English MPs would get tax veto under Conservative plans

Time for a Federal UK?: MPs for Scottish seats would be stripped of the power to “impose” income tax rate changes on England under Conservative plans.

MPs for English seats would have a veto on tax, and issues like schools and health, which only affect England.

The plan falls short of the English Parliament demanded by some Tory MPs.

But Commons leader William Hague said it was a “fair solution”. Labour is calling for a cross-party investigation into the matter.

Scotland is on course to be given the power to set its own income tax rates and bands – and Air Passenger Duty rates – under proposals drawn up by the The Smith Commission in the wake of November’s independence referendum.

‘Stitch-up’

Prime Minister David Cameron promised a new settlement for England at the same time.

Critics say it is unfair that Scottish MPs should help decide how things such as schools and the health service are run in England, when English MPs have no such say over how they are run in Scotland.

But attempts at cross-party talks to resolve the so-called “West Lothian Question” were boycotted by Labour – which could struggle to get key legislation through the Commons if it won the election without its Scottish MPs – as a “stitch up”.

How Hague’s plan would work

• Before a Bill or parts of a Bill affecting only England, or England and Wales, is put to its final Commons vote, English and in some cases Welsh MPs would meet separately to consider it
• The Bill could not proceed without the backing of a majority of this English Grand Committee
• In addition, only MPs for English constituencies (and Welsh seats where relevant) would be allowed to take part in the committee stage, where the fine details are thrashed out and amendments proposed
• But MPs from all parts of the UK would be entitled to take part in the final Commons vote passing the Bill into law

Mr Hague’s plan would give an effective veto to MPs for English seats – and Wales on some policies – for matters decided in the Scottish Parliament, but would still require a majority of all UK MPs to pass legislation.

He said it was the least radical of three options to resolve demands for “English votes for English laws” but would bring “fairness and accountability to England without breaking up the unity and integrity of the UK Parliament”.

He told BBC Breakfast: “MPs from all parts of the UK would continue to debate, as they do now, anything they want. It is just that they would only be able to pass measures relating only to England with the agreement of the English MPs.”

Analysis

BBC’s deputy political editor, James Landale

Conservative MPs have in recent weeks maintained discipline and kept friendly fire on their leadership to a minimum.

But soon David Cameron will have to announce his plans to give English MPs a vote over English laws – and beneath the surface a ferocious debate is raging.

The latest contribution comes from respected senior Conservative Andrew Tyrie, chairman of the Commons Treasury Committee and longstanding constitutional reformer.

He has emailed a 48-page document to all of his Tory colleagues, entitled “Voice and Veto – Answering the West Lothian Question”, which argues strongly for English MPs to have a veto over English legislation in the House of Commons.

Read the full article

Mr Hague said the Commons Speaker would probably have the job of deciding which measures should be treated as England only.

He said the proposals were unlikely to become law before May’s general election but they would be in the Conservative manifesto and he was keen for MPs to debate them before the election.

‘Leverage’

But some Conservative MPs say the plan will still give MPs for Scottish constituencies too much influence.

Former Cabinet Minister John Redwood told The Daily Telegraph: “It gives them leverage. If you had a lot of Nationalist MPs, for example, who wanted something for Scotland then presumably they would all gang up and try to block an English proposal until we cave in on what they wanted. It would be perfectly legitimate political tactics.”

He said Tory MPs would not back Mr Hague’s proposals.

In December Labour said an English, or English and Welsh, committee stage would give those MPs “a key role” in considering the legislation in question, while MPs as a whole would have the final say.

Labour said this and other ideas should be considered by a constitutional convention after May’s general election.

The Liberal Democrats favour a grand committee of English MPs, with the right to veto legislation applying only to England, with its members based on the share of the vote.

But Lib Dem Deputy Commons Leader Tom Brake said it would be a “major mistake” to “rush through” changes without a constitutional convention.

UKIP Deputy Leader Paul Nuttall said: “Cameron has spoken of English votes for English laws but these proposals will fail to deliver anything but chaos.”

via BBC News – English MPs would get tax veto under Conservative plans.

 

A federal future for the UK

Reproduced from Future UK and Scotland

The United Kingdom has set up federal systems across the world but has been reluctant to embrace the principle itself, whether in relation to its constituent nations or to Europe. In the latter context, indeed, it has remained the ‘f-word’. Now almost everyone is talking about federalism as a new way of approaching the Scottish issue, a third way between devolution and independence, and as a device for fitting the United Kingdom together as a whole. As usual, when so many people agree on an idea, however, they do not agree on its meaning.

