindle popular involvement in politics.

He could achieve all these aims, and secure an honoured place in history, by leading the country into acceptance of a fully federal constitution which provided for self-government for our four constituent nations, with the Westminster parliament dealing only with foreign affairs and defence, plus a few constitutional matters affecting the whole of Britain.

This would involve a written constitution and a parliament and executive for England, not as the chief purpose of the great reform (and not for narrow nationalistic reasons) but as a major consequence of it. We are already halfway there with limited (and still reversible) devolution to three of the four nations, but to escape from the West Lothian and Scottish separatist dilemmas, we need eventually to go the whole hog. Has this cautious son of the manse the imagination and courage to take the first steps in such a radical reform?

BRIAN BARDER
LONDON SW18


Such a sweeping reform would take many years to complete: it would require a great national debate, an all-UK Constitutional Convention and another for England, at least one Royal Commission or its equivalent, eventual approval in principle by parliament, and one or more referendums. All would be hard fought. Before a federal system could be installed, a parliament and government for England would need to be established, in itself a huge and controversial undertaking that could not be completed in just a year or two. Reaching agreement on the respective powers of the national parliaments and their governments on the one hand, and the federal parliament and government at Westminster (or wherever it might be decided to situate it) on the other would be a Herculean task in itself. Even to secure sufficient support for the launch of the whole enterprise would require inspired and far-sighted leadership, something Mr Brown might well be able to provide.

But just think of the prizes! By proposing a constitutional settlement that would remove the power of the Westminster parliament to legislate for England's internal affairs (education, health, crime, the environment, transport, culture, sport, and much more), Mr Brown will free himself at a stroke from the suspicion of being a centralist control-freak, congenitally unable to give up power. He will have the complete answer to those who quote the West Lothian Question to challenge the legitimacy of a Scottish MP in No. 10 laying down the law for England on matters which he can't impose on his own constituents because they have been devolved to Scotland. He will be championing a settlement which should satisfy those of his Scottish countrymen tempted by the idea of Scottish independence by completing the transfer of all internal powers to Scotland's own parliament and government, thus undermining the case for Scottish secession from the UK. He will remove the growing discontent among English people of all political persuasions who resent being the biggest of the UK's nations yet also the only one without its own parliament and government. He will carve out his own political space, owing nothing to Tony Blair. He will be able — indeed compelled — to seek support for his proposals from across the political spectrum, rising above trivial yah-boo party politics and presenting himself as a national leader. Above all he will be the author of a new and durable constitutional settlement for the nations of the United Kingdom that will secure his place in British — and Scottish — history.

But what if he rejects such a radical plan as too difficult, too far-reaching, too open to nit-picking objections and frustrating delays? What if he is daunted by the thought of a Tory government in England at loggerheads with a Labour federal government at Westminster — a situation with which all existing and successful federations are familiar and relaxed?

The danger is that the written constitution for which Gordon Brown has begun to argue will set in concrete all the most anomalous and unsatisfactory features of our present half-devolved and half-baked constitutional arrangements, thus greatly complicating the eventual task of converting it into a fully-fledged federation with full control of all internal affairs by the four constituent nations — as we shall eventually be forced to do. A written constitution will inevitably entrench its main provisions, including existing devolution, so that they will be amendable only by special procedures (such as approval by a two-thirds majority of both houses of parliament, and perhaps also the approval of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish parliaments). It's hard to imagine a more effective obstacle to further necessary change. If we are to have a written constitution, it's obviously essential to get it right first time. There may not be another opportunity for a generation or more.

