The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)

There is a lot of talk at the moment about if the ECHR is fit for purpose.  Some say that without it, our entire evolution and understanding of human rights since WWII is lost, others say that the Court has evolved beyond its remit and is now infringing upon its members sovereignty, particularly in their abilities to prevent terrorism and other security threats.

This is certainly the current point of view of the UK Government, who have made it clear in recent days that they feel the Court needs to change.  The catalyst is of course that the UK currently holds the Chair of the Council of Europe, and has the political will and place to now effect change.  The other catalyst that has caused uproar is the recent judgement of the ECHR that the UK cannot deport the terrorist suspect Abu Qatada back to Jordan, after three UK trials determined that he is a risk and should be sent back.

David Cameron is right to seek change.  He is right to say that human rights laws are becoming distorted (see here) He is also right that the Court should be the last resort, and used where a national justice system is unable or unwilling to deal with or decide upon a case.

Europe agrees that there should be reform, although apparently doesn't much like the idea of deferring to national governments.  So, should the ECHR become supranational?  That's not what it is about; it is not the EU.  It is still based on intergovernmentalism, and David Cameron should perhaps consider the idea of withdrawing the UK from the Court if it continues to infringe on our sovereignty and put the country at risk.  These arguments are strong ones, and should not be disregarded on a whim.

Those who say that our voice would be lessened are thinking from a supranational perspective.  The UK is not about to abandon its commitment to, or respect for human rights.  Very likely the UK would remain in the Convention even if it were to withdraw from the Court.

It's true that where the court has helped UK human rights culture to evolve has to be acknowledged.  But we are now talking about putting our national security at risk, and the even more-worrying evolution of an institution that has gone beyond, and will continue to go beyond, its raison-d'etre, if not put in check.  Looking at the EU as the best example, I don't want to see this happen with the ECHR - that's where things may just get really dangerous.

Scotland, oh Scotland.....

-

It was rather impossible to miss the the explosive debate that began just last week when David Cameron threw down the gauntlet to Alex Salmond and demanded a referendum on the Scots leaving the United Kingdom. I'd like to offer my thoughts.

It is well-known, and I noted myself in my blog post on St. George's Day 2008, that the debate about Scottish secession has been looming for quite some time. What nobody really expected was the extent of the Scottish National Party's (SNP) victory in the Scottish Parliamentary elections in May 2011. Since this occurred, it is now politically possible for the SNP to table a referendum to the Scottish people.

Cameron started the official "war" over secession last week when he demanded that a referendum be held sooner rather than later. Rather surprisingly, this prompted Alex Salmond to reveal hitherto unknown information about when exactly he was planning his referendum - late 2014 to coincide with Scotland's greatest military victory (were there many others?) over England 700 years ago.

Now that we know the SNP's plans, the Government demanded that it be sooner, and has now given a list of conditions that the SNP must meet for the referendum to be legal under UK (and inherently Scottish) law.

My aim here is to simply draw a clear picture. Certain elements of the story are wholly misrepresented and/or plainly misunderstood by a large number of people.

First of all, this is not actually an "independence" vote at all. The word "independence" has connotations that usually imply that one party/country has been dominated by another, usually through conquering or colonisation. This is simply not the case. This is about Scotland choosing to leave the United Kingdom; a union that it agreed to in the first place. It is not for me to judge the circumstances under which Scotland joined the Union, but it is perfectly free to choose to leave should it so wish. The language of the debate really needs to be accurate, for the Scots are deciding whether to leave a union that it joined as a sovereign nation, and the people are simply now voting for the return of full sovereignty to Edinburgh as supposed to London. The consequence of course is that the English will regain full sovereignty from the Scots too, a point not often mentioned.

