 |
| Photograph: Palace of Westminster from across the river via photopin (license) (cropped) |
English Votes for English Laws, under its pretty unfortunate acronym Evel, is a proposal to limit Scottish MPs in their ability to vote on matters that would affect England only, due to those areas having been devolved to the Scottish Parliament (Wintour, 2015).
But what it seems to be, above everything else, is an attempt by Conservatives to forestall Britain's shift towards a federal system, where power would be devolved away from the centre at Westminster - and the more proportional voting systems would likely follow.
Late last year, Cameron promised the devolution of further powers to Scotland, including tax raising powers (Wintour, 2014), but at the same time stressed his intention to pursue the idea that legislation affecting only England should only be voted on by English MPs.
Some, particularly within the SNP, have complained that such a stratification of MPs, with different voting powers on different legislation, would create mounting difficulties (Mason & Perraudin, 2015). Furthermore there has been outrage at how the government is attempting to rush the plans through without the scrutiny of the full parliamentary process (Mason, 2015).
At PMQs, Cameron stressed that his plan for Evel did not involve creating a two-tiered system of MPs, but was the equivalent for England of the devolved decision making already in place in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (Sparrow, 2015).
That opinion exposes an oddity within the British system. In essence, it labels Westminster as, de facto, the English Parliament, to which the other nations seem to simply be invited to attend when matters affecting them arise.
This determination to maintain this particular political system, forcing answers to constitutional questions to fit within Britain's deeply centralised system, even when they will produce unbalanced ways of handling legislation (The Guardian, 2015) - in this case by handing a veto to English MPs - looks to be a sign of just how uncomfortable the Conservative Party is with the clear changes taking place within the UK's political system.
Instead of embracing positive changes to the British system, for which there is mounting support (Mortimer, 2015), the Conservatives have determined instead to pursue a system that alienates those parts of the country who already have some partial federalism, while trying to rule another 50 million people directly from Westminster.
Embracing federalism, based around the regions and nations of the UK and allowing Westminster to evolve into a federal parliament, would be a much neater approach.
Following a close comparison for Britain, as Canada would be despite its smaller population, federalism would allow power to be devolved neatly to provincial assemblies representing the North, the Midlands, the East, the South and London. These could sit comfortably alongside those of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, much as Ontario or Alberta sit alongside the quite vociferously distinct Quebec. By reforming along such lines, the confusing dual-purposing of Westminster might be avoided in the process.
Britain already has a complex multi-level political system, of regions and county councils between Westminster and local authorities, long in need of reform. Streamlining that system along federal lines would be a huge step forward that would ensure that, above all, people have the right to a government representative of them and their distinct provincial needs, while avoiding constitutional snarls that are only likely to lead to more alienation and division.
Referendum
Andrew Sparrow's 'Chris Grayling's statement on English votes for English laws (Evel)'; in The Guardian; 2 July 2015.
'English veto brings balance and fairness to Parliament'; Press Release from the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons and the Cabinet Office; 2 July 2015.
'English Votes for English Laws: An Explanatory Guide to Proposals'; 5 page guide from the Cabinet Office; 2 July 2015.
'English Votes for English Laws: Proposed Changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and Explanatory Memorandum'; 31 page guide from the Cabinet Office; 2 July 2015.
'PMQs: Cameron and Robertson on Scottish powers and votes'; on the BBC; 1 July 2015.
Patrick Wintour's 'William Hague unveils plans to stop Scottish MPs voting on English issues'; in The Guardian; 3 February 2015.
Patrick Wintour's 'English MPs should get veto on English laws, says Cameron'; in The Guardian; 20 November 2014.
Rowena Mason & Frances Perraudin's 'Alex Salmond challenges Tories' plan for English votes for English laws'; in The Guardian; 27 May 2015.
Rowena Mason's 'SNP: rushing through English votes for English laws is democratic outrage'; in The Guardian; 30 June 2015.
'The Guardian view on English votes for English laws: playing with fire'; in The Guardian; 3 February 2015.
Josiah Mortimer's '477,000 people...and five parties'; from the Electoral Society; 18 May 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment