Europe's Grand Opportunity

So article 50 has finally been triggered , what it will mean for the future of Britain, Europe and regional integration at large?. It never really occurred to me until now that the Europhiles are in truth wasting a grand opportunity and I’ll tell you why. After seeing the arguments for and against BREXIT, I have held that Britain leaving the European Union might just be the best thing for Britain however of late I have also been thinking that Britain leaving the EU actually is actually what is best for the rest of Europe as well. I know, I sound absolutely crazy to even think of such a thing but hear me out, and then take a good look at the evidence to decide for yourself.

 The European Integration process didn’t occur overnight, instead it was decades in the making and started all the way back to the European Coal and Steel Commission with 6 states in 1951, over the years this has grown and evolved to the European Economic Community and later to the European Union we know today, the question is where does Britain fall in all this?. For all the strides it has made, European integration is not yet completed, it started out based on functional cooperation but then evolved into a regime and later still started operated on a neo-functional principle. According to political scientist Ernst B. Haas in his 1958 work The uniting of Europe: political, social, and economic forces. The rise of functional cooperation between states will lead to cooperation in other areas thus deepening integration between countries in a particular region, this he called the “spill over effect”, according to him, for any union of states to truly work then states must be willing to partially surrender their sovereignty to a pooled body in order to serve the greater good of the region. This is currently where the EU is at today, as the evolution from a single commission to a supranational entity makes it the most advanced experiment in regional integration to date.

That being said, the EU isn’t satisfied with being governed by functional or neo-functional ideal but wishes to move one step further into full blown federalism, already the wheels of this have been set in motion with the European Parliament, the EU Commission, the European Council, the ECJ and a plethora of accompanying institutions, they now have a common currency, central bank and trade policy but the dream of a federal Europe is not complete as yet, there more left to be done in order for the Europhiles to achieve their ultimate ambition which is a United States of Europe.

Ironically enough, the term United States of Europe was first coined by revered British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill who was a firm supporter of the idea of a United Europe, as he believed that this would be the best way to avert war on the continent when he made the quote “It is to re-create the European Family, or as much of it as we can, and provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom We must build a kind of United States of Europe.”  Those who would use this quote to justify why Britain should remain in the EU however are those who focus on this line while failing to  recall the rest of the 1946 speech which also had the following to say “In all this urgent work, France and Germany must take the lead together. Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America, and I trust Soviet Russia - for then indeed all would be well - must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine.” This then goes to show a clear evidence that while Churchill did advocate for a USE, even back then he knew that if it was going to succeed then it must needs exclude Britain as it is clear that Britain’s future lies elsewhere.

And was he wrong to assume this? Not at all, history has shown that every attempt to bring Europe together whether by coercion, sheer force of will or voluntary democratic means has always been foiled by Great Britain,  stretching as far back as the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 whereas the rest of European potentates were one by one signing on to this ground-breaking document pledging non aggression and respect each other’s sovereignty, neither England, Scotland nor Ireland (then 3 separate kingdoms under a single monarch) were present even while their continental neighbours were. Later on at the rise of the Holy Alliance, while the great powers of Austria, Russia and Prussia were steadily increasing their cooperation to signify the rise of a new order in Europe due to fall of both the Holy Roman Empire and Napoleon’s continental system, Britain stood outside of the fray and steadily refused to join any such agreement even while the rest of Europe were declaring their acquiescence to its principles.  And while it is true that Britain did cooperate in the 1815 congress of Vienna that created the concert of Europe it did not gain as much as the great powers on the continent itself because its interest lied closer with its imperial holdings elsewhere than with Europe itself. Eventually as the European Coal and Steel Commission was being upgraded to the European Economic Community, while many other states joined with little internal fuss, it was not the same with Britain which spent a long time debating whether or not they should even sign on in the first place and even afterward, the mood in the UK itself was still one of half-heartedness where the UK was never truly committed to a united Europe like say a France or Germany.

  

Nothing more explicitly showed this fact than in 2002 when the European Union decided to unveil its new currency the Euro. While one by one, European countries abandoned their national currency to join the Eurozone, the United Kingdom steadfastly refused to let go of its pound sterling. It must be noted that Britain isn’t the only EU outside of the Eurozone but it is the only country qualified to join to Eurozone (pre BREXIT) that has not done so, the other non-Eurozone countries are kept out of the Eurozone because they do not meet the economic convergence criteria set by the European Central Bank, Britain however CHOOSE to keep its monetary sovereignty, thus again showing their traditional lack of commitment to fully immersing itself in the EU.