Federalism has both a specific, narrow meaning and a broader one. In the specific sense it refers to a set on institutions providing for the division of power between two orders of government, each of which has guaranteed status and competences. There are mechanisms for linking them and introducing a territorial element at the centre, via a second chamber representing the federal units, or intergovernmental councils or conferences. There is usually some principle for sharing resources, known technically as fiscal equalization.

In this sense, federalism would not work in the United Kingdom, although it did have its advocates a hundred years ago, in the form of ‘home rule all round’. England is far too big and there is no system in the world in which one federal unit has 85 per cent of the population. An English government could hardly live together with the UK government, since the former would have vastly more power and resources, which is not usual in federal systems. Nor is there any serious demand in England for federalism. An alternative sometimes canvassed is to divide England into regions but no versions of this proposal envisage them having the same powers as the Scottish Parliament or indeed any legislative powers at all. The last effort to regionalize England in 2004 was massively rejected in a referendum in the first place it was proposed, the North East. There is talk currently of city-regions, not a new idea but a revival in attenuated form of the metropolitan counties that existed between 1974 and 1986 but this has nothing to do this federalism. These are administrative units mainly concerned with infrastructure investment and talk in the media and among regional politicians of Scottish-style devolution is wide of the mark.

Federalism in the broader sense refers to a way of thinking rather than institutions. It is about the principle of dividing power and ending the monopoly of the centre. This implies both territorial decentralization and reform of central government to enhance the role of the territories. It also encompasses the idea of allocating resources according to some agreed principles. In the UK, we do not yet have this federal spirit. Whitehall and Westminster have hardly changed at all as a result of devolution. The Treasury remains immensely powerful and insensitive to territorial differences. The Labour and Conservative parties are not federal in their own structures and ways of working.

A UK operating in the federal spirit would not provide a solution to the West Lothian Question or complaints about the Barnett Formula, but would help in thinking these matters through. UK federalism would necessarily be asymmetrical, as devolution is, allowing different parts of the union to develop their own institutions according to local needs. If England does not want its own parliament but is concerned about Scottish MPs voting on purely English matters, some version of English votes for English laws (now known as EVEL) could be devised. If people in England want decentralization within England, this can be addressed even though it does not give them the same as Scotland. There will never be agreement on how to divide up resources but something more principled than the Barnett Formula could be devised. Above all, the federal spirit would curtain the power of the centre and rein in the grasp of the Treasury.

Such a spirit could spread to the European level, if UK politicians could accept that the European Union is, in the broad sense, based on federal principles. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, in turn, could develop their own links into Europe, as they are already doing. They would also have a say in developing UK policy in Europe and the UK’s stance in regard to Europe as a whole. There is even less sign of this thinking in Whitehall and Westminster, where all the parties seem determined to assert old-fashioned parliamentary supremacy. It is, moreover, those elements in UK politics who are most hostile to federalism within the UK who are most resistant to Europe.

UK says review of EU shows bloc must relinquish power ‘in many areas’

The European Union must relinquish power “in many areas” in favour of member states, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said on Thursday, announcing the end of a two year review of his country’s relations with the bloc.

Prime Minister David Cameron has promised to renegotiate Britain’s ties with the EU to try to claw back powers to London from Brussels before holding a membership referendum in 2017 if he wins a national election next year.

Publishing the final reports in a civil service investigation into how the EU affects British life in 32 areas from health to immigration, Hammond said the review had found the 28-nation bloc needed to reform itself to be more open, competitive, flexible and democratically accountable.

“They underline the need for the EU to focus on those areas where it genuinely adds value,” said Hammond, a possible leadership contender for the Conservative party who has said Britain must be prepared to exit the EU if it can’t overhaul it.

“There are many areas where action can and should be taken in member states rather than at the EU level,” he said, saying the reports provided further evidence of the need for a change in Britain’s relationship with the EU.

via UK says review of EU shows bloc must relinquish power ‘in many areas’ | Reuters.

Whilst the EU has many far-reaching powers, Member State governments like to take credit for the good that comes from the EU, whilst bashing what their current political affiliation views as bad.

