Radical Federalism. An Absolutely Independent Response!
Welsh Labour is lost and fearful.
It has no vision to offer for the future of Wales and is fearful of the slow but steady rise of Welsh Independence.
As they have no alternative to offer, they take the predictable course, they attack it.
The line of one Welsh Labour MS, is that Independence will inevitably
lead to higher taxes, this without producing a shred of evidence in support.
Another called on Independence supporters to " put aside their little dreams". That however, from a peer, or is it peeress, of the realm, whose allegiance to Wales is secondary to her sworn allegiance to the Union. So that is an expected, although disappointing retort.
As there is little basis to these attacks the usual fallback, except for Wales is too small and too poor, is that Independence is iIl considered and Ill defined.
As for the first charge, that is easily rebutted and with the second, perhaps a little help is needed.
Independence is Wales as a sovereign state. Free and able, to make its own economic, political and legislative decisions for the benefit of the Welsh people. Free to fully utilise its resources and skills. Free to make alliances, treaties and agreements with who it wishes. It may wish to make them with other nations of the UK, to the mutual benefit and as equal and voluntary arrangements. However such an arrangement is not a condition of Wales Independence.
If the benefits of the Union are so great, there should be no problems, persuading the Independent nations of the UK, to get together for mutual benefit agreements.
With regard to nationalism. To most it would mean the right to maintain and defend Wales own national identity. Its culture, arts and language.
Separatism, rather than the pejorative term, is to separate Wales from the dominance of others, a dominance that Wales has been subject of, through its history.
Neither, is isolationist nor protectionist Indeed there is every incentive and intention, for Wales to welcome interaction with others, well beyond its own borders.
It was exciting to learn that Welsh Labour Assembly members, well one anyway, were presenting a paper on reform of the political system relating to Wales.
After 20 years, they were at last waking.
I read it. I read it with increasing disappointment. It wasn't a conversion to Independence after all, but something called Radical Federalism. A defence of the Union.
Nevertheless, it was something for Welsh Labour to get excited about, so I thought. Come on. Open mind. Give it a chance.
We the People. The case for Radical Federalism.
The title wasn't a good start.
We the People. A bit presumptuous and arrogant, but I put that down to Welsh Labour's way.
And. The Case for Radical Federalism. Well I read carefully through the document, but nowhere could find a case for federalism.
The document went some way to making a case for radical reform of the "Union ". But federalism?
Now I think the old Baptist streak in Wales, would find a lot to like in the
document. Peace, harmony and goodwill, between all the people. Economic and political decisions of magnitude, being decided in village halls up and down the land and everything levelled up. What's not to like?
My first thought was, how are they going to go about it.
Good old Welsh Labour didn't disappoint there. They reverted to kind.
It doesn't matter about any detail or structure at this stage. Let's just agree on the principle.
I haven't noticed the Independent movement getting away with that.
I do have say though, that the wish list is pretty impressive. There is something in there for everyone. Workers rights, equality, the environment, climate change. Pretty much on a par with an all party election manifesto
Struggling through, I did get the impression that the ambition was more about the Union than about Wales, with a real concern about the fate of the English regions. This is not surprising as Radical Federalism is a rallying call of the UK Labour Leader who is losing his party.
It does mention the UK nations as Sovereign states. They would be responsible for the welfare and economies of their own people. These sovereign states would be able to set their own levels and standards above a minimum agreed by the federal arrangement.
And there it started to go downhill. For after allowing these freedoms, there doesn't appear to be any mechanism to pay for these enhanced standards. Under radical federalism, it is proposed that the UK government retains the powers of trade, macroeconomic and fiscal policy.
Just like the present discredited system.
Probably the statement that best sums up the paucity of content, is that the Union is better able to attack and remedy some, as yet unidentified, structural failings and threats that would be beyond the reach and capabilities of the smaller, weaker governments.
Got to fit the fear factor in somewhere.
Although it is difficult to imagine what these structural failings and threats are, that the Independent nations of the UK could not themselves provide. If they had the freedom to do so.
But then, when you have no logical argument, fear is a useful standby.
