Should the UK become a Superstate, and let Scotland and Norther Ireland have full member status?

rcoobc

Not as crap as eferyone thinks
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
41,831
Location
C-137
The UK as a whole is now in the midst of a huge existential crisis. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales decide much of their own laws, England does not. Scotland and Northern Ireland want to stay as part of the European Union, Wales does not.

Right now this is solved by rather half-hearted solutions; English laws for English votes, or not at all in terms of the EU.

But is it time to rethink the whole damned thing?

Is it not time for England to have it's own parliament? The UK would become something of a superstate, not unlike the EU itself, where it controls as little as possible for the four countries to cooperate. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be given full member status, able to make their own laws, with full fiscal autonomy and the ability to stay as part of the EU as they wish. They same could apply to crown dependencies like Jersey, and overseas territories like the Falklands.

The four nations might even be able to over turn laws made by the UK Superstate by voting with 2/3rds majority (a super majority), and as such have the ability to decide their own fates, or at least force Westminster's hand when it comes to many issues. They would represent themselves on the worlds stage, being able to make deals with the leaders of the rest of the world without permission from the UK

Back in London, Westminster would reduce to far fewer MPs, possibly as few as 200, whilst Lords would either disappear or become something else entirely. As the house of commons needs a £6bn restoration, this might not actually be as stupid as it seems

The only time to sort this out is now. It can't happen in 1 year or 5 years or 10 years. Within weeks or months, Britain will hand in it's notice to leave the EU, and Scotland will begin to look to leave the UK.

This may actually be route that the people prefer, Scotland voted to remain part of the UK and remain part of the EU, and generally support devo-max. Support for an English parliament is by at least one-poll, at 4 to 1. The North of England feels unrepresented at Westminster, and English parliament in the North could solve that.

It has to happen now or not at all.

Edit: I can't believe I missed the N on Northern Ireland
 
Last edited:
If you're going to propose something more radical, why not include the Republic too? A new superstate of equal independent countries wouldn't (in theory if not reality) conflict with a sense of Irish independence from the (at that point) demolished UK.
 
You can't have Scotland in the EU whilst it is also part of a federal UK that is not in the EU.
 
Why be part of England super state when a country can be part of Europe?
 
The lack of an English Parliament is a huge issue. Not really sure why it didn't happen in the devolution craze.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Scotland staying in the EU is not consistent with the idea of it being part of a federal UK that is not in the EU.
Click to expand...

Curious how the legalities of that work.

For example, isn't part of the Good Friday agreement the principle that someone can choose to be a citizen of Ireland, the UK or both? Which in effect now means they can choose whether to be a member of the EU or not? Could a similar set up not work in the OP's proposal, whereby someone in Scotland could choose to be Scottish, "British" or both? Thus allowing them to be part of the EU and this new formerly "British" body?
 
sullydnl said:
If you're going to propose something more radical, why not include the Republic too? A new superstate of equal independent countries wouldn't (in theory if not reality) conflict with a sense of Irish independence from the (at that point) demolished UK.
Click to expand...
I doubt they want want to join.
Dobba said:
You should begin your stand-up set with this one, it's a blinder.
Click to expand...
That's actually one of the general proposals, although I can't find a source right now.

Edit: Not the same, but a general proposal to move parliament to Nottingham https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/07/should-parliament-move-out-of-london
devilish said:
Why be part of England super state when a country can be part of Europe?
Click to expand...
A UK Superstate. And they could be part of both.
MikeUpNorth said:
You can't have Scotland in the EU whilst it is also part of a federal UK that is not in the EU.
Click to expand...
I don't see why not, although I'm not saying it would be easy.
 
Last edited:
rcoobc said:
I doubt they want want to join.
Click to expand...

Oh don't get me wrong, there's zero chance of it happening. It's just an interesting idea in terms of how it would impact on the different countries' sense of identity.
 
sullydnl said:
Curious how the legalities of that work.

For example, isn't part of the Good Friday agreement the principle that someone can choose to be a citizen of Ireland, the UK or both? Which in effect now means they can choose whether to be a member of the EU or not? Could a similar set up not work in the OP's proposal, whereby someone in Scotland could choose to be Scottish, "British" or both? Thus allowing them to be part of the EU and this new formerly "British" body?
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with citizenship, but confused legal jurisdiction between the EU and proposed federal UK. Which law would have supremacy in Scotland in the OP's example for instance, EU law or UK law?
 
rcoobc said:
I doubt they want want to join.

That's actually one of the general proposals, although I can't find a source right now.
A UK Superstate. And they could be part of both.

I don't see why not, although I'm not saying it would be easy.
Click to expand...

