English Votes for English Laws

A conservative MP has complained that there are too many MPs with surnames beginning with Mc, thereby making it take longer to vote, so he wants them to be split into two groups, one each side when they divide in the Commons.

Surely, when we elect an MP we are voting for them to speak for us in the house , how can some be gagged

DJ - you do realise the MP was being a buffoon and not serious
the easiest solution would be to divide as A-L and then M-Z

I stand corrected, Riverwalk.

An English parliament will simply be another level of government and cost us more money. If we're one nation, a United Kingdom, why should any part have a separate parliament. Once we started to set up separate parliaments we ceased to be united.

Lets be honest we've never been truly united. If asked their nationality how many say Scottish, Welsh or English rather that British.

The Scots and English couldn't stand the sight of each other until James VI/I inherited the English throne from Elizabeth I. Throughout her reign there had been border incursions. Previous generations had fought full blown wars. A political union could not and did not change the nationalistic feelings of the general population.

The English have always felt and many still do feel superior to the other members of the United Kingdom. English people know for a fact that God is an Englishman. Less realise that he's actually a Yorkshireman

Someone said that they'd not met any English person who thought Scotland should have voted to leave the Union

What I said was

I am pretty sure that England do want a union.I havent met anyone in rl who said that they dont.

A different thing entirely.

Devolved parliament in Wales, Scotland ,and NI have theirs too, and POGS has done a good job stating the facts so I won't repeat it all again, what on earth is the problem with England having it's own say?I am starting to see some anti- English sentiment appearing on this forum from one or two posters.It simply must be that, as nothing else makes sense.Just as I thought that perhaps we could have a reasoned debate after all, it seems not.If English posters had said all this about Wales or Scotland, can you imagine the furure?

Wales has had two referenda about independence and they did not want it but did want the Assembly. Carwyn Jones and Nicola Sturgeon do NOT have seats in Westminster. Very few people in Wales (except Plaid Cymru)say they want a completely independent Parliament - they realise it would not be affordable and Scotland only wants powers which area paid for by Westminster.
The leaders of the Scottish parties during the election were talking about the Mansion tax in England (mainly taken from SE England) going to Scotland to pay for the upgrading they wish to do to their Health Service.
If there were to be separation would the population of Scotland and Wales accept total independence paid for with their own money from tax raising powers to enable them to be totally free with no money from Westminster? The Welsh (except Leanne Woods)know that this scenario is not practical at all for them and so are happy with the status quo. The Assembly has been good to students and to older people as far they can.
If you put in place an English only Assembly type of parliament you are simply creating an extra layer of government which would cost us taxpayers more money and heaven forbid if they start having Northern type ones too - who is going to pay for that? The local population who are so wanting it? I think not - general taxation will be the cry and who will bear the brunt of it - the poor maligned rich SE England population!!! And I don't live there! I lived in Wales before moving to France but I still pay income tax in UK and have more to pay in France as there are no real personal allowances here - I can still vote in UK but not here.

I've not seen any non- English posters being anti-English. The objections to an english Parliament seem to be on cost grounds, from mostly English posters.

Would there be anything wrong in having separate meetings of MPs for English constituencies to discuss and pass matters relevant only to England, and other meetings for items of general relevance to the whole country? Same MPs, same premises, same subsidised restaurants and bars, but different days?

Good post Bez. at the moment we are only talking about English MP's voting on all things pertinent to England, of course.That is fair, and does not need a referendum as suggested by DJen .

Elegran, I think you are Scottish? I have not seen anti-English sentiments from Scottish people on here , but from Anniebach, who is Welsh, and from DJen who is English! up to now, they didn't seem worried by cost, it was other things ( what? ) that bothered them. if we do need a special English only parliament as the other three countries enjoy, and it does cost money then so be it. those Three cost money as well.We need fairness all round, nothing else.

