Go to first unread
Back
to top
Why EVEL is evil (and stupid)
Watch
Announcements
The Tories appear determined to place base political calculation above the interests of our United Kingdom. I do wonder if they plan to drop the unionist part of their full title the Conservative and Unionist Party, given EVEL is hugely provocative to the Scots and might well push them out the door when they are told their MPs at Westminster will be second-tier MPs.
EVEL (English votes for English laws) is an idiotic proposal, poorly thought through and obviously designed with one thing in mind; to wedge the Labour Party. It has been rejected by the Smith Commission (appointed by this government). It is a puerile proposal for the following reasons.
(1) It creates a two-tier parliament, where Scottish MPs will only be able to vote on certain matters while English MPs can vote on everything. Such a parliamentary set-up would be completely unprecedented and a recipe for chaos
(2) It would mean you would almost certainly see a situation where a Labour Prime Minister who can command the confidence of the house can't even pass his own budget viz English spending. On the other hand, the Conservatives aren't in a position to command a majority in the house either. Splitting the legislature in that way, having the executive made up of ministers who do not control the purse strings is a total undermining of the whole basis of the Westminster system of government
(3) It would mean we would never again have a Scottish Prime Minister; after all, you couldn't really have a PM who was unable to vote on his own budget.
The obvious solution is simply to have a devolved English parliament, or devolved English regional parliaments (as London will probably need to be some form of autonomous city-state); that ensures you completely avoid all the issues listed above. Of course, the downside is that it doesn't play into Tory political calculations, so they will no doubt reject it.
If the English want the UK parliament to be their English parliament as well, they need to accept that Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs are full and equal members of that body, and that the parliament must proceed in the way it always has viz. the PM commanding the confidence of the house and controlling the purse strings. If that is unacceptable, then pursue devolution for England
On a related note, this excellent article in the Spectator asks whether Conservative Central Office is dancing to Alex Salmond's tune
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeeh...g-for-the-snp/
EVEL (English votes for English laws) is an idiotic proposal, poorly thought through and obviously designed with one thing in mind; to wedge the Labour Party. It has been rejected by the Smith Commission (appointed by this government). It is a puerile proposal for the following reasons.
(1) It creates a two-tier parliament, where Scottish MPs will only be able to vote on certain matters while English MPs can vote on everything. Such a parliamentary set-up would be completely unprecedented and a recipe for chaos
(2) It would mean you would almost certainly see a situation where a Labour Prime Minister who can command the confidence of the house can't even pass his own budget viz English spending. On the other hand, the Conservatives aren't in a position to command a majority in the house either. Splitting the legislature in that way, having the executive made up of ministers who do not control the purse strings is a total undermining of the whole basis of the Westminster system of government
(3) It would mean we would never again have a Scottish Prime Minister; after all, you couldn't really have a PM who was unable to vote on his own budget.
The obvious solution is simply to have a devolved English parliament, or devolved English regional parliaments (as London will probably need to be some form of autonomous city-state); that ensures you completely avoid all the issues listed above. Of course, the downside is that it doesn't play into Tory political calculations, so they will no doubt reject it.
If the English want the UK parliament to be their English parliament as well, they need to accept that Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs are full and equal members of that body, and that the parliament must proceed in the way it always has viz. the PM commanding the confidence of the house and controlling the purse strings. If that is unacceptable, then pursue devolution for England
On a related note, this excellent article in the Spectator asks whether Conservative Central Office is dancing to Alex Salmond's tune
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeeh...g-for-the-snp/
0
reply
Report
#2
Broadly agreed. English regional devolution is the only real way to introduce effective symmetry in the system. EVEL just creates a dual mandate problem and a potential contradiction between English and UK-wide governments (in which case the latter would be almost pointless, as it would end up only dealing with non-devolved matters for the rUK).
An English Parliament would be preferable to EVEL, but history can suggest that even under a symmetric federal system, one particularly large unit can end up de facto controlling the others, e.g. Prussia within Germany, Serbia within Yugoslavia.
So for me, the only real solution (apart from disunion) is English regional devolution.
An English Parliament would be preferable to EVEL, but history can suggest that even under a symmetric federal system, one particularly large unit can end up de facto controlling the others, e.g. Prussia within Germany, Serbia within Yugoslavia.
So for me, the only real solution (apart from disunion) is English regional devolution.
