Englishness is a misnomer. One is English, one does not have 'Englishness'.
The very question of Englishness has only arisen as the socialist policies of the European Elite have reached the state whereby it is now not only apparent, but in full public view that disposing of England is a necessary part of the European project. Getting the public to define their Englishness is a satirical political ploy and holds no intrinsic value, merely a distraction away from more important matters such as the European Constitution.
UK government and European psychologists will all know that if you ask 100 people what they want (on about almost any subject, not just politics), 95 of them will begin their response by telling you what they don't want. Very few people actually know what they do want, and the colleagues use this knowledge of human nature very effectively as a weapon.
If the European project is to succeed, to create a new super state, then the nationalist pride inherent to each of the member states needs to be broken down and recreated in a form that is compatible as part of the new European identity.
The European project has been tried many times before, most notably in near history by Napoleon and Hitler, and very nearly Stalin. In each case it had fallen to England and her United Kingdom partners to halt the spread of the single European dream. (Many foreigners refer to the UK/Britain as England)
This time the European project would be fought by political means not military might, it would be a slow drip fed affair employing the salami method, slicing away at national sovereignty one treaty at a time until a critical tipping point was reached. That tipping point is now here, and so established into everyday politics is the European machine that none of the political parties have the will left to fight it.
The latest iteration of that dream, the EU, began life 50 years ago, and from the very beginning it was clearly understood that if there was any chance for success this time round, it would be necessary to destroy not just the UK, by setting at work divisive policies that would eventually break the UK Union, but to diminish England itself, to relegate it to mere regions, never to be named again.
We clearly see this being enacted already by the ruling Labour party in the UK, who now only refer to Scotland, Wales and the regions. In governmental terms England has already been abolished, but the public backlash to this has shocked even the best of the spin doctors, taking them by surprise.
The need therefore sprang up to divert attention, quickly cobbled together, we had the announcements of the need to define 'Britishness', to redefine that which we already had, which was to be taught as propaganda in our schools to indoctrinate our youth to believe the rewriten history.
This move quickly fell upon stony ground as the West Lothian Question reared its ugly head to the further embarrassment of the colleagues.
So now to further divert attention government tell us that it is Englishness which the colleagues are pushing as the definition that we should all aspire to.
I repeat as I began, One is English. It is a statement, not a definition.
If however I was asked to describe an England that I would like around me, then I too would be hard pushed to put into clearly definable terms what it is that I want, but would probably say that my country would be one that incorporates a value base that is English in its history, not the now, a moral sense of duty to country not just self, of justice and to a degree of a chivalry that is uniquely English, and still subtly employed today by our troops overseas.
An England that would restate the law of precedence, which we have carefully honed over the past 1000 years and has served us well against the test of time. Law which is based upon Innocence until proven guilty, on Habeas Corpus, a law which protects the weak against the mighty, the individual against the state, law which is just, fair and free from political control and interference.
An England that condones respect, for the person and property, by consensus not legislation (because I want to, not because I have to). An England that allows me to exercise my right to undertake any profession or activity, of fair play without let or hindrance unless I impinge upon others free rights. An England that believes in enterprise, innovation and promotion through endeavour and the taking of risks, both personal and fiscal.
These things are not something that anyone should legislate, to write into law, and to attempt to undertake such a political exercise would only prove the madness of the situation we now find ourselves in.
We can however repeal, to reverse the impositions of the past 10 years, to take us back to an England that is still there, just hiding under the political surface.
An England that just awaits the right leader. A description unfortunately that does not fit any of our current political opposition.
We would of course like to do this within the framework of the United Kingdom, but it is becoming increasingly clear that Scotland has decided to go its own way, Wales would like to do so, therefore it is England who must again stand alone in Europe.
A nation proud just in its being, confident in its belief of self, probably best summed up by the famous phrase “Fog in the Channel, Europe cut off”
And, If at the end of the day we must formulate a new Bill of Rights, then may I suggest THIS.