Total Visits

Wednesday, 20 January 2016

English National Anthem Private Members Bill 2016

English National Anthem Private Members Bill 2016

Last week the English Cause took a useful step forward with a Private Member's Bill calling for the official establishment of an English National Anthem passing its First Reading to go onto the Second Reading and all to considerable media interest.

The effect of the Bill getting a Second Reading, which has been scheduled for the 4th March, does not mean that it will in fact become law. The text of the draft Bill can be found here >>> English National Anthem Bill 2015-16 — UK Parliament

Above there is a useful diagram of the legislative process for a Bill relating only to England as this Bill must implicitly do.

It was interesting to see the British National Mass Media reaction. Some of which was reasonable and at least gave us English nationalist activists a chance of making our point. For example here is a link to my interview on Radio Essex >>>

Also here is the BBC Daily Politics discussing the issue with the sponsoring Labour MP for Chesterfield, Mr Toby Perkins.

Watch Melanie Phillips’ reaction which deviates from her usual good sense on a variety of topics including the rising threat of Islamism to European Jews like her and to Israel, here is the link >>>

Melanie Phillips also wrote this article which was perhaps the most vitriolic of the articles against there being official recognition of a specifically English National Anthem. Here is the article:-

“Encouraging each nation to sing to its own song will fuel the rise of divisive nationalism

The Labour MP Toby Perkins has proposed the introduction of an English national anthem for use at sporting events in place of God Save The Queen.

In the Commons on Wednesday, his private member’s bill was granted a second reading. With the exception of the Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, MPs nodded the idea through.

Although such bills have little hope of getting anywhere, this is surely how the UK gets dismembered — by MPs nodding along.

What is being urged upon us is a national anthem for England. But our nation is the UK.

Yes, its component countries have ancient histories and distinct cultural characteristics. But we are none of us citizens of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. We are citizens of the United Kingdom.

Perkins says he is not hostile to God, the Queen or the UK. The Almighty and Her Majesty may be relieved to hear that. Nevertheless, this proposal will make the UK’s break-up more likely.

Perkins says the increase in devolved powers to Scotland means it’s time to establish that the UK is composed of four separate nations. (He implies that Northern Ireland is a separate nation, but let’s not step into that particular minefield.)

He doesn’t seem to realise this will help fragment the British national identity he says he wants to preserve.

The danger of Scottish independence is greatly enhanced by the risk that England will help push Scotland away. Increased powers for Scotland have fuelled the call for an English parliament and a rise in divisive English nationalism. Distinct anthems and flags help to swell that separate sense of identity.

Perkins says that Scotland and Wales have their own anthems in Flower of Scotland and Land of my Fathers. That’s because they have nationalist movements born from their desire to differentiate themselves from England.

England largely defines Britain. When people talk about British characteristics they admire, such as fairness, tolerance, emotional restraint, chivalry, team spirit or old maids cycling to church, they’re talking about England.

As Perkins himself said in the debate, Britain and England are often used synonymously. That’s why England causes such resentment in Scotland and Wales.

It’s because of that English dominance that Scottish or Welsh “national” songs can’t hurt the UK. But if England starts asserting its separate identity, that will be a powerful force for fragmentation.

Advocates of an English anthem say that now Scotland and Wales have abandoned God Save the Queen, England is out of step. Well to put it another way, if the England teams were no longer to sing the national anthem, who would?

The Union Jack, they note, has virtually disappeared from Wembley in favour of the cross of St George when the English football team is playing. But that is surely a matter for alarm and regret. It means the union is fading.

The national anthem is not a team song. It is a statement of allegiance to the Crown, a declaration of loyalty by teams or individual competitors to something bigger than the England they represent. It is an acknowledgment of the ties that bind us all.

Teams reflect the distinct national cultures that make up the UK. These cultures have important parts to play in making up Britain’s national story. The UK binds them together precisely because it sublimates their separate identities. More separateness will only disunite the kingdom.

Maybe, though, it’s just too late to stop this progressive fragmentation. Perkins’ bill is the third parliamentary attempt in recent years to introduce an English anthem.

Jerusalem, with words by William Blake and music by Hubert Parry, was the song chosen by the public for English athletes competing in the 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi. And it’s the favoured candidate for the new anthem.

But this merely illustrates the incoherence of the proposal. For Jerusalem is as much misunderstood as it is (rightly) beloved. If anything, the poem was a satire on nationalism. To all the questions it asked about whether Jesus built Jerusalem in England the answer was emphatically “no”.

Blake, a visionary and prophetic genius, battled the church, the monarchy and the army, denigrated reason and expressed a revolutionary desire to transform England. In 1803 he was charged with having “uttered seditious and treasonable expressions”, although he was acquitted.

Nevertheless, his poem was set to Parry’s stirring music during the First World War at the request of the poet laureate, Robert Bridges, to “brace the spirit of the nation” because he was worried about collapsing morale due to the carnage in the trenches.

It is therefore an anthem claimed by both Corbynistas and conservatives. It is a source not of unity but of ambiguity, argument and division.

