Yesterday (10 December), Jack Straw vetoed releasing the minutes of a 1997 Cabinet Ministerial Committee Meeting on Devolution to Scotland and Wales and the English Regions. He stated that releasing the information would be ‘against the public interest’, citing the doctrine of collective responsibility, although the disclosure had previously been approved by the Information Commissioner on June 23rd 2009.
According to the Ministry of Justice, this is only the second time since the Freedom of Information Act was introduced in 2005 that a request granted by an Information Tribunal has been vetoed – out of 160,000 requests. The previous occasion the veto was imposed was in February 2009 in respect of the disclosure of the minutes of two cabinet meetings leading up to the Iraq war.
What is Jack Straw and the Ministry of Justice so concerned with concealing? What was said in a meeting about devolution that was so dangerous that it can’t be made public? What deals were done to break up England and preserve the dominance of Scottish politicians? The English public has a right to know.
This meeting, twelve years ago, led to an asymmetric devolution settlement which is to the great disadvantage of England. The Campaign for an English Parliament believes that action must be taken to deliver a fair and democratic constitutional settlement for England. Lift the veto, Jack, and let us in on the decisions you made.
David WILDGOOSE
Vice-Chairman Campaign for an English Parliament
Friday, 11 December 2009
Tuesday, 8 December 2009
CEP: Would a Tory Government bring in a needs-based formula to replace Barnett?
Professor David Bell of Stirling University has analysed the impact on Scotland of the Welsh Assembly's Holtham Commission report into a needs-based funding formula to replace the out-dated Barnett Formula.
Writing in The Scotsman Prof Bell warns that a move to a needs-based formula could lose Scotland £4.5 billion a year of Treasury funding.
"If its calculations were put into practice, it would have dramatic effects on the Scottish budget," Prof Bell says. "The size of the block grant from Westminster to Holyrood would shrink substantially. Instead of the Scottish grant being 20 per cent higher per head than in England , the margin would shrink to 5 per cent.
"At current spending levels, this would mean a cut of around £4.5bn in Scotland 's annual grant from Westminster ."
During the House of Lord's Select Committee on Barnett, former Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland (1995 to 1997), Lord Forsyth, revealed that in order to guard Scotland 's interests he was counselled against a needs-based formula.
The advice I was given when I was Secretary of State is do everything you can to avoid a needs-based assessment being implemented by the Treasury because the Treasury believe that it will enable them to reduce Scotland's budget by between £2.5 and £4 billion.
Given the possible implications for Scotland , what is the likelihood of a future Conservative Government implementing a needs-based replacement of the Barnett Formula? Would the Tories replace Barnett with a system that is fair to ALL the British nations or would they continue to bribe Scotland to remain in the Union ? The CEP believes that the people of England , whose taxes subsidise the UK , have a right to know.
David WILDGOOSE
Vice-Chairman, Campaign for an English Parliament
0114 274 6191 cep@skein.co.uk
8 December 2009
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
Song for St. George's Day by Resistance 77
http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/entertainment/Undefined-Headline/article-869549-detail/article.html
Writing in The Scotsman Prof Bell warns that a move to a needs-based formula could lose Scotland £4.5 billion a year of Treasury funding.
"If its calculations were put into practice, it would have dramatic effects on the Scottish budget," Prof Bell says. "The size of the block grant from Westminster to Holyrood would shrink substantially. Instead of the Scottish grant being 20 per cent higher per head than in England , the margin would shrink to 5 per cent.
"At current spending levels, this would mean a cut of around £4.5bn in Scotland 's annual grant from Westminster ."
During the House of Lord's Select Committee on Barnett, former Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland (1995 to 1997), Lord Forsyth, revealed that in order to guard Scotland 's interests he was counselled against a needs-based formula.
The advice I was given when I was Secretary of State is do everything you can to avoid a needs-based assessment being implemented by the Treasury because the Treasury believe that it will enable them to reduce Scotland's budget by between £2.5 and £4 billion.
