Parliament Seeks to Abolish the English

On the previous census, there was already provision for British citizens who were not indigenous, with individuals recorded under categories such as “Black British” or “Asian British.” The difference here is that “British” is not an ethnicity; it is a nationality. Britain is, of course, a union of nations, though the terms Britain and the United Kingdom are often used somewhat interchangeably. Strictly speaking, Great Britain refers to the mainland (England, Scotland, and Wales), while the United Kingdom is the shortened name for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which includes both the mainland and Northern Ireland. Previously, the whole of Ireland was also part of the United Kingdom, until the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty on December 6th, 1921, led to the establishment of the Irish Free State on December 6th, 1922. Later, on April 18th, 1949, the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 officially came into effect, declaring Ireland a full republic and ending its remaining membership of the British Commonwealth.

It is important to understand what ethnicity is. Merriam-Webster defines it as an “ethnic quality or affiliation” and specifies that an ethnic group relates to “large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background.” It is also important to note that ethnic groups exist as part of larger racial groups. Race is a classification system that groups people into broad categories based on shared physical traits born from biological differences and deep, shared ancestry. In modern census classifications, such as those in the UK, people with ancestral roots in Europe are grouped under the broad racial category of “White.” Ethnicity, on the other hand, takes the biological traits found within a wider racial group and then adds shared cultural traits, such as language, history, traditions, religion, and geographic ancestry. The English ethnic group formed over centuries through the blending of early Brittonic Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, and Normans into a unified identity with a distinct language and national culture.

England was first unified as a nation in 927 AD by King Æthelstan, and as such, the English people have existed for well over a thousand years. The English are not a modern creation nor are they an administrative classification; they possess not only a long and storied history, but also a deep and undeniable connection to England as their ancestral homeland. What is more, the founding populations that coalesced into the “English” were all of European descent – and as such, they would all be referred to as “White” when looking to assign them a racial designation. Those groups came together, went on to adopt a shared religion, developed a shared language, and gave birth to a distinct and complex culture that was unique to them, while still sharing broader characteristics – including biological traits – with other European ethnic groups of a common racial background.

It is therefore clear: the English are a distinct and individual ethnic group with a common racial, national, cultural, and linguistic background that belongs to a wider racial group of people of European descent, for which the shorthand term is “White.” Consequently, there is no debate: the English are “White.” This is neither exclusionary nor racist; it is merely a statement of fact. Similarly, there are three major ethnic groups in Nigeria: the Hausa-Fulani, the Yoruba, and the Igbo. All of these ethnic groups belong to a larger racial classification represented in shorthand by the word “Black,” meaning of sub-Saharan African descent. To state that the Yoruba are “Black” is also not racist – it is simply a statement of fact that no one would deny. However, the new proposal put before Parliament seeks to argue that the English are not “White” and are in fact multiracial, effectively abolishing the English as a meaningful ethnic classification.

Taking all this into account, not only is the new proposal for the census built upon a wholly incorrect set of definitions which effectively erase the English as an ethnic group, but it is also unnecessary as a form of representation. For those who are of mixed race or mixed ethnic origin there are a number of definitions already in place on the current census. On the last census the option of “Mixed or Multiple ethnic groups” was present, and this included the following sub-options: “White and Black Caribbean,” “White and Black African, “ and “Any other Mixed / Multiple ethnic background” which then included a write-in option so that the individual filling out the form could describe their background in their own words. This allowed a true and accurate representation of those who were of mixed heritage, even allowing an individual to put forward their own description rather than simply being confined to strict and rigid options. As a result of this, it is fair to say that the British census was fully inclusive and neither corralled those who completed it into narrow one-size-fits-all definitions or omitted any specific ethnicity.