The proposal reflects the crisis over British national identity. People no longer know what that is. A national English song won’t tell us.

In his witty contribution to the debate, Jacob Rees-Mogg coyly alluded to the Flanders and Swann song, The English. Its words include these: “The rottenest bits of these islands of ours/ We’ve left in the hands of three unfriendly powers/ Examine the Irishman, Welshman or Scot/You’ll find he’s a stinker as likely as not/ The English the English the English are best/ I wouldn’t give tuppence for all of the rest.”

Here is a link to the original >>> Save our anthem from these knavish tricks | The Times


  1. What the national anthem should be is a trivial matter when our country is being taken over. As the result of the "Red Door scandal" it has been revealed that the establishment is attacking the English in their heartland. It has transpired that more asylum-seekers have been housed in Middlesbrough than in any other part of the country.

    1. The red door scandal. That's about painting the doors a different colour so that people don't throw eggs at them. Has anybody picked up on the EU's determination to scrap the Dublin accord. This will mean that Southern Europe will be able to kick out all their "refugees" and send them to North West Europe including here. I wonder how that will go down in Germany? If that lot in Calais get here we will never be able to send them back but then we never do. George Soros is in Davos. Perhaps somebody should ask him if it is true the he is behind it all. I recommend you all read the Lawrence Auster piece on multiculturalism. I am not saying it was deliberate but obviously it is more comfortable for many Jews not to live in a society vastly dominated by white Christians. This does make it easier for them also to wield power. Whoever, is the majority rules and the way things are going it won't be the English in England.

  2. This silly woman is effectively saying, "If the Scots and Welsh sing their own songs, its all right. Only if the English sing theirs is it "divisive"." Her arguments are so fallacious, one could climb bodily through the holes in them! I like "If the England teams were no longer to sing the National Anthem, who would?" Again it's all right for the Scots and Welsh not to sing it, but not for the English. Then there's "That's because they have nationalist movements borne from their desire to differentiate themselves from England." Scottish nationalism is Ok; Welsh nationalism is OK but English nationalism is "divisive". Her whole stance is that what is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. Rees-Mogg's equally silly speech was equally fallacious for all the same reasons.

  3. Perhaps I should not say this but in light of the Lawrence Auster essay, there is a feeling in my mind that Melanie Phillips prefers British multiculturalism to English nationalism. In 1948, people of non-European stock constituted less than one per cent of the British population. Jews seem to have remained steady at about one per cent. As for the threat from Islamism to Israel there is evidence that Israel is supporting the Al Nusrah Front an affiliate of Al Qaeda. Those in favour of the NWO seem to be using Islamism for their own ends. And it is strange that Jews in France are now stopping wearing the kippah for fear of attack and yet this is happening. The feeling is that some of their own can be sacrificed for the greater goal.

    But we have even worse things to worry about, Damian McBride, former economic advisor to Gordon Brown was on Russia Today commenting on the fact that the Baltic Dry Index, the behaviour of which is a bellwether for world economic performance, is at its lowest level ever. This means that the now predicted world-wide economic collapse will be the worst ever with China also in the doldrums. The outcome, accord to McBride, will be that the banks may have to close and people will be unable to access money and buy food and there will be wholescale civil unrest all across Europe and the US. Doubtless, that will be the point when the euroarmy moves in from the Continent to introduce martial law as Teresa May, doubtless in on the plan, is cutting the police in the name of austerity as if there was no tomorrow. Already the EU has passed a law allowing bail-ins so that the banks can go into your account as on Cyprus and help themselves to your money. As all is controlled electronically and no longer backed by gold, the money in the bank is just a matter of what they decide. I have been advised to stock up with food. In Davos they are petrified of a terrorist attack. But it is not just Islamists they should fear but so many who are angry with them.

    On Worlds Apart on RT we discovered why so many of the "refugees" are single young men. That is because nobody would let the women travel with them but kept them in the camps in the Middle East or those women would have been raped or trafficked.
    Because of Sweden's lax asylum policy, Sweden now has the largest male to female excess population in the world, 123 to 100, higher even than China. Under those circumstances, angry and frustrated young men brought up to disrespect women do what they are doing, gang rape. 77% of the rapes in Sweden are carried out by 2% of the population. Sweden is in a cleft stick. Either they allow the families to join the men, thus quadrupling or more the immigrant population or they have to choose between rape or "racism" i.e. send the young men back to where they came from.

    Those who are behind all this, the Marxists and their financier backers, are said to have studied the fall of the Roman Empire in the 1920s with a view to emulating it. The Roman Empire fell because of economic collapse and mass immigration/ invasion. Does this sound familiar? And other aims were wiping out Christianity and the sexualizing of children. So they are well on course. Can't see how we get out of the mess they have created for their own perverted psychotic ends without mass bloodshed. But that may be part of the plan, as with World Wars 1 and 2 and Stalin's Russia, to reduce the European population. And it may be through mass starvation as well. In view of the foregoing, as much as we want it, worrying about an English national anthem may be a bit of a luxury.