Britain and the emerging Holy European Empire
by Adrian Hilton
Dorchester House Publications
Herts WD3 5SJ
First Edition 1997
Second Edition 200
Printed in England by Clays Ltd, St. Ives plc.
Foreword by Lord Tonypandy
Preface to the Second Edition
Prologue: Now, a Holy European Empire ?
Chapter 1. - The Vision of the Union
Chapter 2. - The Dis-United Kingdom
Chapter 3. - Sovereignty
Chapter 4. - The Oligarchical Democracy
Chapter 5. - Citizenship
Chapter 6. - Monetary Union
Chapter 7. - The Real Cost
Chapter 8. - War or Peace ?
Chapter 9. - The Propaganda Offensive
Chapter 10. - The Only Way Forward ?
The Principality and Power of Europe
Britain and the emerging Holy European Empire
The Right Honourable The Viscount Tonypandy PC, (Hon) DCL House of Lords
This spledid book gives a sound and balanced assessment of the current dangers to the United Kingdom caused by our membership of the European Union.
The consequences of our belonging to a Federal Union, in which we would no longer have control over our own economy, are starkly presented.
Deceit in high places has brought us to our present plight, and it is vital that a united endeavour to get out of the iron grip of European politicians should now be made.
Adrian Hilton has rendered the nation a great service by this well-researched book. It is clear that if we are to prove worthy of those men and women who laid down their lives to protect our right to self-government, we must call a halt to the defeatist submission to the openly avowed intention to gain by diplomatic intrigue an integrated Europe where Germany is dominant.
Every British citizen should read and digest the information presented in this book.
- George Tonypandy
Lord Tonypandy of Rhondda
Formerly George Thomas MP
Speaker of the House of Commons 1976-1983
Adrian Hilton is the author of the best-selling political book 'The Principality and Power of Europe', with a forward by Lord Tonypandy, from which the principle themes of this speech are drawn. He lectures in Communication Psychology and is currently studying further for a degree in Theology. He was a parliamentary candidate in the 1997 General Election for the Referendum Party, and remains active in politics, serving on a number of think-tanks and political committees. He is in demand as a conference speaker and is currently working on a new book dealing with the constitutional implications of the Euro.
ADRIAN HILTON is a former Parliamentary Candidate and a frequent speaker on matters relating to the British Constitution and European politics.
"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."
- Benjamin Disraeli
Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880
"We do not want another committee. We have too many already. What we want is a man of sufficient stature to hold the allegiance of all people, and to lift us out of the economic morass in which we are sinking. Send us such a man and, be he god or the devil, we will receive him."
- Paul Henri-Spaak
Former Belgian Prime Minister,
President of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, 1949-51
(Sunday Telegraph, 25th August 1991)
Now, a Holy European Empire ?
From the beginning of his reign Karol Wojtyla spoke out against the division of Europe imposed by the Yalta Agreement. The only major statesman before him to speak in precisely these terms had been de Gaulle, with his vision of a Europe stretching "from the Atlantic to the Urals". The Pope echoed those very words.
On his third visit to Poland, in Warsaw, John Paul II said that he had come "to cry out before Europe and the world for the forgotten people of Eastern Europe". This was a bold and dramatic gesture. The Pope was insisting not only on the scandal, but also in a sense on the absurdity of the division of Europe. His untiring insistence that Yalta was a historical and cultural absurdity had an enormous impact, on the Poles in particular, but also on the Hungarians and Czechs.
Wojtyla also believed - contrary to the orthodoxy accepted by all western politicians - that the whole Soviet empire, including the Soviet Union itself, was a house of cards, and that once the subject populations could be inspired to call the Communists' bluff, the whole thing would collapse.
With the demise of Marxism, and the Christian revival in Eastern Europe and Russia, the Polish Pope is in a uniquely influential position. "The Common European Home" is essentially another phrase for Christendom - to which the Eastern Europeans long to return.
A few years ago, when the Pope addressed a meeting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, the Rev. Ian Paisley unfurled a banner denouncing His Holiness as Antichrist. Dr. Paisley's banner was immediately wrenched from his grasp by Dr. Otto von Habsburg, a member of the Parliament.
It was a symbolic scene, because Dr. von Habsburg also goes by the title of Archduke Otto of Austria. In palmier days Otto von Habsburg would have gone by grander titles still: for he would have been Emperor of Austria, Apostolic King of Hungary and Holy Roman Emperor. One of his responsibilities as Holy Roman Emperor would have been to uphold the dignity of the Roman Catholic Church - which might well have meant that at the request of the Pope he would have incarcerated Dr. Paisley in one of his remoter fortresses.
Dr. Paisley escaped this fate because the old European order, in which the Pope rules the spiritual realm and the emperor the secular, has long since passed away. As Mrs. Thatcher said in her speech in Chicago earlier this year: "It is time to recognise, even in Brussels, that the age of empire has passed."
But has it? Or did the farcical scene in Strasbourg have a more serious symbolism than we recognised at the time? For there is reason to think not only that the Papacy is gaining increasing political influence in the world, but that the EC may indeed bear a more than shadowy resemblance to a European imperial ideal that has never been entirely forgotten.
Empires have frequently expressed civilised ideas, and inspired loyalty from their subjects. When the city of Rome was sacked by Alaric and his Goths in 410 AD the whole world was horrified. St. Augustine - himself a native of North Africa - was grief-stricken at what had befallen the Eternal City. He wrote his greatest work The City of God, to prove that this catastrophe could not have been due to the Romans' having abandoned their pagan gods in favour of Christianity.
The memory of the Roman Empire lingered in men's minds for centuries after the Empire had been extinguished in the West by the Barbarian invasions. Charlemagne, King of the Franks, was crowned Emperor of the west by the Pope in 800 AD. He wanted to suggest that the Roman Empire had been revived in his person. In the 12th century Frederick Barbarossa ruled Germany, Burgundy and Italy. He called his realm the "Holy Empire"
In general people thought that the only decent, civilized form of rule was a universal empire. They wanted to restore the unity of Europe that the barbarians had destroyed. The idea survived in the Holy Roman Empire - a name that was finally dropped only in 1804. Even Napoleon, when he wanted to legitimise his rule in France, could think of nothing better than to call himself emperor, and be crowned by the Pope.
And when Henry VIII wished to give the legal grounds for English independence from Rome, he said: "This realm of England is an empire." By that he meant that political authority in England was absolute, and could not be subordinate to any concurrent authority, be it that of Pope or of emperor.
We may think that all this is the sound of "old, unhappy far-off things, And battles long ago," but the Vatican notoriously thinks in centuries. And in John Paul II we have the most political Pope of modern times. It is in the movement towards federalism of the Common Market, with the coming membership of eastern European countries, as well as in the turmoil of the Soviet Union, that the Pope may see the greatest possibility for an increase in Catholic political power since the fall of Napoleon, or since the Counter-Reformation.
The Common Market itself started under the inspiration of Catholic politicians - such as [Konrad] Adenauer of Germany, Paul Henri-Spaak, Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman. They were all Christian Democrats. They were all deeply influenced by Catholic social teaching. Few European countries have committed themselves to untramelled capitalism, because most are penetrated by the corporatist ideas of the Church, and the social teaching of the Popes from Leo XIII onwards.
John Paull II's recent encyclical, commemorating the Rerum Novarum of Leo XIII, gave only a grudging blessing to the free market economy. The EC social charter and the socialism of Jacques Delors are imbued with Catholic social doctrine.
If European federalism triumphs, the EC will indeed be an empire. It will lack an emperor: but it will have the Pope. It is difficult not to think that Wojtyla realises this.
Telegraph Group Limited, London 1991.
CHAPTER 1. - The Vision of the Union
'And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings.' (Revelation 17:12)
The fighting in Europe finally stopped in the spring of 1945. Never had war been more destructive. The human and material costs were incalculable - more than 40 million dead and a European continent in ruins. This may have been Europe at rock bottom, but it followed the pattern of history: catastrophe followed by revival, followed by catastrophe. Since the fall of the Roman Empire, there have been numerous attempts to rebuild a unified Europe. The vision of one empire under one Emperor, belonging to one Church under one God, has caused more bloodshed than anything in the histyory of the world. Somehow, Europe seemed doomed to oscillate between war and peace, between power and ignominy, between order and chaos.
A United States of Europe
Winston Churchill suggested a possible solution during a celevrated speech in Zurich, Switzerland, in September 1946: 'We must build a united states of Europe.' This comment has often been misinterpreted as proof of his belief in Britain's participation in the European project, but he was not advocating the development of an undemocratic federal superstate. He went on to say: 'Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America, .... must be friends and sponsors of the new Europe.' indicating a supporting role for Britain in European integration, but not participation. Jacques Delors confirmed this, saying: 'Even the great European, Winston Churchill, envisaged European integration only for the countries of the European continent, not for Britain.' Churchill was reiterating the age old vision of a peacefully unified continent. The devastation of two world wars had made the limitations of national sovereignty painfully evident to many of Europe's leaders. They believed there was an urgent need for a European supra-nationalism to drown out Europe's individual nationalisms. By instigating an inexorable move to create a family of nations, individual enmities could be laid to rest. Churchill was sure that the primary building block had to be a new partnership between France and Germany. The recreation of the old Empire of Charlemagne was an essential cornerstone of peace in post-War Europe. Therefore, the Treaty of Paris in 1951, which had created the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), bound the French and German economic destinies irrevocably together. The pooling of iron, coal and steel resources was later enlarged to include Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg.
The Fathers of the emerging empire soon realised that Europe's economic influence in the world would be greatly enhanced by a further weakening of its internal barriers. The Treaty of Rome, signed in 1957, brought the European Economic Community (EEC) into being, with the initial goal of removing trade and economic barriers between member states and unifying their ecenomic policies. The ultimate goal, of course, was the eventual political unification of Europe - 'an ever closer union.' By this, the age old vision of past potentates continued.
The Ancient Empire
Following the early centuries AD, Mediterranean Christianity developed into a series of cults and heresies, with only a small remnant adhering to sound doctrine. As successive Caesars continued to persecute believers for refusing to acknowledge the deification of the Emperor, and to sacrifice at his altar, the extreme western portion of the Roman Empire became the place of refuge. Constantius Chlorus was the military ruler of Gaul, Spain and Britain. He prevented the execution of Christians in his region essentially because he esteemed their virtues. His sudden death resulted in his son Constantine, being declared emperor, though there followed numerous civil wars among rival pretenders for imperial power. By this time the Bishop of Rome had come to be generally acknowledged as the leader of Christianity in the West, and was called 'pope' (from the Latin 'papa', meaning 'father'). This title was commonly given to many bishops and it was not until the 9th century that the title was reserved exclusively for the bishop of Rome. Constantine's military supremacy could have been capped by the execution of Rome's Christian leader, but a vision of a flaming cross in the sky convinced him that it was in the name of the Christian God that he had been victorious. Constantine became the first Roman Emperor to profess Christianity, and for the first time in the Empire, Christians were free to practise their religion.
Many believers puzzled over this new order. For nearly three centuries they had waited for the return of Jesus Christ as king and deliverer, the fall of Rome, and the triumph of the kingdom of God. Curiously, no prophecy had foretold a popular growth and universal acceptance of the Church. They saw prophecies of persecution and suffering, but nowhere was the Church of Christ prophesied to become great and powerful in this world. On the contrary, Jesus had said that his kingdom was not of this worldly order, and talked much of the world and the Church being at odds until his return. It was not until Constantine began a process of syncretism that Christians began to understand the nature of the beast that was evolving. The Saturday Sabbath was replaced by Constantine's edict forbidding work on the 'venerable day of the Sun' (Sunday), and the celebration of the Passover was declared illegal - on pain of death. It was replaced by 'Easter', celebrated on a Sunday and inherited from a Babylonian cult to the goddess Ishtar. The Roman pseudo-Christianity caused many faithful to flee into the mountains of Europe and Asia Minor to escape persecution and death, and there they continued, away from the world's view, as the true church of Christ.
The majority of Christians, however, were awed by the universal influence of the new unity, Ther was one Empire under one Emperor, leading one Church under one God. Many believers began to wonder if they had not misunderstood the concept of the kingdom of God - it might have been the Church itself, or even the Christianised Empire. Thus the fateful union of Church and State was ratified - a union that was to shape the veolution of Europe for centuries to come.
In 337, Constantine died, leaving the Empire to a series of successors. Some, like Julian (the Apostate) hated Christians and tried to revive the old gods. Others, like Theodosius, formally outlawed the old gods and made conversion to Roman Christianity compulsory. He was the last ruler of a united Roman Empire. At his death in 395, the Empire was divided between his two sons. Thus, Eastern Europe pursued a course independently of Western Europe - a separation which was to prove permanent. The Gothic and Germanic tribes effectively conquered the Western Roman Empire in 410, leaving a ceremonial emperor on the imperial throne, and half the Empire occupied by warring Barbarian tribes of Gaul, the Germanic Visigoths, and the non-Germanic Huns. These powers seem to have embodied the forces from which western Europe has never been free.
Pope Leo's intervention to persuade Attila the Hun not to invade Rome was crucial in augmenting the power of the Roman Church and laying the foundation of the temporal power of the Popes. It was thus that the primacy of Rome's bishop was asserted over all other bishops. As the Council of Chalcedon stated in 451: 'Peter has spoken by Leo; let him be anathema who believes otherwise.' From this, the doctrine of the Papal power was granted by Christ to Peter, and that power was passed on by Peter to his successors, began to take firm root. But the Western Empire had merely become a ceremonial show for various Germanic generals, and even that ended in 476, when the final Emperor was deposed, leaving Germanic kings governing every portion. Effectively, the Western Empire had fallen, but forces were already at work to mould a new Roman Empire out of the ruins. As the ancient age drew to a close, the Middle Ages began, with the rising Eastern Empire based at Constantinople. This city (formerly known as Byzantium) was founded by Constantine in 327 as the new capital of the eastern half of the Empire. After the fall of Rome, Constantinople and its emperors carried on the traditions of Roman civilisation with one dream - the recovery of the Western provinces and the restoration of the Roman Empire to its full ancient grandeur.
In 554, the Emperor Justinian succeeded in that restoration. He saw himself as God's agent, destroying Barbarian heretics, winning back the lost provinces of the West, and healing the divisions inflicted on Rome by Barbarian invaders in 476. He acknowledged the supremacy of the Pope in the West, and effectively restored both 'legs' of the Empire - East and West. This became known as the 'Imperial Restoration.' At Justinian's death in 565, the resources of the restored Empire had been depleted and subsequent invasions once again divided East and West for a further two centuries. But the principal focus had shifted to the West, as Papal Rome turned its eyes to the powerful Frankish, German and Austrian kings at the heart of Europe.
