View Full Version : Should England get it's own Parliament?
James2200
10-04-2009, 10:53
Similar to the Scottish Parliament, or Welsh Assembly.
Daniel Frost
10-04-2009, 11:11
Regional Assemblies/Parliaments, please.
How many times have we been through this:rolleyes:?
*see above for my preferred option.*
Dlowe4570
10-04-2009, 11:49
I think it would be nice, then we can get rules/laws that are more specific to each country..and therefore benefit us more.
Or even better have a parliament in each region so that it is closer to the people and can make laws specific to the region (e.g. Yorkshire) as opposed to the entire English nation.
Is having a parliament for 50 as opposed to 61 million based hundreds of miles away from many of them really a step forward?
coruscant
10-04-2009, 14:38
How many times have we been through this:rolleyes:?
*see above for my preferred option.*
I was about to say the same thing...
Dirk/DSF
10-04-2009, 22:20
If the people support it, yes, absolutely.
Daniel Frost
10-05-2009, 15:37
If the people support it, yes, absolutely.
While I understand you're just saying "let the people decide", don't you think it is an extra layer of bureaucracy for scarcely any more accountability?
UKernie123
10-05-2009, 15:54
If yes, Westminster should become purely for English matters only, with independence granted to Scotland, Wales & NI. I prefer it like it is though.
matso1996
10-07-2009, 17:45
A referendum on this might be useful maybe we could hold a referundum on EU and English Parliament on the same day, or would that be a bad combination?
Anyway my stance is i quite fairly think that either an EP or regional assemblies would be useful.
Austin Sheridan
10-07-2009, 23:50
I think it would be a good idea for England to have its own parliament and inject some English national pride as England is a wonderful country worth celebrating.
Dirk/DSF
10-08-2009, 00:18
While I understand you're just saying "let the people decide", don't you think it is an extra layer of bureaucracy for scarcely any more accountability?
Yes.
For England, in any case. Were it Scotland or Wales, it would be a huge victory for democracy.
I'm quite indifferent to an English Parliament - but then, i don't have a vested interest at the moment, in any way. If they want one, why not? :p
Though i think the peoples' interests (in the case of England, certainly, though i suspect that for the moment Wales would be included) would be better served through Federalism and decentralisation.
English national pride
What, proud of being born in a certain place on the planet? What's the point?
I mean, i don't pride myself on being a Colchestarian.
National pride is a stupid term.
National pride is a stupid term.
I'm proud of being British and English, and I don't need some stupid extra parliament to change that. Showing national pride is essentially not a British thing to do anyway.
James2200
10-08-2009, 06:30
I'm proud of being British and English, and I don't need some stupid extra parliament to change that. Showing national pride is essentially not a British thing to do anyway.
I am also proud of being both English and British, however I think either all 4 regions of the UK should have a smaller parliament or assembly or none of them should. It's unfair that Scotland can have a parliament for decisions solely about Scotland, the same with Wales and NI. I think the British Commons should have ultimate rule though.
Lord Bellingcroft
10-08-2009, 18:59
or none of them should.
Now that, would be ideal.
Hamsterwaffle
10-08-2009, 19:01
I think it would be a good idea for England to have its own parliament and inject some English national pride as England is a wonderful country worth celebrating.
Oh go away. England is too large for effective devolved governance. A better system would be to base the devolution around the traditional counties.
Austin Sheridan
10-09-2009, 09:33
Oh go away. England is too large for effective devolved governance. A better system would be to base the devolution around the traditional counties.
Maybe so, but that is for the People of England to decide.
Dirk/DSF
10-09-2009, 12:59
Now that, would be ideal.
But far divorced from what is realistic.
Hamsterwaffle
10-09-2009, 19:01
Maybe so, but that is for the People of England to decide.
Sigh.......
I think that England doesn't really need a separate parliament. The best solution, would be that England only bills in the Houses of Parliament could only be voted on by English members.
Simple, easy and no cost at all.
We are not a federal state. I don't want my country to do anything that even vaguely resembles the United States.
We are not a federal state. I don't want my country to do anything that even vaguely resembles the United States.
Or Germany? Or Australia? Or Canada?
Austin Sheridan
10-17-2009, 18:51
We are not a federal state. I don't want my country to do anything that even vaguely resembles the United States.
There is nothing wrong with using the US system as an example however it would never be exactly the same.
I don't like Australia or Canada as nations either.
As for Germany, well they're an exception. They've first-hand experience of letting too much power get to the hands of one man. I can't imagine that happening in Britain anytime soon.
James2200
10-18-2009, 14:08
We are not a federal state. I don't want my country to do anything that even vaguely resembles the United States.
So you wouldnt want a defence budget the size of theirs, if possible? A HDI as good as theirs? An income the size of theirs?
Naa, who would want anything like that?
It already has.
The German tradition of decentralisation goes back to the formation of the Kaiserreich. Decentralisation is the only way to give people real power. You can't make decisions about a nation of 61million from one place.
I don't like Australia or Canada as nations either.
As for Germany, well they're an exception. They've first-hand experience of letting too much power get to the hands of one man. I can't imagine that happening in Britain anytime soon.
How does federalism encourage supreme power being in the 'hands of one man'?
It doesn't. Their centralisation gave too much power to Hitler. But that isn't a problem in Britain.
And the USA also has considerably more extreme poverty, gun crime, obesity, etc.
On the issue of giving power to the people, I'm all for direct democracy (to the extent where it's still plausible and not completely inefficient). But the decision needs to be made nationwide.
It's a problem we face nowadays with councils. The richer areas are more likely to be Conservative, so are more likely to have divided systems, with grammars/privates and secondary moderns. The poorer areas have just comprehensives so they have less opportunities. That's unfair to the extreme.
I don't see where your personal concept of "fairness" comes into it. Surely people should be allowed to choose the educational system they want in their local area?
I don't think anyone has ever criticised Weimar Germany for being to centralised. Hitler took over the states using a mixture of force and legal means. Emergency powers were used to seize control of the state governments (many were Nazi led by 1933 anway) in Prussia (which accounted for 70% of Germany's landmass and 75% of the population the Nazis fired most of the police and any civil servants who might have stood in their way and replaced them with SA and party members using force where necessary. They then sued the Prussian government for treason at the Supreme Court and had the state abolished. Thereby solveing the problem in one go.
Of course in many areas the Nazis just used force in the form of the SA to seize control...
And the USA also has considerably more extreme poverty, gun crime, obesity, etc.
It's a problem we face nowadays with councils. The richer areas are more likely to be Conservative, so are more likely to have divided systems, with grammars/privates and secondary moderns. The poorer areas have just comprehensives so they have less opportunities. That's unfair to the extreme.
What does this have to do with federalism? You are taking the results of the actions of these governments as a reason to dislike these countries - and thus the federalism associated with it.
PS - Why do comprehensives lead to less opportunities?
coruscant
10-19-2009, 20:39
Besides, 'decentralisation' wasn't why Germany had a federal system, but because the states were basically separate, and kinda wanted to stay that way, after Germany unification.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.