Little Man in a Toque » Blog Archive

Whiggish Britishness

Here’s an interesting post by Andrew Lilico at Conservative Home:

The British Constitution was the creation of the Whigs, and the Whig Party’s daughter, the Conservative Party, is its defender. No Conservative Party, no Whiggish Constitution. No Whiggish Constitution, no Britain. The British constitution relies on us for its continued organic development, and on us to mend it when our rivals damage it in their (mercifully) brief and occasional forays into office.

Of course, Socialists would love to redefine Britain as being something to do with values that Socialists prize – so Britain, we are told, is about “fairness” or “equality” or “democracy” or “being multi-racial”. And Nationalists and believers in the self-determination doctrine would love to define it in terms of a single culture or race. But as Conservatives, we should not be taken in and we should not surrender easily a concept that is our own. Our mother party, the Whigs, created our British constitution, and it is for us Conservatives to conserve it. That is why we came into existence as a party. That is what we are for. If we don’t do it, no-one else will, and Britain and the Conservative Party will fall together.

I don’t disagree with the concept of Britishness as a whiggish constitutional construction. Britain is, without doubt, a union of nations under a single unitary sovereign parliament; a parliament to safeguard and protect certain privileges and rights in the absence of a codified constitution. Britain is in essence a political construct, and little else beyond that idea. But the Tories have completely failed in their task of conserving that unitary parliament, that construct, that idea; and the principle of absolute sovereignty, incorporation, is looking rather dishevelled. Soon Parliament won’t even be able to lay claim to be the egalitarian meritocratic – bastion of Britishness – institution it once was, even if Ken Clarke’s West Lothian solution does attempt to maintain a semblence of equal voting rights. The Tories have also failed to ensure that Parliament performed its task in protecting the right to silence; the strict burden of proof; the right to question your accusers; the principle that if it isn’t forbidden then it’s allowed; the principle that no Parliament can tie its successors; habeas corpus; trial by jury; the hereditary principle.

So if your Whiggish constitution has failed in these respects, what use is it now?

Fairness, equality and democracy are values not only prized by socialists, but socialists might thank Andrew for suggesting so because those values are universal. Which is why they’re not uniquely British. Britain cannot claim any particular strength in these areas because the British constitution is not fair, it does not promote equality and it is not democratic. Nor can it become any of these things while it remains dogmatically anachronistic with an inbuilt inertia brought about by the protection of Establishment self-interest. What we need now is a sovereignty of the people, not more supremacy of parliament and the quaint notion that parliament will act in the interests of the people. Clearly it doesn’t; it’s that entrenchment that got us into this mess!

Your one-nation-one-state political system no longer fits, a realisation that has even now dawned on the previously whiggish English after ten years of devolution and one year of a dour Scottish miserablist.

So, to be British is to respect and enact freedom of speech, constitutional monarchy, private property, the rule of law, ordered liberty, due process for the accused, the presumption of innocence, the strict burden of proof falling on the state as accuser or taxer, parliamentary democracy including crucially unelected elements as checks and balances, toleration of non-conformists, a state Christian church that has influence but few special favours, a constitution that evolves organically and in which tradition and precedent are vital, and many related constitutional norms and conventions.

Nope, those things are English. Have you ever been to Scotland?

I, on the other hand, don’t at all believe in nationalism or self-determination.

Andrew, if you look in the mirror I think you’ll see a British nationalist who believes in British self-determination. Similarly, I’m an English nationalist who believes in English self-determination, which may well include political union with Scotland and Wales if it’s what the people of the sovereign nations of England, Scotland and Wales decide. The difference between us is a matter of identity and a consequent difference of opinion about where sovereignty should lie.

Tags: Andrew Lilico, Britishness, Conservative Party, nationalism, Whiggish

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 26th, 2008 at 7:56 am and is filed under politics, the english question. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

22 Responses to “Whiggish Britishness”

Andrew Lilico Says:
August 26th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Thanks for your interest. I see you quoting my list of failures to defend the constitution from my http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2007/05/dr_andrew_lilic.html

Your question “what use is it now” is a fair and important one – that was why, in my other piece that you quote (linked above) I raise the question of whether, if we do not correct the problems listed, there will remain the most important reason we have for us to stay outside the euro.
Britishness is in the eye of the beholder* at The ThunderDragon Says:
August 27th, 2008 at 3:38 am
[...] Is it a constitutional arrangement? Yes, and no. [...]
Jim Says:
August 27th, 2008 at 9:27 am
To the original poster: you say the difference between you and Mr Lilico is one of ‘identity’ and that’s surely true: you are you and he is he.

