View Full Version : Should there be an english assembly?
All the other home nations have one, why can't england?
Scotish MP's can vote on english law but Scotland's parliament covers a lot of theirs.
If there was an english assembly with the same powers as the scottish parliament whilst retaining the hous of commons in westminster would it mean westminster would have more time to go over legislature covering all the union and do a better job.
Could the Lords be abolished and the space used as the English parliament?
What do you think?
Dirk/DSF
06-24-2009, 15:24
I'd say "yes". There should be an English Assembly.
It would mean Scottish MPs would not have any word in English affairs. Which is how it should be. It would also mean that, if you want to keep the Union, UK issues would be decided separately, which would be good for efficiency and good for democracy, as long as they are separately elected.
Abolishing the HoL is definitely something that need to be done, in order to safeguard democracy. But it does serve a purpose. And we need a second house, to fulfil that purpose.
However, i don't think there is much demand for a separate English Parliament. Though i'm totally for the idea.
Hamsterwaffle
06-24-2009, 16:12
England is far too large for effective devolution, plus I dislike encouraging people when it comes to England, a county(pre-1974 of course) based devolution would be more effective.
Dirk/DSF
06-24-2009, 16:33
England is far too large for effective devolution, plus I dislike encouraging people when it comes to England, a county(pre-1974 of course) based devolution would be more effective.
If there was a devolved English Parliament, its powers should be thoroughly decentralised to maximise efficiency of democracy. It would help even more if the nations were independent, but let's leave that for another thread. Or leave it behind in one of the many hundreds that Austin is involved in.
Daniel Frost
06-24-2009, 17:22
Should there be an English assembly?
No.
Should there be English assemblies?
Yes.
Thus I am forced to abstain.
Should there be an English assembly?
No.
Should there be English assemblies?
Yes.
Thus I am forced to abstain.
There was a vote on whether there should be a north of england assembly. It was a resounding 'no' so i thought putting 'English assembly' was a wise move. Hindsight is a wonderful thing...
I'm all for a federal state with sovereign English regional parliaments and sovereign Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Parliaments. I also support devolution for Cornwall and strong local government.
I do not support English devolution for several reasons:
1. There is no true English national identity and what little there is can best be described as ugly.
2.English devolution wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference as England has over 50million people with very diverse regional interests and values.
3. The Union would be unbalanced, England would have over 90% of the wealth and over 85% of the population. This would risk break up and thus obscurity for all nations involved. It would also probably lead to civil war in Northern Ireland.
4. An English Parliament would be unfairly dominated by the Conservative Party (much as Wales is by Labour). Obviously if a region, county, city, district etc. wants a Conservative government then they should have it, however why should it be forced upon the entire country?
5. Increase in inefficient and out of touch bureaucracy. Regional autonomy would mean that more decisions could be taken by elected politicians and their advisers (e.g. the electorate, civil service etc.) as opposed to quangos.
Joe Smyth
06-24-2009, 18:39
3. The Union would be unbalanced, England would have over 90% of the wealth and over 85% of the population. This would risk break up and thus obscurity for all nations involved. It would also probably lead to civil war in Northern Ireland.
I'm not intirely sure about that. Of course Unionists would oppose, but it's not like Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are combining. Plus, Northern Ireland wouldn't cope by itself without dependence on another country. AS the Republic of Ireland can't afford it, England seems to be a likely choice., Plus, joining with the Republic would mean we lose the NHS, and people across Northern Ireland wouldn't appreciate that. Whether a United Ireland is desired within Ireland by certain parties, people and organisations, I think we are kinda set in our ways and would not want to be lifting at least 50 Euro out of our pockets just to speak to a doctor for a split second.
I'm not intirely sure about that. Of course Unionists would oppose, but it's not like Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are combining. Plus, Northern Ireland wouldn't cope by itself without dependence on another country. AS the Republic of Ireland can't afford it, England seems to be a likely choice., Plus, joining with the Republic would mean we lose the NHS, and people across Northern Ireland wouldn't appreciate that. Whether a United Ireland is desired within Ireland by certain parties, people and organisations, I think we are kinda set in our ways and would not want to be lifting at least 50 Euro out of our pockets just to speak to a doctor for a split second.
But the Republic has an NHS?
Well I voted for getting rid of devolved Governments. I hate them. I hate the Welsh one its daft and stupid. Forces people to learn Welsh when no one wants to. Also wastes loads of money on replacing English signs with English and Welsh. What a daft idea. And the entire Assembly are full of daft Welsh nationalists like that making silly rules.
I just want Westminister to make all the rules, and laws. It be easyer, and if people wanted to add in more local powers etc ok. But give Westminister the power! Please!!
Joe Smyth
06-24-2009, 18:58
But the Republic has an NHS?
Not a free one.
Well I voted for getting rid of devolved Governments. I hate them. I hate the Welsh one its daft and stupid. Forces people to learn Welsh when no one wants to. Also wastes loads of money on replacing English signs with English and Welsh. What a daft idea. And the entire Assembly are full of daft Welsh nationalists like that making silly rules.
I just want Westminister to make all the rules, and laws. It be easyer, and if people wanted to add in more local powers etc ok. But give Westminister the power! Please!!