The answer to an EU that speaks with a voice that all of it’s members can stand by: Federalism, true democracy in a Europe that appears to have a large number of disenfranchised voters.

Learn more about the aspirations for a Federal Europe at the Federalist Party and the Federal Union UK

A federal UK? Home Rule all round? We have been here before.

There are fewer truly new things in politics than you think. The present constitutional uncertainty – which, it should be said, could scarcely have been avoided – is no exception. We have been here before, all of us, even if we choose to forget our previous gallops around this track.

A century ago – on September 18th, to be precise – a bill for Irish Home Rule was finally passed. It had taken three attempts and nearly 30 years but it was passed at last. There would, once again, be an Irish parliament.

Or there would have been had it not been for the Kaiser’s War. The guns of August delayed Home Rule; Easter 1916 (and, especially, the response to Padraig Pearse’s mad provocation) killed it. Nothing would recover; nothing would be quite the same again.

Nevertheless, it is useful to recall just how similar many of the arguments over Irish Home Rule are to those we hear now about the future governance of these islands.

Here, for instance, is Herbert Asquith addressing the future entitlement of Irish MPs to sit at Westminster:

[W]hatever other changes may be made, and however far the devolution of local affairs to local bodies may be carried, the House of Commons must continue to be the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, fairly representing all its constituent parts and inviting the cooperation of each of them in the supervision of their common interests, the transaction of their common business, and the discharge of their joint and corporate trust to the Empire as a whole. It is true that for a time, and until there are further applications of the principle of devolution, Irish Members will be here with an unfettered right to vote. For the reasons I have already given, a very substantial reduction in their number makes that a matter of much less practical importance than it was, and we think it may well be found to be the duty of the House of Commons—after this Bill has become the law of the land—the duty of the House of Commons, which is absolute master of its own procedure, to anticipate in some degree further developments of statutory devolution by so moulding its own Standing Orders as to secure the effective consideration and discussion of legislation affecting only one part of the United Kingdom, by those who, as representing that part, are alone directly interested.

As you can see, the West Lothian Question was preceded by what one might deem the West Meath Question. Perhaps, in time, something like an English Grand Committee would be needed. Note, too, however, that reducing Irish representation from more than 100 members to just 42 would necessarily make it vastly less probable that these MPs could make a decisive difference to the governance of the nation. In similar fashion, and subject to the new Scotland Bill transferring significant responsibilities to Holyrood, a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs sent south may not iron out the constitutional anomaly but it renders its impact less substantial. Besides, nothing straight was ever made from the crooked timber of the British constitution. English votes for English laws is, in any case, as the historian Tom Holland quipped, an issue of great importance for the kind of people outraged by the sorry lack of an International Men’s Day.

Other concerns seem just as fresh. The Barnett Formula – nearly 40 years old and plainly in need of recalibration – was itself an adjustment to the Goschen Formula introduced in the late 19th century. Never let it be said that we move too hastily on these matters. As Asquith, again, noted:

When a grant is made to England, Scotland and Ireland at once step in and claim an equivalent whether they need it or not. […] It is in no-one’s interests to be economical and, on the other hand, it is to everyone’s interest to make fresh and growing demands upon the Imperial Exchequer.

Well, indeed. But hark too at what Edward Carson, the great bulwark of Ulster Unionism, had to say:

What is the object of the United Kingdom? As I understand it, it is that all parts of that Kingdom should be worked together as one whole; under one system, and with the object that the poorer may be helped by the richer, and the richer may be the stronger by the co-operation of the poorer. If you were to take certain counties in England at the present moment—I shall not name any, as it might seem invidious—and work out what their contribution to the United Kingdom is, you will find that many of them do not pay for their upkeep. Is that a reason that they should be deprived of that upkeep? No; and I say this further, that a worse, a more foolish, and a more impossible policy it would be impossible to inaugurate than to suggest that either Ireland, or any other part of the United Kingdom, whether large or small, should be allowed to go back in the race of progress, and civilisation, and not to be kept up to the same standard as you yourselves, or as near thereto as possible. The whole of this argument is based upon a fallacy, because the moment you make a common Exchequer you have no right to segregate any unit paying into that Exchequer towards local or Imperial upkeep. As Ireland pays exactly the same taxes as Great Britain pays, you have no right whatsoever to segregate her.