Secondly, I have read a wide range of comments and articles from those who feel that England should have a say in this. The logic goes that as the UK will be affected, everyone in the UK should decide if Scotland leaves. My view is that this is incorrect. If everyone was to decide if Scotland should leave, how would we ever know the true wishes of the Scottish people? It doesn't seem democratic to me to not allow the Scots to choose to restore sovereignty by themselves. It is on the other hand perfectly reasonable that if the Scots want to leave, they have the right to make the choice. True, there are consequences for all of us in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but should the tables be turned and one of us wanted to cede from the UK, we wouldn't want the Scots to decide for us either.

Those supporting the idea of the entire UK having a say is making an argument akin to all EU members having a vote on whether the UK should leave the European Union. The UK is still in many ways (but dwindling I acknowledge) a sovereign nation, but even if we were a part of a United States of Europe we would not allow 26 other countries to prevent us from doing what we wanted to do. We can expect no less from the Scottish people. The problem is though in our relationship with the EU is that we have agreed to the fixed procedure for leaving, as written in the Lisbon Treaty, and we would need to determine our position with regards to the treaty.

Thirdly, I concur with the clear legal view that under the Scotland Act of 1998, Alex Salmond has no legal mandate to conduct the referendum - it is for Westminster to determine constitutional issues, and for Westminster to give Alex Salmond the necessary legal powers for the referendum vote to be considered legal. It really is stupid that the SNP are denying that Westminster has this right when it is plainly written in law - and worse for them to use Westminster's conditions as proof to their followers that "the English want to interfere." There is a major alarm bell going off in my head here. The law is the law, Mr Salmond - the UK will respect the rule of law, and you shall challenge it at your peril!

Fourthly, I've noted the interesting attitude reflected in the opinion polls - that more Englishmen and women are keen for the Scots to leave the UK than the Scots themselves. This reflects years of Alex Salmond antagonising the English, and thus attempting to link Scottish secession with English desires. He is playing with fire and might just get his wish. But he shall be to blame for the consequences, not the rest of us.

Finally, I am not prepared to debate in full the financial side of Scottish secession, however I side with the view that the Scots will be worse off. Some believe that the Scots should shoulder a proportional amount of UK debt based on their population, but I disagree. Population was not the measure used when the debt was generated and nor should it be if the debt has to be shared. A substantially large amount of UK Government debt was spent stopping the collapse of Scottish banks, therefore those Government liabilities should in due course become the liabilities of a fully-functional Scottish Government.

To close, there is much more to say when you hold this debate up in the mirror and compare it with the ongoing debate of the UK's changing relationship with the EU. It is quite amazing and hypocritical to see the UK Government saying things in relation to Scottish secession that they would never say in relation to the UK leaving the EU. The hypocrisy stinks when Cameron says that "the Scottish people must have a vote sooner rather than later" and yet denies a vote on EU membership when there is a clear public demand to do so. These issues are for another post, as well as Scotland's and the UK's overall place in the EU given the outcome of a yes or no vote in Scotland.

-

The cards are finally on the table......

For many years, British politicians have been stringing the public along with grandiose ideas about the EU being a group of sovereign nation states, engaged in deep level cooperation and trade. The EU was an economic project, and there was no risk at all to British sovereignty. Even the layman with the faintest idea about the EU now knows that to be false, seeing as our lives are affected each day by EU legislation, and increasingly in more and more visible ways.

But even though we are all conscious of the loss of British sovereignty, those who dared speak the truth of the EU mission - political union and a European state (I politely decline to use the word "super" in relation to the project) were labelled as "little-Englanders," just plain stupid, scaremongers, and one of the most disturbing recent terms I've seen is "domestic extremist" - no joke!

Now that these bunches of extremists - those who plan to lead us all to war just because they don't want to be part of a political union - have been vindicated, nobody can be found to defend the status quo. They've gone and jumped on the bandwagon of "more Europe" - precisely the blind way of thinking that got us in this mess in the first place. I am all for those who want more Europe, but I do not want to see it for the United Kingdom.

