Wednesday 27 January 2010

Federalism: Neo-Aparthied

Another possible model for nationalists to adopt having rejected mass repatriation is to devolve greater power to local government. The English could have their own parliament like the Scots and Welsh but so could the Asian and the Blacks. They could be essentially self-governing in their affairs much like the Swiss Cantons or the US states prior to the war between the states. White Britons could then in theory preserve their heritage and promote their own well being.

This of course is a foolish option. Either the system would be run on similar lines to the US model in which an active federal government subsidises black failure in the South and non-whites are free to enter majority White States or we have an apartheid model which as in South Africa has proved unsustainable not to mention morally wrong as it implies denying political rights to non-whites. Federalism or Neo-Apartheid as I prefer to term it will not work, it might provide the illusion of reaching an acceptable compromise in the short-term but in the long term it will work against the interests of White Britons.

What else is left but secession?

1 comment:

  1. I certainly agree that copying the United States will get the UK nowhere in terms of achieving true home rule - autonomy for the various groups. As you've mentioned, federalism generally refers to an overly cozy arrangement where people can just waltz into successful polities and demand handouts.

    On the other hand, I believe secession has the potential to generate small, defenseless state fragments. It is dangerous but has undeniable upsides as well.

    I believe there is a middle course between secession and federalism - a Commonwealth only a little like the British Commonwealth. (I have crafted all of my proposals around the United States, and encourage you or anyone familiar with the UK to copy, adapt, or annihilate my ideas for local conditions.) You could also think of it as a little like the USA circa 1785 or the European Communities circa 1985, but with built-in constitutional features to keep power from flowing upwards.

    The features:

    Nations (second highest level of government) have no powers to expel people but absolute power to keep out or let in people from anywhere else. They also have powers over official language and currency.

    Only military personnel and net taxpayers (people who get less in subsidies than they pay in taxes).

    All voting takes place at the National level or below. Commonwealth (top level of government) legislators are co-opted from National legislatures.

    Almost all Commonwealth bureaucrats are either temps or on loan from National governments.

    Constitutional limits on types of taxes, tax rates, and borrowing, for the top two levels of government.

    Two-year limit on all appropriations.

    The idea is not to ban secession, but to drain out all of the grievances that make people want to secede. Put another way: if Canada could join without sacrificing any of what makes them uniquely Canadian, my plan is what I intended. (Not that it would hinder anything if they stayed their own country(s) - I just offer their joining as a thought experiment.)

    ReplyDelete