Well said Bez, I have said I as a Welsh voter did not want independence . Seems some think Wales has the same powers as Scotland , we do not.

rosesarered, where did you read anti English posts, are you claiming some English posters are anti English ? Most strange

Scottish people persumably vote on purely Scottish matters.
Ditto Wales.
Ditto NI.

So now ditto England.

Not many are going to object, are they?!

Not strange at all anniebach, if you read all your own and also Djens posts on here.

Exactly Soontobe,what would the point be of anyone objecting, be they English or otherwise.

It cost plenty of taxpayers dosh to set up the Welsh and the Scottish and the NI devolved parliaments, so that really cannot be a good reason to deny one for England.

I still like the idea of an English Assembly/Parliament but there doesn't need to be an additional layer. The House of Lords could go and be replaced by the United Kingdom Parliament. That could be populated, when it needed to meet, by a suitable number of Members of Parliament/Assembly from each of the countries.

I do feel that the idea of English MPs voting on so called English only matters and UK matters appears to give the English MPs too much power. Obviously, as the biggest country they will always have the majority of members in a UK parliament but it would be more transparent than this cobbled together idea that is being put forward.

rosesarered, I am quite aware of the contents of my posts and I think you should say what you consider to be anti English

Gracesgran, it would be wrong for English MP to vote on English matters, there must be as in Scotland and Wales seperate representatives , English assembly members not sitting in the UK parliment and voted for by the English people , this is how assembles are run in the other three countries

The English MPs though do NOT vote on a lot of things to do with Scotland. Wales or Northern Ireland as they are devolved powers and sorted out and debated by the Assembly or Parliaments of that country. For instance they do not vote on Health or Education matters in Wales - they are dealt with by the Assembly in Cardiff.

Yes Bez, and so it should be in England , no Welsh MP has a say in the Assembly, no assembly member has a say in Westminster

I don't see how UK MP's can be locked out of Parliment or banned from voting , it flies in the face of our democracy

It could actually be done by agreement - just to abstain when it was an England only issue. But if the one member sat on the assembly ( or whatever) and also on joint business in Parliament it would save so much in salaries. There was only one group of people - MPs - doing all the business for hundreds of years. I would go a long way to solving the deficit and something could also be done at local level to get rid of some of the money councillors are paid - it was done for many years by volunteers and paid officials who gave advice as they knew the law etc - and the councils met in the evening --- after work finished.

I understand that Bez, but cannot agree that MP's should be locked out of the UK Parliament. Thin edge of the wedge .

Anniebach I can see why you say that but I was thinking each of the assemblies/parliaments would send MPs to the UK Parliament so they would all be in the same position. They would send them pro-rata to the party representation in their own parliament. I would not want to see any more of them than we need. . If we called each of the countries gatherings parliaments the UK one could be an Assembly or Senate (and no House of Lords)

the problem is that what we have now is a mismatch which is not the 'old system' but has been partly regionalised/federalised but not totally.
Out of interest I looked at other countries where there is a house of representatives (or similar) and a senate (or similar). Australia for example seems to have managed to square the circle on this keeping the upper and lower house but bringing it into the modern age - they were lucky as there was no historical hangover. At least that seems to be the way it works - is NZ the same?
when Scotland, Wales and NI were given assemblies/governments with differing powers and there was no provision made for an English equivalent - the assumption being that Westminster was England's parliament - this left a massive imbalance - either all countries in the UK had the same devolved assembly or none did.
we are where we are and it seems the English votes for English only matters is all we in England are being offered. It is not enough but it may be all we can expect .

Bez said " Tony Blair managed to get tuition fees for English universities through Parliament only because Scottish MPs voted in favour. It does seem undemocratic and unfair."

In fact at the time of that vote, the Scottish Parliament did not exist, and the MPs were voting to introduce tuition fees to the whole of the UK.
Subsequently the Scottish Parliament was set up and it decided to take on the cost of tuition fees, from the funds devolved to it.