A Democracy By-Pass

A Democracy By-pass The Regionalisation of England Dr Richard North Research Director UK Independence Party European Parliament Brussels e-mail: [email protected] Occasional Paper No. 2 © Europe of Democracies and Diversities First published July 2002 Europe of Democracies and Diversities European Parliament Rue Wiertz B-1047 Brussels 2 Foreword I am very pleased to be asked to write the forward to Dr Richard North’s new booklet on the Regionalisation of England, appropriately and provocatively entitled “A Democracy By-Pass”. Dr North is a tireless researcher into the activities of the European Union and the labyrinthine complexities of its legislative processes. The many articles, booklets and opinions that he prepares for us are an invaluable resource. His work is always thoughtful, well researched and can be relied upon to push back the boundaries of our understanding on a wide range of issues that can have long term effects on the way of life of ordinary people. The issue of regionalisation is no exception. Dr North’s new booklet is the definitive treatment on this most contentious and complex of subjects. It provides us with a much needed step-by-step guide to the regionalisation process, including a detailed history of how it has developed from its “Genesis”, shortly after the Second World War, through its growth via the EU treaties and right up to date with John Prescott’s White Paper in 2002, in which he claimed the idea as his dream. He goes on to explain the real motivations behind regionalisation, which have relatively little to do with better governance and rather more to do with the further emasculation of the nation state. Crucially, Dr North demonstrates the great dangers of regionalisation and explains how it actually takes democracy further away from the people, not least because of its threat to the future of County Councils. He challenges the propaganda of the enthusiasts 3 for regionalisation, who make extravagant claims about its alleged “democratic” benefits. He is particularly scathing about the lack of candour with which the policy has been promoted. To those of us who are campaigning against regionalisation, “A Democracy By-Pass” is an invaluable tool that will help us to develop a fuller understanding of an enormously complicated subject. It will also provide us with the material we need to expose regionalisation as a dangerous new threat to the nation state. There is already a growing democratic deficit between the peoples of the European Union and the political elite in Brussels, which ultimately controls their lives. The regionalisation policy must not be allowed to widen that already gaping deficit any further. Jeffrey Titford MEP July 2002 4 Contents 1. Introduction 7 2. The Regionalisation Process 9 Part of a multi-track process 10 Genesis 10 The early role of the EEC 12 Separate development 14 The Single European Act 16 Maastricht and beyond 18 Charter of the Regions 20 3. The English dimension 20 The makings of regional policy 21 Thatcher’s legacy 24 Enter the Labour Party 26 The Regional White Paper 29 4. A Hidden Agenda? 31 Prescott’s dream 31 Why Regions? 38 5. Discussion 41 A lack of candour 42 In pursuit of efficiency 43 6. Some alternatives 46 Notes 49 5 The Author Dr Richard North works in the European Parliament as Research Director for the Group of European Democracies and Diversities. He works with MEPs from Denmark, France, Holland and the British contingent from the UK Independence Party. A former local government officer, and then food safety specialist, Richard came to EU politics though his increasing concern at the progressive intrusion of EU measures in his professional field. He widened his scope working for trade associations representing egg producers and small abattoirs and then through collaborating with author and Sunday Telegraph journalist, Christopher Booker, with whom he has co-authored two books – The Mad Officials and The Castle of Lies. Recently having published his own book, The Death of British Agriculture, Richard now specialises in agriculture and fisheries politics but covers the whole range of EU policy issues in support of his MEPs in Brussels and Strasbourg. Acknowledgements I am indebted to my MEPs, Jeffrey Titford and Nigel Farage, and their staff, without whose support and encouragement this work would not have been undertaken. I am also obliged to David Lott for his initial suggestions and his enthusiasm for this project. I must also thank Bryan Smalley for permission to use his work on the role of the Church of England in the regionalisation process. And, as always, I must express my appreciation to fellow researcher, Dr Helen Szamuely, whose skill and judgement shaped the final version of this work. 6 Introduction In May of 2002, the government published a White Paper on the regions.1 It proposed introducing elected assemblies for the eight English regions - subject to the agreement of the British people in local referendums – devolving functions to them from central government authorities, and giving them tax-raising powers. Necessarily, in those regions that opt for assemblies, the County Councils, where they still exist, will be abolished. According to Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, the main sponsor of this White Paper, the idea of English devolution has been his personal dream for more than 30 years. And, from the general thrust of his White Paper, it would indeed seem that his “dream” is entirely a home-grown affair, originating from a well-founded, even altruistic desire to “bring decision-making closer to the people”. Yet, from the perspective of the European Parliament, regionalisation looks completely different. Take, for instance, its resolution on “Economic and Social Cohesion”, issued in January 2002.2 It starts with the familiar statement that: “whereas the European Union has resolved to progress towards an ever closer political Union among its peoples…” and then continues with “…cohesion policy is one of the fundamental policies of the Union and of the European integration process”. The cohesion policy is “an instrument to reduce disparities in income” between regions. It is part of the financial package known as the “structural funds” and is thus part of the system of dispersing grants to the regions, underwriting the EU’s regional policy. But, as can be seen from the report, one of the key functions of the “cohesion policy” is to further “the European integration process”. That is the function of all the structural funds. 7 This position is further reinforced by a European Parliament fact sheet on “economic and social cohesion”, which affirms that EU regional policy is “an essential aspect of European integration”, and puts it on an equal footing with the single market and monetary union.3 And other European “actors” are wholly in accord with the Parliament. For instance, Stig Östdahl, Chairman of the Conference of European Peripheral Maritime Regions, warned that “without regional policy there will be no Europe, only a trade organisation”.4 Nothing of this can be divined from Mr Prescott’s White Paper. In its 110 pages, barely two are devoted to the “European dimension”. In those scant two pages it is acknowledged only that “Structural Funds have been the catalyst for strengthened links between the regions and the EU”. It is also claimed that they are “one of the most visible signs on the ground of the benefits of EU membership”. Quite why the funds are a benefit is difficult to understand. The process involves the UK taxpayer sending large amounts of money to the EU, only to receive roughly half of it back to spend on projects that would not necessarily be financed without EU intervention.5 Furthermore, they are bound up with onerous bureaucratic conditions, to say nothing of the obligation to publicise the EU’s involvement. That aside, nothing is said about the funds being used for European integration. In fact, according to the White Paper, “relations with the EU are a matter for the UK government”. Ever closer political union is nowhere mentioned. Yet, the European Parliament has it right. Regionalisation is first and foremost a device for furthering political integration and, in the wake of devolution in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, the so- called English devolution is part of that process. Although it may also have a domestic dimension – not least because abolition of the “shire” counties undermines the Conservative power base - it has nothing to do with bringing “decision-making closer to the people”, 8 nor any other of the supposed advantages claimed for it in the White Paper. Given Mr Prescott’s promise of referendums, however, when the British people go to the polls, they should know what they are voting about. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to bring home the central thesis: regionalisation is about political integration. It is a subtle and largely unrecognised mechanism for undermining the authority of nation states within the EU, part of the process of creating a new political entity, the Peoples’ Republic of Europe. To begin, I have sketched with an outline of the regionalisation process at a European level. I then look at how it has developed in England, and then at the White Paper in more detail. I review the evidence in order to assess whether there is indeed a hidden agenda, taking a careful look at the motives and actions of the “players”, especially John Prescott. I conclude with a discussion on the nature of Mr Prescott’s plan and offer some alternatives. The Regionalisation Process In England, regionalisation involves changes to the structures of local government of a magnitude at least equivalent to the reorganisation of 1974.

Load more