Now the extremists have been vindicated again. This time, there is no denying that they were right; there is no trying to avoid the truth by interpreting it in a different manner, or playing politics with words. The extremists told us that the plan is political union - this has been denied constantly and constantly. Many British ministers know the truth, but I also accept that some of those ministers who have spouted this lie over the years genuinely believed they were right - Margaret Thatcher for example. I think she genuinely wanted to see Europe as a group of nations that cooperate. She even made sacrifices to try and ensure that her interests shaped the Union. (I'm thinking of the Single European Act) But in the end her idealism was just too idealistic.

Why can't the truth be denied now? Why are the cards truly on the table? You might think it's because of what's just happened in Greece and Italy - the instalment of two EU puppet technocrat governments, but it's much simpler than that. And it's simplicity that is the hardest thing to deny. The cards are on the table now, and we must wake up, simply because of what Germany has been saying over the past couple of days:

1) As reported in the Telegraph on 17th November: (click here)

"The six-page German foreign ministry paper (A leaked German foreign office memo; my italics) sets out plans for the creation of a European Monetary Fund with a transfer of sovereignty away from member states. The fund will have the power to take ailing countries into receivership and run their economies. Even more controversially, the document, entitled The future of the EU: required integration policy improvements for the creation of a Stability Union, declares that the treaty changes are a first stage “in which the EU will develop into a political union”. “The debate on the way towards a political union must begin as soon as the course toward stability union is charted,” it concludes.

Is it still not rubbing in yet? Is there a way to deny these words? Is it just "enhanced cooperation?" Let's try some more....

2) Referring to treaty change, the Guardian reported almost a MONTH AGO (click here) that:

“The drive for this is coming, however, from Berlin. This is the real story of what is happening in the EU: Germany is emerging, unstoppably, asprimus inter pares. The dissension with Paris arises because Merkel simply won't or can't tolerate many of Sarkozy's ideas for resolving the sovereign debt crisis on political and constitutional grounds. The one-time "economic giant, political dwarf" is no longer afraid of exercising its political clout.”

3) Is it still not rubbing in yet? Let me cite one more interesting piece of information, this time from David Cameron. He's still taking the positively stupid line that this is a "great opportunity" to reform the EU, and the rather intensely stupid idea that he can reform it and mould it to British lines. Please cut the crap as of now. The plan is decided. It's political union. To be or not to be, that's the question? Thankfully we know the answer: No for the UK. The referendum will surely come when the necessary treaty changes to create this union are made - as it is now locked into British law. How will Cameron escape that? (Article here)

“Senior figures in the German government proposed radical changes to European institutions. In an interview with Le Monde newspaper, Germany’s finance minister Wolfgang Schauble called for continent-wide elections to vote in a president of the European Commission who would be head of a “European government”.

There you have it, Ladies and Gentlemen. From talk of treaty change a month ago, to the plans for political union this week, things really do move quickly, and it's impossible to keep up with them. But I have spelled out my case - the cards are truly on the table. If anyone would like to refute these quotes, I'd like to hear from them. Otherwise, to me it's really clear - a European Commission at the head of a European Government, and German plans to change its own constitution (after bailing out the euro was deemed illegal) to create a stability union that will evolve into a political one.

Let's not forget of course, that with all these wonderful plans on the one hand, Cameron just reminded us (the same link as above) that:

“It’s the pointless interference, rules and regulations that stifle growth not unleash it,” the Prime Minister said. “The sense that the EU is somehow an abstract end in itself, immune from developments in the real world, rather than a means of helping to deliver better living standards for the people of its nations.”

The EU is not improving living standards. It is just interfering; it is immune from developments in the real world - well said. Political union is just another representation of this fantasy world. The truth is that people just don't want it. But the EU and most politicians are just not listening. It's only a matter of time until revolution and when European history is likely to repeat itself. Let's see for how much longer British politicians want to continue to string us along, as even the layman opens his eyes to the effective loss of sovereignty of the United Kingdom, without a single shot being fired.

