 |
| A federal Britain? David Melding AM makes his case inThe Reformed Union. (Pic : Click on Wales) |
Deputy Llywydd David Melding (Con, South Wales Central) recently published a book via the Institute of Welsh Affairs entitled The Reformed Union : The UK as a Federation. It's available here.
The book's main thrust outlines why the Union works, why it's important, but also why it's in desperate need for reform.
Each of its six main sections explores a different aspect of the Union, including insights into, and short histories of : how the Union came to be, the historical and constitutional importance of parliamentary sovereignty, how unionism and supra-national institutions like the European Union co-exist, fiscal federalism, and the impact of civic nationalism on national and international politics.
You quickly get the impression it was written by a conservative because of the deference to tradition and precedent, but there are few outright political points made. David's clever enough to acknowledge different streams of unionist and nationalist thought, and the book itself could be described as politically neutral. Take out the name, and you could easily have guessed it to have come from one of Wales' many high-profile "wet nationalists".
For example, you look at the UK Conservatives, New Labour and UKIP and get the impression unionism is nothing but about having strong opinions on the EU or being gang masters and armchair generals. On the other hand, when you look at Plaid Cymru, you would think Welsh nationalism is a minor branch of democratic socialism and green politics, with right-wing and centrist nationalists treated as mythical creatures or ignored.
Despite some of the doom-laden language used to generate a sense of urgency regarding the Union's future, The Reformed Union is mostly positive and upbeat. There is, however, a romanticised view of the British constitution within The Reformed Union that borders on sentimentality. There's nothing wrong with that, as I'm sure many nationalists get dewy-eyed thinking about Welsh traditions and culture too.
In terms of his approach to the question of reform, David's very keen throughout to tweak existing British institutions to fit the multi-national reality of the modern United Kingdom, proposing, for example, that the monarch takes the title "Prince(ss) of Wales".
There are problems using British institutions to bind everything together. Using his monarchy example – however popular the Queen is (even I like Betty Windsor) – it's in dire need of reform in its own right. The interfering Chuckles and dull, over-privileged William are set to follow, while there are so many hanger-on relatives it's hard to keep up with the names and faces.
Great British institutions like the BBC and Fleet Street have been damaged by scandals, while the Great British golden goose – the financial service sector – almost led the UK to penury, and could still yet. Then there's the military; sent to Iraq off the back of a false premise and now being stripped to the bone. One of the world's few, and very expensive, nuclear arsenal's will soon be protected, in the main, by an army of which a large chunk will soon be TAs and reservists.
He addresses – in the most detailed examination (alongside fiscal federalism) - the different approaches taken by different nation states to constitutional reform; ranging from the oligarchical, "elitist" approaches taken by the Scottish Constitutional Convention in the 1990s, the United States Continental Congress and the European Union, to the more pluralistic and democratised approach recently undertaken in Iceland and the Republic of Ireland.
He proposes that a future British constitutional convention should be : time-limited, deal with the issue as a matter of urgency, allow a level of open participation and be decided around the "middle ground" of federalism.
That's pretty much the limit of any concrete proposals. Don't go into this expecting detailed outlines for constitutional reform, it's more an underlying case for reform. Perhaps David feels it's best left to any future constitutional convention, but it would've been nice to have had some idea of what he thinks it should look like.
It's a weakness of nationalists too – though I've tried to articulate my own views on what an independent Wales could look like, and why it matters, however ponderous those thoughts might be. So that's not a criticism of David. It's harder than it looks, believe me, and it's easier to make a case for something than sort out the aftermath of those decisions.
There are, of course, parts I'd outright disagree with. I'd contest David's claim that modern British unionism has an "acceptance of secession". A democratic acceptance definitely, as well as the post-imperial consensus towards de-colonisation.
It's a reluctant acceptance though. There's an ugly underbelly, as demonstrated by some arguments being used by unionists in the Scottish independence debate, as well as the background and legacy of the Republic of Ireland leaving the Union. David does, at least, address the latter at several points without dwelling on it, perhaps as it betrays the picture of a happy British family.