Given the possible implications for Scotland , what is the likelihood of a future Conservative Government implementing a needs-based replacement of the Barnett Formula? Would the Tories replace Barnett with a system that is fair to ALL the British nations or would they continue to bribe Scotland to remain in the Union ? The CEP believes that the people of England , whose taxes subsidise the UK , have a right to know.
David WILDGOOSE
Vice-Chairman, Campaign for an English Parliament
0114 274 6191 cep@skein.co.uk
8 December 2009
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
Song for St. George's Day by Resistance 77
http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/entertainment/Undefined-Headline/article-869549-detail/article.html
Monday, 9 November 2009
DAVID CAMERON MAY FAIRLY BE ACCUSED OF DOUBLE STANDARDS: ONE FOR WALES, A VERY DIFFERENT ONE FOR ENGLAND
Addressing the issue of the demand being made in Wales for a referendum to be held among its people for the Welsh Assembly to have law-making powers equivalent to those enjoyed by the Scottish Parliament, Mr David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, speaking on Friday November 6th, said he would support it if the Welsh Assembly voted for it. 'It is a very significant statement,' the National Council of the Campaign for an English Parliament has declared. 'We welcome it. The very foundation stone of our cause is that the three historic nations of this island should stand in the same relationship to the United Kingdom Parliament and to each other. Unless and until that happens, the Union is severely constiutionally unbalanced and tainted by gross unfairness and discriminatory inequality. One nation, Scotland, should not have advantages within the Union denied to Wales and England. That situation naturally suits Mr Gordon Brown who was the driving force behind the 1998 Devolution legislation because it favours his country. However, such narrow nationalistic bias is no way to run a Union of nations.
'Mr Cameron is aware that whether or not such a referendum may take place is a decision reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. He is aware that the UK Parliament can only consider it if it is backed by two thirds of the Welsh Assembly members. That is a high obstacle to clear. To date Mr Brown's party has fiercely opposed it. Mr Hain, an MP for a Welsh constituency though not a Welshman but a South African, who was the Welsh Secretary till he had to resign the office when facing charges of abusing the Commons regulations regarding his financial affairs, has spoken against it. It is a strange state of affairs where Mr Brown to achieve Scottish devolution made the outcome of the 1998 devolution referenda dependable on a simple majority but made such a fundamental demand as this for Wales possible only if a two thirds majority is achieved. The Celtic brotherhood is obviously a rather wobbly and unreliable assocation. However, if Mr Cameron keeps to his word on attaining the Prime Minister's office, which after his retreat from his promise of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is now always a matter of some doubt, it might encourage Conservative Party Welsh Assembly members to vote for it.
'However', states the CEP National Council, 'Mr Cameron has never shown the same concern for England. Scotland was given a referendum about having its own parliament and self-rule in all matters of state internal to it; Wales was given a referendum about having its own assembly, though, as Mr Brown saw to it, with far less powers. Mr Cameron would now support a referendum for Wales to get the powers the Scots have if two thirds of its assembly vote for it. But he opposes England having its own parliament whatever its powers. He opposes England having a referendum on the matter. His attitude is one of gross unfairness and discrimination. Until and unless the three nations of this island stand in the same relationship to the Union Parliament and to each other, it is an unfair, discriminatory and dangerously unbalanced Union'
Contacts:
Michael Knowles
CEP Unit.Media Tel: 01260 271139 email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
'Mr Cameron is aware that whether or not such a referendum may take place is a decision reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. He is aware that the UK Parliament can only consider it if it is backed by two thirds of the Welsh Assembly members. That is a high obstacle to clear. To date Mr Brown's party has fiercely opposed it. Mr Hain, an MP for a Welsh constituency though not a Welshman but a South African, who was the Welsh Secretary till he had to resign the office when facing charges of abusing the Commons regulations regarding his financial affairs, has spoken against it. It is a strange state of affairs where Mr Brown to achieve Scottish devolution made the outcome of the 1998 devolution referenda dependable on a simple majority but made such a fundamental demand as this for Wales possible only if a two thirds majority is achieved. The Celtic brotherhood is obviously a rather wobbly and unreliable assocation. However, if Mr Cameron keeps to his word on attaining the Prime Minister's office, which after his retreat from his promise of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is now always a matter of some doubt, it might encourage Conservative Party Welsh Assembly members to vote for it.