Another thing that depicts Britain’s unwillingness to join a United States of Europe is the way they view themselves in the world, In addition to Europe, Britain’s foreign policy has always heavily featured its Atlantic Connection and its relationship with the Commonwealth. Britain wasn’t the only European power to build a colonial empire, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal and even the Belgians did exactly the same thing. But none of these former colonial rulers kept the link with former vassals like Britain did, sure the French has la Francophonie while Spain and Portugal tried the Latin Union but neither of them reached the same level of influence of the Anglosphere and even while Britain had one foot in the European Union, the Commonwealth continued to grow and thrive. Its special relationship with the United States is nothing to be taken lightly either, beginning with F.D. Roosevelt and Sir Winston Churchill, relations on both sides of the Atlantic have been for the mostly excellent, with a few ups and downs of course but the United States isn’t likely to forget that Great Britain alone supported their decision to go into Iraq while the rest of Europe decried it as criminal (whether these allegations have any merit isn't the  point here, this is not a discourse in international, law), the point is that the notion of CANZUK and its connection with the rest of the Anglosphere remains strong. And while some overeager enthusiasts have been banding the notion of Empire 2.0 about, I wouldn’t hold my breath for it happening anytime soon, but the very fact that this notion does exist is testament to the fact of how Britain views themselves as being separate from Europe.

 

What exactly is the point I’m trying to make by all of this? It is quite simple, for the proposed United States of Europe to be transferred from idea to reality, it must (I repeat must) exclude Great Britain, centuries of precedent have shown time and time again that every attempt to unite the states of Europe under a single flag (whether by force as Napoleon tried or by choice as the EU is doing now) has always been thwarted by the Brits and its interest. It is clear time and time again, that Britain’s interest lay outside the continent, anybody ever wondered why prior to World War I, while the UK had the world’s largest navy and biggest empire, Germany and Austria-Hungary  still had more influence in Europe than they did?  Its not because they couldn’t project power in Europe, its simply because they didn’t want to. France and Germany should take Churchill’s advice, forget about trying to bring Britain into the fold and use their influence to work to integrate the rest of Europe even further. Europhiles shouldn’t weep over BREXIT, rather they should rejoice as now a great obstacle to European statehood has finally been removed as it would have never worked with Britain in the mix, not in the sense that the federalist dreamed of. If the federalist really want to seize their grand opportunity then now is not the time for Europe to be talking about losses but instead use this as the perfect opportunity capitalise and take the dream of a United Europe forward into the future.

Don't Blame the Reformation

A conversation I had the other day makes me always wondered why it is some Catholic royalists blame Protestants for the rise of republicanism, even an article in The Economist not long ago seems to agree. Irrespective of the infamous Game of Thrones quote which claims that "The faith and the crown are the two pillars that hold up this world. One collapses, so does the other," which I must admit is true to an extent but when I examine the facts I’m forced to question some elements of this assumption made by some of my fellow traditionalists and I’ll explain why?

 1. The principle of the “divine right of kings” which Catholics claim to have a monopoly on states that Kings are answerable to God alone, yet the Papacy has deemed that all kings of the earth must answer to them and claimed the right to set up and depose kings, although Daniel 2:21 clearly points out that only God himself has the exclusive right, a right that the Bishop clearly tried to usurp for himself, one example being when Pope Pope Gregory VII composed the Dictus Papae asserting the authority to overthrow whichever King he chose (in this case Henry IV of Germany). It was in fact the Protestant reformation that promoted true essence the divine right since it removed the imposition of the papacy as an intermediary and made rulers answerable only to the Grace of Heaven, not the will of Rome.

2. The writings of the protestant reformers shown in no uncertain terms that they were most certainly not republican in orientation. For example Martin Luther in his 1525 book “Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants”, stated and I quote “anyone who is killed fighting on the side of the rulers may be a true martyr in the eyes of God…. if anyone thinks this too harsh, let him remember that rebellion is intolerable and that the destruction of the world is to be expected every hour”, he also the urged the rulers of the time to crush the revolutionaries like mad dogs and that civil powers must drive the common people, that they may learn to fear the powers that be.- does that sound like a republican or revolutionary to you?, note this is the poster man of the reformation speaking here

3. Some of the greatest moments in the history of the reformation happened with the blessing and sanction of monarchs, e.g. the Authorised Bible Version of 1611 was published with the  vehement opposition of the Catholic Church yet happened under the sanction of James VI; There was also the Act of Supremacy (1534) which made the monarchy, not the papacy, head of the Church of England. Similarly in other protestant kingdoms their rulers were given similar status, something that could not happen for Catholic monarchs who (according to the papacy) were vassals of the Pope 

4. In relation to point number 1, the main driving vehicle of the counterreformation was the Jesuit order established in order to put an end to the reformation,  the oath taken by the Jesuit order includes the phrase  “I do now renounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king or prince named Protestants, or obedience to any of the laws, magistrates or officers thereof”…traditional monarchist? I hardly think so, in fact this is a downright rebellion against the concept of monarchy (that does that pledge allegiance to the pope).

