Cameron clings to a disintegrating Britain

Quite literally, in fact.

I feel that in the fledgling moments of 2011, it is worth demonstrating in a clear, visual format the comprehensive verdict delivered to Mr Cameron and his close allies in the wake of the 2010 General Election (courtesy of the BBC):

In spite of this, and as I have blogged before, Mr Cameron has not only wantonly ignored England even when speaking solely about England or to English people, he has ignored the nation itself. He does so at his profound peril.

Concerns over devolution are beginning to grow to a crescendo. Very shortly, Wales will have an opportunity to seize control of their own affairs. The key players, notably a Mr Roger Lewis, claim that

“Time, money, energy and imagination are being exhausted on making an over-complicated law-making system work. In times like this we cannot afford to waste a moment continually arguing about the way laws are made. It is time for the assembly to be given the tools necessary to get on with the job it was elected to, so that all our energies can be focused on forging a better future.”

It is quotes like this that make one seriously question in which blissful sphere of ignorance the pro-devolution lobby reside. I can say with some degree of certainty that Wales will not reject any of the £14.78bn it takes from the UK Government merely to fund its subsidised existence as a pseudo-nation, so where will money be saved, and for whom? Furthermore, in the case of Scotland, the Centre for Policy Studies warned as early as January 1998 that

“… there is a real danger that in ceding so much legislative power to the Scottish Parliament and such a wide range of powers (including ones over local authorities), while retaining so great a control over the purse strings, the Blair Government has created a recipe for continual conflict.”

The Welsh Assembly seek very similar powers now. It should come as precisely no surprise that Ed Miliband, a man seemingly entirely oblivious to anything that has happened in the past fifteen years, has championed the Welsh cause:

“I think that devolution has been a success,” he said.

“The next step is about Wales not having to come to London when it wants to make changes within the devolved policy areas but being able to make the changes itself.

“It’s a better system, it’s a fairer system, and I think it’s a system that respects Wales.”

A desperate sop to try to gain total control of Wales, or an effort to spin supposed Labour ‘achievements’ into a reality vacuum? Probably the latter, but bizarrely, Cameron has no grounds to criticise this flagrant politicking by Labour, nor this near-final chapter of the story of the legal and constitutional break-up of the United Kingdom; he is duty-bound by the inherently un-Conservative Coalition Agreement to

“… implement the proposals of the Calman Commission and introduce a referendum on further Welsh devolution.”

So while desperate to remain Prime Minister of Britain, he is presiding over – and explicitly endorsing- the final measures of nonsensical, unprecedented and unequal Blairite devolution!

Cameron’s ideological muddle gets worse in the face of Europe. ‘Cast-iron’ promises aside, he seems to be entirely deluded. Coalition Agreement principles such as

“… a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority remains with Parliament…”

are a myth and fallacy, as Simon Heffer succinctly reasons:

“A number of treaties signed by Her Majesty’s various governments since the Treaty of Brussels in 1972 make it quite clear that ultimate authority on a number of matters does not remain with Parliament. To say now to the contrary, while an admirable sentiment, would put us directly at odds with the European Union, the spirit and the letter of its laws. Therefore Clause 18 of the EU Bill – “Status of EU law dependent on continuing statutory basis” – has been drafted by Parliamentary Counsel on the advice of the Foreign Office’s lawyers, and it ensures that no such clash can take place. In short, the “sovereignty clause” is a sham.”

So, content with ensuring that Britain’s sovereignty remains abroad, Mr Cameron is duly duty-bound to ensure that he has precisely no control over our borders, thus negating his already minimal ability (and pathetically low desire) to protect Britain’s culture and heritage itself.

A recent IPPR study demonstrated the extent to which immigration is really and truly ‘out of control’ legally as well as numerically. But the Tories daren’t discuss it. Or just don’t, can’t or won’t see the actual effects on the nation. As Peter Hitchens suggests, Cameron’s pseudo-Tories have no interest in the actual reality of their favoured high-immigration policy:

“Not for them the other side of immigration – the transformation of familiar neighbourhoods into foreign territory. Not for them the schools where many pupils cannot speak English, and the overloaded public services. Not for them the mosque and the madrassa where the church and the pub used to be. Not that they mind that so much. These people have no special loyalty to this country, nor much love for it. They are not significantly different from the Blairite apparatchik Andrew Neather, who last year unwisely said openly what such people have long thought privately.”

Mr Cameron is essentially presiding over a ‘nation’ that has given over-riding power to its contituent parts, surrendered its sovereignty to an undemocratic foreign superstate and in doing so handed over its borders and security to unelected bureaucrats.

What kind of nation is that?

The irony of all this is that Mr Cameron is – unwittingly, perhaps – complicit in demolishing the values and ideological bastions of the Britain he supposedly so adores, while desperately grasping the only British institutions that are beginning to show their age: namely his party and the concept of a United Kingdom.

Suggesting that Mr Cameron should disband the United Kingdom solely due to his party’s huge support in England would be arrant nonsense; flagrant opportunism only matched by the Lib Dems’ nonsense AV referendum. What he must accept, however, is that the inheritance he so coveted when admiring New Labour from across the dispatch box was wantonly destroyed by the man he sought to emulate: Tony Blair.