'However', states the CEP National Council, 'Mr Cameron has never shown the same concern for England. Scotland was given a referendum about having its own parliament and self-rule in all matters of state internal to it; Wales was given a referendum about having its own assembly, though, as Mr Brown saw to it, with far less powers. Mr Cameron would now support a referendum for Wales to get the powers the Scots have if two thirds of its assembly vote for it. But he opposes England having its own parliament whatever its powers. He opposes England having a referendum on the matter. His attitude is one of gross unfairness and discrimination. Until and unless the three nations of this island stand in the same relationship to the Union Parliament and to each other, it is an unfair, discriminatory and dangerously unbalanced Union'
Contacts:
Michael Knowles
CEP Unit.Media Tel: 01260 271139 email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
Thursday, 29 October 2009
FUTURE OF ENGLAND CONFERENCE
THE FUTURE OF ENGLAND?
A MAJOR CONFERENCE BEING HELD BY THE CEP TAKING PLACE IN ROOM 10 IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 18TH 5pm to 7pm (SAME DAY AS THE OPENING OF PARLIAMENT) WITH FOUR DISTINGUISHED WRITERS AND CAMPAIGNERS.
• George Monbiot (Guardian newspaper and environment campaigner)
• Peter Facey (Director: Unlock Democracy)
• Paul Kingsnorth (author of 'Real England: The Battle against the Bland')
• David Wildgoose (vice-chairman The Campaign for an English Parliament)
• Chair: Scilla Cullen
It is eleven years since the 1998 devolution legislation. Scotland and Wales now have their own Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. They have forged ahead since, re-creating and expanding their own distinct national identities and achieving major benefits and advantages for their peoples. But England has got nothing from devolution. Why should English students pay tuition fees and emerge from university laden with debt while Scottish students don't? Why should Welsh people pay no prescription charges while English people do? England still has no constitutional existence of its own and no national institution of any kind as 'a forum where the concerns of the nation can be debated' (the Welsh White paper). England is disadvantaged. The situation is gravely unjust to the people of England. Scottish MPs can now take part in legislation that concerns England only, can even be ministers of departments which deal only with England, without being accountable to any electorate. The Union is dangerously unbalanced. There are massive cultural, environmental and political issues involved. From many angles the people of England are being left out and overlooked. It is a situation that cannot continue. Nor should it. The Union should be a Union of equals or it is no Union.'
We are looking for an open debate. We want your contribution.
Anyone wishing to attend please phone Scilla Cullen (CEP ChaIrman) on: 01438 833155 or email: scilla.cullen@dsl.pipex.com
NOTE - THERE WILL BE A PROTEST HELD IN PARLIAMENT SQUARE FOR 1 HOUR DURING THE AFTERNOON FROM 2-0PM UNTIL 3-0 PM PLEASE ATTEND
A MAJOR CONFERENCE BEING HELD BY THE CEP TAKING PLACE IN ROOM 10 IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 18TH 5pm to 7pm (SAME DAY AS THE OPENING OF PARLIAMENT) WITH FOUR DISTINGUISHED WRITERS AND CAMPAIGNERS.
• George Monbiot (Guardian newspaper and environment campaigner)
• Peter Facey (Director: Unlock Democracy)
• Paul Kingsnorth (author of 'Real England: The Battle against the Bland')
• David Wildgoose (vice-chairman The Campaign for an English Parliament)
• Chair: Scilla Cullen
It is eleven years since the 1998 devolution legislation. Scotland and Wales now have their own Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. They have forged ahead since, re-creating and expanding their own distinct national identities and achieving major benefits and advantages for their peoples. But England has got nothing from devolution. Why should English students pay tuition fees and emerge from university laden with debt while Scottish students don't? Why should Welsh people pay no prescription charges while English people do? England still has no constitutional existence of its own and no national institution of any kind as 'a forum where the concerns of the nation can be debated' (the Welsh White paper). England is disadvantaged. The situation is gravely unjust to the people of England. Scottish MPs can now take part in legislation that concerns England only, can even be ministers of departments which deal only with England, without being accountable to any electorate. The Union is dangerously unbalanced. There are massive cultural, environmental and political issues involved. From many angles the people of England are being left out and overlooked. It is a situation that cannot continue. Nor should it. The Union should be a Union of equals or it is no Union.'