The Middle Ages
In AD 800, Charlemagne (Charles the Great), a zealous Roman Catholic, was crowned Imperator Romanorum (Emperor of the Romans) by Pope Leo III. He became Western Europe's 'Christian' Caesar - a Roman emperor born of a Germanic race. The West once again had an emperor, and his coronation was to become the central event of the Middle Ages. He was proclaimed Rex Pater Europae (King Father of Europe) and espoused the ideal of a unified Christian Empire - albeit christianised at sword-point - in close alliance with the Pope. The fact that Charlemagne received his crown from the Pope was seen by the populace as equal to a divine bestowal. It confirmed the perception that the imperial crown was a papal gift, and that the kingdoms of this earth belonged to the Bishop of Rome; they were his to give, and his to take away. It was the lesser person being blessed by the greater. According to Hebrews 7:7, the person performing the blessing must be the superior party: 'And without all contradiction the less is blessed by the better.' By this, there had been a formal linking of the Pope's spiritual power with the Emperor's temporal power, and the two had become joint sovereigns on earth, in a Holy Roman Empire which was the political foundation of the Middle Ages. Throughout this era, the memory of the once great Roman Empire lived as a vital tradition in the hearts of many Europeans. The entire future of the Continent was bound up in this coronation, and the alliance between the Papacy and Germany has been of great significance ever since.
Following Charlemagne's death in 814, the cycle of revival followed by disintegration was repeated, and Europe crumbled into feudal states and political mayhem. The Treaty of Verdun was agreed between Charlemagne's quarrelsome grandsons in 843. It partitioned the Empire into three, foreshadowing the modern geography of Western Europe. The Holy See was also torn by factionalism, the Papacy being bought, sold, and occasionally obtained by murder. The weakness and disunity in the Roman Church was closely reflected in the disunity and chaos throughout Europe.
In 962, Otto the Great revived Charlemagne's Empire as the first German Reich (Empire) and was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope John XII. This Reich became known as the Sacrum Romanum Imperium Nationis Germanicae (Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation) and Otto's octagonal crown became the symbol of the concept of European unity. Germany became the power centre of the Empire. Throughout the Middle Ages it was to be he kings of the Germans, crowned by the Pope, who would be named Holy Roman Emperor. Otto's death heralded further instability. Old alliances between Popes and Emperors collapsed. The final schism between the Western (Roman) and Eastern (Orthodox) churches was formalised when the Pope at Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated each other. The great medieval struggle between Empire and Papacy was initiated in 1059, when Pope Nicholas II removed the Emperor's influence in Papal elections, sparking a major rupture between Germany and Rome. After the ensuing centuries of German demise and a period without an emperor, the imperial crown was revived and given to the Austrian Count Rudolf of Habsburg - a name which was to play a leading role in European affairs for centuries to come. Western Europe developed a secular authority, and papal powers were greatly diminished. French and German tensions resulted in there being two Popes, each denouncing the other as the Antichrist, and expedience determined which European state supported which Pope. By 1409 there were three Popes, creating an intolerable situation which resulted in a devastating loss of prestige for the Roman Catholic Church.
The evolution of the Empire.
During the 15th and 16th centuries, the Habsburgs had been carefully working behind the scenes, adding to their ancestral land holdings and consolidating their power base. The imperial title became hereditary in the Habsburg family and, by a calculated policy of dynastic marriages, they enlarged their borders. After centuries of decline, the last vestiges of the Roman Empire in the East finally fell to the Ottoman Turks, leaving this 'leg' of the Empire to pursue its own course. In the West, the greatest of all the Habsburgs, the Emperor Charles V, built a global empire stretching from Vienna to Peru (through the acquisition of the Spanish dominions) and pursued tirelessly the ideal of a unified Christian empire. He achieved the world's first truly great modern empire, only to be thwarted by the Italian Renaissance spirit with its questioning and criticism of time-honoured institutions, including the Church. This great awakening of learning and knowledge spread northwards to the German universities, and reached an insignificant monk and educator named Martin Luther. His disgust with the corruption in the Roman Church and Papal abuse of power led to the Protestant Reformation, which spread like wildfire over the Continent. Despite the Emperor's efforts to declare war on the protesters, the old order had been demolished and hopes of religious unity destroyed, along with the meaning of the office of Holy Roman Emperor. He was now the head of just one party - the Catholics. Charles had been crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Clement VII in 1530, the last time the office was bestowed by a Pope. He was the last universal Emperor of the West, bequeathing a fragmented Empire of political rivalries and religious factions to his diverse successors. There followed 30 years ofwar, Catholic and protestant conflagrations, French dominion under Louis XIV, the rise of prussia, the French Revolution, and the emergence of a new star in a firmament of bloodshed, hysteria and domestic turmoil - Napoleon Bonaparte.
Napoleon, too, dreamed of a resurrected Roman-European civilisation, dominated by France. He considered himself the heir and successor to Caesar and Charlemagne and, borrowing a title from ancient Rome, called himself First Consul. With a bust of Julius Caesar adorning his study, classical imagery dominated his mind. 'I am of the race of the Caesars, and of the best, of those who laid the foundations,' he declared. Being completely aware of the influence of the Papacy, he concluded a concordat (an agreement between a Pope and a secular government) in 1801, and restored its official status in France. In 1804, he summoned Pope Pius VII to give the highest religious significance to the anointing and crowning of the first Emperor of the French. What followed, a thousand years after Pope Leo III had crowned Charlemagne in Rome, has become one of them ost symbolic acts in European history.
As the Pope waited with his cardinals on the high altar of Notre Dame Cathedral, Napoleon approached. All expected him to kneel before the Pontiff and, like Charlemagne, accept a blessing from the superior party. To the amazement of the congragation, he seized the crown from the Pope's hands, turned his back on the Pope and the altar, and crowned himself. In so doing, Napoleon had made it clear that the Church was in the hands of the State, though the coronation went on to be consecrated by the Pope. Napoleon crowned himself again with the 'iron crown' of Lombardy, the great historic symbol of Europe which had previously been worn by Charlemagne, Otto the Great and the other European sovereigns. He made himself King of Italy, and sealed a victory over the Russian and Austrian armies. This gave him the confidence to write to Rome: 'Tell the Pope I am Charlemagne, the Sword of the Church, his Emperor, andas such I expect to be treated.' With renewed vigour, he pushed ahead with his plans for a United States of Europe - a league of European states under French hegemony. It soon became clear that the existence of an Audstrian archduke with the title Holy Roman Emperor was preposterous. In 1806, Francis II resigned his titles and imperial crown, leaving Napoleon as the unchallenged Emperor of the West. But Napoleon's demise was rapid. With a catastrophic attempt to annexe Russia into his empire, and the restoration of the Bourbon king Louis XVIII, he was defeated by the British at Waterloo and finally exiled to the island of St. Helena, where he wrote: 'I wanted to found a European system, a European code of laws, a European judiciary. There would have been but one people throughout Europe.'
Through further titanic clashes of ambitions, particularly between a second French Empire and a unified German nation, a new German Empire emerged in 1871 - the Second Reich. Simultaneously, a united Italian kingdom emerged and, for the first time in 1500 years, Rome became its capital. Pope Pius IX, stripped of temporal power, began to re-assert his strength in the spiritual realm by declaring Papal Infallibility as a formal article of Catholic belief. Bismarck observed: 'What is here at stake is a struggle for power, a struggle as old as the human race, the struggle for power between monarchy and priesthood. That is a struggle for power which has filled the whole of erman history.' In 1882, the ancient links between Italy and Germany were reforged. This was the prelude to an era which was to arise more than half a century later, under Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.
The First World War was a result of Germany's agressively independent course in foreign affairs, which created a complex web of alliances. It left more than ten million people dead, and a vanquished German Empire. At last, Europe had fought 'the war to end all wars'. It was, however, only a matter of time before the harsh terms of surrender imposed on Germany began to cause severe political, economic and social problems. Similar conditions prevailed in Italy, with a disgruntled society plagued by unemployment, strikes and riots. Through this, Mussolini was handed full emergency powers, and transformed his government into a Fascist dictatorship. He endeavoured to make Rome once again the centre of western civilisation, perceiving himself as a modern-day Caesar. He evn abolished the handshake, re-instituting instead the old Roman salute with raised arm as a theatrical gesture towards his dreams of Roman grandeur.
Since Italians are overwhelmingly Roman Catholic, something had to be done towards settling the Papal question. Negotiations led to the restoration of the Pope's temporal power over Vatican City - which became the smallest sovereign country in the world - and Catholicism became the official religion of Italy. The rapid rise of Mussolini was a strong influence on the young Hitler. Political pandemonium in Germany forged the path for the emergence of a deliverer, and the Nazis became the largest party in parliament. So began the development of the Third Reich. Like Mussolini, Hitler was a Roman Catholic by birth, and needed to come to terms with the Vatican. He did so in 1933, in a concordat which gave his government an outward semblance of legitimacy, though relations were strained. In 1936, Mussolini declared the resurrection of the Roman Empire, claiming succession to imperial Rome. He turned to Hitler as an ally, agreeing to co-ordinate foreign policies in the so-called Pact of Steel. The Second World War was to be the means by which Hitler would achieve his mission to become ruler of a great Germanic Empire. It would be a Reich that would rule all of Europe, but his Empire was to be ephemeral. He repeated Napoleon's disastrous mistake of invading Russia, and the tide began to turn. With the suicide of Hitler and the execution of Mussolini, the bloodiest war in history came to an end. It left a ruined Germany once again, a devastated Italy, and a Europe which prayed it had seen the last of its Empire builders.
The Pursuit of Christendom
All these successors of the Roman Caesars understood the vast importance of the Papacy in European affairs. Even into the 21st century, Europe's leaders and the Roman Catholic Church are still working together towards the common goal of unity. Many of Europe's political leaders, icluding Commissioners and MEPs, see a crucial role for the Roman Catholic Church in their efforts, providing a powerfully cohesive common religion to hold Europe together politically. The vision of a Holy Roman Empire under a Roman Catholic aegis is a favourite theme of Pope John Paul II. Indeed, he believes it to be his literal calling from God to preside over these crucial immediate years in order to witness it. In Poland, in 1979, he declared: 'Europe, despite its present and long-lasting divisions of regimes, ideologies and economic systems, cannot cease to seek its fundamental unity and must turn to Christianity. Economic and political reasons cannot do it. We must go deeper.' He went further in 1982, in a speech in Spain, proclaiming: 'I, Bishop of Rome and Shepherd of the Universal Church, from Santiago, utter to you, Europe of the ages, a cry full of love. Find yourself again. Be yourself. Discover your origins, revive your roots.' The Pope had repeatedly stressed that Europe must seek religious unity if it is to advance beyond political division, and he has prayed for 'all the Christians of East and West, that they become united in Christ and expand the Kingdom of Christ throughout the world.'
According to Malachi Martin, a former Jesuit priest who worked in the heart of the Vatican, there is no doubrt that Pope John Paul II claims the right to lead the emerging system. Martin's book, The Keys of this Blood, has the subtitle Pope John Paul II versus Russia and the West for control of the New World Order. With its embassies, emissaries, institutions and networks around the world, the Vatican is in a remarkably powerful position to influence global affairs. Martin states: 'What captures the unwavering attention of the secular leaders of the world in this remarkable network of the Roman Catholic Church is precisely the fact that it places at the personal disposal of the Pope a supra-national, supra-continental, supra-trade-bloc structure that is so built and orientated that if tomorrow or next week, by a sudden miracle, a one-world government were established, the Roman Church would not have to undergo any essential change in oeder to retain its dominant position to further its global aims.' In the knowledge of this, it is noteworthy that the Vatican has a special status at the United Nations and is able to use its influence in that sphere. The Pope has a privileged right to address the UN General Assembly, while the Holy See has full rights to participate in and speak at UN meetings. No other religious body, Christian or otherwise, is in such a position. As The Times observed, 'the Vatican remains a monument to the oligarchic concentration of wealth and power.'
Since World War II, each Pope has thrown his weight behind moves toward the creation of a supra-national European union. Pope John XXIII insisted that Roman Catholics should be 'in the front ranks' of the unification effort. In 1963, Pope Paul VI declared: 'Everyone knows the tragic history of our century. If there is a means of preventing this from happening again, it is the construction of a peaceful, organic, united Europe.' In 1965, he further observed: 'A long, arduous path lies ahead. However, the Holy See hopes to see the day born when a new Europe will arise, rich with the fulness of its traditions.' Perhaps the most concerning of Paul VI's pronouncements on European unification came in Rome, in 1975, when he declared: 'Can it not be said that it is faith, the Christian faith, the Catholic faith that made Europe ?' He continued: 'It is there that our mission as bishops in Europe takes on a gripping perspective. No other human force in Europe can render the service that is confided to us, promoters of the faith, to re-awaken Europe's Christian soul, where its unity is rooted.'
Europe was consecrated to Mary by the Vatican in 1309, and placed under her patronage. The shrine of 'Our Lady of Europe', in Gibraltar, was instituted at the consecration. This shrine has been renovated with a £200,000 grant from the EU, about which the Vatican has announced: 'It is the prayer of His Holiness that the shrine will be an evermore effective centre of unification, a place where, under the patronage of Mary, the human family will be drawn evermore closely into a fraternal unity and peaceful co-existence.' The Pope also approved the change of her 'feast day' to 5th May, to coincide with 'Europe Day'. At the 'enthronement' of the statue in 1997, it was reproted that 'all of Europe was waiting in anticipation of the reconsecration of its continent, and the call from the Pope for a Europe united not just economically and politically, but also in spiritual renewal.'
The Pope's calls for spiritual unity have been echoed by leading politicians all over Europe, especially those allied to the Vatican's political wing, the 'Christian Democratic' parties. One of the most prominent Roman Catholic MEPs, Dr. Otto von Habsburg, the eldest son of the last Austro-Hungarian Emperor, has long awaited the emergence of a new order. For a future united Europe, he advocated a strong religious role for the Roman Catholic Church , which he termed 'Europe's ultimate bulwark.' He also forsaw a potential role for the crown of the Holy Roman Empire, which today resides in the Art History Museum of Vienna. Christopher Hollis, in his foreword to Dr. Habsburg's book The Social Order of Tomorrow, states that Dr. Habsburg would like to see Europe resume her essential unity. He writes: 'In the symbolism of that unity, he thinks that the imperial crown of Charlemagne and of the Holy Roman Empire might well have its part to play.' Habsburg's plea was for a federal Europe so that 'her future can be greater than her past'. A new order of government would thus be crucial.
Divine Rights and wrongs
In order to forge ahead with the federalising process, the achievements of the Reformation had to be diminished. Even some prominent Evangelical Christian leaders have presented this enlightenment as one of the greatest tragedies that ever happened to the Church, and believe that Protestants 'destroyed the unity of Christendom'. Unity, it seems, has become more improtant than truth. The concept of Christendom, however unbiblical its practice, appears to matter more than the national boundaries set between one principality and another, regardless of the liberties those boundaries defend.
