Politics|

Examining what makes our individual, or national identity and determining what they are is a daunting task. Some nations, like the French, have a very strong sense of identity. Ask a Frenchman what it means to be French and he will talk proudly of a rich cultural, intellectual and gastronomic heritage. Ask an Englishman and he will probably - after a long pause - mutter something about the Queen and a sense of fair play.

National Identity
The English are in the midst of an identity crisis. The Empire is gone, the Celtic nations have asserted their cultural and political individuality, and we are apparently being rapidly subsumed into an all-encompassing, monster of a European superstate who's only purpose seems to be - according to the Daily Mail and the Sun - to destroy all that it means to be British.

Although it is "Britishness" which is perceived to be under attack, the concern comes mainly from the English. Most Celts have a strong sense of identity and see taking as strong a role as possible in the EU as the best way of gaining global influence. Yet it is the opinion of the English as a people which, due to their demographic dominance of the UK, determines how far the British government can move forward on Europe.

The future of the EU and Britain's role within it is a frequent source of bitter debate. Many think that we should have no place in "Europe" and there are those who really believe that the French and Germans want to take over the UK by stealth. There are two major factors in the emergence of Europhobia: ignorance, re-enforced by the anti-European lies and mis-representations churned out by the right-wing, "patriotic" (and mostly foreign-owned) press; and insecurity - insecurity in what it means to be English.

Post 1945
For years asserting Englishness was unnecessary. Britain, dominated by England, was one of the world's great powers. The seismic change in the global-order after 1945 and the resultant decline of Western European countries' international influence signalled a new era in international politics. Unfortunately the British failed to realise this. Believing Britain's future lay at the head of the Commonwealth, the government dismissed the idea of European political co-operation, refusing even to send officials to preliminary talks. When the folly of this decision became apparent we had to ask permission to join and did so in 1972 on the terms of those who were already in the EEC: a humiliation.

Since then, Britain has tried to block progress from the inside, obstructing trans-European policies in anything from free-trade to defence, sneering from the sidelines as the others move forward, eventually grudgingly accepting the inevitable and joining in. This sums up our attitude to the European Union, every step forward is seen as a defeat. The hysteria created whenever anyone tries to constructively contribute to the debate on Europe's future, means that few dare to. Thus we have no chance of shaping "Europe" and become further isolated and impotent.

Levels of involvement
One of the arguments used by the anti-European lobby is that of the loss of sovereignty inherent in deeper integration. Yet it is naive to think that Britain could be truly independent in today's world. When OPEC decides to reduce oil production the price, UK petrol prices increase and we are powerless to stop it, American CO2 emissions pollute the entire world, global economics thrives on interdependency. Most aspects of our defence policies must be compatible our NATO allies' yet we don't hear demands to leave NATO. Why not? Basically, we feel safe working under American instruction but not working with other European countries.

This should not be the case. England is historically and culturally part of Europe. We share a history of Roman rule and Christian conversion. Until Henry VIII, for his own ends, declared himself head of the Church in England, Englishmen had played a pivotal role in the cultural, spiritual and academic development of our continent. Henry's fabrication of histories to create a feeling of Englishness founded on difference from the rest of Catholic Europe strengthened his hold on power and has had far reaching effects on the way the English see themselves and other Europeans.

When people talk about use the sovereignty argument they seem to assume that Britain has always been Britain. But The Act of Union was signed in 1707, Britain is only 300 years old. Equally England is not a biblical concept, it is a conglomeration of ancient kingdoms. Who is to say that in a few hundred years there will not be a thriving European national identity?

Our identity is in Christ
We should not get so focused on nationality. Throughout history countries' borders, political structures and even names have changed, some have disappeared altogether. Nationalities and national identities have changed with them. We should take a much less fervent approach to nationality and national identity as their changeable nature makes them more or less an irrelevance to God. What he is concerned about is that our identity is in Christ. English identity is a hindrance to us not a strength. It is rooted in the past, in things like our antiquated monarchy and our victory in the Second World War. Until we let go of the past we will be unable, as a "nation", to embrace our future.

Stuart Read is Public policy Officer with CARE

Return to top