However, back to the " vision" of this radical federalism.
In this federal system, it would appear that there would be agreement that English regions would have more powers and responsibilities, but not as much as the nations though, who would have sovereign status. Dream on.
This Radical Federalism document does offer templates for their process.
We could follow the Belfast Agreement 1998 ( That's the Good Friday Agreement to you and me ).
Now you would think that they would come up with a better model.
The Good Friday Agreement has three elements and how these are shown as best practice for federal cooperation I'm not quite sure.
First there is the N Ireland elected Assembly. This is the body elected by the people to run N Ireland, except that they seem to disagree over just about everything and indeed was suspended and didn't meet for three years.
Then there's the North / South council.
That is senior politicians from the North and South of the island of Ireland, who seek to make cross border vector agreements. Agriculture, Tourism, Transport etc. They meet on average, once a year and in the twenty years of existence, there are still cross border issues unresolved. Indeed in recent years the main topic of discussion, covid aside, has been the unification of Ireland.
The third element is the British / Irish Governmental Conference, between The Irish Republic and UK governments.
Their relationship has hardly been harmonious and one you would normally be reluctant to hold up as an example of harmonious cooperation.
And
The British / Irish Council.
Representatives of Ireland and the UK nations and islands, including the Isle of Man and Jersey and Guernsey.
The meetings are said to be a forum on promoting harmony across the people of the UK and discuss a range of cross border issues, from the environment to energy.
The reaching of agreement is not the priority. Continuing discussion and communication is. For it constitutes part of the systems designed to keep the cross border peace and harmony on the island of Ireland. It is not a model of democratic process.
Federalism will however require such processes, both costly and complex, to administer any Federalist system
These systems however are products of a federal government, not the pathway to federal establishment.
So despite the protocols and regulations of the Belfast Agreement, It has failed on so many fronts. And this between just two parties.
The federal system being advocated, will involve regions of England and the Nations of the UK, each with their own vested interests and demands.
I'm afraid the Belfast Agreement 1998 model will not accommodate that.
Then we are offered the Alliance for Full Employment, as the way to work together.
I looked for a mass movement, which had discovered the way to mutual organisation.
Or the combinations of trade unions who had found common agreement.
The Alliance for Full Employment, is neither of these. It is instead a small group of mainly Labour great and good who have embarked on a common purpose. It is fronted by the friend of the Union, Gordon Brown
There is no broad organisation that can guide the federal system. Nor indeed do they appear to have actually done anything and as they were formed less than six months ago, they hardly have a track record, to engender such faith.
So to the process. A Constitutional Convention.
Gordon Brown taking a central role. Yes Gordon Brown again. A late convert to this new sharing of democracy. He had thirteen years of government in which to bring in this " fundamental change ". It would appear that it is more anything anti-independence, than decentralization, for him.
Agreement is a distant aim, first things first, who will attend.
It will need to be a very anaemic agenda to get any interest from the Tories. They are not known for their generosity in sharing power.
The SNP are certainly not going to be interested in anything offered in this vision.
The DUP may be attracted, but their day has gone. Sein Fein is the power now.
Welsh Labour of course are attracted to this option. But they may well be too weakened to matter
UK Labour, upon which, so much of this depends. A lot of ifs, on which to
place Wales' future. If the UK Labour Party supports it, not just the Leader. If it remains a priority for Keir Starmer. If Labour retains power in the long term, you wish. And even if they do, politics being what it is, Federalism may no longer feature.
And there's the timescale. It's out of sight.
The agreement on the convention. Agreement on the agenda. Agreement on taking part. What shape will the English federal representation take, what model will be used and on and on.
A risky strategy to base Wales' future on, for like devolution, it's out of your control.
I didn't have great expectations and in that I wasn't disappointed. I would however, have liked the document to form a debate.
It is though, just a confused muddle of wishes, likes, ifs, maybes and fantasies. Thrown into the " intellectual " pot, with fingers crossed it will morph into something credible.
Is this the alternative to Independence? It's not even an alternative to the status quo it's meant to replace.
