Shaphan

Euroscepticism

"DRAWING INSPIRATION from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law,"

Blah, blah, blah.  The above words are an insertion to the amended European Treaty, signed today in Lisbon by our leaders.  I’m not a happy bunny.  For a start, and to be picky, the adjective, humanistic, would have been preferable. 

But it’s the bigger ideas that bother me.  For a start, I don’t share the belief that humans have innate dignity, or that we are born equally and with inalienable rights.  It’s large chunks of the American civil religion that we are being asked to believe in, and I don’t.  Given that I believe that the ideology of ‘inalienable rights’ to be inimical to Europe, civil liberties, justice, peace and international security, and contrary to human reason, then the Treaty is false to call them universal values, when not everyone believes in them.  (Note, too, how it speaks of the rights “of the human person”, which cleverly denies those rights to the unborn.)  If the Treaty really drew inspiration from our cultural and religious traditions, it would speak of human alienation, indignity, inequality and enslavement as being our inheritance and the place from which we need to build a new Europe.

And a minor quibble – nowhere in the Treaty, as far as I can tell, is it defined what or where Europe is.  The Maastricht Treaty spoke of the ‘continent of Europe’ but that’s not really accurate as we’re a sub-continent of the Asian landmass (or something like that).  Where do we end and Asia and Africa begin?  If our politicians are unable to define Europe’s boundaries, it’s no wonder that we the people find it difficult to identify with and commit to. 

She spoke; they heard - a European pope

Cometh the hour; cometh the man.  It seemed obvious whom the Holy Spirit would choose to follow John Paul II, and She has duly delivered him.  Despite the hopes of some liberal commentators, Ratzinger's no more a transitional pope than any other before him, and there's no knowing how long he might lead the Catholics; people do live longer now than they once did.  I confess the sin of having enjoyed witnessing the rent-a-quote liberal Catholics' discomfort at Ratzinger's elevation.  Presumably out of wishful thinking, many of them had discounted the possibility of Ratzinger being elected, telling themselves that he wouldn't get the numbers.  So it was hilarious to listen to ex-nun Lavinia Byrne being interviewed by Radio 5Live for her reaction - she started off trying not to criticize the choice but was unable to stop herself expressing her horror and her animus towards Ratzinger.  Also, Christina Odone on BBC News 24 looked like she had sucked a tart lemon as a cure for nausea but it hadn't worked.  I found it all highly entertaining.

Joseph Ra-TZIN-ger (the stress is on the second syllable) has chosen the name of the patron saint of Europe, Benedict.  This is surely no accident.  The majority of the 115 electing cardinals, by 58 to 57, were Europeans (but, had the two non-attending electors been present, the majority would have been non-Europeans - the Holy Spirit moving mysteriously?).  Those cardinals would have believed, whatever the needs of the other continents, that Europe's current existential crisis required a European pope, one with great clarity of mind.  And they knew that, when JP2 refused Ratzinger's request to retire aged 75 and then made him the dean of the cardinals, it was clear whom JP2 wanted as his successor.  Ratzinger was the obvious and outstanding candidate, and the only surprise was at how long it took the cardinals to decide.

Human dignity? Vote 'no'

The government has chosen the wording for the referendum question on the EU constitution ("Should the United Kingdom approve the treaty establishing a constitution for the European Union?").  Reluctantly, given I'm usually pro-EU, I will have to vote 'no'.  It's not that I'm against the EU having a constitution, but I am against the EU adopting this particular one [pdf - html].  I know I'm in a minority of nearly one on this, but I cannot subscribe to its core values, upon which it's premised.

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, liberty, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.  These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non­discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and and equality between women and men prevail. [I-2]

For example, I don't believe in human dignity.  What dignity is there in giving birth and being born, in ageing and in dying, in screwing up and getting screwed, etc.?  Did 1939-45 reveal to Europeans how much dignity we had?  No, it showed up how bestial (as well as heroic) we can be.

Although the idea of human dignity has its roots in the Enlightenment (and not, as is often said, in the Bible), and forms part of the Americanist religion, it is now, post-Vatican II, proclaimed by the Catholic Church as dogma, even though the idea is so contrary to Christian theology.  I'm not a Catholic, let alone a conservative one, but this is their argument against 'human dignity':

1. The Vatican II Council's declaration "Dignitatis Humanae" affirms a false natural human right "in matters of religion" contrary to prior papal teachings, which formally deny such a blasphemy.

2. Pius IX in his Encyclical "Quanta Cura", Leo XIII in his Encyclicals "Libertas Praestantissimum" and "Immortale Dei", Pius XII in his allocution "Le Riesce", addressed to Italian Catholic jurists, deny that such a right has any basis in reason or revelation.

3. These doctrines are based on a false concept of human dignity, stemming from the agnostic and materialist pseudo-philosophers of the French Revolution, already condemned by St. Pius X in his pontifical letter "Our Apostolic Mandate."

4. The Vatican II document "Gaudium et Spes" expresses a false principle when it regards human and Christian dignity as being a consequence of the Incarnation, which restored this dignity for all men. This same error is repeated in John Paul II's Encyclical "Redemptor Hominis."

But whereas this Catholic writer blames the French Revolution, I reckon the blame lies more with the American one.  Vatican II was influenced by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which was itself informed by the US Declaration of Independence. [continued page 117...]

Turkey in Europe?

Link: Turkey and the hypocrisies of Europe: Fred Halliday - OpenDemocracy.

Fred Halliday on OpenDemocracy slags off opponents of Turkey's EU membership.  I used to be sympathetic to Turkey's membership but now am less sure.  95% of Turkey is in Asia; it borders Syria, Iraq and Iran.  If Turkey joined, we'd have to call ourselves the Euro-Asian Union (EAU) or something.  Halliday doesn't really address this basic issue:

Many opponents of Turkish entry to the European Union question whether Turkey (or Islam) is part of Europe. The truth is that in terms of its cultural and religious presence Islam has been integral to Europe for over 1,000 years – including 800 years in Spain and at least 600 years in the Balkans and Russia.

See how he skips the geographical question and substitutes the debate about Islam.  I agree with him about Islam being integral to Europe (which is why I used to support Turkey's inclusion).  And I see Turkey as a hugely important gateway between Europe and Asia, its north-east corner is in Europe, and it should be given some special status vis a vis the EU.  But the logic of this is that Syria, Lebanon, Isreal and Palestine could one day gain membership, provided the agree to the rules.  I think Turkey and the Turks are great but the EU, if it is to mean anything to its citizens, ought to be for European nations only.