The Death of the Channel

For most of her modern history, England's channel guarded her shores from the military and cultural influences of France and the greater continent. Patrolled by the greatest navy in its day, the Channel was more than a mere physical barrier; it was a political and social barrier.

The invention of the airplane changed it all. What would have previously required a naval crossing and beachfront invasion could be accomplished by aeronautical vessels unfettered by terrestrial impediments. As soon as 1910, foreign nations set about deciding how to carve England up; for her fall was all but inevitable.

Though the tide was turned in World War I and England's destiny as a Deutsches Schutzgebiet was set aside for the moment, it was to be a temporary respite. The Battle of Britain in 1940 showed exactly how death could be rained from the air. The military and civilian casualties of the Blitz need no elaboration. And the advent of the V1 and invincible V2 rockets foreshadowed an era when foreign militaries would no longer have to invest human capital in their bombardments. Though England eventually defeated Germany with the help of Canadians and Americans, the lesson had been learned. The legacy of Blériot's voyage had come home to roost.

Since then, the Channel has seen innumerable insults to its once proud heritage. Commercial ferry crossings became routine, and in 1994, construction was completed on the Channel-Tunnel ("Chunnel"), connecting Paris to London by train. Fears of convoys of French soldiers arriving at night had delayed the tunnel's construction for more than a century, as had the acumen of the visionary Thatcher administration. But at last, the Channel no longer presented even a barrier to terrestrial vehicles; cars and trains carrying Frenchmen and other nationalities pour onto the shores of England today unimpeded.

It is clear what must be done. The Channel must be again restored to its proper role: dividing England from the Continent and such deleterious influences as monetary union and federal police-state jurisdiction.

All aeronautical intercourse between England and the Continent must be stopped, lest another Blériot give way to a Napoleon. Drawing from the architectural genius of American presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan, England must build a sea wall against the waves of immigration rolling over our shores". An enormous cement wall twenty kilometers tall and resting on pylons driven deep into the chalk of the Channel floor would deter the approach of uninvited aircraft. All naval vessels docking at England would be first diverted to the United States in a form of reverse colonial mercantilism, ensuring that all Continental vessels be first defused by the diligence of England's chief ally. The Chunnel would be severed without fanfare or apology. It's just that simple.

How many more Englishmen must be lost to the meddling of European forces before these most sensible of steps be taken? In a mockery of Rupert Brooke's triumphant verses, will our grandchildren find nary a corner of an English field that is forever England? Will the assimilationist forces of the European Union at last extinguish the final breath of Anglo-Saxonry dating back to the Norman invaders and beyond?

Blair! Put up that wall!

	Well... (none / 0) (#2)
	by doofus on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 05:15:05 PM PST

	Perhaps your "Churchill Wall" idea can be extended (figuratively as well as literally). It must reach higher since you are still vulnerable to satellite fly-overs, and circumferentially, since none of the rest of world wants anything to do with you crooked toothed, overbite-prone, in-bred, homosexual Brits to begin with. And do make sure to not have any portholes, doorways, emergency exits or any other euphemistically named escape hatches, please.

	I might agree... (none / 0) (#4)
	by Murph on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 04:19:28 AM PST

	Here's a quick joke... Paddy englishman and paddy irishman, are walking along a beach one day and happen upon an ancient lamp. Ovbiously the first thing they do is rub it and out pops a genie. The genie turns to them and says. "I am the genie of this bottle. I shall grant you one wish each". The englishman pipes up "Any wish we desire?. Well I've always thought that england should remain purely english. None of these foreigners are going to take my job. I'd like a impregnable wall erected all around england, 20 kilometers high and 10 kilometers thick!" The genie says "It is done. England shall forever remain english". And the englishman was well pleased. The irishman thought for a moment. Then asked "This wall is 20 kilometers high and 10 kilometers thick?" The genie replied "Yes, it is." The irishman then asked "And nothing can get in or out?" To which the genie replied "Absolutely nothing." "Fill the fucker in." Just remember cultural dosn't lead to purity, just to stagnation and introvertness. The greatest advances arise from cultural clashes whatever the form.

