I see that Norman Tebbit is raising the spectre of his cricket test a decade after first proposing it. I found the concept quaint the first time around and no less so now. The idea being that someone who comes to this country to live should demonstrate their “Britishness” by supporting the national cricket team of their adopted country rather than the national team of the nation they have left behind. Not only is this over simplistic; as someone who was born here and lived my whole life here, I would fail the test. I do not support any of the national sporting teams and have no plans to; it is also missing a very big point about what constitutes “Britishness”.
The problem is one of defining “Britishness”. The archetypal Englishman is a product of his ancestry. His genes contain a hotch potch of DNA from centuries of immigrants who settled here whether through invasion, marriage or simply economic migration. Ours is a country of immigrants and the true Englishman is the final outcome. So what is Britishness? Celt, Roman, Viking, Saxon, Norman or more recent additions to the gene pool from Asia and Africa?
It is arguable that immigrants should seek to integrate into the indigenous population. While the first generation may not readily do so, successive generations will and will bring with them their own contribution to the rich fabric of society. Certainly it is a fair point to argue that people who make their homes here should have some empathy with the country and its people. If not, why come here? I would not be planning to make my home in France if I hated the French and their way of life. However, when sitting around the kitchen table, it is unlikely that my wife and I will be conversing in French.
I don’t give a flying fig whether or not people support the Indian national cricket team, the Pakistani team or the English one; it really doesn’t matter. The movement of labour is as necessary for our economic survival as is the movement of goods; a point those who rail against economic migrants conveniently choose to forget. Indeed, we are encouraged to deride and deplore economic migration. Whether migrants display British qualities is neither here nor there; what matters is that they are useful members of our society. If they come here to make homes and work, then they fulfill that requirement – and that, surely is enough.
—–