Over the last few decades, national identity has had a serious image problem. It’s been conflated with nationalism which, as we all know, is responsible for bad things such as prejudice, racism and war. If you want to stop prejudice, racism and war, went the thinking, you’ve got to get rid of nationalism. And to get rid of nationalism, you’ve got to get rid of the nation.

The idea of the nation had to be superseded by the ideal of the brotherhood of man. That’s why we’ve seen the rise in authority of supra-national institutions and laws such as the UN, the International Criminal Court, international law itself and of course the European Union.

Indeed, the foundational idea behind the EU project was that after Nazism and the Holocaust the nations of Europe, particularly Germany, couldn’t be trusted ever again not to fight and kill people. Bind them all together in an overarching superstate, it was thought, and that problem would be solved.

Well, that really wasn’t a good idea at all. People want to live in groups called nations which govern themselves. Nations are far better than tribal societies because nations bind tribes and groups together in a shared national project. And it’s only the western nation which binds people together in a shared national project based on the ideals of liberty, collective responsibility, one law for all, free institutions and democracy.

So the EU agenda was in fact nothing other than an all-out attack on democracy. And as we can all see, there’s now a great uprising of the people against that denial of democracy and for the restoration of the independent nation. In Britain, this uprising took the form of Brexit, the people’s vote in last June’s referendum for Britain to exit the EU. And in mainland Europe, similar movements for the recovery and defence of national identity are threatening to up-end politics both in countries such as France or the Netherlands and in the EU itself.

Brexit, you might say, has let the genie of national identity out of the bottle. But this is raising some complicated questions in the home of Brexit itself. Brexit expresses the desire for independent self-government by a sovereign state based on the history, institutions and cultural ties that constitute a nation. Great Britain is actually a confederation of three ancient nations: England, Wales and Scotland. The UK is a super-confederation of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So if national aspirations are now thought desirable for the UK, what about the national aspirations of its constituent parts? Do all national identities have equal status? What happens when one is in direct competition with another?

Scotland says it is a nation. Republicans in Northern Ireland say Britain dismembered their nation of Ireland which they want to unify again. Are these claims to national identity valid? If so, where does that leave the UK?

These questions are now starting to take centre stage in Britain. In Scotland, which voted in a referendum in 2014 to stay in the UK, the Scottish nationalist leader Nicola Sturgeon is demanding a second independence referendum on the grounds that, contrary to the English, the Scottish people voted last June to remain in the EU by 62% to 38%. In Northern Ireland, a surge by the nationalists to within one seat of the Unionists after a divisive Northern Ireland Assembly election has revived the spectre of a united Ireland – the reunification of the north with the Irish republic south of the border. And this is now being given a further rhetorical push by the jubilant nationalists on the grounds that the people of Northern Ireland also voted to remain in the EU.

It’s strange, isn’t it, that the Scottish and Northern Irish nationalists want to leave the UK in order to remain in Europe. In other words, they want to reclaim powers from Westminster in order to surrender them to Brussels. Of course they don’t see it like that. The EU, which concentrates power in Brussels while reducing nations to the status of provinces, is conversely regarded by weak nations and provinces as a way of boosting their status and income.

But what is a nation? The historians Linda Colley and Benedict Anderson famously declared the nation to be no more than an artificial construct or “imagined community.” In this post-modern formulation, the nation could therefore arbitrarily be either declared or dissolved.

The nation is not, however, artificial or imagined. It is solidly rooted in a group of people united by different things at different times: geography, language, law, religion, ethnicity, history, institutions, culture.

The UK is an extraordinarily complex web of identities: civic, ethnic, cultural, geographic. As the historian Jonathan Clark wrote in his book Our Shadowed Present: “Britain was not invented; it developed”.