This prompts the question: exactly who is backing this proposed change, and why? The proposer, as mentioned earlier, is Josh Babarinde, and he is backed by a cross-party group of MPs from the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. These MPs are; David Lammy, Sir James Cleverly, Adam Jogee, Ben Obese-Jecty, Victoria Collins, Munira Wilson, Layla Moran, and Mark Pritchard. Looking at each of these MPs separately, several characteristics can be observed of the group as a whole:

• Josh Babarinde (Liberal Democrats) is mixed-race, of Nigerian and English heritage.
• David Lammy (Labour) is Black British, of Guyanese descent.
• Sir James Cleverly (Conservative) is mixed-race, of Sierra Leonean and English heritage.
• Adam Jogee (Labour) is Black British, of Jamaican and Zimbabwean heritage.
• Ben Obese-Jecty (Conservative) is mixed-race, of Ghanaian and English heritage.
• Victoria Collins (Liberal Democrats) is of Chinese-Malaysian descent.
• Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrats) is British Indian, of East African Indian heritage.
• Layla Moran (Liberal Democrats) is mixed-race, of Palestinian and British heritage.
• Mark Pritchard (Conservative) is White British.

Of the nine MPs backing the proposed changes, only one would have been classed as “White British” on the last census, and as a result, only one could be classified as English. However, on the subject of Mark Pritchard, after a small amount of research, his original name was Mark Mallon – the name Mallon being of Irish Gaelic origin primarily originating from County Tyrone and County Armagh in Norther Ireland – meaning that while he is indeed White British, he is unlikely to be English. Further to this, all the MPs backing the proposal sit within establishment parties that purport to hold different political positions, yet are united on this issue. As such, this is clearly an attempt to redefine what it means to be English that is spearheaded by an establishment coalition made up of individuals who are not themselves English.

Effectively, these MPs, through this new legal definition, aim to do away with the English as an ethnic group. They wish to completely divorce race and shared ancestry from the term “English,” thereby creating a system whereby anyone living in England can simply tick a box and become English on a whim. Should the proposed bill pass into law, “English” would become a fluid term that was no longer tied to biological traits or linked to family history; English would cease to be a product of birth and become a matter of choice. As stated earlier, none of this is necessary as a form of inclusion, as those filling out the census can write in their own ethnicity or race, and those moving to the UK can apply for citizenship, something that was never conferred by the term “English.” Historically, British citizenship could be attained by a migrant during a process that should theoretically take some time; however, if this proposal was to be passed, it would immediately give anyone the right to declare themselves as “English” without any formal process or barrier to entry. This would obviously set a number of worrying legal precedents.

The first worrying precedent presents somewhat of an irony: while a migrant could indeed gain British citizenship and effectively, from a legal perspective, become “British,” English on the other hand is an ethnic characteristic, and as such is present at birth, and entirely dependent on an individual’s ancestry. Under this new legislation, being English would be reduced to a mere feeling that was subject to change and would no longer be linked in any meaningful way to any quantifiable factor. While it is true that Josh Babarinde and several others on the aforementioned list do indeed have some English heritage, individuals such as David Lammy have none. Both of Lammy’s parents were Guyanese, yet he would be able to declare himself English, tick the corresponding box on the new census, and legally be recorded as English. This completely divorces the classification of English from race, history, culture, and any other factor that might have historically been used as a qualifier. From now on, English will no longer be an observable ethnic group, but a fluid tick-box choice made every ten years.

Imagine this same logic being applied in a country like Japan. Obviously, there are Japanese citizens, and of course, there are those who are ethnically Japanese. It would be absurd to suggest that a child born on Japanese soil to two white parents was of the same ethnic or racial group as a child born to two ethnically Japanese parents. In fact, this absurdity can be illustrated with a real-life example: Jared Taylor. Jared Taylor is, of course, a famous American race-realist and campaigner against demographic change. However, he was in fact born on Japanese soil and lived in Japan until he was 16 years old and speaks fluent Japanese, yet no one would ever point to him and say, “Oh, look, there’s a Japanese man.” Clearly, while Jared Taylor could apply for Japanese citizenship, he could never be considered ethnically Japanese. Yet this same, undeniable logic is never applied when it comes to ethnic groups which fall under the white racial classification.

