Nigel Farage famously directed his question at an anonymous, unelected man who had gained a powerful and influential EU job. Given the continuing debate about immigration, nationality and nationhood I wanted to try to distil the spirit of what it is to be British – and it has proved challenging. At an instinctive level I feel I know but a neat definition is proving illusory.
Descartes, the philosopher, tormented himself trying to discern the essence of the human condition. The result of his exertions was “Cogito, ergo sum” – I think, therefore I am. After prodigious mental effort, Einstein revealed the fundamental correlation between matter and energy in his famous equation, E=mc2. Complex issues succinctly and precisely expressed. Can the same be done for nationality, for Britishness? In a wider sense what is it that forms our identity, that primary sense of who we are?
First are the factors which none can control and, of these, our parents are fundamental. At the instant their biological materials fuse, our physical characteristics and basic personality traits are broadly determined. At that same instant we also become connected to a genetic chain reaching back to an unknowable point in time. We have no choice about being created nor where or when we are born. The heritage UK population is an amalgam of Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Normans thus overwhelmingly Caucasian (white). So does being British simply mean the traditional population associated with these islands? Recent immigrations have posed a direct challenge and, given the current scale, a threat to this notion.
Next are upbringing and environment. In our young years we are strongly influenced by our parents, other authority figures and the culture in which we live. So pliable are we that abuse is all too easy to perpetrate. St. Francis Xavier is attributed as saying, “Give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man”. This recognised the power of indoctrination to generate obedient adherents who are dismissive of all other possibilities regardless of undeniable evidence to the contrary – in a word, brainwashing. Although a condition more common in our ignorant and fearful past, it is still at work elsewhere today.
And what of nationality? Is it merely a passport? Empires wax and wane but nations are a human concept. As WW1 progressed the western allies planned for the demise of Ottoman rule, which led to the Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916. Its grasp of the situation on the ground was dismissive, poor or non-existent and, at the conclusion of the conflict, many new states of the Middle East were arbitrarily defined. Lines, often artificially straight, were drawn on maps with little regard for ethnic group, tribal loyalty, linguistic continuity or religious reality. A century on from that agreement, we still live with the bloody results of those fault lines. Most African nations were conceived along similar lines.
Austria and Germany tried brief but unhappy unions so remain distinct despite sharing both a language and a border. Canada was born of the wish of some American colonists to remain loyal to Britain, in contrast to others, who wanted independence “in order to form a more perfect union”. Conversely, Spain’s South American territories struggled for their sovereignty, then disintegrated into multiple new nations that fought among themselves. Even with much in common there was still an overwhelming need to feel different. The rise of nationalism in the indigenous Celtic fringe exposes the disunity long latent within the UK. Add to this the deliberate, cynical and divisive policy of multi-culturism and even more fractures appear. President Kennedy wished to see an end to what he called hyphenated Americans, those who prefixed their US status with antecedents, e.g., Italian Americans, Polish Americans and so forth. Identity is so important in certain immigrant societies in this country that they choose to live in voluntary apartheid.
Our island nation, last invaded nearly 1,000 years ago, has much to do with the concept of Britishness. It made us geographically distinct. The sea alone shaped and changes our borders. Shakespeare wrote that it serves as ‘a moat defensive to a house against the envy of less happier lands’. We stood apart from the troubles on the continent, involving ourselves directly only when necessary. Over time, in our island fortress, we developed a national character that gave rise to an unrivalled adventure of global consequence and historical significance. Whilst recognizing it had its faults, I remain proud of what this extraordinary ‘little’ country achieved and could still achieve.
We insist on being treated as individuals and equals but usually from within the comfort and protection of a familiar, approving tribal construct. So, have I been successful in answering my question, “Who are we?” Others must judge, but I believe the essentials of identity arise from:
- Speaking a common language
- Inhabiting a place, from choice, which makes us feel happy and safe; one which we value; one we would fight to protect
- Enjoying it with like-minded people possessing a distinctive national character
- Governing ourselves as we wish, not at the behest of others; creating our own laws
- Sharing a history that gives us roots; shapes what we believe we are; shows what we know we are not.
Therefore I believe I am a British citizen. I know I am not, nor would ever want to be, a citizen of a European super state. Thus, if we are not to be subsumed in stifling similitude, mired in mediocrity and mangled by mismanagement, we must vote to leave the European Union.
You are much more than a British ‘citizen’, Richard. There are many people in this country who are technically artificially British ‘citizens’, including terrorists, would-be terrorists, Britain-haters and those who would betray us all if they got the chance – Remainiacs for example.
I hate it when some crime or terrorist atrocity abroad is described as being committed by a ‘British citizen’ when that person is NOT British in any genuine sense at all. It is a slur and a slander on the authentic British people.