The pattern of this development has been “the resilience of a diverse and plural system of identities”. Englishness, however, came to stand proxy for all the communities of the British Isles. Even Edmund Burke, although a loyal Irishman, wrote of himself as an Englishman rather than describe himself as British.

pt 2.
Being an island "state" also, Australia has evolved its own culture, even though the Multicultists and many "new" Australians deny it...  These people have come here under Muticulturalism where their cultural identity is given pre-emminence, they share the cultural elitism and cultural cringe with the so called Progressives and elitists and internationalists.  They all would see us as a cultural non-entity with no Australian values and no Australian culture.  They have pushed Multiculturalism in an effort to eradicate the Australian identity.
Bringing people here who cannot and will not assimilate is detrimental to our Australian society.

It is the Australian character that has allowed Multiculti to exist as long as it has...  TOLERANCE, PATIENCE, OUR EASY GOING NATURE.

The speech that followed, however, may have surprised supporters of her policies: "Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies and therefore remains a ‘life lie,’ ” or a sham, she said, before adding that Germany may be reaching its limits in terms of accepting more refugees. "The challenge is immense," she said. "We want and we will reduce the number of refugees noticeably."

Although those remarks may seem uncharacteristic of Merkel, she probably would insist that she was not contradicting herself. In fact, she was only repeating a sentiment she first voiced several years ago when she said multiculturalism in Germany had "utterly failed."

"Of course the tendency had been to say, 'Let's adopt the multicultural concept and live happily side by side, and be happy to be living with each other.' But this concept has failed, and failed utterly," she said in 2010.

In comments The Guardian translated into English, Merkel said refugees will have to make an effort to assimilate into German society. She also dismissed the idea of multiculturalism, which in parts of Europe is associated with a policy of encouraging distinct cultural groups to live in separate communities.

“Those who seek refuge with us also have to respect our laws and traditions, and learn to speak German,” she said. “Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies, and therefore multiculturalism remains a grand delusion.”

It also exposes the growing cracks in the German chancellor's power base as her approval ratings plummet and members of her own movement begin to openly question her stance on immigration.

In an interview with newspaper Die Welt, Mr Scheuer raged: "We cannot tolerate a situation in which extremist views are imported from abroad. Europe must cultivate its own Islam.

“All imams need to be trained in Germany and share our core values.

“Those who are not integrated cannot stay here. We must put an end to this integration romance. Multiculturalism has failed. Those who are not integrated, must expect departure [from Germany].”

British Prime Minister David Cameron declared: “Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries… We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.”

David Cameron launched a devastating attack today on 30 years of multiculturalism in Britain, warning it is fostering extremist ideology and directly contributing to home-grown Islamic terrorism.

Signalling a radical departure from the strategies of previous governments, Mr Cameron said that Britain must adopt a policy of "muscular liberalism" to enforce the values of equality, law and freedom of speech across all parts of society.

He warned Muslim groups that if they fail to endorse women's rights or promote integration, they will lose all government funding. All immigrants to Britain must speak English and schools will be expected to teach the country's common culture.

Mr Cameron blamed a doctrine of "state multiculturalism" which encourages different cultures to live separate lives. This, he says, has led to the "failure of some to confront the horrors of forced marriage". But he added it is also the root cause of radicalisation which can lead to terrorism.

As I have told you numerous times before, Geoff, "Multiculturalism" is a label. 


What lies underneath it various greatly from country to country as a policy. 


The mechanisms by which it is adopted and maintained are different as well. 

German Multiculturalism is different to Police Multiculturalism compared to French, UK, American and Australian versions of the same name.   You cannot apply lessons from other jurisdictions to Australia because Australian policies and mechanism have been very different to those other nations.


Of course to you, its the label that matters so much more than the reality, isn't it, Geoff?


As for "no one wanting Multiculturalism" the only party that has ever run with an anti-Multiculturalism policy did how well when it ran in 1998? 

The PHONies proved that they were unpopular. 

Each of the other political parties has run with a Multicultural policy since it was adopted in what, 1972?  None of them has used anti-Multiculturalism as a policy. 

Only the PHONies did and we all know how well they went in 1998 and since, now don't we?  How many votes did they get in WA again?  Tsk, tsk.  Stop with your bullshit, please.   

Beautifully written rubbish is still rubbish.