Also, it doesn't automatically follow, as David asserts, that Scottish or Catalan independence could lead to an explosion of secessionism globally. Taking the former Yugoslavia and Soviet Union out of the equation because of the extreme circumstances, there've only been three universally-recognised secessions in the last 25 years – Czechoslovakia's "Velvet Divorce" (1993), East Timor (2002) and South Sudan (2012) – none of which setting off a chain reaction in their respective regions.
Democratic secessionism is based on several factors. Scotland, Flanders, the Basque Country and Catalonia likely meet most of them – even many unionists accept Scotland would "survive" as an independent state. Wales, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, Gallicia and Wallonia probably don't meet those requirements currently, though it's interesting to note that David says Welsh independence could (emphasis on the could) be feasible one day. Whether that's an attempt to win over nationalists is for you to decide.
Nor does it follow that secessionism leads to global instability. Wars are usually fought between great and regional powers, or via proxies with the implicit backing of those powers. You could argue that getting rid of the global big boys – instead sharing sovereignty though supra-national organisations rather than being browbeaten by regional giants – could increase regional stability, as the EU has done in Western and Central Europe.
I do think he's confused about what "independence" means too, and he's not the only one.
The UK is an independent nation-state, participating in the international community under a single banner and recognised by the world as such. "Wales" is something that only exists on the sporting field or other avenues of "permissive Welshness" like devolution and the language. That's not a "multi-national" identity, but a very rigid single one dominated and shaped by one ethno-linguistic majority - the English - and those from the fringes lucky enough to have made it to the top table.
I want Wales to have autonomy over all domestic and international affairs. I see little benefit derived to Wales in those areas - exclusively as a result of union - other than fiscal transfers; the vast bulk spent on our behalf by an increasingly distant, alien and deep-seated government in London. I don't see military power, permanent UK Security Council seats, the City of London, the Queen, Westminster, BBC or the Olympic team as "benefiting Wales" at all, or (in some cases) exclusively dependant on political union.
It's certainly benefited individuals, and there've been important "one-offs" in addition to fiscal transfers. But what has Wales - as a whole - got out of any of that other than corpses, pomp, peripheral neglect and the satisfying thump of giros on doormats?
That's irreconcilable, so I doubt I'm David's "middle ground" target anyway, but I accept mine is a minority view.
The European Union barely qualifies as a confederation, and doesn't impact its members' ability to have equal standing with non-EU members either in Europe or globally. Slovenia is as independent as Norway, but Scotland isn't as independent as Slovenia, only the UK is allowed to be.
In that respect, David is correct to say that the EU might be seen as a "surrogate union" by nationalists. If it's good enough for the Slovenes and the Dutch, why isn't it good enough for the Welsh, English, Basques, Catalans and Scots?
Why do we - amongst all the nations and peoples of Europe - need to be part of an inflexible, asymmetrical union of four within a weak union of 28, when we can become equal partners #29+ etc. in a loose union that spans the continent and grants everyone (near enough) exactly the same standing and status?
That needn't diminish a British union, in my opinion, as long as there's a good enough proposal on the table. The United Kingdom as a single sovereign nation-state would still have to go, though. It's confederation at a minimum or bust for me.
For a Conservative – and someone who clearly takes the UK's constitution to heart – The Reformed Union borders on radical, yet I'm unsure how strongly David Melding's views are supported within his own party.
It's a shrewd attempt to build bridges between "Celtic" civic nationalism and British unionism by trying to find common ground and make compromises. For example, I'm sure it would've pained someone with such a idealised view of the British constitution to contemplate ceding parliamentary sovereignty.
The soundtrack is very much Elgar's Nimrod, but you get the impression, very subtly, that this is close to being the long-awaited for "positive case for Union". I still think there are holes, but it's almost convincing. Almost. It just needs some meat on the bones, and I think that's going to be difficult as we'll all have different ideas about what powers should reside where.
It's a must-read for constitutional geeks from all parties who favour constitutional reform, or anyone simply curious about the thoughts of one of Wales' leading constitutional thinkers.
I don't think David need worry too much about the 2014 referendum though. Judging by the polls it looks like everything's alright:
0 comments:
Post a Comment