A General Reflection

-
As I sit here ready to leave work at 4.47pm on this sunny Thursday afternoon, with all classes done for the week but a lot of grading to do, a few thoughts are going through my head that I want to write on my blog.

I was speaking with a student earlier who was telling me that he has a friend in the UK, and I was asked questions that essentially amounted to "Is this true...or not...? etc"

I spent the next ten minutes explaining what are a lot of the current "negatives" in the UK, and I couldn't disagree when the student challenged me concerning social issues - namely:

Is it true that young girls are getting pregnant all the time?
Is it true that technologically we are falling behind?
Is it true that a lot of people are not working, and there are those who live directly off the government?

I found myself having to agree, but to clarify the points in more detail. I also reiterated strongly that despite clear issues that we currently face as a country, including drugs, the benefits culture, political correctness, teenage pregnancies and the effects of the economic crisis, (amongst others) that we do still have some wonderful things. Let's not forget that should we work hard and find a life purpose, that quality of life in general is good; that education standards despite political correctness is excellent, and who can doubt the beauty of the British countryside? There are still things to look towards!

I left the conversation and told my student to ask his friend "What does it mean to be English?" and "What are English traits as supposed to British ones?" I think these questions in the short-term future will present problems that currently exist but are underestimated.

All in all, upon coming back to the office I couldn't help but feel an overall sadness. What is going on in the UK? Am I just an eternal pessismist? I miss my family and my country, but there is little to feel patriotic for, whilst we face this collective political, economic and social mess. What kind of a future do we have as a society? Such great questions have no clear answer; however what is crystal clear is the feeling of sadness I have, as I contemplate certain realities that we cannot deny.
-

Councils won’t cut back if they can make savings elsewhere……

The title says it all.  The link is here to read the offending article….let’s just provide readers with the part that made me burst out laughing…..

“However John Denham, the local Government secretary, refused to a put a figure on local authority spending cuts, admitting only that "things are going to be tighter" for councils.

In a bad tempered exchange on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Denham refused seven times to quantify the amount councils may have to cut spending.

He insisted that cuts in front line services would not be necessary if councils made efficiency savings elsewhere.”

The Government won’t say to what extent the cuts will be….claims that things are going to be tighter, and the real good part is that if cuts can be avoided by making savings elsewhere…..WHY WEREN’T CUTS MADE DURING THE GOOD TIMES?  There were obviously opportunities to save money before, and there is a strong implication that wastage has been at the heart of local Government……and for how long?

A pity state of affairs – an inefficient local Government that is about to get a whole lot worse.  Can’t protect cuts from the economic realities that this Government has largely created.

Lisbon Treaty SECOND Vote October 2009...

I am blogging rather late on the whole Lisbon Treaty issue.

Aside from being busy, I wanted to give myself some time to absorb various perspectives from the press, as well as decide for myself my position given the vast range of commentary available.

However, the blatant fact is that I haven't been able to blog because I feel truly sickened by what's going on. Previous posts on the Lisbon Treaty remain consistent with this one - I am essentially against anything that puts substantial powers into the hands of the unelected. I feel that given British history, and its pivotal moments such as 1649 and the absolutist-wannabe James II in 1688, and the civil war and subsequent Bill of Rights in 1689, that RIGHTS evolved for good reason.

I have felt proud of the notion and idea that a Brit instinctively knows his or her rights - although that does not always mean literally. We have been comfortable with the idea that we didn't need our rights written down, documented, and in our face - rather offensive was the idea for anyone to tell us our rights - we just "instinctively" knew.

And so the question of rights yet again becomes a pertinent one. The Lisbon Treaty, with respect to my limited knowledge and understanding, (because I am not a lawyer) does indeed appear to seriously threaten what we consider to be fundamental English/British freedoms. I am worried for the future of trial by jury and presumed innocence until proven guilty, especially when coupled with some of the dranconian measures now in place across our wonderful democratic "EU" - NOT to even mention the attack on our own civil liberties from this Labour government.

