Confederal Federalism - A Model for the United Kingdom?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лип 2022
- In this video, Glyndwr Cennydd Jones discusses the strategic need to explore some form of broad, constitutional compromise in the United Kingdom, which embraces the concerns of both unionists and nationalists going forward, and moves away from a ‘winner takes all’ answer to the constitutional challenges ahead.
With Nicola Sturgeon having recently addressed the Scottish Parliament about her plans for a second independence referendum, and the Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, established by the Welsh Government, currently considering options for fundamental reform of the UK’s constitutional structures, the four nations of these isles are potentially approaching a crossroads of sorts in their shared journey.
SPEAKERS
Glyndwr Cennydd Jones is an advocate for a UK-wide constitutional convention. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Welsh Affairs. His recent booklet A League-Union of the Isles is available as e-book (designrr.page/?id=180471&toke...) and as an easily printable pdf version (www.centreonconstitutionalcha....
Brendan Donnelly is the director of the Federal Trust and former Conservative MEP.
ABOUT THE FEDERAL TRUST
The Federal Trust is a research institute studying regional, national, European and global levels of government. It has always had a particular interest in the European Union and Britain’s place in it. The Federal Trust has no allegiance to any political party. It is registered as a charity for the purposes of education and research.
BREXIT CAN BE UNDONE
Support our Crowdfunder here:
www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/brexi...
Website: fedtrust.co.uk/
Twitter: / fedtrust
Donate: www.paypal.com/donate/?busine...
Support our work:
/ federaltrust
How would this affect eventual reunification of Northern Ireland with Ireland? Both Scotland and Northern Ireland voted against Brexit, how will trade or relations with the EU then proceed in the framework of a confederation? It is clear that Scotland wants a future in the EU and Nth. Irish businesses are doing well because of the protocol.
I think confederation can only suceed if Brexit is rejected and the UK rejoins the EU.
Under the UN Charter there's a right to self-determination. But also a statement that autonomy rather than independence should be the normal default. That's why it took decades for South Sudan to separate from Sudan.
It was a Coalition Government, not a purely Conservative and Unionist Government, which conceded a referendum on Scottish independence. No purely Conservative Government has ever conceded a referendum on independence to any of the nations within the multinational state of the UK. The Tories have always tended to oppose constitutional reform. They also opposed devolution in those referenda. Those in favour of constitutional reform within the Tory party have always tended to be a normally relatively small minority.
In any federal solution England would have to be divided into logical units of comparable size for there to be parity. Bring back the nine regional admins set up in 1998 and abolished in the noughties. Make them directly elected, with tax raising and borrowing powers.
I prefer the Heptarchy ie northumbria Mercia Wessex Sussex east anglia
In general, the UK is despite being an asymmetric federation still among the most centralized states in Europe. Regardless of Brexit or not, the UK needs more federalism and decentralisation .
I have thought for a long time that the UK would be better organised as a federation. There is no reason that the monarchy could not be retained and now we have King Charles on the throne, a man who is open to change and modernisation this should not be a problem. If we look at Germany a successful federal nation, the differences in culture and religion between north and south are brought together by the federal structure, while allowing for local expression of and pride in these differences.
Thanks!
I really don't understand why so many people confuse political integration with division of competencies. They are related yet completely different things. Political integration is about who holds ultimate authority and how competencies are transferred. Division of competency is about what competencies are actually held by different levels of government (which can be viewed simplistically in terms of devolution). This confusion prevents people from understanding what these concepts actually mean.
Unitary states have central governments with ultimate authority that can give or take any and all competencies as they wish no matter what regional governments believe or want. They can outright dissolve regional governments without their permission (like Spain did to Catalonia in 2017).
Federal states can only transfer powers in either direction when both the central and regional government approve.
In Confederal Unions the individual states that make up the union have the ultimate authority and it is these states that can give or take competencies from the central government as they please. They can even become independent without asking permission from central government. Confederal states, however, tend to be short lived transitioning systems that end up in either complete dissociation of a state into two or more independent states (as was the case with the Commonwealth that broke up the British Empire) or a bunch of independent states uniting to form a federal or unitary state (as occurred in the formation of the US or as many see occurring in the EU).
Despite how power is transferred, the level of devolution varies. You can have heavily centralized federal states (Russia, Mexico, Argentina). You can also have highly decentralized unitary states (Spain, Sweden). Turning the UK into a federal state does not necessarily mean more devolution. The UK could become a highly centralized federal state.
Understanding this, it is a rather ridiculous statement to say you want a confederal-federalist state. You are either confederal or federal. You can't be both. You can be a highly decentralized (devolved) federal state or outright just a confederal state that allows the nations to take and give competencies as they wish and even allow them to become independent without Westminster's approval.
