 |
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 works for Community Links in East
London
Return
to top
|