0
reply
Report
#3
(Original post by young_guns)
The Tories appear determined to place base political calculation above the interests of our United Kingdom. I do wonder if they plan to drop the unionist part of their full title the Conservative and Unionist Party, given EVEL is hugely provocative to the Scots and might well push them out the door when they are told their MPs at Westminster will be second-tier MPs.
EVEL (English votes for English laws) is an idiotic proposal, poorly thought through and obviously designed with one thing in mind; to wedge the Labour Party. It has been rejected by the Smith Commission (appointed by this government). It is a puerile proposal for the following reasons.
(1) It creates a two-tier parliament, where Scottish MPs will only be able to vote on certain matters while English MPs can vote on everything. Such a parliamentary set-up would be completely unprecedented and a recipe for chaos
(2) It would mean you would almost certainly see a situation where a Labour Prime Minister who can command the confidence of the house can't even pass his own budget viz English spending. On the other hand, the Conservatives aren't in a position to command a majority in the house either. Splitting the legislature in that way, having the executive made up of ministers who do not control the purse strings is a total undermining of the whole basis of the Westminster system of government
(3) It would mean we would never again have a Scottish Prime Minister; after all, you couldn't really have a PM who was unable to vote on his own budget.
The obvious solution is simply to have a devolved English parliament, or devolved English regional parliaments (as London will probably need to be some form of autonomous city-state); that ensures you completely avoid all the issues listed above. Of course, the downside is that it doesn't play into Tory political calculations, so they will no doubt reject it.
If the English want the UK parliament to be their English parliament as well, they need to accept that Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs are full and equal members of that body, and that the parliament must proceed in the way it always has viz. the PM commanding the confidence of the house and controlling the purse strings. If that is unacceptable, then pursue devolution for England
On a related note, this excellent article in the Spectator asks whether Conservative Central Office is dancing to Alex Salmond's tune
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeeh...g-for-the-snp/
The Tories appear determined to place base political calculation above the interests of our United Kingdom. I do wonder if they plan to drop the unionist part of their full title the Conservative and Unionist Party, given EVEL is hugely provocative to the Scots and might well push them out the door when they are told their MPs at Westminster will be second-tier MPs.
EVEL (English votes for English laws) is an idiotic proposal, poorly thought through and obviously designed with one thing in mind; to wedge the Labour Party. It has been rejected by the Smith Commission (appointed by this government). It is a puerile proposal for the following reasons.
(1) It creates a two-tier parliament, where Scottish MPs will only be able to vote on certain matters while English MPs can vote on everything. Such a parliamentary set-up would be completely unprecedented and a recipe for chaos
(2) It would mean you would almost certainly see a situation where a Labour Prime Minister who can command the confidence of the house can't even pass his own budget viz English spending. On the other hand, the Conservatives aren't in a position to command a majority in the house either. Splitting the legislature in that way, having the executive made up of ministers who do not control the purse strings is a total undermining of the whole basis of the Westminster system of government
(3) It would mean we would never again have a Scottish Prime Minister; after all, you couldn't really have a PM who was unable to vote on his own budget.
The obvious solution is simply to have a devolved English parliament, or devolved English regional parliaments (as London will probably need to be some form of autonomous city-state); that ensures you completely avoid all the issues listed above. Of course, the downside is that it doesn't play into Tory political calculations, so they will no doubt reject it.
If the English want the UK parliament to be their English parliament as well, they need to accept that Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs are full and equal members of that body, and that the parliament must proceed in the way it always has viz. the PM commanding the confidence of the house and controlling the purse strings. If that is unacceptable, then pursue devolution for England
On a related note, this excellent article in the Spectator asks whether Conservative Central Office is dancing to Alex Salmond's tune
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeeh...g-for-the-snp/
2
reply
Report
#4
(Original post by young_guns)
The Tories appear determined to place base political calculation above the interests of our United Kingdom. I do wonder if they plan to drop the unionist part of their full title the Conservative and Unionist Party, given EVEL is hugely provocative to the Scots and might well push them out the door when they are told their MPs at Westminster will be second-tier MPs.
EVEL (English votes for English laws) is an idiotic proposal, poorly thought through and obviously designed with one thing in mind; to wedge the Labour Party. It has been rejected by the Smith Commission (appointed by this government). It is a puerile proposal for the following reasons.
