But at least all these parties can be said to have achieved one positive end: they force us to think hard about our national identity and what it really means.
I don't particularly want to be ruled by Brussels, but I think it's also worth pointing out that the words "United Kingdom" and "independence" don't really sit well together.
Let's not forget that there are plenty of people in Belfast, Edinburgh and Cardiff who don't want to be ruled by London, either. Great Britain comprises three countries, and the United Kingdom incorporates part of another.
Perhaps independence is just what's needed to solve that particular intractable dispute. Why not just go the whole hog and have total devolution?
Scotland is already edging away from its UK membership. Should it go independent, the Welsh might follow. Then – if England is quick about it – it could leave the UK too, turn round to Ian Paisley and say: "Looks like it's just you now."
But even an English national identity is a pretty vague thing, not to mention usually quite an unhealthy phenomenon. The only widespread expression of English unity seems to centre on international sporting events, when the whole country decks itself out like a Loyalist estate. Since English patriotism is almost always rooted in triumphalism, I don't really see how we can ever hope to develop a progressive form of national consciousness without ditching most of our national iconography. But then, I'm not convinced that patriotism ever can be progressive.
Many people who call themselves patriots – and certainly the racist British National Party – love their country not as it really is, but as an unrealistic idea of it.
I love my country as well, because it's home. But the fact that someone else loves it too doesn't automatically mean I'm at one with them.
The liberal middle classes think Europe will be our salvation because it has drinkable mid-priced table wine and proportional representation
Would I die for my country? I certainly wouldn't die to defend the pound, the church or the crown. I feel I should be prepared to die to defend us from Starbucks, but I'm not.
Would I fight to defend us from invasion? Well in considering that question I think it's important to remember it's not a threat we have faced for a long time – though we have become embroiled in lots of wars, increasingly under American instruction.
I'm not arguing that we should dive deeper into the EU to heal all our problems. The received wisdom of the British liberal middle classes seems to be that Europe will be our salvation because it has drinkable mid-priced table wine and proportional representation.
But at the same time that the government is leading us further down the route of European integration, it has also been savaging our civil liberties.
And it can be quite difficult to unite, without having something to unite against.
I hope that closer EU ties will mean the Roma people of the accession states can move freely across the continent – but I have no wish to see the strengthening of relations among member countries if it means shoring up our defences against migrants from Africa, Asia or the Middle East.
When we start talking about the EU having not only a constitution, but also a religion, and, indeed, an army, it is getting ideas above its station. I think I preferred it when it was an experiment to see what happens when you dump a lot of butter in the sea.
Source
Housing Today
Postscript
Jeremy Hardy is a comedian and broadcaster
No comments yet