England deserves better

England deserves better. Not in a vague, slogan‑y way – in a very specific, practical way that starts with England finally having its own parliament, its own written constitution, and its own people deciding their future as a nation, not as an afterthought in a stitched‑up British system. England has over 1000 years of constitutional experience to draw on, and yet in 2026 it is the only country in these islands without its own national legislature.

In this article, the promise is simple: to set out a clear, English Nationalist case for why England deserves better than the current arrangement – and what a sane, modern, English‑run alternative could look like, built on deep roots and basic democratic common sense.

England: A Nation Treated Like a Region

Let’s start with the absurdity nobody in Westminster likes to talk about.

Scotland has Holyrood. Wales has the Senedd. Northern Ireland has Stormont. England – the historic core of the old kingdom, the largest nation, the biggest population – has nothing of its own. English laws are made at Westminster by MPs from four countries, some of whom have no stake in how those laws play out on English streets.

For years, constitutional scholars have admitted that devolution is lopsided: three nations have some measure of home rule, while England is governed directly from the “UK” centre. That’s why questions like the old West Lothian problem never really go away – you cannot pretend a four‑nation state is balanced when one nation is treated as a mere administrative unit.

Meanwhile, Northern Ireland has been left in a special post‑Brexit arrangement tied into chunks of EU law, proving that Westminster will happily treat one part of the “United Kingdom” differently if it suits its deals. The message is clear: Britishness is flexible when elites want it to be, rigid when English voters ask for change.

England deserves better than that.

Who Are the English? A Simple, Stable Answer

Every time an English parliament is mentioned, the same tired dodge appears: “Yes, but who are the English?” As if no‑one in this country can work out what Englishness means without a university seminar.

In real life, people’s instinct is much clearer than the academics’ word games. A simple, fair rule of thumb many of us use is this:

If you have three generations born in England behind you – your parents, your grandparents – your great grandparents you are probably English. and don’t class yourselves as “British”

That doesn’t care about skin colour. It doesn’t obsess over blood “purity”. It’s about rootedness – a family that has lived here, worked here, and raised children here over time. Even if further back your family came from somewhere else, three generations on English soil almost always means:

English is your first language.
Your daily culture is shaped here.
Your main loyalty and attachment are to England, not to a distant homeland told in stories.

By the third generation, most migrant families are heavily integrated. Their kids support English teams, share English humour, go through English schools and English workplaces. Whatever their grandparents’ passports said, their identity is rooted here. That’s the point of a three‑generation rule: stability, not snobbery.

Would this exact rule become the legal test for anything? Maybe, maybe not. But as a moral and cultural instinct, it is miles more honest than the “who are the English?” trick used to paralyse any serious talk of an English nation governing itself.

England’s Ancient Constitutional Inheritance

Here’s the part too many modern politicians pretend never happened: England was a constitutional pioneer long before “the UK” existed.

For centuries, English thinkers talked about the ancient constitution of England – the idea that English law and liberties were not gifts from some enlightened modern parliament, but an inheritance from old English practice:

Kings ruling with counsel and consent, not by decree.
Local assemblies and courts shaping life on the ground.
Rights seen as belonging to free Englishmen long before written “human rights” charters became fashionable.

From the Anglo‑Saxon witan advising early kings, through Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1689, the story is the same: England developed a mixed system where rulers were bound by law and the community had a say. That tradition is older than the 1707 union, older than the current party system, and older than the idea that “British” officials in London are the only legitimate source of authority.

So when people say “we’d have to start from scratch” to write an English constitution, they miss the point. England already has deep constitutional DNA:

Common law liberty.
Rule by consent rather than command.
Strong local self‑government.
A sceptical attitude to absolute power.

An English constitution today would not be some imported American copy. It would be the modern expression of those ancient English principles, written clearly so ordinary people can point to it and say: that is ours.

This is where the phrase England deserves better really bites. England deserves better than to have its own historic constitutional inheritance buried under a “British” label that no‑one ever voted for in its current form.

Home Rule for Four Nations – And the End of Automatic “British” Power

Once you admit that England is a nation, the next step is obvious: if each of the four nations wants home rule, they should have it.

That doesn’t have to mean burning every bridge. It simply means flipping the logic:

Today: Westminster is the default. Nations get crumbs of devolved power if the centre allows it.
Tomorrow: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the default. Any shared “British” arrangements exist only if each nation freely signs up.

In practice, that could look like:

Each nation having its own full parliament and government.
A simple treaty between them for things they choose to do together – defence, maybe currency, maybe a basic internal market.
No automatic right for a “British” parliament or House of Lords to overrule a nation that has clearly said “no”.

If all four nations held referendums and all four backed home rule, the moral case for a compulsory British layer evaporates overnight. At that point, any common structures are a joint venture – not a gravy train that MPs and Lords cling to because their careers depend on it.

Again, England deserves better than being told that only Britishness is allowed to be permanent and everything English must be diluted.

An English Parliament, An English Constitution, English Local Power

So what does a sane English setup actually look like?

1. An English governing body

England would have:

An English Parliament elected by people in England only.
A government answerable to that parliament, not to a multi‑national Westminster.
A Constitutional Convention for England tasked with drafting a clear, modern English Constitution.