This is deeply problematic – especially in a country like Britain. Those who are part of distinct and individual ethnic groups that are recognised by the state often benefit from a number of protections and privileges. By erasing the English as an ethnic group, those who are in fact English (from a proper and correct ethnic viewpoint) could well be denied the protections enjoyed by other ethnic groups that the state chooses to correctly recognise. What is even more worrying is that not only are the English an ethnic group, but they are also indigenous to England. So not only is this group of MPs attempting to abolish the English in a meaningful and correct sense, but they are, by extension, effectively erasing one of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles. This is important, as while many indigenous groups around the world are recognised, celebrated, and afforded numerous protections, European governments are very quick to make provisions to deny recognition and protection to indigenous European ethnic groups.

But these assertions are not merely conjecture; this new parliamentary proposal runs directly counter to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which was formally adopted by the UN General Assembly in September 2007 – and crucially, the UK voted in favour of this UN resolution. The relevant sections of UNDRIP and how they could be applied to this proposal are as follows:

Article 8 (Right Against Forced Assimilation or Destruction of Culture) states that “Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture,” and calls on member states to provide effective mechanisms to prevent “any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities.” Redefining “English” from an ancestral ethnicity into a broad civic label determined by personal choice clearly deprives the English people of their integrity as a distinct ethnic identity. What’s more, because those from other racial groups would, under this new proposal, be allowed to claim the right to call themselves “English,” this clearly constitutes a form of “forced assimilation,” which when coupled with mass immigration, creates conditions where the English people can effectively be replaced and erased, further depriving them of their integrity and severely compromising their continued existence.

Article 33 (Right to Determine Own Identity) states that “Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions.” Allowing the state – and in this case individuals who lack ancestral ties to England – to redefine who is “English” overrides the ethnic group’s right to maintain its own traditional metric of ethnic identity. Of the nine MPs who are listed on the related House of Commons documents as backing the proposals, none of them actually qualify as English under the true and proper ethnic definition. As a result, this is a clear attempt to redefine and determine the identity of an ethnic group by individuals who come from outside of that group. This effectively changes both the identity and the qualifying membership criteria of the English, and does so without the involvement of the English themselves. Obviously, were a group of white people to decide upon and redefine what it meant to be Yoruba or Māori, there would be outrage – which would most likely primarily come from the same people who are currently supporting this assault on English ethnicity.

However, when looking at this UN resolution, there is one large and rather interesting caveat. When the UK voted for UNDRIP in 2007, the UK government stated that it supported the declaration for indigenous peoples globally, while conveniently taking the official position that there are no “indigenous peoples” within the UK itself. This again sheds light on a clear double standard that discriminates against the English by endorsing strict protections for ethnic and cultural identity for overseas indigenous groups while actively dismantling those same definitions for the historic English population at home. While the UK government has historically treated UNDRIP as applying only to non-European populations abroad, the underlying principle remains clear: distinct historic peoples have a fundamental right to preserve their ethnic identity without either state interference or the interference of outside groups. By legally redefining “English” from a specific ancestral group into an open and completely fluid civic category, Parliament is domestically engaged in an act that it pledged to oppose internationally.

More worryingly though, the proposed changes for England have already occurred in both Scotland and Wales. Due to the fact that Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland all have their own devolved governments, the census is slightly different in each of the four constituent parts of the UK. While England and Wales are grouped together and have a joint census, both Scotland and Northern Ireland run their censuses independently. Scotland first introduced “African, African Scottish or African British” and “Caribbean, Caribbean Scottish or Caribbean British” alongside “Asian, Asian Scottish or Asian British” in the 2011 census, and retained those definitions in the delayed 2022 census. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) administers the census jointly for England and Wales; however, the ONS provides different forms for those living in the two countries. For the 2021 census, the ONS added “Black, Black British, Black Welsh, Caribbean or African” and “Asian, Asian British or Asian Welsh” specifically to the census forms delivered in Wales, while keeping the English questionnaire restricted to “Black British” and “Asian British.” Northern Ireland also runs its own separate census via the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, which uses its own distinct categories, such as “Irish Traveller,” that are specifically tailored to Northern Ireland.

