At first sight, it
seemed to be a pretty pathetic objection as well – almost as if the mere
mention of a subject which is not devolved (i.e. the English language) is
enough to rule a law inadmissible. At a
practical level, it changes nothing about the status of English in Wales – it neither
takes away nor adds to the rights and duties of those who choose to use
English. But on reflection, they may
actually have a point - in legalistic terms at least.
If a language
currently enjoys sole official status in a territory, is that status reduced by
granting equal status to another language?
It doesn’t affect anyone’s rights at a practical level, but in a sense
which lawyers might love to argue about, I can see that that might be seen as a
reduction in the status of English, and therefore grounds for challenge.
When the first
bill, on by-laws, was challenged, my view was that the UK Government was probably
right in legal terms, but utterly wrong at a practical and political level. The same applies here. But having seen some of the line of questioning adopted
by the Supreme Court, I’m now much more optimistic that they’ll take a
realistic and common-sense view of the situation rather than an
overly-legalistic one. And if they do it
once, any challenge to the Language Act will probably receive even shorter
shrift.
That leaves the
politics of it all however. What on earth
are the Tories and their allies the Lib Dems playing at? (I’ve yet to see how the usual apologists for the
Lib Dems will demonstrate conclusively that this is another example of the Lib Dems
keeping the Tories in check and that it would be much worse if they weren’t there
to moderate the Tories. They’ll probably
try, though.)
It’s easy to see this
as simply an anti-devolution centre looking for any and every opportunity to undermine
the work of the ‘subordinate’ legislature.
Perhaps it really is as simple as that.
But then I wondered what would have happened if the unholy alliance
proposed by some had come into existence in Wales
whilst Labour had stayed in power in London. How different would things have been?
I can fully imagine
that, faced with exactly the same laws coming from a non-Labour government in
Cardiff, a Labour Secretary of State would have taken exactly the same course
of action. If that’s true, then what it
would tell us is that this isn’t really about being for or against devolution,
or about where power should lie, or even about the content of the laws
themselves. It’s about oppositionalist
politics. Party A must and will at all
times do anything and everything it can to make Party B look ineffective and
incompetent (even if Party A's B Team have associated themselves with Party B on the issue in question).
In this game, they’ve
not only lost sight of the ball, they don’t even need one on the pitch.
3 comments:
As I understand it, English is not in fact the official language by statute (only by practice), but Welsh is, so if they were to remove references to the English language in the act, that would mean that Welsh would become the only official language in Wales, which is not, I am sure, what David Jones had in mind.
This post might be of interest: http://penartharbyd.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/nose-spite-face/
In legal discourse, the council appointed by the Attorney General to test in the Supreme Court would need to decide whether the mention of the word "English" debases it's status, by means of giving equal status to the Welsh language. This would be awkward. His argument would have to put forward the concept that the status of the English language was being materially effected. I see no effect in this bill. Alternatively, to hold that use of the word 'English' as improper, he would also need to argue that Section 20 of the 1535 Act of Union using "English" as a term of exclusivity was the will of that Act. Should he wish to exhume the mind of Henry VIII, it is located, not too distant from the Supreme Court, at Windsor. The Wales Office is just being mischievous and vexatious. It should not take till the end of October for the Attorney General to see through such folly.
Post a Comment