We are looking for an open debate. We want your contribution.
Anyone wishing to attend please phone Scilla Cullen (CEP ChaIrman) on: 01438 833155 or email: scilla.cullen@dsl.pipex.com
NOTE - THERE WILL BE A PROTEST HELD IN PARLIAMENT SQUARE FOR 1 HOUR DURING THE AFTERNOON FROM 2-0PM UNTIL 3-0 PM PLEASE ATTEND
Thursday, 8 October 2009
Campaign for an English Parliament protests at West Midlands Regional Grand Committee
Members of the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP) in Shropshire
and the West Midlands attended the inaugural meeting of the
grandly-titled but pointlessly ineffectual Regional Grand Committee for
the West Midlands last night (8th October) to protest at its existence.
Like the vast majority of English people, the Campaign for an English
Parliament opposes the damaging regionalisation of England and instead
believes that England should be run by an English Parliament.
CEP members held up a 12ft banner and waved placards as MPs arrived at
Sandwell College Campus at Smethwick. Several passing motorists stopped
to read the placards and many of them stuck up their thumbs and honked
their horns in support.
Despite the Conservatives saying that they would boycott these regional
grand committees and pledging, in their party conference this week, to
unravel Labour's regionalisation, seven Conservative MPs turned up to
the meeting. Had they not attended, the Labour MPs that attended would
have failed to meet the minimum number required for the meeting to go ahead.
These regional grand committees are Gordon Brown's preferred form of
government for England and are supposed to be Labour's answer to the
national parliament and assembly they created in Scotland and Wales.
British ministers have described them as bringing democracy closer to
the people. To think that the people of England will accept this sham
as the future of their country is an insult.
Stuart Parr
National Council Member
Campaign for an English Parliament
07973 296118
The Devolution Acts of 1997/98 were and are a deliberate attempt by the EU and New Labour to destabilise the British Nation State and deny England its nationhood
The Devolution Acts of 1997/98 revoked the Act of Union, revoked the concept of one British Nation with one legislative body of government and revoked the principle of representative democracy. It unbalanced the Union by placing England, Scotland and Wales each in a different relationship with the Union and each other, and it institutionalised discrimination against the people of England.
By virtue of their national institutions Scotland and Wales have a distinct and separate political and constitutional existence and nationhood, England however alone does not constitutionally exist and is denied its nationhood.
The Devolution Acts of 1997/98 abolished representative democracy as the untouchable 1st principle of government. By what is understood to be the West Lothian issue British MPs elected in Scotland can be both ministers and legislators, even Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Home Secretary in English matters without being answerable in elections for their actions in those matters to ‘any electorate,’ either in Scotland or England.
England having no parliament has no separate representation of its own to defend its interests against such people and instead has to rely on its British MPs in the UK parliament who are subject to their political party whips to speak up for it, and who has ever seen or will ever see, or can imagine Labour and Conservative MPs sitting in English constituency seats combining to defeat and bring down their respective governments.
Regional government being offered England by the British is not the same type of regional government that has been given to Scotland and never could be, so what England is being offered in devolution is a government re-organisation program run by quangos that gives them more centralised control and us the people less local democracy and at the same time denies the people of England an English identity.
David Cameron said that he was going to abolish regional government if his Conservative Party won the next general election yet his MPs rushed all the way from their party conference in Manchester to attend this quango meeting at Sandwell College. It appears he and his Conservative Party can be no more trusted than Gordon Brown and his New Labour Party.
John Stanhope
NC Member for West Midlands
Campaign for an English Parliament
01902 630110
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
and the West Midlands attended the inaugural meeting of the
grandly-titled but pointlessly ineffectual Regional Grand Committee for
the West Midlands last night (8th October) to protest at its existence.