What happens if there's a contrasting law which the EU and UK wouldn't bulge on
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Nothing to do with citizenship, but confused legal jurisdiction between the EU and proposed federal UK. Which law would have supremacy in Scotland in the OP's example for instance, EU law or UK law?
Click to expand...
EU law would have supremacy in Scotland and Northern Ireland for sure. It would go

EU -> UK -> Scotland/Northern Ireland... in Scotland and Northern Ireland

and

UK -> England/Wales... In England and Wales

Obviously that wouldn't be the easiest thing in the world, but it's not impossible. The mandate of the UK would be to interfere with the four countries as little as possible, whilst keeping the Union together for things we obviously need to work together on.
 
devilish said:
What happens if there's a contrasting law which the EU and UK wouldn't bulge on
Click to expand...
The reduced UK parliament - say 200 members - would have to take that into account. For Scotland and Northern Ireland, EU laws would come first. But the mandate of the UK would be far reduced than what it is now anyway.

The English parliament would be given the majority of powers that Westminster now has, and they'd be free to do whatever the hell they liked (apart from the situations where the UK had authority)
 
rcoobc said:
EU law would have supremacy in Scotland and Northern Ireland for sure. It would go

EU -> UK -> Scotland/Northern Ireland... in Scotland and Northern Ireland

and

UK -> England/Wales... In England and Wales

Obviously that wouldn't be the easiest thing in the world, but it's not impossible. The mandate of the UK would be to interfere with the four countries as little as possible, whilst keeping the Union together for things we obviously need to work together on.
Click to expand...
It's impossible because the non-EU UK law would be incompatible with EU law.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
It's impossible because the non-EU UK law would be incompatible with EU law.
Click to expand...
The UK parliament would have a limited mandate.

As an expanded example, to the best of my limited ability, the UK might:
  • Have complete control over defence. The EU has no real powers to legislate in this area.
  • Control fiscal, economic and monetary policy (with devolved powers to the four countries). The EU has some powers in this area, for example, VAT cannot go below 15%. The UK would take this into account as two of its countries would be part of the EU. The four countries would have powers to slightly change policy in this area, for example, Scotland can change the income tax rate by 3 pc.
  • Have a broad minimum control over employment rights. Further controls can be added by the four nations as they see fit. Again, the EU legislate in this area. If the UK maximum hours worked per week (average) was 55, and the EU maximum hours worked per week (average) is 49, then the two EU countries would have to use the EU figure, whilst the non-EU countries could go up to the UK figure.
  • Control broadcasting rules, the internet, etc, within the EU framework - to provide a common UK standard.
  • Maintain minimum education rules, whilst the four nations had much broader controls.
  • Control all Electricity and Energy related matters, both for defensive reasons and to provide a common UK framework. The would be a minimum UK standard for environmental issues, whilst the EU countries also abide by EU laws here and the UK countries do not.
  • Not control Fishing and Agriculture, this might bypass the UK parliament entirely, and instead the four UK countries would negotiate rules together.
  • Maintain standards in health, and provide a minimum standard for the whole of the UK... but broadly each parliament would have full control. England and Wales might run their NHS's together.
  • Non control housing, that is already run by devolved bodies.
  • Control transport regulations, with some room to change things for the four countries. For example, the standards for vehicles on the roads would be run by the UK, whilst speed limits would fall to the four nations parliaments within a minimum framework (70 mph +- 10 as a maximum speed limit, for example)
  • Control becoming a British citizen, whilst living and working in any of the individual four nations would be the sole responsibility for those parliaments. This would mean anyone from the EU could live and work in Northern Ireland and Scotland, this might not apply to the other parts of the UK. On the other hand, whilst any British Citizen could live and work in the whole of the UK, it isn't inconceivable that an English citizen might have to become Scottish to work in France (although I'm sure the UK will have to solve this post-EU anyway)

    And so on.

Basically, in many areas the UK parliament would introduce a minimum legislation that all four countries agreed to, but for the two EU countries the EU legislation is likely to provide a tighter framework. In most situations, the EU would provide a tighter framework than the UK, whilst in a few situations the UK would provide a tighter framework than the EU. On a few topics, the UK would have complete control. The UK wouldn't introduce laws that was incompatible with EU law.

This is broadly similar to how the US does things.

For example, regarding age of consent, "Federal law makes it criminal to engage in a sexual act with another person who is between the age of 12 and 16 if they are at least four years younger than you. Each state takes a different approach as the age of consent has ranged from 10 to 18."
 
Last edited:
To those saying it isn't possible, isn't this similar to what happened with Denmark and Greenland? And to some extent what we have with Jersey and Guernsey?

Negotiate an EU-Lite option with the EU.

Then let Scotland and Northern Ireland have a referendum on whether to be in the EU or EU-Lite. And let England and Wales have a referendum on accepting the EU-Lite or not, (if not, we'd have to continue negotiating our exit).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.