If Mr Cameron wished to be truly radical, rather than be content to use it as a buzzword to satisfy his truly (and destructively) radical Coalition partners, he must return to Conservative principles, and if he so desires, return Britain to itself before it is too late.

If he does not, or if he makes too many wrong moves, he will be known not as the Prime Minister who held Britain together, nor as the Prime Minister who logically dealt with the tarnished Disunited Kingdom as masterminded by his disgraceful predecessors, but as a man who failed to grasp the reality of the situation he found himself in and chose to ignore the true problems he faced.

His legacy remains in his own hands.


About Byrnsweord

I am an Englishman. Constantly striving for the truth and to conserve what is good about England. You can find my on flickr at my blog over at and my Twitter account at Byrnsweord is min nama.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Cameron clings to a disintegrating Britain

  1. You’re right; things are quite silly. And yet he looks so complacent. But he is a PR man after all.

    • Byrnsweord says:

      Those less charitable than I use the most ungainly – yet unquestionably fascinating – word ‘spiv’. I shall not stoop to such levels.

  2. nicola says:

    You haven’t mentioned that the Union Acts aren’t democratic. The 1707 Union Act is well undemocratic. if not for the fact it was made in 1707. Representatives didn’t represent anyone in the Scottish & English parliaments & no member of the public voted for it. I see this coalition as an English government not a UK government. Wales joined with England between 1535-1542 again not democratic.
    Scotland & England & Wales & NI need to be seen as equals.

    • Byrnsweord says:

      I see your point; indeed, the Scottish protests at the time were the subject of some anxious discussion. It is, however, extremely unwise to retroactively apply the principles of democracy as we understand them now to the past, particularly in a time in which the Monarch had a much more prominent role in public affairs than today.

      The ‘Conservative’-LibDem coalition is effectively an English government that is not drawn from an English Parliament- a most peculiar state of affairs, and we have Blair’s devolution to thank for that. In this regard, I understand your statement that the constituent nations need to be seen as equals. However, before England is to be anywhere near as represented as its neighbours, the Barnett Formula will need to be rethought, the West Lothian Question answered and serious, truly revolutionary legislation would have to be approved then passed.

      I shan’t hold my breath on the matter- but I realise that to carry on as we are is foolhardy and an example of the kind of true inequality that supposedly ‘progressive’ politics has wrought upon this nation.

      I thankyou for your perceptive comment.

      • nicola says:

        I see your point but i think with our unwritten constitution and more “trivial” parts of the constitution having had to jump through so many democratic hoops, we risk making the Union look absolutely ridiculous. The foundation of the UK should be democratically solid. Perhaps we should write the absolute foundations in stone where you need like 2/3rds of MPs to approve it or something. Then a more fluid top part.

        Your right this is an English government but its not due to devolution. Not having devolution wouldn’t have changed the 2010 election. That wouldn’t make this any more of a UK government. Thatcher’s government was an English government. Thatcher had as much support as this government has in Scotland, the coalition has more support in Wales than Thatcher did.

        Yes, the Barnett Formula needs to be rethought, i’m not entirely sure its addressed what it was supposed to address i.e. poverty north of the border & the others.

        I think a Federal state would probably do the job. I thought you’d disagree with the home nations needing to be seen as equal as an Englishman because every time i’ve brought it up with others i’ve got but England is bigger, we’re 10 times more populated than Scotland, we’re a democracy, we deserve more say.

      • Byrnsweord says:

        I apologise; I did not mean to infer that the formation of the Coalition Government was the result of devolution- rather it was the fact that the main mandate of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to govern is drawn from England, in spite of the fact that the Government we have masquerades under the title of a UK Government, which it patently is not.

        I would strongly support a federal Britain- under the right conditions, and assuming that responsibility would continue to be shared regarding defence and other matters. We are still, after all, an island. As for equality- I see no reason why a citizen of Scotland or Wales should be treated in any way differently to an English person. This is the inherent problem with the situation as it is- Scotland has more jurisdiction over its own affairs than Wales does, England has no representation and yet 600-odd MPs in Westminster purport to speak for all UK citizens! This is evidently farcical and should be seriously debated in the coming years, if not sooner.

  3. nicola says:

    I’m glad an Englishman agrees with me that this is an English government.
    For you what would the conditions need to be for you to strongly support a federal Britain.

    I know a lot of English who say that Scotland, Wales & NI are over-represented & in order to give England equality 1 vote must equal 1 person no matter where you live in the country therefore if you live in Scotland your vote must be worth the same as an English person & therefore having Scotland have equal representation as England or Wales & NI have same representation as England & Scotland would for them be seen as inequality. There is a contradiction here & a balance needs to be struck.

    • Byrnsweord says:

      If a federal Britain were the only solution (and I am not convinced that it is), then each home nation must have its own parliament. The political leaders of all nations would then have to agree on certain matters relating to concerns of all home nations (security and defence, British waters etc) and all would have to contribute proportionally to maintaining Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.

      As for the conditions… further devolution to the other home nations will result in the UK Government being rendered ultimately meaningless. It will inevitably happen, and what we must do is ensure that England is not fractured into historically unprecedented and illogical ‘regions’ imposed by Europe and consolidated and furthered by Labour.

  4. nicola says:

    What would be your ideal solution to the UK be?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s