I see here my most passionate political issues delicately intertwined. For the EU with the kind of powers it will assume under Lisbon is an attack on the British understanding and culture of civil liberties. On the one hand, I do blame the EU establishment. Their increasing political and economic power over this country does certainly bear fruit. However, the blame must be apportioned on the British government/political establishment, and the vast swathes of Euro-cash in which they swim. To cash in traditions that were justly fought for, could, as one newspaper put it today (05/10/09) be the "ultimate betrayal in history." However, I would beg to differ, and cite the complete destruction of civilisations (such as the Aztecs by the Spanish) as far more of a disastrous event. However, with the impact of Lisbon still unknown, I may well change my mind in the near future to come.

Casting my mind to the Irish, I don't wholly blame them. They made the decision that they wanted to. What saddens me is how they were completely manipulated into doing so. Crisis, burned economically into their hearts, threats of EU money running dry, scare tactics and horror stories - and the biased-ness of the entire media and political establishments - all perfectly combined into one nasty cocktail of scaremongering and fear tactics. And it worked perfectly - after all, what better way to control a country if not through economics? Make a crisis, and reap the rewards, depending on where you sit in the power triangle.

To reiterate, it is incredibly sad how our Irish brothers and sisters (yes, brothers - for the hostility in my eyes that is so famously stereotyped appears to me to be one-way, aimed AT the English, and yes, English not British) have given into this fear. Did we all forget the scaremongering the last time? The exposure that the Irish Commissioner in Brussels hadn't even read Lisbon? What really makes me despair in the idea of how the choice to say yes to Europe would reinforce Ireland's position in the EU, and free it of the "influence" of others - a blantant reference to the United Kingdom if there ever was one. In actual fact I concur with the idea that Ireland will become MORE irrelevant in the Union, probably labelled as the land of the Celts.

Overall, I must respect the decision of the Irish people, and if it is really true that such hostility remains towards the English, as well as the Irish political establishment, (I take Daniel Hannan's view on this) that the undemocratic EU is the only way out, then so be it. It was their choice to make, and the No camp did their best under estremely biased circumstances, with a political and media machine that they did well to survive with, let alone try to convince.

From one sad story to the next. The focus after all must be the United Kingdom. It is not the fault of the Irish that we were not granted a referendum, and anyone blaming them for our woes are terribly misguided. Grant the Irish their wish, lament the clear impact on our country, but the blame for this lies squarely with Brown. Lament the sick nature in which he turned up late to sign away the sovereignty of Parliament. Lament the shame to stand with his fellow European leaders in a photocall, where he would be standing on the side so they can airbrush him out after May 2010 from the official photo. Betrayal yes, and unforgivable.

The question becomes what to do now. David Cameron is quite rightly under pressure, and must spell out his position. But I believe that despite this pressure his approach is rational, if not extremely difficult to maintain. This really is a day-by-day battle now. Heaven knows the pressure on the Polish and Czech Presidents to sign the treaty already ratified by their Parliaments. I don't want to say the word "inev.." but the turn of events will certainly come to be historically significant. I believe that the media has highlighted the dilemma well - what will Cameron do if Lisbon is ratified in all states? It truly will become a choice of whether we stay in the EU, if Cameron wants to force a referendum.

But I believe that at heart that David is Pro-European (I believe many Tories are) but the idea of the EU (Please note, not Europe) has always been an economic one for the British, and resistance to Political Union is not unusual! So to read today about a possible change to the European Communities Act is a step in the right direction - after all, this is no different to the German approach that would require their Parliament to decide to veto EU laws coming into Germany. The problem, however, lies in practice............with EU law already established as superior, how do you override that? With Lisbon creating the mechanism to make changes without the explicit consent of member states, how do you override that? With news of an EU Common Security Policy, how do you override that? (a.k.a ID cards through the back door) With news of France and Germany wanting greater cooperation in the EU, do you just withdraw altogether and let this club be what it wants to be? Or do you sacrifice British sovereignty to maintain influence over the club? Many burning questions.