Without properly understanding the difference between political integration and division of competency we will never understand what is being proposed.
Unitary governments only work with a strong sense of national identity and shared culture eg France. The UK is made up of countries within a country interesting why federation or confederation was never implemented earlier the UK’s history, however I fear it is too late.
I have listened carefully to this gentleman.
The basic problem is not sovereignty, as such. The basic problem is that England is an outlier from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Whereas these three countries share many similarities, England shares very, very few with any of them.
Federalism, confederal or not, can have no future while the distance between England and the other three countries remains. And the English appear to have no wish to bridge that distance. They are of fundamentally different stock to Celts and Gaels. We all form our life views from our historical, societal and ethical backgrounds.
England really is unbridgeably separate from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I am not gainsaying the existence of anglicised Celts and Gaels. I am merely pointing out that the majority of Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish consider themselves natives of their country before considering themselves british. The English, similarly, consider themselves English first. The difference is that they view british as English inferiors. British is just a catchall description of beggars at the feet of Imperial England.
You may disagree with my assessment. However, there are many who agree. English arrogance makes any form of co-operation with England parlous to the other party.
In the end, English arrogance means no version of federalism could ever prosper.
The Rev Ian Paisley commented during a foot and mouth outbreak: ‘The cows may be Irish, but the people are British.’
Yep, the Scots don't vote Tory..the English do, working class as well as the more wealthier class...there is a reason for that, they are societally different..
England doesn't have a devolved assembly.
All those devolved authorities can stick their oars into English law but not vice versa.
But we do all the hard work.
@@Lucid.dreamer You are wrong. The numbers dictate that England always has the choice.
And, FYI, the English do not do all the hard work. What they do is cause the devolved governments to work very hard countering the effects of the right wing policies imposed upon them by the English.
Once again, FYI the English always have numerical superiority.
@@lindabastable3021 twaddle
The two gentlemen don't seem to understand that in all the latest polls the majority of Scots declared that they don't want any confederation with England (whatever form) but independence.
This majority will only grow when the SNP politics progresses until the date of the referendum.
Saor Alba!
It's none of your damn business.
You're not a UK resident or voter.
You're just sticking your damn unwanted oar in like you actually matter.
You don't.
We fired the EU. We don't want your views.
Here's your nose 👃 back.
It was *stuck in OUR business.*
@@Lucid.dreamer See my comment on self-determination and the UN Charter. It's therefore ultimately the business of all UN member states and their citizens and residents.
@@adrianwhyatt1425
UK domestic politics is none of his damn business.
United nations membership does not change that.
Scotland voted to remain in the UK as recently as 2014.
The matter has been settled for a long time to come and it is no business of anyone who is not a UK resident or voter.
@@Lucid.dreamer In the 2014 Referendum Cameron pointed out that, at the time, independence would mean Scotland wouldn't be part of the EU. 62% of those who voted in Scotland in the 2016 EU Referendum voted to Remain. In 1986 Greenland, an autonomous part of Denmark, voted by over 2:1 to leave the European Economic Community (EEC), predecessor to the EU, duly honoured with a withdrawal agreement in 1989. Another autonomous part of Denmark, the Faroes Islands, has never joined. Denmark joined EFTA, transferred to the EEC in 1973, and (European) Denmark only, remains part of the EU. The UK could either have done a reverse Greenland (England and Wales leaving the EU, with the possible exception of the devolved Greater London Authority area, which voted to Remain, and any surrounding areas which finally accepted long-standing (from pre-World War 2) invitations to join Greater London (Remain-voting Surrey), leaving the UK as a member state, like Denmark, but with those bits which voted to Leave, out).
There's a real danger, if there's no compromise, that an Ireland 1918 situation could eventually arise, in which most elected MPs from Scotland simply don't attend the UK Parliament, meet in Scotland and have such a groundswell of support that they end up independent in the end, possibly after a civil war and/or war of independence, as happened to 13 British colonies in America. It's normally best to reform in time to avoid revolution, and to try to come to reasonable compromises.
Independent Scotland will be ok if it joins EFTA immediately
Scotland will be even better off applying to join the EU immediately. We have already been assured of our welcome return.
@@lindabastable3021 It would not, it would complicate things untold, EFTA is a first class move followed in 4/5 times on a ref on the EU question..
sorry four to five years on..
@@kailashpatel1706 I do not share your view.
Shame Mr Jones appears to be reading all his answers. I came here having read some of his blog and recognise his responses word-for-word. Pathetic how he tries to intone as if he's thinking on his feet. Makes the whole thing rather cardboard and inauthentic. Perhaps he doesn't have the courage of his convictions - or maybe he just can't remember them.