Why am I British? Because I am descended from forebears who lived in these islands for many generations, perhaps since the Ice Age glaciers receded; these forebears were Caucasian, as you would expect in a country in North West Europe; they made this country what it is today by the sweat of their brow or by spilling their blood, or by rising to mental challenges and shaping the uniquely British way of life.
I am British because I love my country and would die for it. I will never live elsewhere because I would be homesick. In fact, there is nowhere else on earth that I can call ‘home’. I am absolutely entitled to be here, because I was born British and can claim Britishness as my birthright and heritage. I am not a ‘citizen’, but a natural, historic Briton.
Tom`s original posting posed the question of whether the immigrant or following generations had imbibed the principles of Habeas Corpus etc.
and Torquil`s posting bemoaned the fact that three justice type ministers had failed to make the case that our system was likely to be lost to the imposition of Corpus Juris.
I discussed this with a chap on the street yesterday, he actually was aware that we could lose Habeas Corpus and all the other ramifications, including extensive false detention and conviction due to inadequate defence or ability to prove innocence and he said “but if you haven`t done a crime, there is nothing to worry about”
This seems to be the prevailing official attitude to all “liberty” issues.
I said, “but that doesn`t help those wrongly accused” and he said
“But the system is already in operation in this country”
I didn`t have time to ask him what he meant.
But perhaps it already is a “done deal” that elements of Corpus Juris are already adopted and thus immigrants have every reason to expect that elements of their original native practices will be similarly prominent..
I would be interested to know whether those suggesting there be a new “written” British Constitution view it`s proceeding from Magna Carta and subsequent derivations and confirming the primacy of British made law, particularly over contrary foreign imports and if so how they propose to avoid the grip of the EU Court of Justice primacy
Tom, in case you missed it, it emerged later that the ‘lady’ in question is Imriel Morgan; hostile is her ‘job’. She is a blogger and Diversity advocate, whose job thus depends on finding and bigging-up grievances, promoting diversity and the concomitant community tensions, rather than integration.
She was not a random member of the public, but, disgracefully, was asked by ITV to appear, obviously either to create the very distracting scene she did using up precious time preventing Nigel from speaking, or to counter the young woman who so successfully upbraded Cameron on the Sky equivalent programme.
I seem to remember that the memorable question Mr. Farage asked in the European Parliament was ‘who are you?’ and I thought what an apt title for his memoirs one day.
Being British is defined by me as being at one with the culture and identifying with all our Island generations who have gone before.
You read Dostoevsky, Largerloff, Don Quixote, Thomas Mann, etc and while you appreciate the human dilemma is similar world wide you recognise immediately that you are an outsider
because you are British and have no desire to meld your way of life with theirs just as these great works are not reaching out to include yours.
There is absolutely no necessity to force people into a mix of cultures which actually in the end will not mix. Rather they will fight for ascendency one over the other – at the moment Germany is making the running – and that culture will unfortunately prevail.
It is impossible to describe all the aspects of nationhood but I have always suspected that Germany, while implying they want to obliterate some of their history, is actually struggling to make the big comeback as a dominating nation.
Thank you for bringing this up and also thank you for the comments so far.
I, speaking with no grounding in the subject at all can only comment that to me “Britishness” is only a concept which has grown up since the introduction of the EU (Common Market). I have consulted my memory and the first instance of “patriotism” as an issue was when Gordon Brown got hold of it.
You see, I am ancient and went away to sea in the West African trade, calling at British colonies of the Gambia, Sierra Leone,The Gold Coast (now Ghana), Nigeria and the British Cameroons, plus French and Portuguese possessions..
Obviously this was before any of them gained independence.
We called all white people “Europeans”, never mind, I knew one was a New Zealander who had commanded tanks in North Africa during WW11.
So, I knew I was British, it told me on my passport and seamans` discharge book and probably on my “aliens identity card” issued in the States when we called there.
But overall I knew I was a “subject” of the Queen and since I was born in the UK and not anything else I was CofE I also assumed most of the indigenous people I met were also subjects of the Queen and I knew they had entry to this country and the history they were taught in their schools was probably much the same as ours..
Perhaps the present need to express Britishness is rooted in the introduction of EU “Citizenship”
and the loss of “Sovereign sovereignty” (as opposed to the sovereignty conveyed to that evil Empire contained in the competencies)
Just as a bytheby, isn`t there supposed to be a residual “knowledge” learned over centuries, carried through the genes somehow, buried in the Cortex of the brain?
I believe the essence of what it means to be British is the sense of ALLEGIANCE to certain VALUES. Only thus can a melting-pot of different ethnic extractions be melded together and form a nation, willing to pull together and if need be to fight for its collective survival.
For the United States, this is summed up in allegiance to their Constitution.