Finally, we must consider the international ramifications of Britain and Lisbon. The US is already cavorting with Russia, China and Japan - and openly talking of a G4. China and Japan talking about beginning the road to some form of Union - really? Who would they talk to in Europe? The signs are discouraging - the UK would completely be absorbed and lose international prestige and influence at the hands of an unelected EU President. Is this really in our long-term interests? Many say we should just accept the reality, but no, we create our reality with our decisions everyday, and Lisbon without proper consultation, education and a referendum decision, is plainly wrong.

I haven't even mentioned the impact on UK politics, where being governed from the Continent will surely spell the end of the Union - the Scottish and Welsh Governments may be pleased, because in line with the EU's principle of subsidiarity, they would be seen as the recognised powers in their "region" - and the UK Government an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy through which to govern - however they will just end up like Ireland - giving away power in the name of distrust of London, and becoming insignificants in somethin much bigger and more powerful than they are. However if it means that the Scots can make new songs to celebrate Europe Day in their own language - surely it's worth it?

I will stop writing on Lisbon right now, as I must return to burning the midnight oil. However I close with one thought and one interesting idea written in a national newspaper. My personal thought is that the world is awash with a history of the rise and fall of Empires - I see another one coming - why do we feel the need to consolidate, supposedly based on the common good, (or in the past by sheer imperalism and domination) just to reach critical mass, become too big, and blow apart in spectacular fashion? A thought I must invest more time in.......

The interesting idea I mentioned is that of riding on a train. We are passengers, and we were always asking questions to the conductor. He/She would always tell us where we were going, how long it might take to get there - there was a good relationship. Now with Lisbon, the reply would be to where we are going, "that is no longer your business, but ours." Of course I have interpreted the story for myself, and must find the relevant link, but the idea is poignant and struck me. No longer the UK's business, but that of an unelected President and his best friend in the unelected Commission.

God save the Queen for as long as the monarchy survives, for as long as the Union survives, and for as long as our relationship with our Commonwealth friends survives.

The weekend, and a Monday dose of Civil Liberties

After the weekend just rushed by, where I spent most of it in bed and/or just feeling completely lazy, I have returned to work this week determined to keep this blog and up and continue to recount all kinds of experiences that cross my path!

The weekend was very nice, with much less work to do. Did some preparation for my Business English class - and these are going much better now that the last 20 minutes is essentially private in nature with fewer students.

Had a bit of a scare over the weekend when I saw a huge spider in the bathroom, late on Sunday night. I don't really want to say much than that, except that boy could it run - and it had to be killed with boiling hot water. Days like this just make me want to leave - I really can't stand it!

Returning to work today, it has been a nice day - clearing up odds and ends and making progress in my English class. Nothing beats a nice tikka masala at lunchtime too. I am sitting here now getting ready to finish work and go to the gym, but I wanted to share this article regarding the topic of Civil Liberties - one in which I have come to feel as passionately about as Europe. I do feel compelled to try and get involved somehow in the fight to retain civil liberties, as we learn more and more of how they have been supressed under this Labour Government.

The Assault on Civil Liberties

Perhaps it was inevitable, given the advances of technology, that we would lose what we consider to be "freedoms." But by and large this is an issue I feel more and more strongly about. Hearing shock-horror stories concering cameras, Big Brother, and the erosion of British legal principles such as Habeus Corpus just make me very afraid to come back and live in the United Kingdom. Some lament that the "Great" has gone in Great Britain, but this is too simplistic. What has gone is years of evolution that in many cases worked well. And for what? Terrorism? Unparalleled threats? Please!