(1) It creates a two-tier parliament, where Scottish MPs will only be able to vote on certain matters while English MPs can vote on everything. Such a parliamentary set-up would be completely unprecedented and a recipe for chaos
(2) It would mean you would almost certainly see a situation where a Labour Prime Minister who can command the confidence of the house can't even pass his own budget viz English spending. On the other hand, the Conservatives aren't in a position to command a majority in the house either. Splitting the legislature in that way, having the executive made up of ministers who do not control the purse strings is a total undermining of the whole basis of the Westminster system of government
(3) It would mean we would never again have a Scottish Prime Minister; after all, you couldn't really have a PM who was unable to vote on his own budget.
The obvious solution is simply to have a devolved English parliament, or devolved English regional parliaments (as London will probably need to be some form of autonomous city-state); that ensures you completely avoid all the issues listed above. Of course, the downside is that it doesn't play into Tory political calculations, so they will no doubt reject it.
If the English want the UK parliament to be their English parliament as well, they need to accept that Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs are full and equal members of that body, and that the parliament must proceed in the way it always has viz. the PM commanding the confidence of the house and controlling the purse strings. If that is unacceptable, then pursue devolution for England
On a related note, this excellent article in the Spectator asks whether Conservative Central Office is dancing to Alex Salmond's tune
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeeh...g-for-the-snp/
The Tories appear determined to place base political calculation above the interests of our United Kingdom. I do wonder if they plan to drop the unionist part of their full title the Conservative and Unionist Party, given EVEL is hugely provocative to the Scots and might well push them out the door when they are told their MPs at Westminster will be second-tier MPs.
EVEL (English votes for English laws) is an idiotic proposal, poorly thought through and obviously designed with one thing in mind; to wedge the Labour Party. It has been rejected by the Smith Commission (appointed by this government). It is a puerile proposal for the following reasons.
(1) It creates a two-tier parliament, where Scottish MPs will only be able to vote on certain matters while English MPs can vote on everything. Such a parliamentary set-up would be completely unprecedented and a recipe for chaos
(2) It would mean you would almost certainly see a situation where a Labour Prime Minister who can command the confidence of the house can't even pass his own budget viz English spending. On the other hand, the Conservatives aren't in a position to command a majority in the house either. Splitting the legislature in that way, having the executive made up of ministers who do not control the purse strings is a total undermining of the whole basis of the Westminster system of government
(3) It would mean we would never again have a Scottish Prime Minister; after all, you couldn't really have a PM who was unable to vote on his own budget.
The obvious solution is simply to have a devolved English parliament, or devolved English regional parliaments (as London will probably need to be some form of autonomous city-state); that ensures you completely avoid all the issues listed above. Of course, the downside is that it doesn't play into Tory political calculations, so they will no doubt reject it.
If the English want the UK parliament to be their English parliament as well, they need to accept that Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs are full and equal members of that body, and that the parliament must proceed in the way it always has viz. the PM commanding the confidence of the house and controlling the purse strings. If that is unacceptable, then pursue devolution for England
On a related note, this excellent article in the Spectator asks whether Conservative Central Office is dancing to Alex Salmond's tune
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeeh...g-for-the-snp/
2) But its fine for Wales and Scotland to contribute 50 Labour MPs to tax England to death?
3) Diddums
Its very simple- if the other countries can vote on matters only affecting them- so too should England.
0
reply
Report
#5
(Original post by anarchism101)
Broadly agreed. English regional devolution is the only real way to introduce effective symmetry in the system. EVEL just creates a dual mandate problem and a potential contradiction between English and UK-wide governments (in which case the latter would be almost pointless, as it would end up only dealing with non-devolved matters for the rUK).
An English Parliament would be preferable to EVEL, but history can suggest that even under a symmetric federal system, one particularly large unit can end up de facto controlling the others, e.g. Prussia within Germany, Serbia within Yugoslavia.
So for me, the only real solution (apart from disunion) is English regional devolution.
Broadly agreed. English regional devolution is the only real way to introduce effective symmetry in the system. EVEL just creates a dual mandate problem and a potential contradiction between English and UK-wide governments (in which case the latter would be almost pointless, as it would end up only dealing with non-devolved matters for the rUK).
An English Parliament would be preferable to EVEL, but history can suggest that even under a symmetric federal system, one particularly large unit can end up de facto controlling the others, e.g. Prussia within Germany, Serbia within Yugoslavia.
So for me, the only real solution (apart from disunion) is English regional devolution.
England is a country just as Scotland and Wales are, yes?