I can understand your frustration but Wales is to the left (politically) of england- as is scotland. Thus having the localised assemblies is to allow greater representation. Combined wales scotland northern ireland and even parts of northen england couldn't get a majority to form a government. That's why devolution is taking place.
Joe Smyth
06-24-2009, 19:02
Well I voted for getting rid of devolved Governments. I hate them. I hate the Welsh one its daft and stupid. Forces people to learn Welsh when no one wants to. Also wastes loads of money on replacing English signs with English and Welsh. What a daft idea. And the entire Assembly are full of daft Welsh nationalists like that making silly rules.
I just want Westminister to make all the rules, and laws. It be easyer, and if people wanted to add in more local powers etc ok. But give Westminister the power! Please!!
I'm getting the impression that you are a hardcore British imperialist:P
That was tried before, complete British rule and it didn't work, in Ireland at least. That's why we had the War of Independence. It may seem fine with you, but just looking at history in Ireland, it's been proven to be ineffective. I'm sure it's been the seem within Wales and Scotland at times. Don't quote me on that, but I know that one overall rule from England would not work for everyone. There would be many people that would disagree and protest and hence that's why we have the devolved nations.
I'm getting the impression that you are a hardcore British imperialist:P
That was tried before, complete British rule and it didn't work, in Ireland at least. That's why we had the War of Independence. It may seem fine with you, but just looking at history in Ireland, it's been proven to be ineffective. I'm sure it's been the seem within Wales and Scotland at times. Don't quote me on that, but I know that one overall rule from England would not work for everyone. There would be many people that would disagree and protest and hence that's why we have the devolved nations.
I agree. There will always be differences in opinion across the home nations (as i pointed out before) and so a form of devolution means people get represented
I can understand your frustration but Wales is to the left (politically) of england- as is scotland. Thus having the localised assemblies is to allow greater representation. Combined wales scotland northern ireland and even parts of northen england couldn't get a majority to form a government. That's why devolution is taking place.
Well there are other ways rather than devolution. Maybe allow them a greater say. But stop them from making there own laws. Bring back more power to Westminister!
Yes I am a British imperialist and very proud of it. I do think the Government is letting the country divide itself up by these silly nationalist assmebly's and Scotts Parliament (which in my eyes is just stupid the power they have got and could get). We could cut the power of devolved assemblys etc. Or we could replace them so that if a law doesn't work the assembly can ask for an exemption by Westminister from it. So the assembly's become more of an overseaer rather than taking the power off the true Government.
Daniel Frost
06-25-2009, 08:10
Scotland already had different laws from the rest of the UK, that isn't a new thing.
Dirk/DSF
06-25-2009, 12:09
*sarcastically* That sounds like a brilliant idea. Hey, let's get rid of all devolved regional Governments, and then, why stop there? Get rid of councils too...
Ha bloody ha.
As if Westminster isn't already on the take as it is! You want to give an institution that will always be inherently corrupt (i'm talking Gov't in general) even more powers, even more individual lives to play around with as with toy soldiers. It's a recipe for disaster. You're talking about the near collapse of British democracy - no longer do individuals have much of a say, no longer do locals have a right to decide for themselves how their local area is run (which is already imperfect). It would make the nation completely inefficient, and a bloody disaster.
Joe Smyth
06-25-2009, 14:11
Well there are other ways rather than devolution. Maybe allow them a greater say. But stop them from making there own laws. Bring back more power to Westminister!
I do think the Government is letting the country divide itself up by these silly nationalist assmebly's and Scotts Parliament (which in my eyes is just stupid the power they have got and could get).
If this were to happen, I don't think there would be that many that would agree with you. Hypothetically here, if the devolved nations all come under direct rule once again, let's face it, it would be civil war. That's worst case scenario, best case, a hell of a lot of agitation and widespread violence throughout the UK I reckon.
Hamsterwaffle
06-25-2009, 22:56
Well I voted for getting rid of devolved Governments. I hate them. I hate the Welsh one its daft and stupid. Forces people to learn Welsh when no one wants to. Also wastes loads of money on replacing English signs with English and Welsh. What a daft idea. And the entire Assembly are full of daft Welsh nationalists like that making silly rules.
I just want Westminister to make all the rules, and laws. It be easyer, and if people wanted to add in more local powers etc ok. But give Westminister the power! Please!!
I agree with you that devolution is divisive and the attempts to artificially keep the Welsh language alive are a waste of time and resources, but us Unionists have to accept that the choice is either to accept devolution or face the balkanisation of our beloved British Isles.
Joe Smyth
06-25-2009, 23:05
Well I voted for getting rid of devolved Governments. I hate them. I hate the Welsh one its daft and stupid. Forces people to learn Welsh when no one wants to. Also wastes loads of money on replacing English signs with English and Welsh. What a daft idea. And the entire Assembly are full of daft Welsh nationalists like that making silly rules.
Like the Irish language, Welsh could be considered as a "dead language", but it shouldn't be forgotten. I agree that it should still be taught. The onyl thing I'm annoyed with is that I know so little Irish, only a hand full of words and that's it. What does it matter if you keep a tradition and a history of people alive? Surely you can't be that insensitive as to deprive people of their heritage just because you don't like it.