This is the first post of many that I will bring up this subject. I shall consider it a new passion, as I consider Europe and the EU to be another political passion and issue that will always determine my vote. I leave this post just wondering to what extent it is true that the Left are actually the ones destroying these freedoms, leaving the Right to champion them! However, despite the tendency of the right to advocate less state intervention, I don't feel that they are necessarily as opposed to British civil liberties as they are portrayed to be...........the evolution of these freedoms that we have taken for granted took place under all political administrations after all.

Comments on the article most welcomed!

God Save Britain and the UK!!

-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1052881/Who-killed-Britain-A-new-book-reveals-land-Queen-Elizabeth-II-ruled-longer-exists.html

So, we don’t live in the same Britain that her Majesty ruled over more than 50 years ago! I imagine a lot of Brits are gasping for air trying to swallow the fact that a national newspaper finally had the balls to publically declare (albeit not very British but nonetheless absolutely necessary in this case) what we could have told the Queen herself at about anytime between 27th June 2007 and the present day, or indeed many moments between May 1997 May 1998 and the present day. (Just to give some credit to the Labour government – they did after all make a huge one-off payment to the national debt and secure the Good Friday agreement, which of course must be respected, unlike the first achievement, where debt has risen to record levels under our rather “prudent” Piss-it-all-up-the-wall Prime Minister.)

Your Majesty, I am not one to be rude or impolite but please stop listening to all the bullshit (also known as “nonsense”) that your government feeds you about the perfect, harmonised Britain in which we live. (A Britain that just happens to require the world’s most dense network of CCTV cameras to live in and you still don’t feel safe – however save a space in your purse for your future ID card – it can save you!) I implore you Majesty to come back from la-la land with the other Royal Teletubbies; I implore you to wake up and smell the.............well, how do I tell you...............the Royal tea bag! (However, “Get ‘wit it” would be the more modern translation, and it’s amazing that the Microsoft Word spell checker didn’t even underline “wit’ it” as a grammatical nor a spelling error) Please Majesty, wake up from la-la land using those two sugar cubes in your small cup of tea and rule over us with some sense of purpose and direction; leave the rather innocent touchy-feely nature of your world and embrace us here in your Britain wholeheartedly, for we desperately need some kind of leadership that injects a sense of collective identity back into the British people – that is a polite way of saying national identity. We all know it is going “down the drain”, “to the wall”, “to pot”, “up the creek”, “AWOL”, “kaput”, “pear-shaped”, and “rather doo-lally”, etcetera, etcetera – don’t we?

The Daily Mail in its article of Wednesday 10th September was not afraid to spell out some rather uncomfortable home truths in its depiction of “what we all knew anyway, but were too afraid to say” tone of voice. (For the fear of offending some other undefined group of people - that must be respected - because they are defined as different by the very fact that they are undefined - and we are not as such.) Let’s applaud the newspaper for trying to publicise what must have difficult in the asphyxiating politically-correct environment in which it must print its ink and cause the felling of many more trees. However, this might be one example of when such an environmentally unfriendly activity could have been justified, not too dissimilar from another major piece of news from the same day regarding the Greenpeace activists that successfully were able to claim in the courts that their criminal damage to a coal-fired power plant was justified in that they were attempting to prevent the even-bigger damage caused to the planet by the Co2 emissions of the plant.

Hoorah!