0
reply
Report
#6
(Original post by young_guns)
The Tories appear determined to place base political calculation above the interests of our United Kingdom. I do wonder if they plan to drop the unionist part of their full title the Conservative and Unionist Party, given EVEL is hugely provocative to the Scots and might well push them out the door when they are told their MPs at Westminster will be second-tier MPs.
EVEL (English votes for English laws) is an idiotic proposal, poorly thought through and obviously designed with one thing in mind; to wedge the Labour Party. It has been rejected by the Smith Commission (appointed by this government). It is a puerile proposal for the following reasons.
(1) It creates a two-tier parliament, where Scottish MPs will only be able to vote on certain matters while English MPs can vote on everything. Such a parliamentary set-up would be completely unprecedented and a recipe for chaos
(2) It would mean you would almost certainly see a situation where a Labour Prime Minister who can command the confidence of the house can't even pass his own budget viz English spending. On the other hand, the Conservatives aren't in a position to command a majority in the house either. Splitting the legislature in that way, having the executive made up of ministers who do not control the purse strings is a total undermining of the whole basis of the Westminster system of government
(3) It would mean we would never again have a Scottish Prime Minister; after all, you couldn't really have a PM who was unable to vote on his own budget.
The obvious solution is simply to have a devolved English parliament, or devolved English regional parliaments (as London will probably need to be some form of autonomous city-state); that ensures you completely avoid all the issues listed above. Of course, the downside is that it doesn't play into Tory political calculations, so they will no doubt reject it.
If the English want the UK parliament to be their English parliament as well, they need to accept that Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs are full and equal members of that body, and that the parliament must proceed in the way it always has viz. the PM commanding the confidence of the house and controlling the purse strings. If that is unacceptable, then pursue devolution for England
On a related note, this excellent article in the Spectator asks whether Conservative Central Office is dancing to Alex Salmond's tune
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeeh...g-for-the-snp/
The Tories appear determined to place base political calculation above the interests of our United Kingdom. I do wonder if they plan to drop the unionist part of their full title the Conservative and Unionist Party, given EVEL is hugely provocative to the Scots and might well push them out the door when they are told their MPs at Westminster will be second-tier MPs.
EVEL (English votes for English laws) is an idiotic proposal, poorly thought through and obviously designed with one thing in mind; to wedge the Labour Party. It has been rejected by the Smith Commission (appointed by this government). It is a puerile proposal for the following reasons.
(1) It creates a two-tier parliament, where Scottish MPs will only be able to vote on certain matters while English MPs can vote on everything. Such a parliamentary set-up would be completely unprecedented and a recipe for chaos
(2) It would mean you would almost certainly see a situation where a Labour Prime Minister who can command the confidence of the house can't even pass his own budget viz English spending. On the other hand, the Conservatives aren't in a position to command a majority in the house either. Splitting the legislature in that way, having the executive made up of ministers who do not control the purse strings is a total undermining of the whole basis of the Westminster system of government
(3) It would mean we would never again have a Scottish Prime Minister; after all, you couldn't really have a PM who was unable to vote on his own budget.
The obvious solution is simply to have a devolved English parliament, or devolved English regional parliaments (as London will probably need to be some form of autonomous city-state); that ensures you completely avoid all the issues listed above. Of course, the downside is that it doesn't play into Tory political calculations, so they will no doubt reject it.
If the English want the UK parliament to be their English parliament as well, they need to accept that Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs are full and equal members of that body, and that the parliament must proceed in the way it always has viz. the PM commanding the confidence of the house and controlling the purse strings. If that is unacceptable, then pursue devolution for England
On a related note, this excellent article in the Spectator asks whether Conservative Central Office is dancing to Alex Salmond's tune
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeeh...g-for-the-snp/
0
reply
Report
#7
(Original post by billydisco)
You haven't actually explained why it is fine for N Ireland, Wales and Scotland to have their own parliaments, but not England?
England is a country just as Scotland and Wales are, yes?
You haven't actually explained why it is fine for N Ireland, Wales and Scotland to have their own parliaments, but not England?
England is a country just as Scotland and Wales are, yes?
For a degree of parity it would be fairer to have regional assemblies in England. But you've just created another layer of politicians.
0
reply
Report
#8
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
It's pointless england having its own parliament. It's too big.
For a degree of parity it would be fairer to have regional assemblies in England. But you've just created another layer of politicians.
It's pointless england having its own parliament. It's too big.
For a degree of parity it would be fairer to have regional assemblies in England. But you've just created another layer of politicians.