As a result, this move to effectively abolish the English as an ethnic group is part of a wider set of legislative changes that have already come into effect elsewhere in the UK, reducing both Scottish and Welsh to tick-boxes on a form rather than distinct and individual ethnic groups that are partly defined by a shared racial ancestry. In effect, this means a Somalian migrant who ticked “Black Scottish” on the 2022 census form is legally viewed as just as Scottish as the descendants of a Scottish clan that have lived in the Highlands for countless generations. This raises the issue that when these legislative changes are put into place and coupled with large-scale immigration, it creates a perfect storm: one which will sweep away the indigenous peoples of the British Isles, replacing them both legally and genetically. This is not hyperbole, and is clearly referenced in the wording of Josh Babarinde’s speech that was made before the House of Commons on November 10th, 2026:

To those who feel uneasy about all this, let me say something directly. To those who feel it sincerely: you are right to be proud of England, its traditions, its quirks and its eccentricities, as I am, but every institution we honour survives only because new people join it and come to care. This includes our churches, our communities and our families. History tells us that Englishness is no different. History tells us that Englishness is not a pie that gets smaller with every slice taken from it; Englishness is a chorus that grows louder with every voice. Nationalism says, ‘This country is mine, not yours,’ but patriotism says, ‘This country is all of ours.’ In this House, we must be patriots.

While this St George’s Bill may add just a few words to a form, we all know that words tell people that they count – that they belong – so let us move people out of the margin and on to the page. ‘White English,’ ‘Black English,’ ‘Asian English,’ ‘Mixed English’ – all are English. Let the next generation never have to ask whether they are allowed to be English. Let the next generation never have to wonder if the St George’s flag represents them. Let them simply know it. Do you have to be white to be English? No, no, no. I commend this St George’s Bill to the House.

The words are clear and their meaning cannot be interpreted in any other way: the purpose of this proposal is not just to shift ownership of England away from the English, but to strip away one of the fundamental components of what it is to be English – a shared racial ancestry. Babarinde talks of “English” as if it were an “institution,” but it is not; it is an ethnic group. He then goes on to proclaim that all can be English, all those who come here from every corner of the world – they can all be English if they simply put a cross in the correct box on a form. Babarinde boldly goes on to opine that England can belong to everyone. Indeed, many people from all over the world have made their home on English soil. But to suggest that those people have the same claim to England, and that their claim is equal to those who have an ancestral connection to England that stretches back hundreds of years or more, is a grave insult. What’s more, it is an insult that Babarinde and his supporters would not dare to level at any other indigenous group – and if they did, they would be accused of seeking to erase those people and their history.

The ancestors of the Māori arrived in New Zealand from East Polynesia between 1250 AD and 1300 AD. They are not strictly indigenous to New Zealand; they arrived on the islands in several waves, and they made New Zealand their home several centuries after the founding of England. Yet there is not a single MP in Parliament who would dare deny the Māori’s claim to New Zealand or quibble with their designation as the indigenous people of those islands. What’s more, those same MPs would likely call European settlers who arrived in New Zealand colonisers. Yet curiously, those same MPs would deny the English their birthright, claim that the English are not indigenous to England, and praise those who have arrived in great numbers over the last 50 years, calling them not colonisers, but claiming they have enriched the country and have the right to call themselves “English.” This is a double standard that is so obvious and shocking that only those who are tied to the political establishment – or those who have been effectively indoctrinated by that establishment – could support it while maintaining a straight face.

Ultimately, this proposal – while carefully built around the shibboleths of inclusivity and representation – is an attempt to abolish the English and strip them of their birthright. It is important to note: the bill is not presented in a vacuum, but instead goes hand-in-hand with open-border policies and is set against the backdrop of sweeping demographic changes that will reduce White Britons to a minority sometime in the 2050s. As the UK moves toward a White British plurality, it is likely that inter-ethnic tensions will arise and that ethnic sectarianism will follow. In this new Britain, different ethnic groups will jostle for representation while being afforded specific protections under the law. However, as the English, the Welsh, the Scottish, and those from Northern Ireland become minorities, they will not be afforded those same protections, as legally they will cease to exist. As a result, the historic ethnic groups that lived in near isolation within the British Isles for hundreds of years will be erased and turned into multiracial groups whose largest uniting characteristic is not a common racial ancestry, but instead a shared tick-box on a government form.

This is White genocide in action.