Like the vast majority of English people, the Campaign for an English
Parliament opposes the damaging regionalisation of England and instead
believes that England should be run by an English Parliament.
CEP members held up a 12ft banner and waved placards as MPs arrived at
Sandwell College Campus at Smethwick. Several passing motorists stopped
to read the placards and many of them stuck up their thumbs and honked
their horns in support.
Despite the Conservatives saying that they would boycott these regional
grand committees and pledging, in their party conference this week, to
unravel Labour's regionalisation, seven Conservative MPs turned up to
the meeting. Had they not attended, the Labour MPs that attended would
have failed to meet the minimum number required for the meeting to go ahead.
These regional grand committees are Gordon Brown's preferred form of
government for England and are supposed to be Labour's answer to the
national parliament and assembly they created in Scotland and Wales.
British ministers have described them as bringing democracy closer to
the people. To think that the people of England will accept this sham
as the future of their country is an insult.
Stuart Parr
National Council Member
Campaign for an English Parliament
07973 296118
The Devolution Acts of 1997/98 were and are a deliberate attempt by the EU and New Labour to destabilise the British Nation State and deny England its nationhood
The Devolution Acts of 1997/98 revoked the Act of Union, revoked the concept of one British Nation with one legislative body of government and revoked the principle of representative democracy. It unbalanced the Union by placing England, Scotland and Wales each in a different relationship with the Union and each other, and it institutionalised discrimination against the people of England.
By virtue of their national institutions Scotland and Wales have a distinct and separate political and constitutional existence and nationhood, England however alone does not constitutionally exist and is denied its nationhood.
The Devolution Acts of 1997/98 abolished representative democracy as the untouchable 1st principle of government. By what is understood to be the West Lothian issue British MPs elected in Scotland can be both ministers and legislators, even Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Home Secretary in English matters without being answerable in elections for their actions in those matters to ‘any electorate,’ either in Scotland or England.
England having no parliament has no separate representation of its own to defend its interests against such people and instead has to rely on its British MPs in the UK parliament who are subject to their political party whips to speak up for it, and who has ever seen or will ever see, or can imagine Labour and Conservative MPs sitting in English constituency seats combining to defeat and bring down their respective governments.
Regional government being offered England by the British is not the same type of regional government that has been given to Scotland and never could be, so what England is being offered in devolution is a government re-organisation program run by quangos that gives them more centralised control and us the people less local democracy and at the same time denies the people of England an English identity.
David Cameron said that he was going to abolish regional government if his Conservative Party won the next general election yet his MPs rushed all the way from their party conference in Manchester to attend this quango meeting at Sandwell College. It appears he and his Conservative Party can be no more trusted than Gordon Brown and his New Labour Party.
John Stanhope
NC Member for West Midlands
Campaign for an English Parliament
01902 630110
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
Wednesday, 7 October 2009
CEP RESPONSE TO DAVID CAMERON
David Cameron, speaking at the Conservative Party Conference, has suggested that there be an annual "Council of the Nations" with the aim of "keeping the family of the UK together". [1]
This is a laudable aim, however the question remains, "Who will speak for England?".
Certainly not David Cameron. After all, he has already repeatedly made it clear that he "does not want to be Prime Minister of England". [2]
So does this suggested "Council of the Nations" mean that the Conservatives will finally start to treat England with the respect due as a full member of the "family of the UK"?
Will our nationhood finally be acknowledged?
Or does his vision of a "family of the UK" mean continuing to treat England as if she were some mad Mrs Rochester [3], an embarrassment to be locked up in the attic and ignored?
David Wildgoose, vice Chairman CEP, mobile 07906 551417
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/wales_politics/8290611.stm
[2] http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/conservativeparty/David-Cameron-sticks-to-the.4550421.jp
[3] From the novel "Jane Eyre" by Charlotte Bronte
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
This is a laudable aim, however the question remains, "Who will speak for England?".
