Written evidence submitted by the 4 Freedoms Party UK Epp (PRD 53)
Introduction
1 We welcome the Committee’s recognition of the need for this Inquiry and hope the Committee will be able to study with particular care the practical operation of the 1949 Constitution as amended of the Federal Republic of Germany, originally settled by representatives of Germany’s Länder with encouragement from the British and other Allied Powers. One imperative of this Constitution was of course, in moving to federalism, to reverse the imbalance which had been created by an overwhelmingly strong Prussia within the over-centralised German Empire.
2 We believe that, to conserve what most matters in our British political culture and to adapt it to post-imperial times in a globalised context, the time has come for Britain to bite the federalist bullet as part of a thorough modernisation of the British constitutional settlement. The process of wholesale constitutional reform started by the Labour Government elected in 1997 has a long way to go before a more stable and satisfying post-imperial equilibrium is reached and which is capable of holding together the UK.
3 This evidence is submitted by the:
4 Freedoms Party (UK EPP) (“4 Freedoms”), a political party registered with the Electoral Commission; and
British Committee (“British Committee”) of the European People’s Party (“EPP”).
The EPP, whose Group in the European Parliament the Conservative Party left in 2009, is the largest political party at the European level. We offer a positive, reforming European programme from a centre/centre-right perspective. The EPP’s Presidency is entitled to attend the Council of 4 Freedoms and of the British Committee which share identical membership. The British Committee unites representatives of 4 Freedoms and of those EPP parties representing 2.3 million non-British EU nationals living in the UK. The EPP openly acknowledges 4 Freedoms’ connection. All 4 Freedoms material carries clear EPP branding and identification.
4 As a political principle, we are strongly committed to subsidiarity. At the EU level of government, Article 5(3) expressly applies the principle of subsidiarity. While, within the UK, the legal basis would be different, we believe the British Government and Parliament - in part to restore their reputation as the British national leadership doing well what they should do at the British national level rather than as a micro-managing jack of all trades - should similarly proceed on the basis that what can be done locally should be done locally.
5 As an increasing number of commentators has come to recognise, the time for piecemeal reform of the British Constitution is over: holding the UK together and offering British people, in a globalised world, real power over local decisions requires fundamental constitutional reform if the risk of more chronic alienation in economically constrained times is to be reduced.
6 There has been a measure of unhelpful dissembling in some recent partisan debate about the West Lothian Question. When, within England, London with its own very distinct economic interests now has a measure of devolved government, the question of symmetry is not simply one of Scottish MPs voting on English matters but might also reasonably be asked of the rather larger number of London MPs who can still vote on matters elsewhere in England but which are now reserved to London’s Mayor and Assembly.
7 The ten priorities for a federal Britain identified by 4 Freedoms (http://www.4freedomsparty.eu/news/-federalism-for-britain-for-once-nigel-farage-is-right-say-pro-europeans) are:-
i. marking the eight hundredth anniversary of the Magna Carta with a written Constitution for the British Federation (embracing all countries plus the English regions that make up the UK)
ii. devolving no less power anywhere in the British Federation than will be given to Scotland if it remains part of the UK
iii. creating a new emphasis on ‘bottom up’ - not ‘top down’ - political power, with each country and English region responsible for all policy areas not specifically reserved to the British Federal Parliament and Government. This would resemble the successful Land federal structure in Germany
iv. electing representatives at all levels of government on a territorial basis, with proportionality achieved through top up lists
v. capping the House of Commons at no more than 500 MPs
vi. limiting a reformed House of Peers to no more than 150 Peers, appointed by the British Federation’s countries and regions
vii. closing the Privy Council and creating a British Federal Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court
viii. mainly state funding political parties with transparent limits
ix. entrenching into the British Constitution the European Convention on Human Rights
x. creating a new Council of Isles: representatives of the British Federation, its countries and regions, plus all other jurisdictions within the British Isles to be invited to regular, public meetings - building on the current British-Irish Council - to discuss matters of mutual interest and to promote greater co-operation.
In other words, in very broad terms, we recommend a constitutional settlement, with federalism at its core, similar to that which has proven so successful in the Federal Republic of Germany.
8 We do not believe proposals for an English Parliament are optimal: indeed, we believe the creation of an English Parliament could rapidly provoke the end of the United Kingdom. Even within the UK, we also believe an English Parliament would be most unlikely to be a durable solution for England itself.
9 We believe instead that distinct regions within England should enjoy as much federal autonomy as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with further strong devolution below the national/regional level of government.
10 Self-government for London should be enhanced bringing, for example, greater clarity to both the tax raising and public spending figures for London and enabling London to have a more distinct voice in Brussels to reflect its unique economic interests.
11 The North of England (the North West, North East and Yorkshire & the Humber) is broadly comparable in size to North Rhine-Westphalia (“NRW”): very broadly comparable populations, geographical features and so on. Yet GDP per person is roughly 50% higher in NRW than in the North of England. While the North of England has experienced some economic benefit over the last three decades - for example, the Nissan plant in Sunderland which, in part, was made possible by the then British Government securing the ability for such a plant to sell vehicles in the European single market in return for concessions on the Common Fisheries policy - might the North of England have been able better to promote its distinct economic interests had it enjoyed the autonomy of NRW or, indeed, Bavaria which is an economic leader in federal Germany but had been an economic laggard in centralised Germany? Is it likely to be sustainable if the North of England is denied the autonomy over public services enjoyed by immediate neighbours in Scotland? Are people in the North of England likely to find remotely acceptable austerity imposed by what could be presented as an English Parliament controlled by Essex Tories? We submit that these questions and more have only to be asked for the answers to be self-evident.