3. The Jesuits are not the only ones guilty of this either for example Cardinal Robert Bellarmine claimed that the institute of monarchy did not have any divine sanction (clearly contradicting 2 Peter 2:17) and even declared it lawful for Catholic subjects to overthrow a monarch they didn’t approve of (Such as Jacobites in the British Isles constantly whining about the legitimacy of the House of Windsor and calling for its overthrow) similarly Father Juan de Mariana a noted Catholic Scholar and clergyman promoted the idea of social contract (made famous by John Locke) and even advocated for regicide (which they dubbed as tyrannicide) which he claimed justified the murder of protestant kings in the name of the Catholic Church.

.       

6. The reformation strengthened the institution of absolute monarchy not weaken it, Martin Luther in his “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation”  decried the institutions of feudalism and called for a more centralized monarchy where persons will not have a divided allegiance to the Pope, their King and their local lord but rather just as how no pope should stand between the people and their allegiance to their heavenly sovereign, in the same way the people’s earthly loyalty should be directly to their king not indirectly via manorial lords. This idea laid the foundation for strong centralized monarchies taking the place of weaker feudal kingdoms,  is it any wonder that the golden age of absolute monarchy happened in the wake of reformation?; something both Catholic and Protestant monarchies benefited from. 

    7.  Noted Christian Author Ellen White in her book “The Great Controversy” when speaking of the factors that led to the French Revolution saw it as a divine judgement against France for its rejection of the reformation movement whereas countries like Great Britain and the Scandinavian countries which accepted the reformation were spared from the horrors of republicanism. Not that the attempted reformation by the Huguenots was republican or monarchists in character, in fact there were members of the French royal family on both sides of the divide. What she did assert however is that because the French had refused to accept the reformation teachings and so brutally persecuted the reformers even more than other European powers (case in point being the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of 1572), then God left them to their fate when the revolution finally broke out and utterly destroyed the power of both the catholic church and the monarchy in France. Naturally,a great many Catholics would take offence to this idea and the nature of the claim itself can be argue all day long  but  as far the writer was concerned, had the French reformation taken been a success,  there would have been no French revolution.

8.The final evidence that goes against the idea of blaming Protestantism for republicanism is the numbers. For example in Latin America, the region of the world that has the largest population of Roman Catholics per capita in the world does not have a single monarchy among its ranks. Similarly in Europe today the number of Catholic and Protestant hereditary monarchies are evenly match at 5 to 5, with Britain, Netherlands, and the three Scandinavian Countries representing Protestantism while Monaco, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Spain and Belgium are the only remaining Catholic monarchies in Europe. Outside of Europe there remains only one native protestant monarchy (Tonga) and one Catholic monarchy (Lesotho), so again the question is to be asked, what happened to all these other Catholic majority countries where the reformation never took root?, how comes they didn’t retain or restore their monarchies given that Protestantism was “the main culprit” behind it all? And while on the topic of abolition, Let's not forget how Irish Catholics played a key role in supporting the IRA in their overthrow of the British Crown and the breaking up of the union; If Catholicism automatically made one a loyal monarchist, the Catholic dominated IRA clearly never got that memo. 

Is this in any way an attempt to link monarchism or republicanism with a religion?, not at all, the religious reviews of monarchist and anti-monarchist are as diverse as their views on political matters, I know of  Catholics aplenty who support monarchy wholeheartedly e.g. the Carlists movement of Spain and the Miguelist of Portugal, yet there are also a great many Catholic clerics who oppose monarchy e.g Father Miguel Hidalgo of Mexico or Camilo Torres Restrpo of Columbia, one of the earliest advocates of liberation theology. In the same breath there are also those who would link Protestantism with monarchy such as the United Empire Loyalist of North America and there are those republicans who try to use protestant ideas to justify their stance like so many modern American ministers do today. Given everything I have seen and discussed, this is why I  have and will forever continue to reject the notion purported that republicanism is the inevitable fruit of Protestantism, the evidence just does not support that assumption. 

Kings House Expense

I must write on an issue that has been making headlines lately and it has to do with the 40 million dollar allocation that has been given to the Office of the Governor-General for the purpose of installing a new elevator in the building and also for the purchase of a new vehicle and the backlash it has received particularly on social media.

Let me start out by point out that I do support some of the comments made regarding the nature of the expense, $40 million is an exorbitant sum and quite frankly  I must question whether or not there was a better way this money could have been allocated, for example the state of hospitals can be described as deplorable, several educational institutions are in dire need of an upgrade and not to mention the far way such a sum could go in dealing with any of these, or at the very least in part. And given the public outcry I do believe that the government should reconsider this proposal, after all its not as if government expenditure hasn’t been adjustment in years before now, so yes they can revisit that one or try to find a way to cut cost in order to make it more economical.