While visiting Austria in 1983, Pope John Paul II spoke out against the 'national and artificial borders' all over Europe. He added: 'Europeans should overcome the menacing international confrontations of states and alliances, and create a new united Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals.' In 1988, he continued this theme when he addressed the European Parliament in Strasbourg; an occasion at which many asked why a perceived spiritual leader was addressing the issues of political unity. The Sunday Telegraph summed up his plans for the 'evangelisation' of Europe, stating: 'He is clamly preparing to assume the mantle which he solemnly believes to be his Divine Right - that of new Holy Roman Emperor, reigning from the Urals to the Atlantic.' It must be noted that the term 'evangelisation' is a euphemism for advancement of the social policy and other aims of the Vatican, rather than the proclamation of the Gospel. Among European leaders who have been influential in furthering this social agenda are former Dutch Prime Minister, Ruud Lubbers, and the former presidents of the European Commission, Jacques Delors and Jacques Santer - all Jesuit educated. The former leaders of both Germany and Spain, Helmut Kohl and Felipe Gonzales, were also devout Roman Catholics. For them, there was no nobler task than the unifying of the European continent. A German colleague of Jacques Delors described the idea of a unified Europe as 'essentially a Catholic concept', of which an inevitable result would be subjugation of Britain's Protestant ethos to Roman Catholic social, political and religious teachings. 'The Catholic Churches in many continental countries are influenced by a desire to see a shadow Holy Roman Empire recreated in Europe' and the Christian Democrat and Christian Socialist traditions in Europe are working to that end. In Britain, according to David Willets MP, 'Tony Blair is trying to copy continental Christian Democracy.' This goes some way to explaining why he issued a decree that no Labour parliamentary candidates were permitted to criticise the EU in their General Election addresses.
The 'Catholic concept' is given further credence when one examines the address given by Cardinal Maria Martini of Milan, who was invited to speak to the European Parliament in a symposium on 'Remembering the Origins of the Process of European Integration'. He outlined the importance of a single faith (Catholicism), and emphasized that religions must not support nationalisms (ie. the Church of England must not defend the English Constitution), and Europe must recognise the 'primacy of the divine' (ie. the primacy of the Pope). His address included demands for a new welfare state, on the model of Roman Catholic social doctrine, and his rejection that European integration was ever about economic and monetary issues alone. He said, 'The Europe we must build is a Europe of the spirit,' and reminded the Parliament: 'If the process of European integration is not anchored in truly religious foundations .... it will seriously compromise the future of all Europeans.'
It was no surprise, therefore, that the European Foundation concluded that 'on the 8th day, God created Europe', reporting that The Tablet carried news of the Vatican's pronouncement of the canonisation process for the so-called 'Founding Fathers' of the European Community, Alcide de Gasperi, Robert Schuman and Konrad Adenauer. The 'sainthoods' are a reward for founding the European Community 'on Roman Catholic principles'. A supporter of their canonisation said that the opening of the cases would show that Europe 'was built upon a rock', adding: 'I think that the European Union is a design not only of human beings but of God.' Thus the European Union exists by 'Divine Right'. A bidding prayer at the closing mass of the Synod prayed that the political leaders of Europe would 'courageously encourage the process of European integration and development.' The text released at the end of the Synod was addressed to Christians and 'fellow citizens of Europe' who were invited 'to be committed European .... treasuring the precious heritage left us by the founding fathers of a united Europe'. It was necessary to 'pursue, with courage and urgency, the process of European integration, widening the circle of member countries of the Union, while appreciating with wisdom the historical and cultural differences of the nations.'
German 'destiny' - the Fourth Reich
Germany's Christian Democratic party has been the driving force of European integration since the end of the Second World War. It is strongly influenced by Catholic social teaching, which originated the concepts of solidarity, the single market and the social chapter. These same ideas were expressed by the Nazi finance minister Professor Walther Funk, the architect of Hitler's 'New Europe'. In 1942, he issued a compendium of papers which contained chapters and sections on 'the Common European Currency', 'Harmonisation of European Rates of Exchange', 'The European Economic Community', 'The European Agricultural Economic Order' (ie. the Common Agricultural Policy), 'A Common Labour Policy' and 'The European regional principle' (ie. The Europe of Regions Policy). In a summary of collectivist ideas and economic structures, he wrote: 'The individual will be replaced by the people, the world market will bereplaced by the living space, and capital will be replaced by the organisation of labour.' These objectives are intrinsic to Roman Catholic social ideals. Rome's motto, Semper Eadem (always the same), can certainly be applied to both its desire to direct social thinking and its self-perceived divine mission to preside over a unified Europe, achievable through a dominating German state.
Professor Funk was not the first to elucidate Germany's aims. A 'divine right' akin to that presumed by the Papacy has its resonance throughout Germanic history. Kaiser Wilhelm II also sensed the 'hand of God', saying: ' .... after the elimination of the British and the Jews .... the result will be a United States of Europe .... The hand of God is creating a new world .... a United States of Europe under German leadership.' The strategy was to consist of 'a central European economic association [being established] through mutual customs agreements, including France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Austro-Hungary, Poland, and possibly also Italy, Sweden and Norway. This association, while without a common constitutional overstructure and with the maintenance of external equality of its members, but in fact under German leadership, will lead to the establishment of economic domination of Germany over Central Europe.
Former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl for many years declared hid dissatisfaction with a common market of independent states, and believed it was German destiny not merely to lead a European union, but to dominate it. He said: 'The European Union Treaty introduces a new and decisive stage in the process of European Union, which within a few years will lead to the creation of .... the United States of Europe. There is no alternative to a policy which aims at combination, unless we wish to challenge fate. It has been my policy from the ourset to combine indivisibly German unity and the political unification of Europe. For myself, these two sides of the same coin. We shall only be able to create this greater Europe provided we irreversibly advance the present European core. Both must continue and remain at the top of the agenda: the European Union and the greater European edifice. There is no question of "either/ or" here, but only "both/and".'
In stating this, he was merely following the mindset of his predecessors. Another former chancellor of Germany and privy chamberlain to the Pope, Konrad Adenauer, declared: 'Germany has a divine mission to save western Europe.' Since the era of Charlemagne, the notion of a Germany destiny or fate has been deeply ingrained in the German psyche; it is an instinct which has driven Germany in the past, and one to which Hitler frequently referred in his speeches. Kohl also had dominance and destiny at the forefront of his thinking when he said: 'The future will belong to the Germans .... when we build the house of Europe .... In the next two years we will make the process of European integration irreversible. This is a really big battle, but it is worth the fight.'
In 1994, a German Christian Democratic Party document was produced which outlined the CDU's vision for a federal Europe, with a parliament which they stated would be a 'genuine law-making body'. It further stated: 'No country should be allowed to block by veto the efforts of the other countries to deepen integration.' There can be no other interpretation of these aspirations than that they look to the emergence of a single state, wit law-making and tax-raising powers, and that any attempt by a member country to secede would be resisted with force. The CDU document went on to say: 'Never again must there be a destabilizing vacuum of power in central Europe. If European integration were not to progress, Germany might be called upon, or tempted by its own security constraints, to try to effect the stabilization (a word replete with unpleasant historical echoes) on its own, and in the traditional way.' Kohl asserted his conviction that if there were no further European integration, there may well be war. Such alarmist talk from a western European statesman and politician is incomprehensible, until it is placed in the context of Germany's conviction about herself and her role in Europe.
Th e Christian Democratic leaders from Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have all backed far-reaching plans for the transfer of national sovereignty and the establishment of a federal government, with sole control over monetary, foreign and defence policy. From a British perspective, it is not immediately obvious why Germany should want to compromise her sovereignty at all, until one considers the constraints placed on her by the Allies following two World Wars. German re-armament could take place within the context of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Denied a nuclear capacity of her own since 1949, joining organisations which did possess it was clearly an advantageous move. The Euopean People's Party (EPP) has confirmed its intention 'to set in place .... a Union with all the necessary poltical and diplomatic powers .... including a nuclear element.' Whereas the other Western European countries agreed military co-operation through NATO and gave up a measure of independence through their membership of the EEC, these were the organisations through which Germany regained much of her influence. Thus, through this process, the former German foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher was able to claim: 'The more European our foreign policy is, the more national it is.' For Germans, 'pooling sovereignty' has been a means of increasing their national sovereignty. It is, therefore, hard for them to understand the reticence in other member states towards furthering the process of integration. The terms 'Reich' and 'Europe' have often been used interchangebly in German thinking. 'From its very inception, the Reich has always been a Germanic and also European idea. A strong Reich was always necessary for a strong Europe, and conversely a strong Europe is inconceivable without a strong Reich. This is Europe's political law.'
It is this strong sense of German destiny, and the belief that an attack on Community policy is an attack on German policy, which led to Kohl's threats of war. Karl Lamers, the author of the 1994 CDU paper, asserted: 'The highest interests of the Europeans are identical.' Germany knows that an increase in European defence will increase her own predominance as the nodal point which links the United States with Russia, and such a strategic positioning would be a fulfilment of her desire to be raised to superpower status, as the head of a united Europe. Controlling the European money supply is the principle means of gaining supreme power, as German ambassador to the UK, Dr. Jurgen Oesterholt, confirmed: 'Germany is unconcerned with the economic experts who are ranged against monetary union. They will be proved irrelevent by the force of European will. It is Germanys' historic mission and role to provide that will.'
As the largest and most powerful country in the Union, Germany can expect her eastern neighbours to vote with her, if only because it is in their interests to maintain cordial relations with the state to which they are economically tied. This would take a 'greater Germany' up to the Russian border. Bill Cash MP observed: 'As well as influencing its nearest neighbours, Germany's plurality ownership of Russia's $125.6 billion foreign debt gives it influence in Moscow. With many EU leaders wishing the EU ultimately to extend to the Ural Mountains, German influence in Russia may prove critical.
Parliament or Pope ?
The Conservative Party in the United Kingdom dominated 20th century politics, and was termed 'the natural party of government.' Its electoral self-destruction towards the close of that century had its roots in 17th century religio-political disputes, in which the Whiggish tradition espoused Parliament over the executive, the interests of small traders over concentrated wealth, liberty over the powers of state, and the toleration of non-conformists. 'Whig' was a Scottish term for horse-thief, and was applied to those who attempted to block the accession to the throne in 1679 of the Roman Catholic despot James II. The underlying issue was whether Britain should be ruled by Parliament, or by the King under the Pope of Rome. Yesterday's Whigs favoured Parliament against an autocratic king; today's Whigs favour Parliament against the oligarchic European Commission. Even benign despotism infringes the sovereignty of Parliament. It is instinctive for Conservatives of the Whig tradition to oppose any kind of unaccountable centralised power-base.
The Anglo-Saxon political right-wing philosophy of free markets, liberty, tolerance, and a sovereign legislature is the antithesis of the Continental right-wing of autocracy, cohesion, catholicism and corporatism. It is the Corporatist section of the Conservative Party which favours the EU agenda, corporatism being an expression of Roman Catholic social doctrine. It advocates close co-operation between employers and workers, with the State overseeing wages, working conditions, production, prices and exchange. By eliminating competition, the system is meant to promote social justice and order. The connection between Catholicism and the Continental right-wing is evident in the various Christian Democratic parties, where, for 'Christian', one should substitute 'Roman Catholic'. They are the lineal descendents of the old centre parties brought into politics at the behest of the Papacy towards the end of the 19th century, and were attracted by the idea of a united European Christendom. True to their confessional roots, they are perfectly at ease with the notion of authorities higher than national governments.
The Conservative Party consequently has a profoundly different view of the EU form that of the centrist Christian Democratic parties on the Continent that make up the EPP. With Catholicism and interventionist statism dominating on the Continent, the Conservative Party, while founded on a Judaeo-Protestant Christian ethic, deliberately eschews denominational links and espouses free-market liberalism. When Disraeli referred to the Conservative Party as the National Party, it was essentially because of its defence of the nation-state. If Britain ceased to be a state, the Conservative Party would be deprived of its raison d'etre. Tony Blair's abhorance of the 'forces of conservatism' (which comprise fragile constitutional balances which have contributed to centuries of peace and stability) was a sound-bite designed to serve the federalising agenda of the EU, and move his 'New' Labour Party into the territory of European Christian Democracy. He was duly rewarded with the 'Charlemagne Prize ' for services to European integration, and stated that it was his ambition to end any ambiguity in Britain's relationship with Europe. It is no coincidence that his leadership style was described as overbearing and autocratic, and his Executive's contempt for the parliamentary process caused the Speaker to chastise him for undermining the role of Parliament. Such a style is intrinsic to the Continental system of state government, and central to the 'Blairite' modernising agenda to change Britain radically and irreversibly.
The inspirational Euro-vision
It is noteworthy that politicians and journalists always use the term 'Europe' when they mean the EU. Europe is changing its meaning to include EU members only, producing such illogical phrases as 'European trade with Eastern Europe'. Europe is a continent of over 50 nations, while the EU consists of less than a third of these (Note: c. 12 EU members at the time of writing), but anything that disagrees with EU policy, or is not intrinsic to it, becomes un-European. Romano Prodi overtly aims for a Leninist 'new kind of global governance', asserting that 'Brussels is all of us.' The vision is that this EU will ultimately speak with one voice - one representative - in international financial institutions or United Nations agencies, or as a previous advocate of European integration put it: 'Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer'. This has already been seen in world banking meetings. On 22nd January 2000, the presidents of the central banks of France, Germany and Italy were asked to leave a finance meeting in Japan because they were no longer able to influence the interest or exchange rates of their respective currencies. They preside over what are termed 'legacy currencies' - mere sub-units of the Euro - while the Governor of the Bank of England was admitted on an equal status with the President of the European Central Bank (ECB). This may not last, as the Commissioner in charge of EMU suggested that the G8 group of the world's leading industrial nations may become a G3, representing the interests of the dollar, the euro and the yen. This could deprive Britain, the fourth largest economy in the world, of any role in the club of the world's economic elite.