Again, this is strikingly familiar is it not? So is this:

Does the right hon. Gentleman really tell this House that he is going to have Home Rule all round? Does he say that until the other Constitutions are completed the Irish Members are to be here dealing with the local affairs of England and Scotland, and England and Scotland are to have nothing to say about the local affairs of Ireland? No. If you were in earnest you would have these schemes, whether brought in in one Bill or three all operating together. I will put it to the test. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman a question which will test his sincerity upon the subject. Will he agree to hang up this Bill until he has framed the others? Of course he will not. Do hon. Members think he would be allowed? The truth of the matter is that all this is simple hypocrisy. When you are granting to Ireland this system, which is said to be part of the federal system, there is really behind it a much deeper matter than the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with. Before you can grant a federal system at all you must make up your mind as to what is the demand, the real demand, of Ireland.

[…] Just picture what you are setting up. Do picture it in relation to the complicated system of taxation you are setting up, and which I venture to think will not last six months, and try to realise what it is that will then happen. Just think of the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer bringing in his Budget and explaining to an Irish House of Commons mainly composed of agricultural Members that it is necessary to raise more money, and that it must come from the land, or if he had the power, which he never will have, from the industries of Ulster. What will be his argument? He would tell the Irish House of Commons, “This is a very bad system; you have got your instalments to pay to that brutal English Government; they have reserved that to themselves. You have got a great many other taxes to pay, but the one thing we are not allowed to set up is a system of taxation which we know and believe would be best for our own country. We cannot help it. It is the brutal English Government that has done this.”

As I say, there are fewer truly new things than we think. And what of feeding the nationalist beast? Well, here’s John Redmond speaking in the same 1912 debate:

[In the] circumstances of this case, the onus undoubtedly lies upon those who argue that what has proved to be good and just everywhere else in the world is bad and unjust and mischievous in Ireland. What are the main arguments against the principle of self-government for Ireland? The first of them is the question of separation, and Unionist orators, especially in the country—I notice more in the country than in this House, where they are face to face with their opponents—have constantly been saying that the Irish people want separation, and that the Irish leaders are separatists. I will be perfectly frank on this matter. There always have been, and there is to-day, a certain section of Irishmen who would like to see separation from this country. They are a small, a very small section. They were once a large section. They are a very small section, but these men who hold these views at this moment only desire separation as an alternative to the present system, and if you change the present system and give into the hands of Irishmen the management of purely Irish affairs even that small feeling in favour of separation will disappear, and, if it survive at all, I would like to know how under those circumstances it would be stronger or more powerful for mischief than at the present moment.

That might, it is true, have proved wishful thinking. Nevertheless it is another example of how today’s Scottish debate is in many respects a refreshment of the Irish argument from a century ago.

We cannot, as I wrote in the Scottish edition of The Times this week, know if the Asquith-Redmond Home Rule bill would have lasted. There are grounds for thinking it would not, not least because of the Ulster complications. Nevertheless, it might have and, more importantly, the fact it was passed at all should remind us that our own constitutional affairs can be resolved.

Of course it is more complicated now. Government has grown since 1912 and its tentacles now extend to places unimaginable a century ago. Cleaving Scotland – and Scottish finances – from the rest of the UK is not so simple as liberating Ireland a century ago. And it was a complicated enough business back then. For instance pensions, reserved to Westminster then, are an even greater issue now. Ditto the wider provision of welfare. That’s one reason why the new Scotland bill will not, in some areas, go as far as the Asquith-Redmond Irish Home Rule bill. The unravelling is a more perilous business these days.

Still, Ireland offers an example and, perhaps, a warning. To members and supporters of all parties. We have, after all, been here before.

UK should adopt a federal system, with regional parliaments, in event of a No vote in independence referendum, say Lib Dems

THE UK should adopt a federal system, with regional and national parliaments and assemblies across the country, in the event of a No vote in the independence referendum, according to a “home rule” commission.

It suggests Scotland could raise around two thirds of all the money it spends, with the Scottish Parliament collecting almost all income tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax and air passenger duty.

A federal government in London would retain powers over foreign affairs, defence, currency, welfare and pensions.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats hope other parties will adopt their proposals if voters reject independence in the 2014 referendum agreed by David Cameron and Alex Salmond.