Tailpiece: FAQs: Those who are unfamiliar with the arguments for and against a federal United Kingdom may care to glance at the more detailed case, including answers to the objections most commonly raised, at http://www.barder.com/ephems/666, http://www.barder.com/ephems/649 (with some answers to common objections), http://www.barder.com/ephems/647http://www.barder.com/ephems/644
(another batch of answers to questions) and including 20 comments by others. 
More from this author:
Kosovo, curtain-raiser for Iraq, still in search of a solution (4953 Hits)
by Brian Barder Anyone under the widely shared illusion that NATO's attack on Serbia in 1999 over Kosovo permanently resolved the problem of...
Kosovo: a war crimes trial (3392 Hits)
by Brian Barder My confident guess is that 75% of the westerners who notice a headline about a war crimes trial concerning Kosovo will...
Whose fault was the Falklands war? (6464 Hits)
by Brian Barder The 25th anniversary on 2 April of the Argentine occupation of the Falklands in 1982 has predictably, but tiresomely,...
With Weeks to Go, Blair Blames ’Society’ and Proposes Yet More Draconian Police Powers (3164 Hits)
by Brian Barder The definitive comment on the ill-fated Control Orders régime, which almost everyone agrees is hopeless (but for different...
The Guardian Breaks Record for Howlers in One Editorial (4027 Hits)
by Brian Barder Today's Guardian's first leader on the G8 summit at the charmingly named Heiligendamm is full of Guardianesque bloopers,...
Related Articles:
All the leaves are brown (4934 Hits)
by Mickey Z. Each fall, even the most nature-oblivious humans can't help but notice-and likely marvel-as the leaves turn. Here in New York...
Evil and the Oval Office: A Not-Fully-Baked Idea (5294 Hits)
by Andrew Bard Schmookler In our times, we have witnessed the forces of darkness and destruction take over the Oval Office. Recently, I’ve...
Zeitgeist Zone: Bush, Rambo of Arabia - Jekyll, Hyde, Sex & Repression - Bush Wars: The Empire Strikes Out - Oprah & Obama - Bush & Brown (5730 Hits)
by Edward Strong Bush: Rambo of Arabia In the name of 'fighting extremism' - code for countering Iranian influence - the US is arming two...
Here’s the Smell of the Blood Still (4248 Hits)
by Norman Solomon The following essay is adapted from Norman Solomon’s new book “Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America’s...
PM Gordon Brown, Here Is My Shopping List (2280 Hits)
by Gilad Atzmon Gordon Brown the British PM has managed to come up yesterday with one of his most immoral and irresponsible announcements so...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (4)add comment

a guest said:

0
Flying in the ointment
Indeed. It is the British Senate with four national parliaments. The idea first emerged on Comment is Free (Guardian) and I agree that your suggestion is a sound way forward.

All power to your pen.

englandismdotcom
 
May 24, 2007 | url
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Joe Middleton
There are major differences between Scotland and Britain on defence and foreign affairs so there is no real need for a UK parliament at all.
 
May 24, 2007 | url
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Brian Barder
No, englandismdotcom, it isn't the British Senate with four national parliaments, it's a full-scale federation with a two-chamber federal parliament and a federal government (i.e. the current British parliament and government but with much reduced spheres of responsibility), and a federal supreme court, with the four nations' parliaments and governments in the second tier. And I doubt very much whether the idea first surfaced in Guardian's 'Comment is Free': can you provide a date for that?

By the way, it does seem rather a pity that your website, http://www.englandism.com/, has no provision for comments on its far-out pieces (so it doesn't qualify as a blog) and that you apparently, but very understandably, prefer to remain anonymous....

The issue in my article here is nothing to do with rabid English nationalism, the implication of your anonymous comment and website: it's to do with the best way to keep the four-nation United Kingdom together by reforming the relationship between the four nations and between the four nations and the UK itself to form a classical federation. The creation of a parliament and government for England is a necessary by-product of this, not a bit of Little Englander nationalism, still less a reflection of hatred of the Scots, the French, the EU, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, or any other of the targets of your website, lively and amusing though some of it is. It will destroy any hope of the federal solution ever being adopted, pursued and carried through if the whole project is hi-jacked by Little-England nationalists.

Brian
 
May 24, 2007 | url
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Brian Barder
Postscript to previous comment: I've now tracked down the discussion of federalism in Comment is Free to last October here. Apart from some rather good comments by you, englandismdotcom, and by the original author, Ian Macwhirter, the debate in the innumerable comments following the Macwhirter article displays a woeful ignorance of the nature of federalism and of what it would imply for the UK. Why are British people so disinclined to learn any lessons from the way people in other parts of the world run their affairs? There are plenty of successful federations out there which could tell us a thing or two about how to run a country which comprises several different national groups or areas: the US, Australia, Canada, Germany, just for starters. But we would need the full Monty, not a fudge such as the many weird devices suggested in comments on Comment is Free.

(In case that attempted hyperlink above doesn't work, it's
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/iain_macwhirter/2006/10/who_wants_an_english_parliamen.html.)

Joe Middleton: Your comment is presumably inspired by your commitment to full independence for Scotland (if Google is any guide!), which of course is not where I'm coming from. My proposals are designed, among other things, to make Scottish independence unnecessary and undesirable by giving Scotland (a) full control of its own affairs, not the present half a loaf, (b) a say in the foreign affairs and defence policies of the UK as a whole, as now, and (c) the benefits of remaining an essential and indispensable part of the UK in friendly if sometimes edgy partnership with the rest of us. We need you!

Brian
 
May 24, 2007 | url
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top