Zacht Ei

Doorbakken kan altijd nog


Saturday, January 14, 2006

On being British

So of course, at the same day Dutch public television airs a tearjerking report about Somalian refugees that fled the Netherlands to go and live in Leicester where they can be themselves (i.e. by not learning the local language), unlike in nasty and intolerant Holland, Blair's about-to-be-successor makes this statement (or will), which of course goes unreported on Dutch PBS:

"The English language, he will say, should be made an essential element of citizenship, through mandatory language courses for jobseekers found wanting."

I'm wondering if the Somalian family will now flee British tyranny back to the Netherlands, where there's an entire village working for PBS that should be happy to make them feel right at home, whatever it takes.

Anyway, enough jesting.

Unlike most Dutch, I don't feel it should be obligatory to learn our language. Hey, it's a free country. I do feel, however, that if you refuse to do so (note: being unable to is a different matter), you should not be entitled to welfare or other support by the state, as such a refusal seriously diminishes your chances of being able to provide for yourself since most employers will need - or at least prefer - an employee that speaks the lingua franca. If you can get by without learning Dutch, fine. If you can't, don't expect the natives, whose language you want no part of, to pay your way.

Brown goes on to make some excellent points about appreciating national identity, a theme which has become somewhat contaminated in Europe ever since a few idiots in Italy and Germany made a big mess out of things. I've argued before that you can't expect immigrants to appreciate their host country if they're not even sure what that country is supposed to stand for, and if citizenship ceremonies have all the flair and excitement of a fishing licence being issued. There's no need to haul out the brown shirts, I hope, to appreciate that version of nationalism. And at the very least, Brown doesn't seem to think so.

In his speech Mr Brown will embrace the patriotism of the US, saying: "In any survey our most popular institutions range from the monarchy to the army to the NHS. But think: what is our Fourth of July? What is our Independence Day? Where is our declaration of rights? What is our equivalent of a flag in every garden? Perhaps Remembrance Day and Remembrance Sunday are the nearest we have come to a British day - unifying, commemorative, dignified and an expression of British ideas of standing firm for the world in the name of liberty."

The Dutch have one advantage over the Brits, fortunately (other than having beaten them in nearly all naval engagements, but let bygones be bygones). At least we've won our independence, unlike the Brits, which we annually celebrate by sending a large percentage of our population to the Spanish costas to harass the locals. Serves them right for having occupied us.

23:11

permalink comment(s) (3) trackback(s) (0)


« 

Leaving Las Vegas   Who not to vote for in the forthcoming elections

 »


Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry


Just to correct you, the British retained their independence, unlike the Dutch who had their independence won for them several decades ago. I'd forget the naval battles if I were you, it has been downhill for you lot for the lsat three centuries.

Liam (ip:194.159.73.69) 14 January 2006 - 1:09 uur


Actually, we do still celebrate that independence: in Den Briel, April 1st.

Robert John Kaper (ip:213.84.48.90) 14 January 2006 - 10:25 uur


Well, Admiral Tromp certainly "swept" away a fleet betrayed by a Parliament of fools, but my history tells me he was probably the last success at sea in a fleet action. Never mind, we have spent more of our collective history as allies (apart from when the French or the Spanish occupied the Netherlands - and we won't mention your other neighbours!) so now neither nation has much of a navy any longer.

The most worrying thing about the re-invention of the concept of "Britishness" is that this Chancellor is doing so to hide the fact that it is his Party that have done more to destroy our nation than any other in history and he is also facing the prospect of being a Scottish Prime Minister ruling over a Parliament that no longer rules the part of the "nation" that he is elected to represent. Thus he will, effectively, have been elected by a Scottish electorate and be setting and deciding on policies that affect only the English Nation and not his own constituency.

That is the mess created by a Socialist party based on envy and power mongering. The real problem for him (and his "friend" Tony)is that if all the Scottish and Welsh MP's were now removed from Parliament the Labour Party majority vanishes and they can no longer govern. In fact, it has been argued by one of their own MP's that the Scottish and Welsh MP's should not be allowed to vote on any matter that affects only the "English". It is only their Scottish and Welsh MP's, whose constituencies are now ruled entirely from "Home" Parliaments and "Assemblies" created by this party of traitors, that keeps them in power.

The Gray Monk (ip:81.19.57.162) 14 January 2006 - 19:29 uur


Comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(By submitting comments you agree to have read and accepted the forum rules. If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)



Remember me?