The plans were drawn up by a commission chaired by Sir Menzies Campbell, the former party leader, and include a radical proposal to scrap the Act of Union between England and Scotland and replace it with a “Declaration of Federal Union”.

The report also states that different parts of the UK may wish to move at different speeds towards federalism, adding: “The move to home rule status for Scotland, in which it enjoys a federal relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom, is a first stage that can proceed ahead of the rest.”

n to the leaked report, to be published on October 17, Sir Menzies says it is his “firm belief” that the proposals are in the best interests of every part of the UK.

He writes: “The ideas and structure we have laid out are unlikely to be achieved in one leap. Our priority is to secure and entrench a broader home rule settlement for Scotland, but there can be no doubt that this would benefit from major change at Westminster too.

“Over time, we are confident that the constitutional debate in England, currently under-developed, will progress and reach a conclusion, but time will be required for that debate.

“We expect that Scotland will contribute to the terms of that debate, at least by example, but it is for people in England to determine how they wish their own national and regional identities expressed within the constitutional structures of our United Kingdom.”

The report adds: “Scotland will thrive with the fiscal responsibility and authority that comes with home rule, but that home rule settlement can only be stable if it forms part of the move to a truly federal United Kingdom. We shall promote home rule and federalism at every opportunity.”

Meanwhile, Alistair Darling, the former chancellor and leader of the Better Together campaign against independence, said the UK should remain together for economic, emotional and cultural reasons.

He claimed the SNP vision of independence, with Mr Salmond, the FIrst Minister, wanting a separate Scotland to enter a “currency union” with the remainder of the UK, was “like serfdom”.

He added: “If Scotland became independent it has got to have its own financial services regulatory regime. What you have now is a genuinely open, single market. You have to ask yourself why are you doing this, what is the purpose for it all?

“I think to enter into an economic union where we are giving up the influence we have got just now, when you have to enter into a fiscal pact which means that Scotland’s tax and spending would have to be approved by and agreed to by the UK, that isn’t freedom, that is more like serfdom.”

Reproduced from the Telegraph online

Towards a federal future for the UK: The FT

Leading up to the Scottish Independence referendum in 2014 the Financial Times published the following piece:

The “Better Together” campaign, which opposes independence, has recently gained ground. Last week the writer JK Rowling handed the pro-union side a coup by not only adding her voice to its cause, but giving £1m to its campaign. Polls show that the mini-surge by the Yes campaign earlier in the summer has now stalled.

But even if the pro-union side does ultimately prevail, the British establishment cannot assume that the status quo will simply roll on. As part of their contributions to the campaign, the main UK political parties have recently been giving thought to what might happen in Scotland should it vote to retain the union. All three have accepted that there will need to be more devolution if Scotland is to be firmly anchored in the UK.

The boldest of these plans was the one set out by the Conservatives at the start of June in a report from Lord Strathclyde. The Tory proposal promises to give the Scots substantial new fiscal powers, including control over their own income tax. The Scottish government would be responsible for financing at least 40 per cent of its budget.

True, this position is not universally held. The Labour party, for instance, is much more wary about such a radical extension of fiscal devolution. But the pledge to extend new tax-raising powers is in principle a good one. In spite of devolution, Scotland raises far less of its money spent on its own territory than the German Lander or the Canadian provinces. Given the amount of public money it disperses, Scotland should take more responsibility for raising it.

If the Conservative proposal for further Scottish devolution is the one finally adopted, this would not be the end of the matter. A shift to far greater fiscal devolution north of the border would have to be mirrored across the rest of the union. It would require a whole new constitutional settlement whose purpose would be to create a more federalised Britain. This would have three main elements.

First, Wales and Northern Ireland would need to gain similar powers to those in Scotland to raise, and vary, tax rates.

Second, the Westminster parliament would need to overhaul its procedures. MPs from the devolved regions should have less say – or none at all – on matters, such as health and education, which affect England only.

Lastly, there would be a strong case for looking again at House of Lords reform. In a more federalised Britain the upper house should contain not only leading figures from the four parts of the UK, but perhaps also delegates from the city regions.

None of these reforms are without difficulties. Other parts of the UK may have far less appetite for fiscal devolution than Scotland. Northern Ireland, for instance, receives a pretty generous deal under the current block grant arrangements.

Slotting England into a federal constitution would also be difficult. Accounting for 85 per cent of the UK’s population, it would be the dominant legislature, setting standards and regulations for the others. Were the party forming the UK government not to enjoy a majority in England, the possibilities for constitutional deadlock would be legion.