	No you are wrong. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
	by dmg on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 08:42:38 AM PST

	The greatest advances arise from cultural clashes whatever the form. The result of cultural clashes is that violence and force win through against other forces. For example, the British extermination of a 50000 year old aborininal culture in Australia. The world would be a far better place if for example us Americans took a more insular outlook. I don't need to explain any more, do I ? time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	the clash. (none / 0) (#11)
	by Murph on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 10:21:30 AM PST

	The result of cultural clashes is that violence and force win through against other forces. Not necessarily. I imagine that when you're talking about violence and force that it is colonization is what you have in mind. When a superior (in terms of size and advancement, not necessarily 'better') culture comes into contact with a less advanced culture it's inevitable that the smaller be overrun. I'd like to disagree, but it's inevitable (I'm not even speaking my so called national language).Historically this would have occurred by colonization which results in all manner of problems. 'Culture clashes', while it does imply it, dosn't mean colonization. Culture clashes are a lot more subtle and invasive these days. Since media and mass transport allow the quick and 'free' dissemination of ideas and ideals. But I've been putting all of this in a negative light. Think of the extreme alternative. Cultures that coexist with no cross 'contamination'. I hate to say it but we'd all still be living in caves. A brief example The greeks got their best ideas from the persians. Didn't use them to their full extent. And were colonized by the romans The romans got their best ideas from the greeks. Used those ideas for 400 years, then became insular and lazy, relying on other nations to provide slaves and soldiers, and were colonized by barbarians Every other nation in europe (well most anyway) gained because of this little transfer of ideas. And I'd find it hard to belive that europe would've had any part in world history except for this cross cultural 'contamination'. Murph

	Not even the Brits want that... (4.00 / 1) (#5)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 06:03:14 AM PST

	They're too busy crossing the channel to get cheap liquor and beer....and aside from that, your plan would be very injurious to the citizenry of the UK....instead of venting their inferiority complexes through football hooliganism on unsuspecting Turks or Portuguese, they'd be forced to fight each other; forcing the National Health into even further financial straits and wrecking the already fragile economy. But maybe we should try your plan on the Canadian border.

	England vs. UK (1.00 / 1) (#6)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 07:12:33 AM PST

	Check out the map - not a great one, but it will do - at Lonely Planet. Take a good close look at "England" and then look at Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland. They are ALL part of the "United Kingdom". The UK defeated the Axis powers in World War 2, not England. England is not an island but is part of one. The island of Great Britain. With those clarifications, I will leave it to others to argue that your point is xenophobic and economic suicide for a country whose majority exports are to Europe :)

	Stop spewing propaganda and examine the facts. (none / 0) (#7)
	by dmg on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 08:34:55 AM PST

	I could direct you to any number of websites which will tell you the truth about the European stealth fascism project, but here a just a few for starters: Pro-Europe arguments answered Diseased money Euro FAQ Who governs Britain ? UK Independence party European Union Follies and Myths The Silent Majority Campaign for an Independent Britain The Truth about Europe Economists against the Euro Eurocritic web magazine Drive the flag - direct action protest UK Green party joins anti-Euro campaign Euro-Sceptic.org - keeping the debate alive. Free nations in danger I hope these links will provide you with a bit of background information, most of it does not come from the EUs enormous propaganda machine, so don't be surprised if you find some of the information shocking. The truth is, the EU does not want you to investigate it. In reality the Euro common currency is a tool for promoting the Fascist Supra-State of the EU. Please, do not be taken in by the propaganda... time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Why are you fighting propaganda with propaganda? (none / 0) (#9)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 09:31:07 AM PST

	My main point was to clarify to the author the distinction between the UK and England. However, my final comment warrants explanation given your response. Far from being taken in by the propaganda, I am not at all comfortable with the idea of a single European currency. My point is that, as you would expect of a country a short train ride from continental Europe, most of our trade is with that continent. Your links are as much spewing propaganda as mine, but you can see that trade with Europe relies on an easily accessible single market. Whether the single market requires the UK to become even more integrated, in the form of a single European currency, is debateable. Fact is, the UK is going to be hard pressed to vote Yes in the Euro-referendum anyway. I am convinced the country is populated with huge numbers of xenophobes who would no sooner vote for the Euro than they would vote for the Fourth Reich. (Still obsessed with the war, apparently.) Yes, there are people who are educated in politics and economics enough to argue and vote No on that platform, but the reason for a 'No' vote among large portions of the population would not be economic or trade related but based on sentimental or anti-foreign values. We're in Europe regardless of the Euro and to pull out, as the UKIP would have us, is blindly following the rhetoric of a party who are so ideologically close to the far-right British National Party that a merger was proposed back in 2000. I'll have that no more than I'll have the Euro.