For us it is traditionally expressed as allegiance to the Queen, to whom the armed forces, MPs, Privy Councillors have to swear.
However I believe it can also be given in two words, the values of FREEDOM and FAIRNESS.
These are safeguarded in practice by our LEGAL SYSTEM, and our democratic institutions, as they have evolved over the centuries.
To my mind the big reason why we must come out of the EU is because across the channel the other countries do not share our idea of Freedom and Fairness.
And this can be seen in practical terms, their legal systems have no place for our safeguards, such as HABEAS CORPUS and TRIAL BY JURY.
And we have documentary evidence of the plans of the EU to take away these safeguards from us, and to replace our legal system with the Napoleonic-inquisitorial system used on the continent. After 23rd June, rest assured that the Corpus Juris plan for a single system for all Europe will be put into effect.
At this point, I have to say that the tragedy of this referendum campaign, is that none of the leaders of the LEAVE side have wanted to pick up these issues and campaign on them. And they include two Justice Secretaries and a Justice Minister!
If Brexit fails, we will be at the mercy of the EU. And when we face arrest on no evidence and lengthy months of imprisonment with no public hearing, and then trial by case-hardened professional judges who are colleagues of the prosecutor but not of the defender, many will say “WHY WEREN’T WE TOLD?”
I don’t know the answer. I would like to be told now.
I agree it is strange that three obviously able practitioners of the law have apparently ignored a concept which is so obviously in their field.
It is almost as though silence could indicate some form of guilt.
“The dog that failed to bark”?
“Direction of travel” is a phrase that has been used to justify the sustained campaign of failure; without the provision of real “facts”
Could it be that somewhere buried in “stealth” legislation slipped through the rubber stamp process, there be an undertaking that Corpus Juris conversion is already under way.
You have mentioned the diminution of Magistrates Courts and I have been aware that trial by jury is under threat.
I believe Kate Hoey resigned just because of this.
Why is she silent?
Have we already been “bought off” in some way
The more I think about it the greater the odour.
I wouldn’t say that Kate Hoey is ‘silent’, Roger. In fact, she is sharing a platform with Nigel Farage at the Sage, Gatehead on 20th June and I have my ticket to go. I’ve seen him there before and at UKIP Conferences, but I can never get enough of watching and listening to Nigel in person!
Perhaps Hoey is planning to talk on this topic. I’ll let you know.
Thanks Pam, would there be any chance of asking a question from the floor directly to her?
I agree Nigel is a wow
I’ll have a go!
Thank you for your very interesting article, it is so saddening that the merits of the brilliant English Constitution are never taught in school, since no-one really bothers to understand its origins or how the principle of Common Law is rooted in very clear practical checks and balances.
The idea of a farm with limited land and resources and that successfully sustains a flock, can be doubled or quadrupled or more in population, crowded with a multitude of different stocks, crammed out with plantations and only managed with intense chemical treatment, seems to me a suitable metaphor for the endless takeover by extraneous interests that we have been seeing.
As Mohammed Ali famously said to M Parkinson, Bluebirds fly with Bluebirds, Pigeons fly with Pigeons, they don’t have any intelligence and yet they stay together. Our elites who hate our civilisation and our common identity have ever since the 1930s been lusting after the new feudal society where they could enslave people under the twin arms of collectivist corporate globalism, and international socialism, by utterly destroying identities.
Wells wrote “In all sorts of ways they (the new intellectual elites) will be influencing and controlling the apparatus of the ostensible governments…” .“we can weave a world system of monetary and economic activities, while the politicians, the diplomatists, and the soldiers are still too busy with their ancient and habitual antics to realise what we are doing”
This “open conspiracy,” according to Wells, was “not a project to overthrow existing governments by insurrectionary attacks, but to supersede them by disregard. It does not want to destroy them or alter their forms but to make them negligible by replacing their functions”
Thes is what the EU does and hand in glove with big business. There is really no secret about it any more.
It wants to replace us entirely. It’s a land- and culture-grab by totally unscrupulous neo-feudalists.
During the “non-debate” on ITV last night, I was struck by the dogmatic animus and relentless hostility of those who questioned Nigel Farage.
One black lady seemed particularly hostile, and I wondered what her stake in British institutions might be. Certainly, immigrants (whether first-generation or subsequent) are entitled to all the rights of British citizens, and are entitled to call themselves British in every way. But do they have any commitment to principles such as one person one vote, the presumption of innocence, trial by jury, or habeas corpus? I suspect not, unless thay have espoused them since becoming British. One of the hazards of rapid large-scale immigration is that native beliefs (yes, and values) risk being heavily diluted or even washed away altogether. In a population that perhaps does not care much about British institutions and values, can we be surprised if there is more enthusiasm for the promise of money than for anything less tangible?