There is no doubt that the vision of a united Europe has inspired and continues to inspire politicians, Popes, and peacemakers of all backgrounds and persuasions. Since a mere free-trade area has failed to inspire anyone, the drive is once again towards a community of nations which will win the hearts and minds of the people, with talk of increased prosperity, dynamic success, secure peace and greater social justice. Many sincere believers quote: 'Where there is no vision, the people perish (Proverbs 29:18), utterly convinced that a united Europe is God's way forward. At the other extreme are those who would condemn the whole notion of European co-operation as a second Tower of Babel. They see it as being utterly wrong to bring those who speak different languages together under one government - although they conveniently ignore the foundation of the United Kingdom and the British Empire. They als oextract a divine charter for the nation-state from Acts 17:26, 'And he hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation', again conveniently ignoring Paul's concluding explanation: 'That they should seek the Lord.' The boundaries of the nations can be either an assistance or a hindrance in seeking God. The principle reason the Gospel was able to spread so quickly during the first century was the fact that nations had been unified under Roman rule. The passport of Roman citizenship enabled Paul to travel throughout the Empire unhindered by borders. Time and time again, scripture is clear on the sovereignty of God:
' .... the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.' (Daniel 4:25)
'It is he .... that bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.' (Isaiah 40:23)
'He increaseth the nations and destroyeth them; he enlargeth the nations and straighteneth them again.' (12:23)
Despite the assertion of a 'divine right', no man-made Euro-vision will succeed against the Lord. The prophet Jeremiah foresaw this tendency in the heart of man: 'They speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord (Jeremiah 23:16). And even within the divine scheme of things, momentous principalities and powers are warring for control. The fallen state of human nature is evidenced in corruption in high places, rebellion in low places, hatred, suspicion, jealousy and greed. While sincere democrats will be working to make the Union more stable, democratic and accountable, the opposing forces will be working to make the Union ungovernable. And for those who believe that the divine plan is that Britain should withdraw, then Scripture is equally clear that God raises up new leaders or government ministers to instigate such paths: ' .... and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?' (Esther 4:14) Former US President Ronald Reagan referred to a special attribute of the greatest statesmen - 'the gift of vision-the willingness to see the future based on the experience of the past.' The English-speaking peoples have imparted to many nations the lessons of liberty, having developed the world's oldest system of representative government, and having been the first to recognise fundamental rights and individual liberties. Participation in the Euro-vision has been a retrograde step, politically, economically and spiritually, and Britain awaits a great statesman with the ability to forge a future having learned the lessons of the past.
The Holy Roman Empire
It is impossible to understand the current drive for European integration without viewing it in the context of previous attempts. Since the fall of the Roman Empire, numerous attempts to rebuild a unified Europe have failed. The vision of one Empire under one Emperor, belonging to one Church under one God, has caused more bloodshed than anything in the history of the world. Somehow, Europe has seemed doomed to oscillate between war and peace, between power and ignominy, between order and chaos.
Constantine became the first Roman Emperor to profess Christianity. There was one Empire under one Emperor, leading one Church under one God. Thus the fateful union of Church and State was ratified - a union that was to shape the evolution of Europe for centuries to come.
In 337, Constantine died, leaving the Empire to a series of successors. Theodosius, formally outlawed the old gods and made conversion to Roman Christianity compulsory. He was the last ruler of a united Roman Empire.
At his death the Empire was divided between his two sons. Thus, Eastern Europe pursued a course independently of Western Europe - a separation that was to prove permanent. The Western Roman Empire was occupied by the warring barbarian tribes of Gaul, the Germanic Visigoths and the non-Germanic Hun. These powers seem to have embodied the forces from which Western Europe has never been free.
In AD 800, Charlemagne (Charles the Great), a zealous Roman Catholic, was crowned Imperator Romanorum (Emperor of the Romans) by Pope Leo III. He became Western Europe's 'Christian' Caesar - a Roman emperor born of a Germanic race. The West once again had an emperor, and his coronation was to become the central event of the Middle Ages. He was proclaimed Rex Pater Europae (King Father of Europe) and espoused the ideal of a unified Christian Empire - albeit christianised at sword-point - in close alliance with the Pope. The fact that Charlemagne received his crown from the Pope was seen by the populace as equal to a divine bestowal. It confirmed the perception that the imperial crown was a papal gift, and that the kingdoms of this earth belonged to the Bishop of Rome; they were his to give, and his to take away. By this, there had been a formal linking of the Pope's spiritual power with the Emperor's temporal power, and the two had become joint sovereigns on earth, in a Holy Roman Empire which was the political foundation of the Middle Ages. Throughout this era, the memory of the once-great Roman Empire lived as a vital tradition in the hearts of many Europeans. The entire future of the Continent was bound up in this coronation, and the alliance between the papacy and Germany has been of great significance ever since.
In 962, Otto the Great revived Charlemagne's Empire as the first German Reich (Empire) and was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope John XII. This Reich became known as the Sacrum Romanum Imperium Nationis Germanicae (Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation) and Otto's octagonal crown became the symbol of the concept of European unity. Germany became the power centre of the Empire. Throughout the Middle Ages it was to be the kings of the Germans, crowned by the Pope, who would be named Holy Roman Emperor.
The imperial crown was eventually given to the Austrian Count Rudolf of Habsburg - a name which was to play a leading role in European affairs for centuries to come. The imperial title became hereditary in the Habsburg family and pursued tirelessly the ideal of a unified Christian Empire.
This was thwarted by the Italian Renaissance spirit with its questioning and criticism of time-honoured institutions, including the Church. This great awakening of learning and knowledge spread northwards to the German universities, and reached an insignificant monk and educator named Martin Luther. His disgust with the corruption in the Roman Church and Papal abuse of power led to the Protestant Reformation, which spread like wildfire over the Continent. Despite the Emperor's efforts to declare war on the protesters, the old order had been demolished and hopes of religious unity destroyed, along with the meaning of the office of Holy Roman Emperor.
Napoleon, too, dreamed of a resurrected Roman-European civilisation, dominated by France. He considered himself the heir and successor to Caesar and Charlemagne and, borrowing a title from ancient Rome, called himself First Consul 'I am of the race of the Caesars, and of the best, of those who laid the foundations,' he declared. Napoleon crowned himself again with the 'iron crown' of Lombardy, the great historic symbol of Europe which had previously been worn by Charlemagne, Otto the Great and other European sovereigns. This gave him the confidence to write to Rome: 'Tell the Pope I am Charlemagne, the Sword of the Church, his Emperor, and as such I expect to be treated.' With renewed vigour, he pushed ahead with his plans for a United States of Europe. But Napoleon's demise was rapid. Exiled to the island of Saint Helena, where he wrote: 'I wanted to found a European system, a European code of laws, a European judiciary. There would have been but one people throughout Europe.'
Mussolini endeavoured to make Rome once again the centre of Western civilisation, perceiving himself as a modern-day Caesar. He even abolished the handshake, re-instituting instead the old Roman salute with raised arm as a theatrical gesture towards his dreams of Roman grandeur. Hitler. Political pandemonium in Germany forged the path for the emergence of a deliverer. So began the development of the Third Reich. Like Mussolini, Hitler was a Roman Catholic by birth, and needed to come to terms with the Vatican. He did so in 1933, in a concordat, which gave his government an outward semblance of legitimacy. In 1936, Mussolini declared the resurrection of the Roman Empire, claiming succession to imperial Rome. He turned to Hitler as an ally, agreeing to co-ordinate foreign policies in the so-called Pact of Steel. The Second World War was to be the means by which Hitler would achieve his mission to become ruler of a great Germanic Empire. It would be a Reich that would rule all of Europe.
Deeper than economics or politics…
The successors of the Roman Caesars understood the vast importance of the Papacy in European affairs. Even at the close of the 20th century, we witness Europe's leaders and the Roman Catholic Church still working together towards the common goal of unity. Many of Europe's political leaders, including Commissioners and MEPs, see a crucial role for the Roman Catholic Church in their efforts, providing a powerfully cohesive common religion to hold Europe together politically. The vision of a Holy Roman Empire under a Roman Catholic aegis is a favourite theme of the present Pope, John Paul II. Indeed, he believes it is his literal calling from God to preside over these crucial immediate years in order to witness it. In Poland, in 1979, he declared: 'Europe, despite its present and long-lasting divisions of regimes, ideologies and economic systems, cannot cease to seek its fundamental unity and must turn to Christianity. Economic and political reasons cannot do it. We must go deeper.' He went further in 1982, in a speech in Spain, proclaiming: 'I, Bishop of Rome and Shepherd of the Universal Church, from Santiago, utter to you, Europe of the ages, a cry full of love. Find yourself again. Be yourself. Discover your origins, revive your roots.' The Pope has repeatedly stressed that Europe must seek religious unity if it is to advance beyond political division, and he has prayed for 'all the Christians of East and West, that they become united in Christ and expand the Kingdom of Christ throughout the world.'
Since World War II, each Pope has thrown his weight behind moves toward the creation of a supra-national European union. Pope John XXIII insisted that Roman Catholics should be 'in the front ranks' of the unification effort. In 1963, Pope Paul VI declared: 'Everyone knows the tragic history of our century. If there is a means of preventing this from happening again, it is the construction of a peaceful, organic, united Europe.' In 1965, he further observed' A long, arduous path lies ahead. However, the Holy See hopes to see the day born when a new Europe will arise, rich with the fullness of its traditions.' Perhaps the most concerning of Paul VI's pronouncements on European unification came in Rome, in 1975, when he declared: 'Can it not be said that it is faith, the Christian faith, the Catholic faith that made Europe?' He continued: 'It is there that our mission as bishops in Europe takes on a gripping perspective. No other human force in Europe can render the service that is confided to us, promoters of the faith, to re-awaken Europe's Christian soul, where its unity is rooted.' Europe was consecrated to Mary by the Vatican in 1309, and placed under her patronage. The shrine of 'Our Lady of Europa', in Gibraltar, was instituted at the consecration. This shrine is being renovated with a £200,000 grant from the EU, about which the Vatican announced: 'It is the prayer of His Holiness that the shrine will be an evermore effective centre of unification, a place where, under the patronage of Mary, the human family will be drawn evermore closely into a fraternal unity and peaceful co-existence.'
The Pope's calls for spiritual unity ('ecumenism') are echoed by leading politicians all over Europe, especially those allied to the Vatican's political wing, the so-called Christian Democratic parties. One of the most prominent Roman Catholic MEPs is Dr Otto Von Habsburg, the eldest son of the last Austro-Hungarian Emperor. He advocates a strong religious role for the Roman Catholic Church, which he terms 'Europe's ultimate bulwark'. He also sees a potential role for the crown of the Holy Roman Empire, which today resides in the Art History Museum of Vienna. 'In the symbolism of that unity, he thinks that the imperial crown of Charlemagne and of the Holy Roman Empire might well have its part to play.'
According to Malachi Martin, a former Jesuit priest who was at the heart of the Vatican, there is no doubt that John Paul II claims the right to lead the emerging system. Martin's book The Keys of this Blood, published in 1990, has the subtitle Pope John Paul II versus Russia and the West for control of the New World Order. With its embassies, emissaries, institutions and networks around the world, the Vatican is in a remarkably powerful position to influence global affairs. Martin states: 'What captures the unwavering attention of the secular leaders of the world in this remarkable network of the Roman Catholic Church is precisely the fact that it places at the personal disposal of the Pope a supra-national, supra-continental, supra-trade-bloc structure that is so built and orientated that if tomorrow or next week, by a sudden miracle, a one-world government were established, the Roman Church would not have to undergo any essential change in order to retain its dominant position to further its global aims.' In this knowledge, it is noteworthy that the Vatican has a special status at the United Nations and is able to use its influence in that sphere. The Pope has a privileged right to address the UN General Assembly, while the Holy See has full rights to participate in and speak at UN meetings. No other religious body has such rights.
Therefore, just as crucial to the economic and political federalising process is the erosion of the achievements of the Reformation. Even some prominent Evangelical Christian leaders have presented this momentous move of God as one of the greatest tragedies that ever happened to the Church, and state that Protestants 'destroyed the unity of Christendom'. Unity, it seems, is more important than truth. The concept of Christendom appears to matter more than the national boundaries set between one principality and another, regardless of the liberties those boundaries defend.
While visiting Austria in 1983, the Pope spoke out against the 'national and artificial borders' all over Europe. He added: 'Europeans should overcome the menacing international confrontations of states and alliances, and create a new united Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals.' In 1988, he continued this theme when he addressed the European Parliament in Strasbourg; an occasion at which many asked why a perceived spiritual leader was addressing the issues of political unity. The Sunday Telegraph, in 1991, summed up the Pope's plans for the 'evangelisation' of Europe. It stated: 'He is calmly preparing to assume the mantle which he solemnly believes to be his Divine Right - that of new Holy Roman Emperor, reigning from the Urals to the Atlantic.'
Very many past and present European leaders have been influential in furthering this religious social agenda - Ruud Lubbers, Jacques Delors - both Jesuit educated, Chancellor Kohl, Felipe Gonzales, are also devout Roman Catholics. For them, there is no nobler task than the unifying of the European continent. A German colleague of Jacques Delors described the idea of a United Europe as 'essentially a Catholic concept', of which an inevitable result would be the subjugation of Britain's Protestant ethos to Roman Catholic social, political and religious teachings. Bernard Connolly observed: 'The Catholic Churches in many continental countries are influenced by a desire to see a shadow Holy Roman Empire recreated in Europe' and the Christian Democrat and Christian Socialist traditions in Europe are working to that end, bowing to whichever golden calves they have to on the way.
The former Labour Party cabinet minister Baroness Shirley Williams confirmed this observation during the run-up to the 1975 referendum. She said: 'We will be joined to a Europe in which the Catholic religion will be the dominant faith, and in which the application of the Catholic Social Doctrine will be a major factor in everyday political and economic life.'
Germany is strongly influenced by Roman Catholic social teaching, which originated the concepts of solidarity, the single market and the social chapter. These same ideas were expressed by the Nazi Professor Funke, the architect of Hitler's 'New Europe'. In 1942, he issued a compendium of papers which contained chapters and sections on 'The Common European Currency', 'Harmonisation of European Rates of Exchange', 'The European Economic Community', 'The European Agricultural Economic Order' (i.e. The Common Agricultural Policy), 'A Common Labour Policy' and 'The European regional principle' (i.e. The Europe of regions policy). These objectives are intrinsic to Roman Catholic social ideals.
Rome desires to direct social thinking and has a self-perceived divine mission to preside over a unified Europe, achievable through a dominating German state. Chancellor Kohl has declared his dissatisfaction with a common market of independent states, and believes it is German destiny not merely to lead a European union, but to dominate it. He said: 'The European Union Treaty introduces a new and decisive stage in the process of European Union, which within a few years will lead to the creation of...the United States of Europe. There is no alternative to a policy which aims at combination, unless we wish to challenge fate.
In stating this, Chancellor Kohl is merely following his predecessors. The former chancellor and privy chamberlain to the Pope, Konrad Adenauer, declared: 'Germany has a divine mission to save Western Europe.' Since the era of Charlemagne, the notion of a German destiny or fate has been deeply ingrained in the German psyche; it is an instinct that has driven Germany one to which Hitler frequently referred in his speeches.
Counter-Reformation continuing through Ecumenism
While the political process of European unification undermines the existence of the United Kingdom, the European ecumenical movement is making every effort to undermine biblical Protestantism. Protestants are perceived in Europe as being more provincial in their outlook and unwilling to give up their independence or autonomy. Roman Catholicism itself has a strong tendency towards centralism, and views it as wholly necessary for individual nations and churches to merge their individual identities into a larger body, beneath the guise of avoiding future wars and uniting Christian witness. Yet the spiritual values of the Church of Rome, as well as its perceived right to rule in the temporal affairs of the world and its role in global politics, constitute an ethos which is alien to the biblical Protestant traditions of Britain, which are more than 400 years old. Today's climate of compromising ecumenism would have us believe it is possible for the two to co-exist, yet the laws and constitution of the United Kingdom are diametrically opposed by European laws. One has to submit to the other.