0
reply
Report
#9
(Original post by billydisco)
How can England be too big to have its own Parliament when in 1995 the entire UK had its own Parliament?
How can England be too big to have its own Parliament when in 1995 the entire UK had its own Parliament?
0
reply
Report
#10
EVEL is neither evil nor stupid, it is a way of solving an inherent injustice devolution has created.
EVEl is not the source of the issues you mention, devolution is.
EVEl is not the source of the issues you mention, devolution is.
0
reply
Report
#11
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
There's no point in having a english parliament as it would do exactly the same as the UK Parliament.
There's no point in having a english parliament as it would do exactly the same as the UK Parliament.
0
reply
Report
#12
(Original post by billydisco)
No it wouldnt. It'd be more right-wing.
No it wouldnt. It'd be more right-wing.
Gay marriage passed in England and Wales a year before scotland.
A smoking ban introduced in scotland a year before england and wales.
Driver education classes to be offered to motorists in scotland two years after they were introduced in England and wales.
chaos in A&E in English and Welsh hospitals whilst similar chaos seen in nhs Scotland hospitals.
How much more right wing can a UK wide welfare and health system get?
The only winners in this so far are politicians and civil servants.
0
reply
Report
#13
(Original post by billydisco)
You haven't actually explained why it is fine for N Ireland, Wales and Scotland to have their own parliaments, but not England?
England is a country just as Scotland and Wales are, yes?
You haven't actually explained why it is fine for N Ireland, Wales and Scotland to have their own parliaments, but not England?
England is a country just as Scotland and Wales are, yes?
0
reply
Report
#14
(Original post by anarchism101)
I did explain it. A single English Parliament would have jurisdiction over >80% of the UK population and as such would end up unsustainably dominating the UK, just as the aforementioned examples of Prussia/Germany and Serbia/Yugoslavia ended up doing. Regional devolution, on the other hand, would mean more equal devolved entities.
I did explain it. A single English Parliament would have jurisdiction over >80% of the UK population and as such would end up unsustainably dominating the UK, just as the aforementioned examples of Prussia/Germany and Serbia/Yugoslavia ended up doing. Regional devolution, on the other hand, would mean more equal devolved entities.
The whole point of devolution is that each country rules itself! My arse can Scotland rule itself but England can have Scottish MPs voting on English matters.
****ing Scottish MPs voted England students would pay tuition fees and yet their own students shouldnt! That says it all really.
0
reply
Report
#15
The whole point of devolution is that each country rules itself!
Nationalism is part of the point but far from the whole point.
My arse can Scotland rule itself but England can have Scottish MPs voting on English matters.
****ing Scottish MPs voted England students would pay tuition fees and yet their own students shouldnt! That says it all really.
****ing Scottish MPs voted England students would pay tuition fees and yet their own students shouldnt! That says it all really.
0
reply
Report
#16
Is devolution also evil and stupid then?
Fair enough it's not the exact same MPs but it's exactly the same in principle. The stupid part is the proposed implementation, but that's because it's not designed to pass parliament, in it's current form at this
Posted from TSR Mobile
Fair enough it's not the exact same MPs but it's exactly the same in principle. The stupid part is the proposed implementation, but that's because it's not designed to pass parliament, in it's current form at this
Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Report
#17
(Original post by billydisco)
****ing Scottish MPs voted England students would pay tuition fees and yet their own students shouldnt! That says it all really.
****ing Scottish MPs voted England students would pay tuition fees and yet their own students shouldnt! That says it all really.
0
reply
Report
#18
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Is devolution also evil and stupid then?
Fair enough it's not the exact same MPs but it's exactly the same in principle. The stupid part is the proposed implementation, but that's because it's not designed to pass parliament, in it's current form at this
Posted from TSR Mobile
Is devolution also evil and stupid then?
Fair enough it's not the exact same MPs but it's exactly the same in principle. The stupid part is the proposed implementation, but that's because it's not designed to pass parliament, in it's current form at this
Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
(Original post by billydisco)
Because you're a leftie and therefore enjoy ****ing-over England?
Because you're a leftie and therefore enjoy ****ing-over England?
0
reply
(Original post by billydisco)
You haven't actually explained why it is fine for N Ireland, Wales and Scotland to have their own parliaments, but not England?
You haven't actually explained why it is fine for N Ireland, Wales and Scotland to have their own parliaments, but not England?
0
reply
X
Quick Reply