But the difference between your politics is not one of ‘identity’ – national or cultural identity is a matter of ‘who’ not ‘what’ – and neither of you would exclude the other from your nation or culture (unless I’m mistaken).

The political difference between you is territorial. If he is a ‘British nationalist’ and you are an English nationalist’ but you are both culturally and ethnically inclusive in your ‘nationalism’ then your difference is only about a line on the map.
Toque Says:
August 27th, 2008 at 9:31 am
It does boil down to a line on a map. But what do these lines on maps enclose? Are they purely arbitrary, inventions of crazy cartographers, or do they have something to do with identity?
Jim Says:
August 27th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
As I understand it your ‘English nationalism’ has nothing to do with identity:who. Nor, even if you misuse identity to mean a certain aggregation of characteristics can a line on the map have any real meaning. That’s why you can’t say you’d exclude Mr. Lilico from your nationality, even though YOU claim he doesn’t share the same ‘identity’.

Lines on maps are strictly territorial marks only. Ask the Armenians or the Jews what a nation is. You confuse nation with state, nationalism with statehood.
Toque Says:
August 27th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
My English nationalism has everything to do with identity, so you don’t understand.

My identity is English, which is why I want constitutional recognition of that identity – why else would I campaign for an English parliament?

I wouldn’t exclude Mr Lilico from my nationality, just as he wouldn’t exclude me from his. I’m aware of the different meanings of nation, the nationalism that I am part of is about citizenship and statehood, not about race.

There is an ethnic group called the English, and England is their homeland, or was the homeland of their ancestors. This is fact. The creation of an English state, or English citizenship, or the restoration of English sovereignty (which is really what I’m about), in the 21stC does not alter that fact.
Jim Says:
August 27th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Yes, thasswot I said.

Your ‘nationalism’ is not about identity:who, but about the establishment of a state over a particular territory.

And as I suspected, even when you DO misuse ‘identity’ to mean the general characteristics (undefined) of a particular people rather than the people itself, you do not really mean it (can such ‘identity’ really mean anything?):

“I wouldn’t exclude Mr Lilico from my nationality, just as he wouldn’t exclude me from his.” — even though, as I said before, you say your nationalism has everything to do with ‘identity’ – and YOU claim Lilico and you have different ‘identities’!

What’s the bloody point then?
Jim Says:
August 27th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Toque, all your last post did was confirm in specifics what I had suggested in my prior comment.
Toque Says:
August 28th, 2008 at 3:23 am
Hmmm…I think you may be hiding your light under a bushel Jim. I also suspect that your objections are precisely because my nationalism is about identity: My nationalism is inclusive, yours is exclusive.

I may be wrong, but I’m sure that you will put me right on that if I am. Do you have an objection to an English state in which everyone can call themselves English by virtue of belonging?
Jim Says:
August 28th, 2008 at 3:49 am
Your ‘nationalism’ – you have demonstrated – is not about identity, however defined. If it was Mr Lilico would be excluded from your nationality by virtue of his quite different ‘identity’ (according to your judgement).

I’m just quoting you Toque, and pointing out the inconsistencies.

In your question to me,”belonging” means living here I take it? Once again, we see your ‘nationalism’ is the pursuit of statehood over a *certain territory*; nothing to do with a certain people (identity), and nothing to do with their national character. Location, location, location.

You may use this debate to sharpen your argument if you wish Toq, alternatively just try and put me in the picture as to what you’re after. What you’ve said so far has no internal logic. You simply seem to like the word identity and England the place.

(I’m not a nationalist btw, but I do support the establishment of an English parliament).
Toque Says:
August 28th, 2008 at 4:28 am
How can you support an English parliament if you are not a nationalist? To me that seems like a contradiction.