In 1953, the Queen swore on oath at her Coronation 'to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom according to their laws and customs' and 'to maintain the Protestant Reformed religion established by law.' Both of these are negated by the process of deeper European integration. In a continent in which 61 million claim a Protestant heritage and 199 million profess to be Roman Catholics, it is simply not possible to maintain Protestantism by democratic law. The Protestant constitution of the United Kingdom has long been a strong defence against Rome's desires for the 'evangelisation' of Britain, which the Pope refers to as 'Mary's dowry' - hers by right.
The Queen promised 'to maintain to the utmost of (her) power the Laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reformed religion established by law', and her added assurance, with Bible in hand: "'The things I have here before promised I will perform and keep. So help me God." In swearing this, she committed herself and the Queen-in-Parliament to uphold the supremacy of Scripture. Every Member of Parliament swearing their Oath of Allegiance to the Queen, while not being constrained in their individual conscience to profess the Christian faith, is certainly declaring their commitment to defend biblical Christianity. Allegiance to the Queen must, at the very least, demand a defence of her oaths and promises to her subjects.
Yet our heritage of law and time-honoured institutions are under unprecedented attack by successive governments' agreement to 'ever closer union'. There comes a point where ever closer union becomes total absorption. The Catholic Herald stated: 'The days of the Anglican Church are numbered, and most of its worshippers will return to the true faith of their distant medieval forebears.' It is almost a symbolic fulfilment of that prophecy that the 20 pence coin of the British colony Gibraltar, issued by Parliament and approved by the Queen, bears an engraving of Mary crowned 'Queen of Heaven' and titled 'Our Lady of Europa'. The head of the Queen on the other side is simply titled 'Elizabeth II - Gibraltar', without her usual titles of D.G. REG. F.D. - Queen by the Grace of God, Defender of the Faith.
Roman Imagery in Europe
As portentous as such obvious Roman Catholic symbolism is, the British postage stamps issued in 1984 to commemorate the second election to the European Parliament went even further. They depicted a whore riding a beast over seven mounds or waves. Such imagery has startling similarities to passages from the book of Revelation that a succession of theologians from Wycliffe to Spurgeon has identified as representing Papal Rome.
Roman Catholic imagery is endemic in Europe, and has been wholeheartedly embraced by the European government. The design of the European flag was inspired by the halo of 12 stars around pictures of the Madonna, and appears prominently on the Council of Europe stained-glass window in Strasbourg Cathedral. The window was unveiled to the world on 11th December 1955, coinciding with the Roman Catholic feast of the Immaculate Conception. The Flag institute has examined the evolution of the Council of Europe flag. Its director Dr William Crampton confirms a report that Léon Marchal, the then secretary-general of the Council, said: 'It's wonderful that we have got back to the Introit of the new Mass of the Assumption. It's the corona stellarum duodecim (the crown of the 12 stars) of the Woman of the Apocalypse.' Dr Crampton goes on to state: 'It was Marchal, the supreme partisan of the Virgin Mary, who suggested the number 12.' He also mentions a magazine article on the flag's design, which confirmed: 'No-one can deny that under these symbols Catholics recognise the presence of the infinitely merciful Queen of Peace in Christ.'3 When the European Union was expanded to 15 nations, The European Newspaper ran an article4 responding to those who had expected the flag's design to incorporate 15 stars - one star for each state - similar to the flag of the United States of America. It was confirmed that the 12 gold stars on a blue background were inspired by a picture of 'Our Lady' in Strasbourg, and that they were constant as they were drawn from the 12th chapter of the book of Revelation. In the EU's own publication Europe's Star Choice, the flag's inspiration is explained under the chapter heading '12 Forever'. Significantly, when the booklet goes on to describe the flags of all the member states, the flag of the United Kingdom is the only one to be criticised. The booklet's authors state that it is 'a disgrace' that Wales is not represented
Divide and Rule
'And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.'
The current debate about devolution for Scotland, an assembly for Wales and a loosening of ties with Northern Ireland, has encouraged the constituent countries of the United Kingdom to look directly to Brussels as the centre of power and influence, rather than to the British parliament at Westminster. It is natural that these countries begin to see themselves as constituent members of the European Union, independent of United Kingdom government, because the European machine administers their affairs autonomously. Certainly in Scotland, this provides fuel for the nationalist independence cause, and extreme expressions of nationalism can only lead to the total destructuring of the United Kingdom - England for the English, Scotland for the Scots, Wales for the Welsh, and the world already knows of Ireland for the Irish. Yet the Kingdom is not merely made up of four nationalities. Since there is no logical end to regional fracturing, the EU has direct input into numerous 'European Areas', which can only encourage a Yorkshire for the Yorkshiremen, a Cornwall for the Cornish, and so on. Even the Isle of Wight has been prompted into an independence bid as a distinct 'European Area', and has illegally issued its own currency. Holding the United Kingdom together is a delicate balancing act of political skill and symbolic gestures.
As the Financial Times observed: 'Most Christian Democrats are keen Euro-federalists. And Lord Tebbit commented: 'The EPP is a federalist party; it believes in a central European State in which Great Britain and the various other parts of the Community would be provinces. There would probably be a couple of English provinces and a Scottish and a Welsh province. Now that is totally and completely unacceptable, and yet our European Members of Parliament are allied to the EPP. With the EPP committed to a federal Europe, the establishing of a single currency with a single system of taxation, support for the Social Chapter in every country of the EU, support for a common defence with a European army, European control of Britain's nuclear weapons, and a European television broadcasting system. Many such policy commitments of the EPP are directly at odds with the stated aims of the Conservative Party.
So what is going on…what is deeper than politics?
A Roman Catholic Church of England?
Clifford Longley, a former religious affairs correspondent of The Times, gave an address to the Roman Catholic Bishops' Conference in 1993 setting out a strategy for the Roman Catholic Church in this country to become the leading church. In the address, entitled 'Becoming a National Church' he concluded that the conversion of England would be accomplished by permeating the Anglican tradition. There have been several recent turmoil's within the Church of England, such as the ordination of women priests, the re-defining of co-habitation before marriage as no longer 'living in sin', the announcement by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Runcie, that he knowingly ordained practising homosexual clergy, and the recent high profile conversions to Rome of prominent members of Parliament and members of the Royal Family. All of these constitute an unprecedented disintegration of an institution that has shaped our heritage, forged our freedom and established biblical Christian principles at the core of British government and society. In an age where all the old institutions - Monarchy, Parliament and Church - are being discredited and marginalised, the Roman Catholic Church is being given an open invitation to fill the vacuum created and set a moral agenda to stabilise an uncertain society. It will be perceived as an unchanging bedrock upon which a new order may be constructed. Its plea will be for Britain, as for Europe, to seek out its lost soul and restore its 'Christian' spirituality. The more the Church of England is perceived as a failure, the greater the opportunity will be for the Church of Rome to proceed with its 'evangelisation' and absorb Britain into a Catholic Europe.
Relations between the Vatican and Britain have become increasingly closer in recent decades. Since the Second World War, the British Government has recognised the temporal authority claimed by the Pope. Also, since 1980, the Royal Court of St. James has had a Papal Nuncio (a Vatican ambassador to a foreign court). Relations were improved further when the Queen visited the Pope at the Vatican and willingly wore black in order to be received by him. Perceived by successive popes as a heretic, the Queen would not have been granted an audience unless she had symbolically submitted herself to the radiance of his whiteness. This rapprochement reached its culmination when Pope John Paul II visited Britain in 1982, the first Pope to do so since the Reformation.
After the Reformation and the adoption of the 39 Articles of the Church of England, the Church and State laid their foundations upon the authority of the Bible and a Protestant monarchy. However, the present Queen, in 1996, appointed an influential Roman Catholic as her chaplain, and attended Vespers in Westminster Cathedral to celebrate the centenary of the building as Britain's Roman Catholic centre. Further, Prince Charles, the Heir to the Throne, is professing an allegiance not to biblical Christianity but to all faiths. The Coronation Oath is clearly being ignored and undermined through these changes, in a prelude to the removal of the Act of Settlement of 1701, which does not permit a Roman Catholic, or a monarch married to a Roman Catholic, to accede to the throne. If this happened, for the first time since the Glorious Revolution of 1688, Rome would be provided with a vassal monarch with sovereignty over 'Mary's dowry'. This would inevitably lead to the ascendancy of Roman traditions over the authority of Scripture that lies at the heart of Protestantism and the institution of the Monarchy.
The Act of Settlement of 1701, forbidding Roman Catholic accession to the throne, will under European law be ruled as bigoted and sectarian; the inequality between the heterosexual and homosexual ages of consent would be ruled as discriminatory and an infringement of civil liberties; and the blasphemy laws could well be extended to cover all faiths, making it effectively illegal to proclaim the uniqueness of Christianity.
A Monarchy in subjection
One of the most significant treasonable aspects of the treaties of Rome and of Maastricht concerns the constitutional position of the Monarch. During her reign, Queen Elizabeth I stated: 'To no power whatsoever is my crown subject save to that of Christ the King of Kings.' Section Three of the Treason Felony Act of 1848 asserts that condemnation is incurred 'If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or intend to deprive or depose our most gracious Lady the Queen...from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom.' The Maastricht Treaty which, at a stroke, brought the Queen under the suzerainty of the European Union and thereby made her a citizen of that Union. Now that she is a citizen of a different political entity and is subject to past and future judgements of the Court of the European Communities in Luxembourg, from which there is no appeal, her role as a constitutional monarch has been put into doubt. By the treaty, this Court has been confirmed in authority over her courts, in which she was not previously arraignable.7 Her new status as a citizen of the EU has rendered her, like the rest of the British people, 'subject to the duties imposed thereby'.
The four great constitutional statutes for British citizens - the Magna Carta of Edward I (1215), the Petition of Right (1627), the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701) - have never been expressly repealed, though successive European treaties imply that they have been repealed. British national law is now subordinate to European law, and a further aspect of Britain's written constitution has been dispensed with - the 1689 Bill of Rights which enshrines the principle that no other power but the Queen-in-Parliament can make or amend British laws.
There is a profound dilemma here for the Christian, since it is not possible to serve two masters. Either he submits to British law and protests that obedience to it must imply a breaking of European law, or he decides to treat European law as supreme on all matters and ignores British law, which is, by treaty implication, redundant. It is a very ominous dilemma, for the implications of the constitutional change have not yet become the subject of wide debate and there is a high level of ignorance, if not apathy, towards the whole subject. Christians in pursuit of unity, peace and compromise would rather bury their heads in the sand and propose obedience to the authorities than address such an unprecedented loss of freedom and disregard for the nation's Christian heritage, if only because the issue is seen as too remote and is a problem which belongs to tomorrow in any case. The seeds of deep resentment and civil disorder are much easier to eliminate at this stage than they will be when grown to maturity, but they are far harder to identify. The dilemma for British citizens has been incisively encapsulated by Enoch Powell: 'New authorities have been called into existence to supersede the Parliament of this Kingdom and to define and enforce new rights and liberties. It remains to be seen whether 'the people of this Kingdom' accept those authorities. If they do, they have lost their 'true ancient and indubitable rights and liberties' and acquired none in exchange. Not even the French in 1789 did that.'
An illustration of the Queen's vassal status has been highlighted by one Church of England vicar. He enquired of his diocese registrar (being responsible for legal matters) whether his Oath of Allegiance to the Queen effectively means he has sworn allegiance to Brussels. He suggested that because the Queen's sovereignty had been removed, through her imposed European citizenship and her accountability to the European courts, his loyalties were now to the greater sovereign power. The question was put to Buckingham Palace, who did not immediately know the answer. They in turn consulted Brussels on the matter - a simple act that clearly displayed the Queen's subjection to a governing power other than Westminster. Since Buckingham Palace chose not to consult any of Her Majesty's ministers of state, her status as vassal has been established.
Unlike other European nations with monarchies, the British throne is not merely a symbol of popularity or an ingredient of constitutional ceremony with minor political functions, but the maintaining legal foundation of biblical Christianity on these shores. It is not therefore appropriate to compare defence of the British throne with other European monarchies. The Danes, the Dutch, the Belgians and the Spanish do not have constitutions which prevent the ascendancy of a Roman Catholic monarch, leading to submission to Rome. The prospect of the removal of the Act of Settlement from the Statute Books, a change which the Queen and other senior members of the Royal Family are reported to favour, would be the crowning glory of the ecumenical Anglo-Roman Catholic International Commission. - there will be no compromise on the issue; simply the Act's total abolition.
From the Protestant throne came Britain's religious and civil liberties, and their continuing existence would inevitably also be endangered.
Building on the shifting sands of deceit
The assurance given to both the British people and to Parliament in 1973 by the then prime minister, Edward Heath, was that there was 'no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty.' In other words, Britain was to be part of a community of sovereign nations who wished to trade with each other. Over and over again, that was the message that was hammered home to the electorate. Heath further gave the assurance: 'There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe, we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty... These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified...' The truth is that much more was surrendered than the electorate was led to believe. The European Court of Justice states: 'Every national court must apply Community law in its entirety and must accordingly set aside any provision of national law which may conflict with it, whether prior to or subsequent to the Community rule.'6 It is now generally accepted by British judges that European law takes precedence over Acts of Parliament. Parliament has, therefore, surrendered its sovereignty. Where there is any disagreement about Britain's actions, it is the European Court of Justice that decides what is right. The former Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning, stated' No longer is European law an incoming tide flowing up the estuaries of England. It is now like a tidal wave bringing down our sea walls and flowing inland over our fields and houses, to the dismay of us all.'7
The Lord Chancellor wrote to Heath on 14th December 1960 in response to Heath's enquiry into the constitutional implications of becoming a signatory to the Treaty of Rome. He stated: 'To satisfy the requirements of the treaty, Parliament could enact legislation which would give automatic force of law to any existing or future regulations made by...the Community. This would go far beyond the most extensive delegation of powers, even in wartime, that we have ever experienced... It is clear...that the (European) Council of Ministers could eventually...make regulations that would be binding on us even against our wishes... It is the first step on the road that leads...to the fully federal state.' As the most senior legal officer in the land, he went on to warn: 'I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignty involved are serious ones...these objections ought to be brought out into the open...' To have been warned of this, and then to continue with the assertion that there would be no loss of sovereignty, is blatant proof of Heath's duplicity.
One of the founding fathers of the EU, Jean Monnet, also a devout Roman Catholic, totally rejected the idea that Europe should consist of sovereign nations. He believed in the Catholic vision that Europe should become a federal superstate, into which all ancient nations would be fused. 'Fused' is the word he used in a communication dated 30th April 1952, and is wholly consistent with the language of the Maastricht Treaty.