That said, while I do agree with those who are not in favour of the expense. There are some only too quick the use the opportunity to promote a republican agenda, therefore the air must be cleared as to some of the misinformation out there. First of all is the notion that the getting rid of the Governor-General would get rid of that expense in the budget is totally and utterly false. In fact if the Governor-General were to be gotten rid of tomorrow then a President would immediately take his place as head of state and the expense would remain either the same or it would be increased. There is statistical data that shows this, for example the President of Trinidad earns US $ 114, 224 per annum, whereas in Jamaica, the Governor-General cost per annum is US $ 58,159. Another example can be drawn between the cases of Haiti and Barbados, whereas in Haiti, the poorest country in the hemisphere their president has a salary of US$60,000 per annum, the Governor general of the much wealthier Barbados earns US$ 49,214.50 per annum. What exactly is the point I’m trying to drill here, contrary to popular belief there is actually no evidence to point to the supposition that a presidency would be cheaper, in fact what the researchable data does show is that the governor general costs far less to maintain than it would be under a president.

Another area of misinformation that must be addressed is the matter of the official residence. It has been assumed by some that if the Crown were gotten rid of, the King’s House would either be demolished or the property could be developed into a real estate area or factory, museum or whatever else one can dream of. This supposition is based on wishful thinking however not reality, in fact the most likely outcome would be the name of the building would be changed to reflect the new status quo and the property itself would continue to serve as the seat of highest office in the land. Again there is a precedent to support this claim. For example in India, Rashtrapati Bhavan which used to serve as the residence of the Viceroy of British India has since 1950 been the residence of the President of modern India.  Similarly Áras an Uachtaráin which now serves as the palace of the President of the Irish Republic used to be the Viceregal Lodge of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under British rule. And these are not isolated cases either instead this has been tradition in many Commonwealth countries where the palace of the former royal representative has been converted to a presidential palace and in most of these cases, their functions and operations continue almost exactly as they did before, especially in cases where the former governor general was himself appointed as the new President. This then serves as overwhelming evidence to prove that any notion that becoming a republic would cause King’s House to scale down its cost and operations is actually a fallacy, rooted in supposition and not fact.

And while on the matter of the presidential residence lets discuss the nature of the presidency itself where there it is commonly thought that becoming a republic would cause us to move to a US styled presidential model, where the Prime Minister himself would assume the presidency thus absorbing the cost. While this has been done in some Commonwealth states, there again is no evidence to prove that it will happen here. Truthfully every proposal that is made on this constitutional change is based on the Westminster system where the head of state and head of government remain as separate offices. In other words then, there is no real suggestion to have an executive presidency but rather a ceremonial one, that has been the position taken by most republican proponents who really don’t have an issue with a parliamentary form of government only with the Queen’s name being on it, in short they wish to have all the benefits of a constitutional monarchy without having an actual monarchy.

Speaking of monarchy, it grieves me to see the level of ignorance of what the constitution actually says. Nowhere in our laws does it state that governor general is appointed by the British government, which would be a gross violation of the constitution and the Jamaica Independence Act. The Governor General of Jamaica is not and has never been an agent of the United Kingdom, the law makes it perfectly plain that only the Government of Jamaica can advise a Queen on the appointment of a Governor General and only they can advise her to dismiss one. Nor can Her Majesty take it upon herself to appoint a representative in a unilateral manner since to do would be a violation of her own coronation oath to govern according to established laws and customs. The reason for this misconception is of course a lack of understanding on the concept of the Commonwealth Realms, where more than one sovereign state agree to share the same monarch and adopt common succession rules. This shared monarchy is not and should be confused with colonial subjugation since any of states can opt out of the arrangement and any changes to the arrangement has to mutually agreed upon by all member states as was seen in 2011 Perth Agreement where the rules on succession could not be changed unless all the countries approved the proposed changes. There is no legal or constitutional arrangement for the governor general to answer to the British authorities, I would have thought the fact that he was a born and bred citizen of Jamaica would have made this fact painfully obvious to all.

To conclude, I’ll reiterate my own opposition to the planned spending increases at King’s House and I still stand in support of those who propose that the funds be diverted to more salient causes. However unlike some I would rather vent my displeasure that those who proposed this spending in the first place rather (i.e. the finance ministry and its technocrats), rather than confuse the issue by ranting about how we “need a president now”. Quite frankly given what I see happening in the world’s most famous presidential office now, the idea that Jamaica could develop into such a system scares me to no end, and I would therefore urge that any discussion on this going forward are grounded in empirical facts and not in mere emotional tirades .