That constitution could set out:

Who is part of the English political community.
What powers sit at parish, county, and national level.
What rights and freedoms are guaranteed, drawing on English common law tradition and our modern experience.
How big constitutional changes must be approved (for example, mandatory referendums).

The three‑generation rule could be part of the debate as a stability principle: a way of recognising long‑term belonging without slipping into racial nonsense.

2. Parishes and councils running local life

England already has a strong layer of town and parish councils. The difference in this model is that they are treated as serious democratic bodies, not hobby clubs for a handful of volunteers.

Councils and parishes could handle:

Local planning and development.
Community services and amenities.
Local environmental standards and priorities.
Neighbourhood‑level spending decisions.

Because parish‑level bodies are closer to ordinary people, they tend to be more trusted than national politicians. Strengthening them fits both English history and the desire for more control over things that directly affect daily life.

3. National decisions put to the people

An English system built on mistrust of distant elites – and let’s be honest, they’ve earned that mistrust – should give the people a formal veto on the biggest choices.

That could mean:

Any major constitutional change (e.g. entering a big treaty, transferring powers away from England) requires a binding national vote.
A system where a large enough petition can trigger a referendum on a major law or treaty.
Clear rules so referendums are not used for every minor issue, but also not reserved for whatever suits the government of the day.

This is not about replacing representative democracy with permanent plebiscites. It is about restoring the idea that on the big questions, the English people are the ultimate authority – not MPs, not Lords, not quangos, not corporate lobbyists.

If England deserves better, it deserves that.

Trade, Cooperation and Keeping It Simple with Our Neighbours

A common objection is: “If the four nations go their own way, trade and everyday life will be a nightmare.”

That only happens if politicians want it to.

England, Scotland and Wales share a landmass. It would be perfectly possible for three self‑governing nations to agree:

A Common Standards Committee where experts from each nation meet and agree shared rules on most products.
A basic treaty guaranteeing free movement of goods, services and people between the three, unless a very strong case is made to block something.
Mutual recognition where possible – “if it’s legal in your country and passes our joint standard, it’s legal here”.

Other countries do this now without sharing a parliament. The key is political will and a clear, simple set of agreements.

In other words, you do not need a British super‑state to have free exchange. You need nations that trust each other enough to cooperate where it makes sense – and accept that each can say “no” in rare cases, without blowing up the whole relationship.

Why This Has to Be Decided By the People

There is a reason phrases like “betrayal by the elites” and “they don’t work for us” are now mainstream. Trust in MPs, Lords, governments and big organisations is scraping the floor. Scandals, broken promises, cosy contracts, ignored referendums – people see the pattern.

If the same system that created the mess is allowed to “manage” the future of England behind closed doors, nothing will change. The answer is not another appointed commission, or another Westminster committee shuffling powers around the edges.

The answer is simple:

Let England vote on home rule and an English parliament.
Let Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each vote on their own future too.
Once the people have spoken, politicians are required to implement, not reinterpret.

That is what it means, in practical terms, to say England deserves better. It deserves the power to answer the question “who governs England?” with one word: “We do.”

Conclusion: England Deserves Better – So What Do We Do Now?

If you feel that England has been treated like a cash cow and a dustbin, not a nation; if you feel that MPs, Lords, quangos and big corporations have put their own interests above our people for too long; if you instinctively feel that a family rooted here over three generations is part of “us” and should have a real say in how England is governed – then this is the moment to say so.

England deserves better than:

Being the only country here without its own parliament.
Having its ancient constitutional inheritance buried under a vague “British” label.
Watching other nations talk about their future while England is told to sit quietly as a region.

The next step is not complicated, even if the process will be:

Make the case publicly for an English parliament and an English constitution.
Demand that any big constitutional decisions – home rule, shared structures, future treaties – are put to the English people directly.
Start talking about what you want that constitution to contain: rights, limits on power, local control, and clear rules about who belongs.

If you agree that England deserves better, don’t leave that thought sitting in your head. Share it, write about it, push your local representatives, and start treating England as a nation again – because if we don’t, nobody in the current system will do it for us.

FAQs

1. What does “England deserves better” actually mean in political terms?
It means England should have its own parliament, its own written constitution, and final say over laws that apply in England, instead of being ruled as a region from a multi‑national Westminster that answers to four different electorates.

2. Does this mean breaking up the United Kingdom?
Not necessarily. It means starting from four self‑governing nations and then deciding what, if anything, they want to do together. That might lead to a looser union, a confederation, or friendly independent states – the key is that the people in each nation choose.

3. Why use a three‑generation rule when talking about English identity?
Because it captures stability and real attachment. By the third generation, most families are culturally and emotionally rooted in England, whatever their distant ancestry. It’s a simple, colour‑blind way of recognising deep belonging, not a legal test written in stone.

4. Would an English constitution mean scrapping common law and starting again?
No. A modern English constitution should build on common law, Magna Carta traditions, and the historic English idea that rights are inherited and rulers are limited. It’s about writing down and clarifying those principles, not replacing them.

5. How would everyday life change if England had its own parliament?
In the short term, not much changes on your street. Over time, you’d see laws made by people elected only by English voters, policies shaped around English priorities, stronger local councils and parishes, and big national decisions put to you at the ballot box instead of stitched up in Westminster backrooms.

For English News Check out one of our other channels: England Then And Now News