Certainly not David Cameron. After all, he has already repeatedly made it clear that he "does not want to be Prime Minister of England". [2]
So does this suggested "Council of the Nations" mean that the Conservatives will finally start to treat England with the respect due as a full member of the "family of the UK"?
Will our nationhood finally be acknowledged?
Or does his vision of a "family of the UK" mean continuing to treat England as if she were some mad Mrs Rochester [3], an embarrassment to be locked up in the attic and ignored?
David Wildgoose, vice Chairman CEP, mobile 07906 551417
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/wales_politics/8290611.stm
[2] http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/conservativeparty/David-Cameron-sticks-to-the.4550421.jp
[3] From the novel "Jane Eyre" by Charlotte Bronte
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
Sunday, 4 October 2009
2000 Labour Party delegates applauded the negation of the English Democratic Tradition
Wednesday, 30, Sep 2009 12:00
2000 labour party delegates got to their feet in Brighton in the county of Sussex to applaud the repudiation by Gordon Brown of the very fundamentals of England's democratic tradition.
Yesterday afternoon the delegates to the Labour Party Conference -Cabinet Ministers, MPs, Peers, Party officials and 2000 delegates from across the United Kingdom got up and clapped and shouted their approval as Gordon Brown, MP for Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath in Fifeshire in Scotland, announced measure after measure of new legislation for England, and only for England, in defiance of the very fundamentals of what the people of England founded their parliament for 800 years ago.
The CEP National Council has circulated its membership with a statement on this matter.
'Gordon Brown announced new legislation to place new teenage mothers in hostels rather than council houses; to provide free personal care for the very elderly in their homes, to limit pub opening hours, to control broken familes unable to control their children, to bring in additional controls on wild disruptive youngsters, to provide 250,000 free childcare places and to delay the introduction of ID cards. Very many people will indeed agree with these measures. That is not an issue that the CEP as such involves itself with. The CEP is concerned with democracy for England. When England gets its own parlament, its parliament will concern itself wholeheartedly with the welfare of the people of England.
'These measures concern matters which affect England only. The fundamental nature of English democracy as founded with the English Parliament in the 13th century and developed by the people of England over the past 800 years is that it is representative democracy. Law makers are accountable to the people who elect them. They are elected to be their representatives in their parliament. But Brown is not elected by any English voters. He is not accountable to any English voter for any of these specific measures. His action, and the conference applause for it, is a repudiation of this most fundamental aspect of the English democratic tradition.
CEP Media Unit. Tel: 01260 271139 Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
2000 labour party delegates got to their feet in Brighton in the county of Sussex to applaud the repudiation by Gordon Brown of the very fundamentals of England's democratic tradition.
Yesterday afternoon the delegates to the Labour Party Conference -Cabinet Ministers, MPs, Peers, Party officials and 2000 delegates from across the United Kingdom got up and clapped and shouted their approval as Gordon Brown, MP for Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath in Fifeshire in Scotland, announced measure after measure of new legislation for England, and only for England, in defiance of the very fundamentals of what the people of England founded their parliament for 800 years ago.
The CEP National Council has circulated its membership with a statement on this matter.
'Gordon Brown announced new legislation to place new teenage mothers in hostels rather than council houses; to provide free personal care for the very elderly in their homes, to limit pub opening hours, to control broken familes unable to control their children, to bring in additional controls on wild disruptive youngsters, to provide 250,000 free childcare places and to delay the introduction of ID cards. Very many people will indeed agree with these measures. That is not an issue that the CEP as such involves itself with. The CEP is concerned with democracy for England. When England gets its own parlament, its parliament will concern itself wholeheartedly with the welfare of the people of England.
'These measures concern matters which affect England only. The fundamental nature of English democracy as founded with the English Parliament in the 13th century and developed by the people of England over the past 800 years is that it is representative democracy. Law makers are accountable to the people who elect them. They are elected to be their representatives in their parliament. But Brown is not elected by any English voters. He is not accountable to any English voter for any of these specific measures. His action, and the conference applause for it, is a repudiation of this most fundamental aspect of the English democratic tradition.
CEP Media Unit. Tel: 01260 271139 Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