But while these are complex challenges, Britain’s main political parties have no time to lose in discussing them. If Scotland votes No to independence in September, the UK will doubtless become consumed by the 2015 general election and the possibility of an EU referendum two years later.
But the creation of a new constitutional settlement for Britain is not a matter that can be left on hold.

Reproduced from the Financial Times online.

An argument for an English parliament in a federal UK

By George Foulkes, 23 April 2011

With the current blizzard of constitutional legislation, from the referendum on AV to the impending bill on Lords reform, there is one glaring omission which is the one that should be top of the list.

Now that the Welsh assembly has had its powers enhanced we have three of the four nations of the United Kingdom with powers over most domestic matters controlled by devolved parliaments. In each case those domestic laws need only pass through one chamber to become law. The House of Lords has no say and in each country there is no demand for what, in Scotland, might be a ‘House of Lairds’.

Meanwhile domestic laws which apply only to England are voted on by Scottish, Welsh and Ulster MPs and have also to pass through the Lords, where we ethnic peers also vote on them. Understandably this has upset a few English MPs. Although many of them are Tories, some Labour members have also expressed concern. This is not surprising. Indeed it is astonishing the protests have not been louder and more widespread, The anomaly was foreseen by the former West Lothian MP Tam Dalyell who used it to argue against devolution, and has since been dubbed the ‘West Lothian Question’.

It is better described as a major democratic deficit in our constitution. English politicians and public have taken it so far with such equanimity for a few reasons. Many have previously seen England and the UK as interchangeable terms, real-term effects have been relatively minimal, and, above all, there has been no focus for opposition. That now looks like changing. With Scotland, for example having free prescriptions, free personal care for the elderly and free higher education provided, in the view of some English people, by English taxpayers, dissent is growing.

Apart from the peripheral Campaign for an English Parliament, with apologies to Gareth Young, and a few fringe groups, there has been little political support. Labour has been opposed to an English parliament because they believe it would have a permanent Tory majority.

This need not be so. We are already seeing the same electorate in Northern Ireland and Wales vote differently for devolved parliaments to how they do in UK elections, and this is now beginning to be apparent in Scotland. And, of course the outcome crucially depends on the electoral system which is adopted. This is an issue which will not go away. It will, instead, become a growing grievance.

There are three constitutional structures for the UK which are inherently stable. The centralised system which existed previously was stable but has now been overtaken by events. Of course, it would be possible for Scotland and Wales to become independent and Ireland to be unified, but this break-up of the UK is not favoured by the vast majority and would be economically disastrous.

The remaining stable option is federalism. It was once the favoured option of the Liberals and is the one I strongly support. At present we have an imperfect form of federalism. To make it stable we need to complete our process of phased federalism with the creation of an English parliament responsible in England for all those matters devolved to Holyrood in Scotland. The UK parliament which might then be able to become unicameral would remain responsible for foreign affairs, defence, the economy, employment and welfare, which remain common in all parts of the UK

The English and their politicians would then be able to better define and express Englishness, to celebrate St George’s Day, have dinners with readings from Wordsworth and to support both English and UK teams with enthusiasm and without apology.

Reproduced from Progress Online – Labour’s Progressives

It is now time for a Federal UK

Now that 45% of Scots have voted for a split from the UK and more importantly Westminster and the agreement of further devolved governmental measures for Hollyrood today, it is clearly now time that the UK became a Federalised institution; it is the only fair way that the nation can be run.

Many have called for further devolution in the UK as a whole, including local regional rule inside England whilst those against the idea have used the excuse that such a thing would create another level of bureaucracy to the country and that it would cost too much money to achieve.

Well, when should money ever get in the way of democracy? And do we not already have bodies in place that make decisions for local people, such as county, borough, local and parish councils?

The nation even already has a tier of government that could be used to run as a federal parliament for the UK; it is called the House of Lords and is still in need of serious change, including chucking out all peers and complete democratic elections for it’s members.

We shall look at all of these possibilities over time and shall report on federal stories as they appear in the news

The Campaign for a Federal UK is a non-aligned centrist movement and welcomes all those who are interested in promoting and working for a movement for a Federalised UK. Please contact us, follow the blog and if interested contribute to the campaign.