	The English are sceptical for good reason. (none / 0) (#10)
	by bc on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 10:16:25 AM PST

	the reason for a 'No' vote among large portions of the population would not be economic or trade related but based on sentimental or anti-foreign values. Why do you assume that scepticism must be racist or xenophobic in nature? To understand the difference in enthusiasm in England, you have to look deeper than this simplistic liberal posturing. You have to look at the English experience through the millennia, and how this differs from the experience of Europeans. The first difference in the English psychology is fairly obvious - the English have always been able to take their homeland security for granted, unlike Europeans. The English have never feared foreign invasion (at least not since 1066). The island mentality of the English is not a drawback, it is their greatest strength. It means they approach other cultures, and other countries, not with fear, but with curiosity, open mindedness, and scepticism. The Europeans naturally fear other cultures. The entire motivation of the European project is to prevent the sort of conflagerations that raged through the continent in the earlier part of the 20th century. The island of England has always been free of such fears. When Hitler's panzer divisions were 25 miles across the channel from the last island of freedom in Europe, they may as well have been a million miles away. Not for England the barbarous continental approach to governance. For this is another way in which the Europe and England diverge. England is very much the home of Liberty. Secure in its own Realm, it has been free to develop an open approach to governance, Society and Church. While the continentals have historically laboured under some tyrant or another, with their Napoleons and Hitlers and Popes and Kaisers, swapping tyrants around between themselves like pokemon playing cards, England has steered a steady course to parliamentary democracy, Rule of Law, free market capitalism, and an open society. Indeed, it was the English who invented the world's first non-ethnic identity - 'British' - which accepted the Scotch-Welch into the English realm. If only the continentals had been able to seperate ethnicity from citizenship, many wars and cleansings may never have happened. But they don't seem to learn, as many a third generation German 'Turk' may be able to tell you. The European project lies in the grand tradition of European governance. The English are well aware that they are different from us. Where we have had Freedom, Democracy and steady progress, they have suffered under first one tyrant, then another. It is no wonder that the European project ignores the views of Europeans (70% of Germans have always opposed the single currency, for example, but of course they were never asked about joining. Their politicians decided for them, and all over continental Europe the same is true.) For them, ignorance is natural. But the English look down and see this catastrophe in the making, this descent into a unitary dictatorship of beaurocracy and Big Money, and want no part of it. I say to you, Mr Anonymous Reader, that you may prefer to bandy about accusations of xenophobia and racism, but the plain fact is that the English reject Europe, and all its 19th century style Talleyrandian nonsense, absolutely and completely for reasons of historical and wise judgement unconsciously held and agreed upon by everyone who considers himself an Englishman and a gentleman. ♥, bc.

	Great lesson of history, psychology, etc... (none / 0) (#12)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 11:42:24 AM PST

	But seeing the results, you'll understand why continentals europeans are not much impressed. I loved the part about open approach, steady progress of democracy, first non-ethnic identity, and the continentals unable to seperate ethnicity from citizenship, the third generation turk in Germany. Really. Let's forget the skinheads, the pakibashing, Brixton, Notting Hill, the brotherly love everyone in UK had for their fellow citizens from indian origin fleeing the Uganda of Idi Amin Dada (ah! Those cheers. Oh! That welcome).

	I say sir! (none / 0) (#21)
	by Mr Somebody on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 06:10:39 AM PST

	no need for that sort of provocation! I'm not going to rise to it anyway, as I know full well that we Brits do have a bad image problem, and justly deserved in a lot of cases. I'm almost nostalgic for the days when we were just 'Bowler hatted city types' or cockney chimney sweeps. I'm all in favour of Europe. I think we will join eventually. If England doesn't, then I'm sure Scotland will, and maybe Wales will break away too. I'm also with you on prefering the Celtic fringe of Britain! I suppose that makes me an English apologist. I could spend my whole life apoligising for the inadequacies of my countrymen, but I won't here. All I ask is you take us as you find us individualy - we're not all booze soaked soccer yobs! They are unfortunately just the most visible portion of our populace abroad, usually on holiday or watching football, drinking far too much alcohol in both cases! Although terrible ambassadors for England they are a small percentage of the population.