Democracy is the form of government in which supreme power is vested in the people collectively, and is administered by them or by officers appointed by them. It was an achievement of the Renaissance and the Reformation that the significance of the individual was brought to the fore. The concept of government by democracy had been inherited from ancient Greece. This philosophy, coupled with the Protestant emphasis on the individual's personal relationship with God, and his right to read and interpret Scripture for himself, heralded the decline of government by autocrats, in either the Church or State. The New Testament teaching that the Church consisted of the 'priesthood of all believers' also encouraged the growth of freedom of conscience. Such liberties gave rise to the realisation of the dignity and responsibility of the individual, and of his ultimate accountability to God, and led to the creation of the earliest democracies. Britain, the United States of America, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Sweden developed first, followed by the British Dominions, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. As each nation became a self-governing democracy, the notion of a distant and over-mighty executive declined.
The 'spirit' of autocracy, however, remains a very real power on the Continent. Its clash with Christianity and liberty is most clearly discernible when one examines the political consequences of the atheistic philosophy of Marx and Nietzsche, and their disciples, Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler. Denying the existence of God, or replacing the God of the Bible with their own beliefs, these were the prophets and architects of totalitarianism - a form of government ingrained in the psyches of many nations, and which seems to have flared up in each generation since the French Revolution of 1789. Totalitarianism, where everything is brought under the control of one authority and no opposition is allowed, is at the core of Roman Catholicism, and many continental countries are wholly at ease with the essence of government by dictatorship, even if that government calls itself democracy. Otto Von Habsburg asserts: 'True democracy cannot exist under a regime animated by the ideas of the French Revolution... A materialistic ideology of this kind...can rarely go beyond pure power politics.' And power is precisely what the politics of Europe is about. The Sunday Telegraph put its finger on the problem by quoting a report by Marc Luyckx, a full-time EU official. It said: 'Catholics tend to be vertical, hierarchical and centralised...in other words, they tend to be corrupt, autocratic, with more susceptibility to the Mafia and maximum bureaucracy.' Protestant countries, on the other hand, such as Britain or Denmark, tend to be more democratic and open, with less tolerance of centralised control. This is vital if we are to understand the Danish rejection of the Maastricht Treaty. As one commentator observes' They thought the Community was about trade, something they could understand. Now they feel trapped in a community of Latinos and Continentals.' It is unsurprising, therefore, that the whole European debate has been at its most fierce in those nations whose heritage is Protestant, and not in the slightest bit surprising that continental neighbours simply cannot understand what all the fuss is about.
Consider the case of 'subsidiarity', which European leaders and the British Government has assured the people, is a form of decentralisation. Supposedly, it ensures that power is not concentrated in Brussels. It cannot, however, be applied in retrospect to those considerable powers that have already been transferred there. According to the Maastricht Treaty, those powers simply cannot be touched; Brussels owns them forever; they are acquis communataire, and therefore sacrosanct. In the EU, movement is only one way: towards federalism, which is why words like 'irreversible' and 'fusion' are so frequently on the lips of Eurocrats. (Martin Howe QC confirmed that 'subsidiarity' is a word of PAPAL origin. It has never meant in papal definition the process of making decisions closest to those whom those decisions affect; quite the contrary. ) In a true democracy the people who decide which powers to lend to their leaders. In a false democracy, it is the leaders who decide which freedoms to lend to the people.
Some political scientists see the emerging Europe as a new form of political structure, defined more by its antagonisms to the 'Anglo-Saxon' world and to Japan than by its structures for advancing the interests of member nation states. Bernard Connolly observed: 'Delors wants to create a new state, 'Europe', and to create with it a new 'nation' based on some supposed cultural identity that can be defined only in terms of what it is not, of which it is the antithesis.'
All this is consistent with the intention to work towards a common foreign policy. The Maastricht Treaty further states: 'The Union and its Member States shall define and implement a common foreign and security policy.' Its objectives shall be: 'To safeguard the common values, fundamental interests and independence of the European Union.'
It boils down to a 'Continental' concept of state and law overriding the 'Anglo-Saxon' concept, a movement that the Maastricht Treaty has embodied in law. Central banking in the UK (and the United States and other 'Anglo Saxon' nations) ensures the stability of the financial system; it is a servant of the market and permits effective operation. In continental Europe, however, central banks have a much more political function; they are centres of power and not mere 'facilitators' for private markets.
Bureaucrats are nothing like officials or civil servants. In theory, the latter have the function and duty of serving the public - they know what they have to do and are responsible to the community. They are not, therefore, anonymous cogs in a machine, but are supposed to be helpers and servers of their fellow citizens. Power for them is not an end in itself, but a means of fulfilling their social purpose. Bureaucrats, however, wield power for its own sake. The ideal of service vanishes in the face of the ability to order people about: the citizen is not a subject, but an object. Bureaucrats tend to regard themselves as masters rather than servants, and the anonymity of their functioning tends to keep power centralised in the department they represent. Controls over such administrations are necessary simply because it is difficult to appeal against their decisions: the increasing domination of the state permits them to create official positions for their followers, with salaries paid out of public funds, and dissenting voices are rapidly silenced.
Otto Von Habsburg MEP has called for a totally new economic philosophy to replace traditional capitalism and socialism, and has further alluded to the inconvenience of democracy. He said: 'With our present, short-lived state structure, five or six-year plans are the furthest one can look ahead. In view of the size of the task - which includes the complete reconstruction of the economic order as well as of economic thought - it is clear that the narrow temporal limitations of planning periods will have deleterious effects. It must at least become possible to think and prepare for more than the span of one generation.'23
Again, the Habsburg vision surfaces, with Otto Von Habsburg stating: 'It is not only a question of creating a new economic order... What we have to build is a new order that will embrace the whole of life, constructed from a single, coherent point of view... It is impossible in practice to keep the various functions of society separate. Economics, social welfare and politics are indivisible; they are but different manifestations of the same process of life.'
Consequences for Christians
Much of what passes for the embryonic European Constitution is wholly humanist in content, and asserts that in a multi-faith society, Christian beliefs cannot be the foundation of law or custom. The Evangelical Alliance notes that Evangelical Christians are perceived by the EU as a 'sect', and that any group that does not belong to the majority church (Roman Catholic) is viewed by many MEPs with suspicion. This classification is nothing new. The Early Church was branded an heretical sect, and this was the earliest basis of persecution (Acts 24:5, 14, 28:22), a fact which ought to alarm members of evangelical 'sects' throughout Europe. Of course, any impending persecution will not be on overtly religious grounds: an enlightened EU would consider that abhorrent. Persecution will be political, as it was with the Early Church, with accusations of 'disturbing the peace' or 'inciting sectarianism' (Acts 16:20f, 17:7).
David Hallam MEP has confirmed that a European resolution on sects and cults permits the European police force (Europol) to carry out surveillance on such groups' activities. He adds: 'In Europe, this could include Christians.'5 Whereas most MEPs have said there is no threat to 'bona fide religions' (institutionalised churches), during the debate on this resolution, one speaker did lump Evangelicals in with Satanists - a fact which demonstrates that the ramifications of this resolution are serious. The European Evangelical Alliance stated in response: 'We would object if policemen turned up on Sunday mornings at our services to check on what we were doing, but that would be a possibility in some European countries.' For Britain, a nation which has been proud of its freedom of speech and which long ago banished religious persecution from its shores, there is a very real threat in a Socialist-Catholic Europe which undermines centuries of hard-won liberties and which may be sowing the seeds of future social discontent. See report on 'PERSECUTION OF RELIGIOUS MINORITIES IN EU' - Prof. Anthony Flew (see Dr Dennis O'Keefe's UK Conservatism speech - Ed).
The politics of the next few years will determine whether Europe is about to enter a period of progress or of chaos - terms that have interchangeable interpretations depending on the individual's Euro-perspective. Ever since the Reformation, with the establishment of the Church of England and the constitutional rule of law based on biblical Protestantism, the principalities and powers of Europe have warred against Britain many times in order to effect a subjugation and a return to the Roman Catholic fold. Had Britain ever been defeated, the European Union would now be a very different continent. Yet for all the historic British defence of God-given liberties and blessings, the nation is now being defeated by a new war; not the traditional sort of conflict where millions of soldiers are shot, civilians maimed, cities bombed or nations brought to their knees in humiliating surrender to the victor, but the most ingenious form of warfare ever devised - a disabling peace. This master strategy is achieving what centuries of bloodshed have failed to win - a Britain conquered by a European oppressor. When the actions of a conqueror are examined, it is clear that they differ little from the actions of the EU government over Britain:
- The nation's flag is lowered and the conqueror's is raised. A flag affirms nationhood; it informs citizens of where they came from and where they belong. The EU flag now adorns many buildings of national importance, especially on the newly instituted 'Europe Day' - an annual celebration of the Europe ideal. During many events highlighted by huge media interest - such as Euro '96 - the EU flag either replaces the Union Jack or is flown equal with it. While some assert that the use of the Union Jack on the proposed British identity cards would offend Irish nationalists - and call for its removal - British nationalists have no say about the European symbol, which has to appear on any proposed ID cards by European directive.
v The national anthem is replaced by an anthem whose music and lyrics reflect the heritage and aspirations of the conqueror. The EU anthem - the 'Ode to Joy' from Beethoven's ninth symphony - is, of course, German. The lyrics, which are by another German, Schiller, describe the entering of the shrine of a pagan goddess, and the uniting of all men as brothers by magical power.
- The national passport is withdrawn or absorbed into the conqueror's diplomatic documentation. The blue British passport has been abolished and replaced by the red European passport, affirming citizenship of the European state.
- The head of state is removed, principally because that person inspires loyalty. Such power and popularity have to be diminished or destroyed for the conqueror to rule unchallenged. There is no head of state in Britain with sovereign power, given that the Queen's power is undermined by imposed European citizenship, Parliament's powers are subjugated to those of the European Commission, and British courts are overruled by European judicial powers. Otto Von Habsburg favours an elected head of state for Europe - not with an hereditary succession, but elected for life (POPE!!!). The emergence of a new Holy Roman Emperor is immensely symbolic. Habsburg says: 'Now we do possess a European symbol that belongs to all nations equally. This is the Crown of the Holy Roman Empire, which embodies the tradition of Charlemagne, the ruler of a united occident...the Crown represents not merely the sovereignty of the monarch, but also the ties between authority and the people. True, it is the monarch who is crowned, but in this sacred act he appears as the representative of the whole people. It should therefore be considered whether the European head of state, as the protector of European law and justice, should not also become the guardian of a symbol which, more than any other, represents the sovereignty of the European community.'1 Who might this new head of state be? Delors? Santer? Kohl? It is more likely to be the Pope. The crown of the Holy Roman Empire would appear incongruous on the head of any other.
- The media is controlled. Reporting of facts is manipulated to favour the conqueror and a propaganda war is waged to win the hearts and minds of the people. Opinions openly expressed against the conqueror are ridiculed and dismissed. Political scientist and philosopher Leonard Schapiro observed: 'The true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought reveals itself as a jarring dissonance.' This is certainly applicable to the European debate, and even more applicable to those who voice concerns about the ecumenical process between the Church of England and Rome. Anything that questions the status quo on such issues has great difficulty finding a platform or publisher. The power of the media is immense. It comes as no surprise therefore to learn that European federalists are seeking control of vast sections of it. The European People's Party states: 'What is at stake here is the future of European unity, so the European Community must play its full part in the reorganisation of the media. We now advocate a European television channel operating to the design of the European Broadcasting Union.'
- The constitution and culture are set aside. Laws are imposed in direct contradiction of constitutional law, and the nation's heritage and institutions are brushed away as the conqueror reforms the legislature to meet his needs. As previously observed, European law is irreconcilable with the British constitution - and therefore undermines it.
- The education system is controlled. As the conqueror's philosophies permeate future generations, history is re-written, the truth is misrepresented and the nation's history is subsumed by the larger world vision. Educational indoctrination is also examined in the next chapter.
- The national religion is changed. It is either abolished and replaced with a new religion or philosophy, or it is undermined and eroded by the removal of crucial foundations and the passing of new laws. With the demise of the Church of England, the neglect of the monarch's oath to uphold the 'Protestant Reformed Religion', and the strategic ascendancy of Roman Catholics to powerful media and advisory positions, Britain's national religion is already in a state of terminal decline.
- Ownership rights are diminished. What the state requires belongs to the state, and all the nation's reserves can be claimed by the conqueror without compensation. Thus the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy bring these food reserves under Brussels control. The establishment of a Central European Bank will complete the process, absorbing all the UK's national assets, including North Sea oil and vast gold reserves. A recent concern, and one expressed by Frank Field MP, is that the £600 billion set aside for the UK's future pension liabilities will also become a shared asset. According to the OECD, Britain's forethought in planning for its pensioners is greater than that of all the other European nations combined.
- A form of slavery may be imposed. This may not be as extreme as whips being cracked over aching backs, but financial controls or the restriction of freedoms amount to a more subtle form of slavery. As explained in Chapter 6, money is power. Those who control the interest rates become the masters of the poor - especially if they cannot be removed from power by popular vote.
- The nation is disarmed. The military might of the vanquished is absorbed into the might of the conqueror to make armed resistance impossible. The 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference placed a common European defence force firmly on the agenda. Both France and Germany desire such a force, with army, navy and airforce under European governmental control.
Examining the details of these actions, it is reasonable to assert that Britain is being diplomatically manipulated and defeated through a peaceful war.
Former defence minister Alan Clark observed: 'The European Commission...is not a programmatically hostile and aggressive force, as was Nazi Germany. But it is not benign. And the reason for its ill-disposition towards Britain...is of the same nature as that felt by Napoleon, by Kaiser Wilhelm, and by Adolf Hitler.'
The Roman road to EUtopia
A system of government based on a throne which is Protestant by law seems to invite charges of bigotry, out-datedness and political incorrectness. It may not be surprising that the Roman Catholic-dominated press and other media are waging a propaganda war, but the consequent ascendancy of Roman Catholicism in public esteem and respectability causes concern. Protestantism, meanwhile, is being marginalised and dismissed. The demeaning of the name, the drives for unity in the ecumenical movement, and the search for compromise and peace have effectively rendered it politically incorrect to be known as a Protestant. The Protestant truth is the foundation of the British Constitution and social fabric. Considering there are only five million Roman Catholics in Britain, with fewer than a million regular church-goers, the high media profile of the Roman Church is utterly disproportionate.
Cardinal Basil Hume claimed the Roman Church 'possesses all of God's revealed truth and all the means of grace and will not accord that status on others'. The Vatican's motto is Semper Eadem (always the same) and the Vatican is never therefore capable of fundamental or radical change. In nations where she is dominant, she is an oppressor; in nations where she is weak, the strategy is to win friends in high places and undermine whatever challenges her supremacy. It is no accident, for example, that on matters relating to the British monarchy or constitutional reform, the media habitually seeks the comment of Lord St John of Fawsley, a devout Roman Catholic who seems to have become the Queen's personal spokesman. The fact that the Supreme Governor of the Church of England is surrounded by such influential Roman Catholics highlights progressive Anglican subjection to the Papacy. There is no formula for compromise; no vision of a mutually acceptable agreement. Protestantism has to be destroyed in its doctrines, and its institutions have to be absorbed into the Church of Rome.
