Mebyon Kernow has published a consultation document on establishing a
National Assembly of Cornwall. (Labour continues
to brief against the idea.) In
Northumbria, a plethora of groups is staking a variety of territorial claims,
with the regional political party model increasingly pulling ahead of the old
mantra of ‘working within the Labour Party’, the ‘big red thumb’ under which so
many live, that has so clearly failed to deliver. The Wessex Regionalists, encouraged by the official
flying of Wessex
flags on St Ealdhelm’s Day, are beginning to draft proposals to put to the
electorate in 2015. Even the BBC is
clumsily beginning to explore the deeper England of the future.
In many ways, across many countries, this is looking to be the
hour. And in France,
the stakes could not be higher, with a new regional map about to be imposed,
one a lot worse in many areas than the current one and consequently already
leading to vigorous action against the Paris
regime. The best that can be said about
it is that it could actually have been worse still. Relief?
Well, no – revolutions often kick off when expectations that events are finally
moving in the right direction are cruelly dashed, revealing how real reform has
never even been on the agenda. The one
thing leading Parisian politicians all seem to agree upon is that there must
not be a region that covers Brittany, the
whole of Brittany and nothing but Brittany, whatever the
Bretons think.
Brittany is a kind of Scotland. Each has a Treaty of Union with its larger
neighbour, the one in 1532, the other in 1707.
Although both were the result of bribes and duress, these treaties
guaranteed the continued existence of certain historic national institutions
and the freedom of local folk to make at least some of their own
decisions. The concessions won by Scotland have grown to the point where it may
even put the Union behind it.
Brittany has fared much,
much worse. French revolutionaries
ignored the treaty and, abolishing the Breton institutions, launched two
centuries of systematic persecution that has never fully abated. In 1941, the collaborationist Vichy regime redrew the regional map of France. Brittany,
traditionally five départements, was reduced to four, with the ancient ducal
capital of Nantes
attached to an artificial ‘Loire Country’ region, where it remains to this
day. The Paris
technocracy won’t be budged from the view that a single region with two large cities –
Nantes and Rennes
– just won’t work. Try it and see then. You know, like Edinburgh
and Glasgow, Cardiff
and Swansea, Bristol
and Southampton. No.
That’s too empirical by far.
François Mitterrand of the Parti Socialiste came to power in 1981
pledged to decentralise power. There
were bold changes. Elected regional
councils, and the abolition of tutelage, the system whereby local decisions
could be blocked or reversed by the departmental Prefect acting as guardian of
the centralist interest. But the
boundaries of the regions remained unchanged.
Now another ‘socialist’ President, François Hollande, has grasped the
nettle. France’s 22 regions are to be
reduced to 14. ‘Socialism’, one would
think, is about society. And society is
made up of communities, intermediate powers between the centre and the
individual that need to be cherished. Not
so for Hollande, ever true to the Jacobin ideal that the job of the State is to
nip community in the bud, in the name of the one true community – itself. So the claims of Basques, Catalans and
Savoyards to separate regional status continue to be ignored. Those of Alsatians, long recognised, are to
be overturned. Small but distinctive
regions like Auvergne, Limousin
and Picardy are likewise to be abolished. In the one piece of good news, if the reforms do happen, the two
half-Normandies are (as we predicted) to be re-united at last. The result will be a single region
with two large cities, Caen and Rouen. Yet by a stroke of the same pen, Brittany
is to remain partitioned.
Does it make any sense, other than in the terms of continuing Parisian
supremacy? Of course not. But any questioning of the new arrangements
is to be suppressed. The new law will
make it impossible for a département to choose to change the region in which it
is placed. You will have the identity
that Paris
decides that you will have. Having your
own, real identity is a threat to the unity of France and that would never do. Why is that, when a France divided,
along traditional lines, would be so much more pleasant and interesting than the
dull conformity of a united one? It’s a
French thing, the wholly irrational foundation of the supposedly rational
Republic, as indivisible as the Holy Trinity.
There are questions you just don’t ask because the mental capacity on
the other side just isn’t there. Those in
the UK
who remember Labour’s regional White Paper from 2002, Your Region, Your (Lack of) Choice
will find all this refusal to engage in debate irritatingly familiar.
Hollande already has a good deal of Breton fare on his plate, put there
by the Bonnets Rouges – ‘the Red Caps’ – a movement recalling a 17th century
tax revolt with constitutional issues thrown in. Like all successful reform movements, the new
Bonnets Rouges cross class lines, combining traditional autonomist thinking
with the aspirations of a new generation of entrepreneurs for whom a more
distinctive Brittany
is just part of the real world of 21st century economics. It’s a point we’ve often made about Wessex – that
we simply have to get our act together as a region for marketing purposes,
building a ‘brand’ with a reputation for quality and reliability. Otherwise we shall have Labour’s alternative thrust
upon us – our cities, with their hinterlands, set against each other within a
British/English framework that allows London to tax the fruits of our efforts
and then give us back what we beg for nicely.
France proclaims its
values, supposedly universal, to be liberty, equality and fraternity. It honours none of these because in every
case they are applied in a partisan way by a State that cannot understand why
it, as the judge of them, should be bound by them too, even to its own
disadvantage. There is no liberty for
conquered nations, their once treaty-assured rights trampled underfoot. There is equality for those who think, speak
and act French and an unconscious, sneering hatred for those who demand to be
different. There is fraternity only in
the sense that Big Brother is watching you and legislating you out of
existence.
Is the French
Republic sustainable on
such terms, in a broader Europe that is keen to appear just and civilised, two things that France is not? Its ruling class, stuck in
the 18th century, remain in denial about the new Europe
now emerging around and below them.
Happy to embrace as their national anthem a bloodthirsty and dishonest
hymn of racial hatred, while treating attacks on the communities that form the building
blocks of the French
State as normal,
reasonable behaviour. Those who believe
these psychopaths are ready for the chop deserve the support of freedom-seekers
everywhere. Why abolish regions to save money when you think how much could be saved just by devolving 99% of the central State? France, one and indivisible; the
sovereignty of the Crown-in-Parliament.
Call it what you will, centralism is a common enemy. So bring on the real revolution: the sooner France has proper regions with recognisable
names and boundaries, and proper, regionally-rooted powers, the sooner Wessex and
other English regions can point to their example.
2 comments:
Just three words:
excellent & absolutely correct
Gwen
P.-S. from Brittany
Very good analysis !
C'hwi zo mat-tre ho sell !
Post a Comment