Hamsterwaffle
06-25-2009, 23:10
Like the Irish language, Welsh could be considered as a "dead language", but it shouldn't be forgotten. I agree that it should still be taught. The onyl thing I'm annoyed with is that I know so little Irish, only a hand full of words and that's it. What does it matter if you keep a tradition and a history of people alive? Surely you can't be that insensitive as to deprive people of their heritage just because you don't like it.
But language is primarily a form of communication, surely there is little point in the state trying to force a language to stay alive and ultimately hamper communication.
Joe Smyth
06-25-2009, 23:17
Would you say the same if English became a "dying language"?
Hamsterwaffle
06-25-2009, 23:45
Would you say the same if English became a "dying language"?
Depends upon the extent to which it was dying, but if it served no purpose in maintaining it I would suggest that the state should cease to fund it, however due to the widespread nature of English I doubt that is very likely.
Daniel Frost
06-26-2009, 11:20
If people want to learn Welsh or whatever they should be able to, but the state shouldn't force children to learn something they don't want to learn unless it is absolutely necessary- basic maths and basic English.
Like the Irish language, Welsh could be considered as a "dead language", but it shouldn't be forgotten. I agree that it should still be taught. The onyl thing I'm annoyed with is that I know so little Irish, only a hand full of words and that's it. What does it matter if you keep a tradition and a history of people alive? Surely you can't be that insensitive as to deprive people of their heritage just because you don't like it.
Irish isn't dead though. In the west of ireland (the Republic) it's still widely spoken. In some parts people don't speak much english- they use Irish instead. I think the problem is when someone who can't teach is the one that has to pass on the language. They're more likely to learn the one that is taught better or more widely spoken. It's been proven that your language effects your entire outlook on life (it's in a 'philosphise this' thread i couldn't get started called 'Linguistic Faults)- so to the communities, it's important.
Austin Sheridan
06-26-2009, 17:40
If that's what the people of England want then yes. If they don't want it then we can't force it on them.
Nacho-Nacho-Man
06-26-2009, 18:30
If that's what the people of England want then yes. If they don't want it then we can't force it on them.
Why not? People who dont live in Scotland force Unionism upon you! It is a British birthright and obligation that you have to force your views on other nations!
Joe Smyth
06-26-2009, 20:22
Irish isn't dead though. In the west of ireland (the Republic) it's still widely spoken. In some parts people don't speak much english- they use Irish instead.
Whether it is wildly spoken, it's not spreading too much. In the South the language is fine, I'm just concerned about the North. Like in my primary school we were taught irish for about a month on every Wednesday for the last 30 mins of school in P3 or P4, and sadly I don't remember much of it. I never took it up again in grammar school because it was easier to do French and Italian, everyone else in my family had done it so it was easy to get help from them.
So I reckon that's what they should do in most school, for a set time each week they should teach kids the native tongue, maybe native history as well.
Hamsterwaffle
06-26-2009, 22:04
So I reckon that's what they should do in most school, for a set time each week they should teach kids the native tongue, maybe native history as well.
Surely teaching history is more important than teaching a language that serves no practical purpose. I'm not condemning knowledge of it, merely that there are better uses of time and resources.
Irish isn't dead though. In the west of ireland (the Republic) it's still widely spoken. In some parts people don't speak much english- they use Irish instead. I think the problem is when someone who can't teach is the one that has to pass on the language. They're more likely to learn the one that is taught better or more widely spoken. It's been proven that your language effects your entire outlook on life (it's in a 'philosphise this' thread i couldn't get started called 'Linguistic Faults)- so to the communities, it's important.
Those parts, however, are small, and are growing smaller. The number of Irish speakers has reduced dramatically since the creation of the Irish Free State (which I mention since it was the Saorstat which began programmes to encourage the use and preservation of Irish). As a functional language, Irish is being eroded and its position is more perilous than others (eg Welsh, which has experienced something of a revival).
monorail
06-28-2009, 10:57
There should not be an English Assembly, because it would be entirely against the purpose of devolution - decentralising powers on regional issues to a more regional level.
There is no point in removing some legislative functions from the UK Parliament, which serves 60 million of us, to an English only body to serve 50 million. There is no decentralisation, no cutting of bureacracy, no expansion of accountability at a local level. As an argument it rests purely on the irrational laurels of nationalism.
England should have 5-6 elected, regional assemblies, to govern policy areas such as local planning, housing, environment, infrastructure, transport, health and social services etc, etc, in a similar vain to the assemblies of Scotland and Wales.
Until this happens, we will be left with a constitutional mess in Westminster. Bureaucracy is rife and until decisions on public services are decentralised from the congested powerhouse of Whitehall to a more accountable, regional level, the body politic of this country will only continue to be damaged.
The decision about what languages to teach should be up to individual school districts and their elected officers.
If rural Wales wants to teach English as a foreign language, if Shetland wants to teach Gallic as a first language they should be able to.
On the other hand why should Bridgend or Falkirk be forced to learn a foreign tongue?
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.