It is curious that with an ecumenical climate in which it is not supposed to matter which denomination one belongs to, the recent high-profile conversions to Rome of leading politicians and members of the Royal Family have enjoyed huge media attention, as have the conversions of members of the Anglican clergy. It is even more curious that nothing is made of counter-defections; nothing is said of those Roman Catholics who leave their church, for to say so is to invite accusations of extremism, bigotry and the like. Even so, Britain has been preserved from every Roman Catholic onslaught since the Spanish Armada, and its biblical foundations run deep. With leading media players, senior politicians and members of the Royal Family and of the Church of England all professing leanings towards Rome, the permeation of British society by Catholic 'Truth' is ever greater. Leading cardinals have long espoused the strategy. Cardinal Newman observed: 'Only through the English Church can you act upon the English nation',14 and Cardinal Wiseman thought pretty much the same: 'England must return to Catholic unity through the established church.'15 This is certainly being achieved today.
There is quite clearly a concerted effort to recreate a Holy Roman Empire, which is having a profound affect on English law and government. Being absorbed further into a European superstate is an offence to Britain's culture, a rape of Britain's heritage, a corruption of Britain's laws and a perilous surrender of Britain's constitution and democracy.
The Labour Party is quite prepared to trade Britain's sovereignty for what it terms 'more effective EU decisions', and has stated: 'It might be necessary to trade part of national sovereignty', arguing that 'losing some of that sovereign power might be in the interests of the people.' What the Labour Party has failed to understand is that Britain's sovereignty is not theirs to trade away - it belongs to the British people. Members of Parliament are meant to be the guardians of sovereignty and democracy, not the owners of them.
There is an utter darkness in the principality that holds power over Europe. It is a principality that has warred against liberty, justice and truth for centuries, and once again is rearing its ugly head with a different strategy for domination.
Paul-Henri Spaak (former Belgian Prime Minister, President of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, 1949-51) summed up the thirst for power at the expense of righteousness and morality:
'We do not want another committee. We have too many already. What we want is a man of sufficient stature to hold the allegiance of all people, and to lift us out of the economic morass in which we are sinking. Send us such a man and, be he god or the devil, we will receive him.'
Edmund Burke said 'All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing'.
For those who have eyes to see the emerging and very present evils, doing nothing is no longer an option.
The Act of Settlement & British National Sovereignty
The Act Of Settlement, 1701
Whereas in the first year of the reign of Your Majesty, and of our late most gracious sovereign lady Queen Mary (of blessed memory), an Act of Parliament was made, entitled, "An Act for declaring the rights and liberties of the subject, and for settling the succession of the crown," wherein it was (amongst other things) enacted, established, and declared that the crown and regal government of the Kingdoms of England, France, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, should be and continue to Your Majesty and the said late Queen, during the joint lives of Your Majesty and the said Queen, and to the survivor: and that after the decease of Your Majesty and of the said Queen, the said Crown and regal government should be and remain to the heirs of the body of the said late Queen; and for default of such issue, to Her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark, and the heirs of her body; and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of Your Majesty. And it was thereby further enacted, that all and every person and persons that then were, or afterwards should be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or should profess the popish religion, or marry a papist, should be excluded, and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and government of this realm, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, or any part of the same, or to have, use, or exercise any regal power, authority, or jurisdiction within the same: and in all and every such case and cases the people of these realms shall be and are thereby absolved of their allegiance: and that the said Crown and government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons, being Protestants, as should have inherited and enjoyed the same, in case the said person or persons, so reconciled, holding communion, professing or marrying, as aforesaid, were naturally dead:
After the making of which statute, and the settlement therein contained, your majesty's good subjects, who were restored to the full and free possession and enjoyment of their religion, rights, and liberties, by the providence of God giving success to your majesty's just undertakings and unwearied endeavours for that purpose, had no greater temporal felicity to hope or wish for, that to see a royal progeny descending from Your Majesty, to whom (under God) they owe their tranquillity, and whose ancestors have for many years been principal assertors of the reformed religion and the liberties of Europe, and from our said most gracious sovereign lady, whose memory will always be precious to the subjects of these realms: and it having since pleased Almighty God to take away our said sovereign Lady, and also the most hopeful Prince William, Duke of Gloucester (the only surviving issue of Her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark) to the unspeakable grief and sorrow of Your Majesty and your said good subjects, who under such losses being sensibly put in mind, that it standeth wholly in the pleasure of Almighty God to prolong the lives of Your Majesty and of Her Royal Highness, and to grant to Your Majesty, or to Her Royal Highness, such issue as may be inheritable to the Crown and regal government aforesaid, by the respective limitations in the said recited act contained, do constantly implore the divine mercy for those blessings: and Your Majesty's said subjects having daily experience of your royal care and concern for the present and future welfare of these Kingdoms, and particularly recommending from your throne a further provision to be made for the succession of the Crown in the Protestant line, for the happiness of the nation, and the security of our religion; and it being absolutely necessary for the safety, peace, and quiet of this realm, to obviate all doubts and contentions in the same, by reason of any pretended title to the Crown, and to maintain a certainty in the succession thereof, to which your subjects may safely have recourse for their protection, in case the limitations in the said recited act should determine: therefore for a further provision of the succession of the Crown in the Protestant line, we Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, do beseech Your Majesty that it may be enacted and declared, and be it enacted and declared by the King's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same,
That the most excellent Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, daughter of the most excellent Princess Elizabeth, late Queen of Bohemia, daughter of our late sovereign lord King James the First, of happy memory, be and is hereby declared to be the next in succession, in the Protestant line, to the imperial Crown and dignity of the said Realms of England, France, and Ireland, with the dominions and territories thereunto belonging, after His Majesty, and the Princess Anne of Denmark, and in default of issue of the said Princess Anne, and of His Majesty respectively: and that from and after the decease of His said Majesty, our now sovereign lord, and of Her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark, and for default of issue of the said Princess Anne, and of His Majesty respectively, the Crown and regal government of the said Kingdoms of England, France, and Ireland, and of the dominions thereunto belonging, with the royal state and dignity of the said Realms, and all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions and authorities, to the same belonging and appertaining, shall be, remain, and continue to the said most excellent Princess Sophia, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants: and thereunto the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, shall and will in the name of all the people of this Realm, most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities: and do faithfully promise, that after the decease of His Majesty, and Her Royal Highness, and the failure of the heirs of their respective bodies, to stand to, maintain, and defend the said Princess Sophia, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants, according to the limitation and succession of the Crown in this act specified and contained, to the utmost of their powers, with their lives and estates, against all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the contrary.
II. Provided always, and be it hereby enacted, That all and every person and persons, who shall or may take or inherit the said Crown, by virtue of the limitation of this present act, and is, are or shall be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the See or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be subject to such incapacities, as in such case or cases are by the said recited act provided, enacted, and established; and that every King and Queen of this Realm, who shall come to and succeed in the imperial Crown of this Kingdom, by virtue of this act, shall have the coronation oath administered to him, her or them, at their respective coronations, according to the act of Parliament made in the first year of the reign of His Majesty, and the said late Queen Mary, intituled, An act for establishing the coronation oath, and shall make, subscribe, and repeat the declaration in the act first above recited mentioned or referred to, in the manner and form thereby prescribed.
III. And whereas it is requisite and necessary that some further provision be made for securing our religion, laws and liberties, from and after the death of His Majesty and the Princess Anne of Denmark, and in default of issue of the body of the said Princess, and of His Majesty respectively; be it enacted by the King's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same,
That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law established;
That in case the Crown and imperial dignity of this Realm shall hereafter come to any person, not being a native of this Kingdom of England, this nation be not obliged to engage in any war for the defence of any dominions or territories which do not belong to the Crown of England, without the consent of Parliament;
That no person who shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall go out of the dominions of England, Scotland, or Ireland, without the consent of Parliament;
That from and after the time that the further limitation by this act shall take effect, all matters and things relating to the well governing of this Kingdom, which are properly cognizable in the Privy Council by the laws and customs of this Realm, shall be translated there, and all resolutions taken thereupon shall be signed by such of the Privy Council as shall advise and consent to the same;
That after the said limitation shall take effect as aforesaid, no person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a denizen, except such as are born of English parents) shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or a member of either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown, to himself or to any other or others in trust for him;
That no person who has an office or place of profit under the King, or receives a pension from the Crown, shall be capable of serving as a member of the House of Commons;
That after the said limitation shall take effect as aforesaid, judges commissions be made quamdiu se bene gesserint, and their salaries ascertained and established; but upon the address of both Houses of Parliament it may be lawful to remove them;
That no pardon under the Great Seal of England be pleadable to an impeachment by the Commons in Parliament.
IV. And whereas the laws of England are the birth-right of the people thereof, and all the Kings and Queens, who shall ascend the throne of this Realm, ought to administer the government of the same according to the said laws, and all their officers and ministers ought to serve them respectively according to the same: the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do therefore further humbly pray, That all the laws and statutes of this Realm for securing the established religion, and the rights and liberties of the people thereof, and all other laws and statutes of the same now in force, may be ratified and confirmed, and the same are by His Majesty, by and with the advice of the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, and by authority of the same, ratified and confirmed accordingly.
In reading the Act of Settlement, it is interesting to note how often its purpose in settling the succession of the Crown is intrinsically linked to defending the rights and liberties of the people. It states in no uncertain terms that it is 'absolutely necessary for the safety, peace and quiet of this realm', and it is important to place it in its historical perspective and understand why.
The Act marked the completion of the so-called 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688, by which the English Parliament deposed the Catholic James II from the throne, and invited the Protestant William of Orange to rule jointly with his wife Mary, James's Protestant daughter. James II had so outraged the nation by his dictatorial government that the Roman Church's doctrine of the 'Divine Right of Kings' had to be abolished from the land in perpetuity. He had been ruling his people by means of a private, secret and unaccountable Council consisting of four Roman Catholic Peers and one Jesuit priest. Policy was formulated to advantage the Papal cause, which led to appalling oppression and the curtailing of civil liberties. The Divine Right of Kings established as a fundamental maxim that the King can do no wrong. The monarch becomes a despot, doing what he pleases. The Divine Right teaches that people were made for the benefit of the King, and he may choose what liberties, if any, to bestow upon the people.
The 'Glorious Revolution' was so called because it was essentially a bloodless revolution, while the reactions to similar outrages on the Continent resulted in very bloody revolutions. William and Mary were obliged by Parliament to accept the Bill of Rights, by which the powers of the monarch were significantly curtailed, marking the beginning of constitutional monarchy in Britain. The Act of Settlement was a further measure by Parliament to exclude from the throne James's Catholic heirs, in particular James Francis Edward Stuart, the Old Pretender, and established, in fact if not in theory, the right of Parliament to select the monarch.
The Act provided that if William III and Princess Anne (later Queen Anne) should die without heirs, the succession to the throne should pass to Sophia, Electress of Hanover, granddaughter of James I, and to her heirs, if they were Protestants. The house of Hanover, which ruled from 1714, owed its claim to this act. Among additional provisions, similar to those in the Bill of Rights, were requirements that the king must join in communion with the Church of England, that he might not leave England without parliamentary consent, and that English armies might not be used in defence of foreign territory without parliamentary consent.
Gradually, over the centuries, our forebears enshrined in law those Statutes which maintain our civil and religious liberties: Magna Carta, The Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement.
The wording of the 1689 Bill of Rights explains in similar wording:
'And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant Kingdom to be governed by a Popish Prince or by any king or queen marrying a Papist…'
The key word is 'experience'. Parliament went to great lengths to make the Act foundational, because the nation had learnt by bitter experience that when a Roman Catholic monarch is upon the Throne, religious and civil liberty is lost. This was the experience under monarchs until the Reformation, and revisited under Mary Tudor and the Stuarts, principally because the Roman Church decrees that her adherents' first loyalty is to the Roman Church and her Popes, not to the land of which they are a citizen or even a monarch.
This is paralleled by the notion of European citizenship enshrined in the Treaty of Maastricht. Since we all now hold dual citizenship, the clear indication is that the superior allegiance is owed to Brussels, since laws emanating from there are superior to anything emanating out of Westminster.
Dual Citizenship, Divided Allegiance
Every confirmed Roman Catholic has dual citizenship. 'He becomes a citizen of the Church, able to assume the responsibility of that citizenship and to defend his faith against its enemies' (Catholic Dictionary, p67, 1957, Hanover House). The Vatican is a government like any other, with its own currency, a secretary of state, and ambassadors. A good Catholic's first loyalty is to the Vatican. When the Pope visited England in 1982, he would only meet the Queen if she wore black (the colour and admission of heresy) alongside his presumed divine right to wear white. On the advice of her ministers, this she did. Commenting on this Papal visit, the Roman Catholic publication The Tablet spelled out the official attitude of the Roman Catholic Church to the laws and Constitution of the United Kingdom and on the jurisdiction of the Pope:
'Neither in England nor in Ireland will the Roman Catholics obey the law, that is the law of imperial Parliament. They have, or are likely to have, before them two things called laws, which unhappily (or happily) contradict each other. Both cannot be obeyed, and both cannot be disobeyed. One of them is the law of God, the other is no law at all… of these two things we need hardly say which will be obeyed and which disobeyed. The law of God that is the Pope's command will be or rather has been and is being carried into effect; the parliamentary lie will be spat upon and trampled under foot and treated as all honest men treat a lie that is rigorously disobeyed.'
When the Queen intimated she would not accept a divided allegiance, the Catholic Vindicator said: 'We are compelled to say plainly which allegiance we consider the most important, and we would not hesitate to tell the Queen to her face that she must either be content with this divided allegiance or none at all. Let us never forget that whatever her boasted authority may be, it is as nothing and less than nothing compared to that of the Vicar of Christ.' (from No Pope Here, Ian RK Paisley, 1982, Martyrs Memorial Publications).
The Vatican is built upon two pillars of authority: Apostolic Succession (all popes are inheritors of the mantle of Peter) and Temporal Power, upon which the Vatican bases its claim that the Pope has authority over the kings of the earth. Cromwell, of course, did much to give this nation its liberty, and Milton, his secretary, observed: ' Popery is a double thing to deal with and claims a two-fold power - ecclesiastical and political - both usurped, the one supporting the other.' When a pope is crowned, it is with the words: 'Take thou the tiara adorned with the triple crown, and know that thou art the father of princes and kings, and art governor of the world.' Pope Leo XIII said: 'All Catholics, without exception, must be prepared for complete submission and obedience of will to the Roman Pontiff as to God himself' (Encyclical 'Chief duties of Christians as Citizens', p79).
The Demand for change
In recent months there have been several calls for the repeal of the Act of Settlement, from Roman Catholic members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, Members of the Scottish Parliament, the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, the Archbishop of York, and most notably by Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. The Prince of Wales is known to want the religious restrictions on the Monarchy relaxed or changed. In Downing Street the Prime Minister is married to a Catholic and attends Mass. Other ministers have described the legal bars as 'offensive'. It appears that after nearly three centuries this is a cause whose time has come.