	The German example is very pertinent (none / 0) (#13)
	by dmg on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 01:42:52 PM PST

	Until very recently, Turks born in Germany had no chance of becoming German citizens, due to Germany's racist naturalization laws. They have changed them very recently. The UK on the other hand had a virtual open-door immigration policy until the late 1970's. Racism exists in all societies, but one has to admit, the goose-stepping Nazi Germans and collaborationist French take some beating for their sheer overt racism, whereas the British simply don't like foreigners in general (of whatever race), which has less to do with racism than their 'island mentality' under which any outside influence is seen as suspect. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Bleh! (5.00 / 1) (#15)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 05:16:19 PM PST

	dmg, you are boring. Your obsessions are hiding too much of your immense intelligence. I'm waiting for you in the 21st century.

	Importation. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
	by walwyn on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 02:35:45 PM PST

	with their Napoleons and Hitlers and Popes and Kaisers There are of course no English equivalents of coup d'�tat, junta, or agent provocateur, such terms like fellatio and cunnilingusare entirely foreign to the English tongue.

	Just remember (5.00 / 1) (#16)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 11:44:33 AM PST

	The UK independence Party got just 1.48% of the vote at the last election. Need I say more?

	Well.... (none / 0) (#18)
	by 91degrees on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 07:20:04 AM PST

	Need I say more? Well, you could always analyse it in context of having an effective two party system, as well as the fact that there are a number of factors determining who one should choose to vote for, Europe being just one of these.

	Sir Jammy Fishpaste would roll in his grave. (none / 0) (#19)
	by because it isnt on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 08:36:45 AM PST

	[...] as well as the fact that there are a number of factors determining who one should choose to vote for, Europe being just one of these. So, you're saying a one-trick-pony party like the UKIP didn't get a large share of the vote because the Tweedles Dee and Dum sucked up all the votes? Nonsense. The SNP has 20.1% of the Scottish Parliament vote, despite also only having one goal; i.e. the independence of Scotland. The reason the SNP does well is because it actually has some political substance behind its ideologies. The UKIP are basically a bunch of good-for-nothing backstabbing whiny twats that couldn't win an election even if everybody in the country was a raging europhobe. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	My dear Chuck, (none / 0) (#20)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 07:40:00 AM PST

	Speaking as a proudly independent European, I think it's time for the Brits to decide once and for all, if they want to be a part of Europe or not. It's quite obvious that we, Europeans, are <b>sick and tired</b> of pleading with the British, this stupid nation of gay, repressed, intellectually-limited shopkeepers and beancounters, these ugly, effeminate, prideful, idiotic nationalist hooligans and drunkards to join Europe. We don't want them, after all. <b>Period</b>. Personally, I am so sick of the stupidity of British politicians, kow-towing to the murderous policies of the Bush moron, of British tourists getting drunk and violent in the first bar they see on "the Continent", behaving as if they were the masters of Europe, and I am sincerely disgusted by their constant Anglo-Saxon "we are superior, so let's behave like pricks"-style of racism. These people have lost any hint of decency since 1945 and their reduction to ass-licking US slaves and have now more in common with the Nazi Germany they fought so gallantly than with the European nations they helped liberate. Instead of independence, they have chosen slavery to a country which is quickly sliding, some would even say degenerating, into theocratic fascism and imperialism. The british truly are nothing more than a funny-speaking tribe of foot soldiers for the mighty US war machine. If only they could disappear into the cess-pool their USA masters are going to slide in when their decadence is (finally) completed. If Scots and Welsh, the best part of the UK, want to join the EU on their own termns, by all means admit them as independent nations, but keep the degenerate Brits out. Let them interbreed, that's what they like doing and what they have been doing for several decades now. No wonder they are still the most stuck-up nation in the world, people who need three pints of extra-strong lager in them before they can contemplate any sort of normal sexual activity or discussion. This, of course, is written in the spirit of your original post: humor. Oh, wait, I forgot, <b>real</b> English people have no sense of humor whatsoever. Never mind... Then again, with a name like "Chuck", you are probably not even British, more probably American -- aping like the decadent mokey that you are a once-proud nation. Feel free to flame! =)