I call myself an English nationalist because nationalism, to me, is about sovereignty. I believe that the English people should have the constitutional sovereignty to determine their own future, to decide if they want independence or unionism, devolution or federalism, EU interdependence or national sovereignty. National self-determination is what nationalism is about.

If we are to have an English parliament then it should be set up as an expression of popular sovereignty, with the authority that conveys, to act as a tool of the people, otherwise it would be pretty worthless.

I’d suggest that you ARE an English nationalist if you support the creation of an English parliament. Unless, of course, you are not English.
Jim Says:
August 28th, 2008 at 8:21 am
It is not a contradiction, but an accomodation to things as they are, and might best, and most easily be. Pure efficiency.

Sovereignty, yes.

But when you say “I believe that the English people should have …” you have switched to an identitarian argument (as I define it: who? not what /where.)

Or have you?

Do you actually mean “the people in England” rather than “the English people”?

In which case you are back to drawing a line on the map and saying “make this land-area a state” because the only way you ‘identify’ your ‘people’ is by their location (an increasingly archaic identification process these days, internet, global travel, mass movements of populations, and all that.)

This makes your ‘nationalism’ seem rather like my accomodation to it: purely a matter of book-keeping – a departmental restructuring.

Is that the point Toque? Just bringing in a bit of order?
Jim Says:
August 28th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Is that the point Toque? Just bringing in a bit of order?

And if it is, why all the talk about ‘identity’ (still undefined)? And why stop at England – why not take it down to the county level? Or, if you really like sovereignty, the individual?
William Gruff Says:
August 28th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Here, here, Toque, though I would go further. We ought to have learned from history that political elites tend to expand their polities until they can no longer do so. The lesson of history, for me, is that polities smaller in scope than the nation state tend to be absorbed by others more powerful and polities greater in scope, such as the ‘U’K, the EU and other empires, ancient and modern, tend to collapse, primarily because of perceived differences in the national interests that comprise them. The nation state is the most stable simply because those within it see themselves as having interests in common that are not shared by those of other nations and national self-determination, which you rightly assert is nationalism, is founded on identity and the sense of common purpose it fosters. That does not necessarily require ‘racial’ qualifications although it may reflect what are considered distinctive, though not necessarily exclusive, characteristics. The English are a typical example: We are invariably described as a ‘mongrel race’, although in reality we are no more, nor less, mongrels than many other European peoples, and we can lose nothing by becoming a little more mongrel, yet we have a distinctive identity based on on our history, culture, diet, laws, customs and traditions. The security of our borders, our sovereignty, is bound up in that identity.

Our territory is our home and our home is where we are free to be ourselves. To describe your nationalism as exclusively territorial is fatuous (it clearly isn’t), but then fatuity is the only recourse left to critics of rational English nationalism.

PS: Could we have a preview button for comments?
Toque Says:
August 28th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Bringing in a bit of order is part of it, I won’t claim to have been an English nationalist prior to devolution to Scotland and Wales – which has broken Britain as far as I am concerned.

“the people in England” rather than “the English people”?

For English people read the people in England who are entitled to be here and entitled to vote.

This makes your ‘nationalism’ seem rather like my accomodation to it: purely a matter of book-keeping – a departmental restructuring.

No more so, or no less so, than British nationalism or Scottish nationalism. I am an English nationalist – what do you expect the boundaries of my nationalism to be; the boundaries of England would seem logical would they not?

Sovereignty of the individual is important, I’d call it civil liberties, and we’re losing them. I’d be happy for counties to have more sovereignty, but as an English nationalist I obviously see the English nation as the best and most logical basis for government. It’s for British nationalists, Eurofederalists or Cornish nationalists to argue against that.

You’ve deconstructed my argument, now tell me yours. What sort of England do you want; how should it be governed; what is your rationale for that governance; why an English parliament if England, in these days of mass migration, is only a land area, and; if physical location is not sufficient to locate England, then what is your method?
Jim Says:
August 28th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
WG’s contribution shifts things along quite a bit.

WG claims that “To describe [Toque's] nationalism as exclusively territorial is fatuous.”

Why? It clearly is on the showing here. It’s not about a people (positively disavowed), it’s not about a culture (none described), it’s not about a religion, nor a new idea.