So we have two examples in one day from the same newspaper not afraid to stick two fingers up to extreme political correctness for a change. Of course, the sceptic might say that all this publicity and temper-tantrum attitude will make little difference – point duly noted – but when we wake up one day and our sense of national identity that has made us feel so proud of who we are, secure, and with a sense of belonging to a group disappears, then I don’t want to hear anyone say that they weren’t told. However, always one to look on the bright side, I guess that the ultimate loss of the British identity (and thus the political union on which it was founded) will give the PC brigade a mission, sense of purpose, and a real big mammoth of an event to pour their pens over for years to come. They can waste money, time and paper all they want trying to figure out how it could have happened. (Oh I just realised; it did all of a sudden dawn on me - excuse me for not explaining the term “PC” – this equals “politically-correct” – I am genuinely sorry to any group that felt excluded by their lack of knowledge of abbreviations) Back to the point, I wonder if the PC brigade will recognise that for once in their artificially-created bio-bubble (fast running out of air because nothing can imitate Mother Earth nor the true art of breeding bullshit) that they didn’t actually consider the British people, because if they do their jobs well, they can save £500,000 of public funds and still discover that this is the true answer. Learn from the lesson of spending £10,000 to tell us that the best biscuit to dunk in our tea was a digestive, oh mighty pen-pushers! (No offence meant to the actual researchers who completed the investigation.)

To close my moaning session, I address you again your Majesty by saying that I absolutely, without the shadow of a doubt; without feeling the guilt of my most non-PC act to date, look forward to seeing you on your arrival from la-la land. The kettle is on and the biscuits are waiting. Have a safe trip on the Royal plane!

Your most faithful subject but pissed off citizen of the state you are supposed to uphold and represent. (God Save the Queen!)

(Just to tell readers for the record, only two errors were highlighted by Microsoft Word in this text – the first was “Teletubbies” and the second was the “lally” in “doo-lally.” Not bad at all I’d say.)

(Final final point: Sarcasm is a most British craft, so I must apologise for any offence caused to any group of people - and yes this includes those who feel offended but don’t quite know to which group of offended people they belong yet. Please address any comments on a postcard to the usual address. Goodbye for now.)

-

Partial Exams and St. George's Day

A quick post before sleeping to update myself and the world on events. Eyed up with work at the moment as I am grading third partial exams, but the weather is getting hotter and the days of clear skies are set to be here for a while to come.

I wanted to write a small message today especially because it was St. George's Day - here we are again, England's national day, and were it not for a few newspaper articles that mention it, I think it would be hardly noticed. The articles I have read however I have found myself largely agreeing with. The shame to celebrate one's nationality because of the fear of being called a racist, or politically incorrect, whilst other member countries of the UK do so with pride, thus personifying England as the one "who asked for this," really struck me. I took these kinds of views from the newspapers as a bit "Little England" but I was further surprised to find myself agreeing slightly with them. I would be the last to call myself a Little Englander, but it has occurred to me today that this shame that we feel to celebrate being English, as we also now do British, is ridiculous.

Something does indeed have to change. This is about identity. And I have sensed for a long time the gradual loss of identity in the UK and the loss of cohesion between its peoples. What I believe is that any people should not feel ashamed to express how they identify themselves - or, should not be ridiculed for doing so, especially if it is about a national identity. After all, the nation state is the dominant form of government of the world, and England has become the land that has gone from a state of voluntary patriotism to downright loss of knowing what holds us together.

We talk about values but then we cannot express them in an environment of zealous political correctness. We are right to celebrate all of the saints days of the UK, but come on it is better to have no St. George's Day at all I think than to carry on this situation. I think that people for years haven't known what it means to be English simply because our identity became since 1707, that of Great Britain and thus British. With the Union ever increasingly under threat since the days of devolution, this is the source of the English identity problem. Let's either find a way to define Englishness and celebrate St George. Or leave the whole day altogether in history, and reassert our correct place and identity in the Union.

Either way, let's not be ashamed to express something of what we are because of political correctness. That is the greatest danger to us all. I feel that we are British and one nation, but should the future hold a separation for the Union, we must allow it, for as Scotland freely decided to join the Union it must freely be allowed to leave. Wales must also be respected should it make the same choice, and Northern Ireland should it change its mind about remaining in the Union.

This is of course the worse-case scenario, for I am today above all British and proud of the Union and the one country we have achieved together. But the English must be prepared to either commit itself to the Union without fear, or should the Union break, be ready to stand on its own two feet once more.