Newsfight!
Britain, the only country to have managed to completely miss out on the joy of revolution in the past three hundred years. The last time there was any significant resistance to the British government was when Shakespeare had just become retro-chic and wild Puritans dominated the social calendar. It is not mere chance that has led to this glaring omission in our history, but the lack of spirit amongst the masses, a spirit which can result in grand achievements and new directions in ideology. Britain has never been successful in repelling any threatening forces from overseas. Romans, Saxons, Normans, Germans, American pop culture, Michael Portillo, Abba*Teens... the list of invaders is endless and the lack of public gusto to blame.
One need only have watched Britain's defeat to Sweden in the Davis Cup and the vacuous platitudes which the commentators used, almost inevitably resorting to "they tried their best." Politically, the story is similar; whilst French truckers have the determination to achieve their goals, British train drivers get bored after twelve hours and start criticising their own trade unions. This nation, unlike France or Germany, seems to have become accustomed to defeat and instead comforts itself with chronic nostalgia; a memory of a solitary World Cup or that of two World Wars. The fact that America and Russia aided Britain whilst Germany had the Italian army, arguably even less successful than the Dad's Army brigade, is pleasantly forgotten. When did this country become so stuck in remembering its own history that it stopped creating any?
The French gastronome, the Italian designer, the Scandinavian depressive, the Russian drunkard or even the British loser; would it not be more beneficial to see these stereotypes as complementary, rather than opposing. The point is surely that all nations, created anachronistically by top-hat-wearing pipe smokers, would be better served by ridding themselves of their jingoistic shackles and bringing together all their individual strengths. As long as nations cling so trenchantly to their own history and view the rest of the world with competitive and xenophobic blinkers, the globalisation occurring today will continue to be exploitative rather than fraternal. Only with this loss of national identity will any real change be allowed to proceed in the redistribution of wealth - and hopefully, a little Marxism.
I found it quite heartening recently to hear that David Blunkett is turning into a real Tory. Some of you no doubt will remember my last column which dealt with the topic of asylum and immigration, where I conceded that they were both good (cheap labour) and bad (diseases, etc). It is a delicately balanced issue. Blunkett has, however, correctly identified that in order to integrate into British society and therefore become useful at all, they must become inherently British. My mind harks back to Lord Tebbit and his loyalty to sports teams, which of course is one good way of discerning. However, I would submit that there are other factors involved too.
After all, what does it actually mean to be British? I mean, it's one thing to have to learn English properly, which is really fairly easy. Most of Scandinavia for instance speak English significantly better than people from Liverpool or Bradford. Ultimately, though, someone is going to have to teach these 'people' about the real things in life: how to tie a bow-tie, how to punt and play cricket. They will have to learn standards of decency and etiquette, with an education including history and literature, and at least a basic smattering of Latin. They should have loyalty to the monarchy and the Anglican church (although too great a piety is not really the done thing). They shall have to find socially acceptable schools and universities, clubs and societies. In short, they will have to adopt the English dream, the village green and the shade of the oak tree on a summer's day, with Pimm's and cucumber sandwiches. This is what normal, hard-working people in Britain are all about - I certainly have not experienced anything else - and is something you can happily die for. Dulci et decorum est and all that.
I hope Blunkett will therefore follow his tough policy to its logical conclusion, and institute a range of tests before people are allowed in. Of course we want the skills of certain migrants, such as owning and running of takeaways and corner-shops, but then if things get too full we shall have to get rid of people too. I vote we deport Sheffield first.
(Anatole has not been north of Birmingham)
14th Feb 2002