It is a ‘nationalism’ of what is left when Scotland and Wales secede from the Union (see Toque’s last post) -it happens to be England – the place, but if Northumberland and Kent had shot the bolt with Scotland and Wales, he’d just draw that line on the map a little differently.

I am amazed to see you give Toque a ‘here, here’ WG.

Your nationalism seems quite a different animal:

“We [the English] are invariably described as a ‘mongrel race’, although in reality we are no more, nor less, mongrels than many other European peoples, and we can lose nothing by becoming a little more mongrel, yet we have a distinctive identity based on on our history, culture, diet, laws, customs and traditions. The security of our borders, our sovereignty, is bound up in that identity. Our territory is our home and our home is where we are free to be ourselves.”

This is ethnic nationalism, not civic nationalism, and not Witanagemot’s claimed agenda.

Toque is quite specific, the “English people” are “the people in England who are entitled to be here and entitled to vote.”

Which of course includes millions of people of hundreds of ethnicities from outside Europe, never mind England. Toque’s English Nationalism is for them all – possibly the most ‘mongrel’ people on earth. WG’s English Nationalism, however, is explicitly for and arises from someone else: the ethnic English.

WG says his ethnic heritage forms his ‘identity’ and is the basis of his politics. I wonder if this is true of Toque too, and that is why he couldn’t describe this ‘identity’ or say who shared it. The Witanagemot Club is supposed to be a civic nationalist organisation, after all…

Perhaps ‘here, here-ing’ WG knows something about Toque’s views that wasn’t expressed in this thread that justifies my reading as ‘fatuous’?

Toque, answering your question, I want England to carry on much as it is, but with the same standard of devolved powers as Scotland and Wales. The only other urgent changes I would make to the political road we’re on is to institute proportional representation; privatise the education system; and gradually evolve a more mercantilist economy.
Toque Says:
August 28th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
I want England to carry on much as it is, but with the same standard of devolved powers as Scotland and Wales.

And presumably you too would define England by it’s current borders, extending specifically English representation to all those that fall within those borders?

What is your rationale for that English governance; why an English parliament if England, in these days of mass migration, is only a land area, and; if physical location is not sufficient to locate England, then what is your method?

A political civic identity doesn’t mean that a nation loses its cultural identity. Civic and ethnic nationalisms aren’t mutually exclusive.
Jim Says:
August 28th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
“extending specifically English representation to all those that fall within those borders …. What is your rationale for that English governance; why an English parliament if England, in these days of mass migration, is only a land area…”

These, of course, are questions for your ‘identitarianism’. It was in respect to your basing your whole argument on ‘identity’ that those questions arose (”My English nationalism has everything to do with identity”).

It has never been at dispute where England is on the map.
William Gruff Says:
August 28th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Jim: You should read rather more of what Toque, and I have written, in various places, over the past five years or so before attempting to pigeon-hole either of us.

I don’t think Toque would object to me saying that he is rather more inclined to the civic nationalism end of the nationalism ‘continuum’, if I may put it that way, and I rather more to the ethnic end but neither of us is at the extremes and nor do we exclude the counter approach. My general view is very similar to Toque’s, and it is one that I have published many times over more than ten years (since before the devolution referenda): Mass immigration has created an England in which, as you observe, millions of people, owning hundreds of disparate and often mutually antagonistic ethnicities are entitled, as Br*tish, Commonwealth or EU citizens to live. The dissolution of the ‘union’, which I believe is inevitable, cannot change that. Those people will have to be accommodated if the problems that have been created in our country (England) are to be resolved.

I generally use the phrase ‘people in England’, or some variant, to make a distinction between the political and economic interests of those resident in the territorial England who are not English, and do not wish to be, and the ‘the English’, of whom I am one and whose ancient culture, traditions and laws must be understood by all people in England to be paramount. My ethnic nationalism does not preclude non English people in or of England or, as Toque asserts in his last comment, civic nationalism. I see civic nationalism as the check to unfettered ethnic nationalism but believe that a civic nationalism that is not informed by ethnic nationalism is superficial at best and inherently volatile. It is important to understand that the ethnic nationalism I envisage appeals to those who might be considered not ethnically English because of its robust and uncompromising defence of traditional English values; they will see themselves, and be accepeted, as English because they see clearly that they have much to gain by doing so, without coercion. In a sense, therefore, ethnic nationalism is the glue that cements the bricks of civic nationalism. It is not a belief that certain people can never be English simply because of their origin. I will not fall over myself to include people who wish to exclude themselves but I will happily accept as English anyone who demonstrates that he is English. The future of my very overcrowded and divided country depends upon a common sense of purpose (civic nationalism) and belonging (ethnic nationalism) in all of its citizens. I cannot see that Toque’s expressed views gainsay that.

So I repeat: Here, here, Toque!
Toque Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 4:27 am
I rather think that you are playing devil’s advocate here Jim because you’re unwilling to advance your own theories.

A few years ago I wrote a piece on civic nationalism that still fairly well sums up my thoughts. Identification with England rather than English identity is it’s aim.

A contract of trust between citizens and politicians on a defined national community – we can elect you, we can remove you – is fundamental to a democracy. And I believe that the “we” is important, and to some extent, with devolution, and Scottish and Welsh nationalism, that “we” has been lost to Britain.

So my nationalism is creative, it’s seeking to create new Englanders, which is what a modern nation has to do. Otherwise England and English become part of the heritage industry.

Just out of interest Jim, how would you describe:

a) Your ethnic identity
b) Your national identity
c) Your state identity

For me it would be English, English, British (UK). But for many new arrivals to the UK “English” doesn’t enter into the equation.

Should it? Why yes, for the sake of England I think it should. If you disagree I think the onus is on you to explain why.
Jim Says:
August 31st, 2008 at 3:23 pm
WG, I wasn’t attempting to pigeonhole Toque – he P. Holed himself with the ‘identity’ claim.

“It is important to understand that the ethnic nationalism I envisage appeals to those who might be considered not ethnically English because of its robust and uncompromising defence of traditional English values.”

And what are they then?

“I will happily accept as English anyone who demonstrates that he is English.”

How does one do that?

###

Toque, on the contrary I’ve answered each question about my politics you have asked of me – clearly and honestly.

I haven’t yet read your piece on civic nationalism, but your summing up shows again that my own summary of your nationalism (as entirely territorial) is correct: “Identification with England rather than English identity is it’s aim.”

Why do you persist in disputing this point when your own words are so clear?

a) The phrase ‘ethnic identity’ suggest that ethnicity is elective rather than given. Better simply to say ethnicity. = English.

b+c) Same goes for ‘national identity’. If you do not mean ‘nationality’ in the legal sense, avoid such similar-sounding terms. I am not a state, and a state is not a “who” (so can have no identity. = British.

We do not need to make new arrivals to Britain into citizens. Even if we did, we should reject those candidates who do not already know and respect the differences between the English, Scots, and Welsh (ethnicities), and the category ‘British’.
Toque Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
An interesting extract from a paper I’m reading:

Parekh has defined national identity as “the identity of a territorially organised community”, drawing attention to the particular importance of territory to nationality. This conception is echoed in the fourth of Miller’s five elements of nationality:

“A community (1) constituted by shared belief and mutual commitment, (2) extended in history, (3) active in character, (4) connected to a particular territory, and (5) marked off from other communities by its distinct public culture”

The linking of territory to nationality is significant, making it an identity with a particular attachment to physical space. Put simply, nationality forms a relationship with territory in a way that no other form of association or identity does.

Whiggish Britishness

22 Responses to “Whiggish Britishness”

Leave a Reply

zanex alternative antidepressant

programs for withdrawal from antidepressants

Diazepam Ups Shipping

Valium For Sale

Xanax Buy Domain Xanax Atspace Org

Ambien And Buy

Buy Valium Online With Debit Card

Infertility pregnant antidepressants weight loss with antidepressants 675.

carcinoid syndrome antidepressants

wean off antidepressants comfortably?

list of antidepressant medications

phase ii antidepressant protocol

Xanax Mexico Order

pregnancy and antidepressant medication

number of women on antidepressants,

pregnancy and antidepressant medication

depression relapse on antidepressants

dangerous antidepressants

Buy Diazepam In Uk

Infertility pregnant antidepressants weight loss with antidepressants 675.