The calls are nothing new, no more are the reasons for the demand, but what is new and concerning is the media attention the issue has been attracting.
But there is confused and uncertain reasoning behind the move. Lord Forsyth states on the one hand: 'Down the whole gamut of constitutional issues…the only reform that would have been justifiable…is amendment of the Act of Settlement, to remove its discriminatory anti-Catholic provisions.' But in the next paragraph states: 'The overriding concern must be to keep the foundations of the Constitution upon which our liberties rest. Are we really to throw away the achievements of centuries to sound more modern and up-to-date: achievements for which our ancestors spilt blood and even gave their lives?' He is apparently ignorant of the fact that the Act of Settlement is one of those foundations upon which our liberties rest.
It is curious that Lord Forsyth is so vehemently supportive of the Constitution of the United Kingdom in his articles for the Freedom Association (viz. Freedom Today Feb/Mar 2000), where he equates the Constitution with liberty, even recognising that the Europe of Regions strategy is 'the old Roman principle of "divide and rule".' This principle was the one by which the Holy Roman Empire divided countries into small dukedoms, principalities and kingdoms ensuring that no civil ruler was strong enough to challenge the Pope or Emperor. If Lord Forsyth is aware of the re-emergence of this sustained Roman strategy, it has to be questioned why he is so utterly unaware of Rome's other strategies. The fragmentation of the United Kingdom is of course to weaken it, and it is no coincidence that the attack on the Act of Settlement is simultaneously being organised within the Scottish Parliament, where the strategy will always be to raise an issue outside of the Edinburgh remit, in order to provoke Westminster to appeasement.
Lord James, the MSP for the Lothians, said, 'It would seem that a combination of fear, ultra-caution, legislative complexity and inertia would have Tony Blair's regime adopt a do-nothing policy - with the result that this unfair and unjust anomaly is to continue. Britain is now a multi-faith nation and yet British law prescribes that the heir to the throne cannot succeed to the throne and be married to a Catholic.'
Earlier this year Mike Russell, business manager for the Scottish National Party, described the Act as 'institutionalised discrimination' and called on fellow MSPs to lobby for change.
The SNP MP Roseanna Cunningham MSP for Perth has said, 'The drive for change in Scotland is leading the UK agenda, and that is a significant achievement for the Scottish Parliament.'
The Irish News recently reported:
'Blair is failing to tackle anti-Catholic secrets. The British government has came under attack for not changing the law that currently prevents the monarch from marrying a Catholic. Lord Forsyth has accused the Labour government of doing nothing to tackle the Constitution's "grubby little secret." Yet its plans to break-up the UK with devolution were "constitutional vandalism" and proposals to end the voting rights of hereditary peers were "a barefaced attack" on the liberties of the people. However, a "deeply discriminatory" act of parliament will be allowed to stay in force, he said.'
'The former MP said, "It is astonishing that a government which has concerned itself with the number of heralds in the procession at the state opening of parliament and which has endlessly preached the doctrine of an 'inclusive' society has not been moved to amend the Act of Settlement." This law "couched in offensive 18th- century language excludes Roman Catholics from the throne or from marrying the monarch. Why retain the Act of Settlement, which enshrines at the heart of the constitution the formal doctrine that some 10 per cent of the Queen's subjects are to be treated as second-class citizens?"'
But the Act is not the result of blind bigotry but the effort of people who had experienced Rome's oppression to preserve their successors from having to suffer autocratic and despotic government.
The Act is also attacked by Muslims, Hindus, ecumenists and those of no religion as being discriminatory, but amidst this united cry is a very crucial difference in emphasis. Secular voices, other faiths and ecumenical voices cry 'repeal', while Roman Catholics and High Churchmen cry 'amend'. Amendment is more subtle, and would achieve the desired Roman goal.
The Anglican Church is still established and enjoying its special privileges from seats in the House of Lords to a pre-eminent place among the Christian Churches in the country. As a result, it is impossible to discuss the removal of the bars on Catholics and the Monarchy without at the same time discussing the establishment of the Church of England as the State's religion. Therein lies the political difficulty as well as a potential division among Catholics.
There are those Catholics, among others, who regard the establishment of a Christian Church, any Church, as a great advantage for the faith. Let congregations decline, let secularism run rampant, at least with the establishment Christianity remains the official religion of the country.
Moreover it guarantees, in the shape of the Anglican bishops, a long-term Christian public presence in Parliament. For those who hold this view a minor historical relic of anti-Catholic discrimination is a lesser evil to be tolerated than the alternative. For when the protective barrier of Anglican establishment is torn away then Christianity would lose a political voice and Britain its cultural conditioning as a Christian nation.
Anglo-Catholics call for a change to 'support Christianity rather than Protestantism', which inevitably means the Throne will remain discriminatory towards other religions, but the Monarch must be of 'Christian' persuasion, and preferably Roman. Indeed, a recent statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury (in The Telegraph 13th May 1999) that he accepts the 'primacy' of the Pope is a clear indication that a 'Christian' monarch would be under the ultimate authority of the Papacy.
The Act states: '...And whereas the laws of England are the birthright of the people thereof and all the Kings and Queens who shall ascend the throne of this realm ought to administer the Government of the same according to the said laws and all their officers and ministers ought to serve them respectively according to the same.'
The lawyer Sir William Blackstone summed up this birthright thus:
'…The rights, or as they are frequently termed, the liberties of Englishmen…consist, primarily, in the free enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty and of private property…and lastly to vindicate these rights, when actually violated and attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next to the right of petitioning the king and Parliament for the redress of grievances; and lastly to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.'
The spirit behind the Acts which brought about constitutional monarchy was summed up by the political writer John Stuart Mill. He said: 'Settled government, even good government, is no substitute for self government.' Weight was added to this in 1932 in the case of Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corporation when the courts articulated that Parliament may not bind its successor. What Parliament has done may be undone by that or a succeeding Parliament. In law, the courts recognise that Parliament is omnipotent in all save the power to destroy its omnipotence. This important liberty was, of course, surrendered at Maastricht, under Article Q, where the Treaty states it is binding for an unlimited period and contains no right or mechanism of secession.
It needs to be further tested in law the right to which Acts of Parliament may override the Common Law. What is certain, as the Act of Settlement states, is that if the Monarch is reconciled to the See of Rome or marries a Roman Catholic: '…in all and every such Case or Cases the People of these Realms shall be and are thereby absolved of their allegiance...'
The removal of the Protestant aspect of the Constitution would be the legal means by which citizens of the United Kingdom are absolved of their allegiance to the Crown. Herein lies the very foundation for Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness to lawfully refuse to swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown, and legally take their seats at Westminster.
"And on the 8th day, God created Europe"
Bill Cash's European Foundation reported that according to The Tablet, the Vatican Press Office has confirmed, at the end of a synod of European bishops, that canonisation process has begun for the so-called 'Founding Fathers' of the European Community, Alcide de Gasperi, Robert Schuman and Konrad Adenauer. A supporter of their canonisation, Chiara Lubich, said that the opening of the cases would show that Europe 'was built upon a rock'. She added, 'I think that the European Union is a design not only of human beings but of God.' Thus the European Union exists by 'Divine Right'. A bidding prayer at the closing mass of the synod prayed that the political leaders of Europe would 'courageously encourage the process of European integration and development' and used phrasing which picked up the words of Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission, in his message to the synod. The text released at the end of the Synod was addressed to Christians and 'fellow citizens of Europe' whom it invited 'to be committed Europeans . . . treasuring the precious heritage left us by the founding fathers of a united Europe'. It was necessary to 'pursue, with courage and urgency, the process of European integration, widening the circle of member countries of the Union, while appreciating with wisdom the historical and cultural differences of the nations'. [The Tablet, 30th October 1999]
A letter to The Spectator from a Roman Catholic monk belittled the idea that any educated, intelligent man could believe a united Europe to be Roman Catholic concept. The strategy is always to ridicule, belittle, patronise - the same scorn that is poured upon anyone who maintains Britain can follow an independent course, or withdraw from the EU. But the facts are against such people. It is no coincidence that the Pope can address the European Parliament directly, consistently calling for a united Europe 'from the Atlantic to the Urals'. It is no coincidence that 'subsidiarity' is a word of Papal origin (Martin Howe, Europe and the Constitution after Maastricht, p44). It is no coincidence that the founding fathers of the European project have recently been despatched along the road to sainthood. It is no coincidence that Cardinal Maria Martini (widely tipped to be the next Pope) addressed the European Parliament in 1997 in a symposium on 'Remembering the Origins of the Process of European Integration', in which he saw the importance of a single faith (Catholicism), and emphasised that religions must not support nationalism (ie the Church of England must not defend the English Constitution), and Europe must recognise the primacy of the divine' (ie the primacy of the Pope). In light of these (and many other instances mentioned in my book The Principality and Power of Europe), it is not unreasonable to ask how any educated, intelligent person could not perceive Rome's deepest influence in the whole European agenda.
The Sunday Telegraph, in 1991, summed up the Pope's plans for the 'evangelisation' of Europe. It stated: 'He is calmly preparing to assume the mantle which he solemnly believes to be his Divine Right - that of new Holy Roman Emperor, reigning from the Urals to the Atlantic.'
Very many past and present European leaders have been influential in furthering the Roman Catholic agenda - Ruud Lubbers, Jacques Delors - both Jesuit educated, Chancellor Kohl, Felipe Gonzales, are also devout Roman Catholics, as are many of the present team, including Chris Patten. For them, there is no nobler task than the unifying of the European continent. A German colleague of Jacques Delors described the idea of a united Europe as 'essentially a Catholic concept', of which an inevitable result would be the subjugation of Britain's Protestant ethos to Roman Catholic social, political and religious teachings. Bernard Connolly observed: 'The Catholic Churches in many continental countries are influenced by a desire to see a shadow Holy Roman Empire recreated in Europe' and the Christian Democrat and Christian Socialist traditions in Europe are working to that end.
The former Labour Party cabinet minister Baroness Shirley Williams confirmed this observation during the run-up to the 1975 referendum on EEC membership. She said: 'We will be joined to a Europe in which the Catholic religion will be the dominant faith, and in which the application of the Catholic Social Doctrine will be a major factor in everyday political and economic life.'
The accuracy of this observation is borne out by the fact that Cardinal Martini's address to the European Parliament in 1997 included demands for a new welfare state, on the model of Roman Catholic Social Doctrine, and his dismissal that European integration was ever about economic and monetary issues alone. He said, 'The Europe we must build is a Europe of the spirit.'
Propaganda and the Unmentionable
In the propaganda war, the spiritual battle was highlighted in the EU's classroom publication 'What Exactly is Europe?', aimed at 11-14 year olds. In its table of religious affiliations, in the UK (which includes Northern Ireland) Protestants are amazingly numbered at nil. Protestant affiliation is cleverly divided into Lutheran, Anglican and 'Other', in order to diminish the perception that Protestants have any sizeable presence in Europe at all. This is quite simply a continuation of the 'divide and rule' principle, in which no religion is shown in Europe as being anywhere near to challenging the authority and popularity of the Papacy. The table is clearly set out to give the impression that Roman Catholicism is the 'winning' religion, and the one to which children should aspire to belong if they wish to be in the mainstream.
Interestingly, when Freedom Today did an assessment of this booklet (April/May 1999), it objected to the 'ethnic cleansing' of minority speaking groups (Asians, Hindus, and Chinese), and also to the elimination of any Jewish affiliation in the UK, which was also placed at zero, but the presentation of divided Protestantism, the elimination of Protestants from Northern Ireland altogether, and the clear intent to exalt Roman Catholicism were not queried at all. It is difficult to have this dimension examined in any serious publication.
The Lords' Rejection
The House of Lords rejected Lord Forsyth's request to begin the process of reform of Act of Settlement. It was defeated at 14 to 65 votes - a substantial majority.
The chief critic of the move, Lord St John of Fawsley, a very prominent Roman Catholic and notable spokesperson for the Queen, said a single Peer should not bring in such a momentous change without the support of the Government and the opposition parties. Lord Forsyth said 'Obviously I am disappointed. We have been denied a proper chance for a debate. Clearly the feeling in the chamber was that this would be better dealt with by a Government Bill, and I look forward to hearing what they have to say. This is something that needs to be changed and I am not going to give up.'
But Lord St John further added, ''The Crown has been through an unparalleled period of turmoil - it now needs a period of tranquillity. Why can you not let it alone?'
He also took issue with Lord Forsyth's motion and insisted it had been incorrectly worded. He asked why Lord Forsyth was seeking to change the law to allow 'a person who is not, or who is married to a person who is not, a Protestant to succeed to the Crown'.
Lord St John said simply that 'there is no such bar'. He asserted the Act of Settlement forbids succession to the throne 'to anyone who marries a Papist'. This meant, he said, that anyone who marries a Papist is 'out of the royal stakes' - but if he or she were to convert to Catholicism after marriage the Act of Settlement does not apply.
Lord St John seems to have ignored that aspect of the Act that refers to being 'reconciled to the See of Rome'. If a Monarch or their consort were to convert to Catholicism after a marriage, the Act of Settlement most certainly does apply, as does the Bill of Rights. Our forebears were not so naïve as to leave such an easy backdoor for the Pope to regain the Crown.
Charles James Fox (on 17th Dec 1783), one of Britain's greatest parliamentarians, in speaking against the absolute powers of monarchy, said: 'Is this enlightened country, which has so often struggled against every species of undue influence, to revert to those Gothic ages, when princes were tyrants, ministers minions, and government intriguing?'
Various secret clubs with sinister agendas have caused concern in recent decades - Freemasonry, the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, and the New World Order. But the functioning of the Vatican is not so scrutinised. It is one of the few governments upon earth which has intrigue, is cloaked in secrecy, is mysterious, unaccountable, unfathomable, with sealed archives never open to public scrutiny. In an era where openness, accountability, devolution and freedom of information are becoming mantras, it is strange that the United Kingdom is being sucked into the antitheses - secrecy, bureaucratic unaccountability, centralisation and control. Such is the working of the European Union's oligarchy, and such is the working of the Vatican's theocracy. The conviction of Divine Right leads inevitably to expressions of absolute authority, the abuse of power, and consequent corruption.
The Crown is the supreme power in the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. The sovereign is also the Supreme Governor of the established Church of England and is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The Queen, as a citizen of the EU, is already subject to an oligarchy. God forbid that the Crown of the United Kingdom should ever become subject to or reconciled to a theocracy.
Monarchs' Response to previous attacks
There have been previous attempts to undermine the stability of the Crown, or force a monarch to renege on an oath. The Queen's own Coronation Oath precludes any change to the Act of Settlement. In taking the Coronation Oath, she swore before God and the Nation:
'Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? And will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England…?'
It is unlikely that the present Queen would permit such a move, but the accession of the Prince of Wales would almost certainly precipitate such foundational amendments, and subject the Crown to the suzerainty of Rome.
Queen Elizabeth I in 1588 declared:
'To no power whatever is my Crown subject, save to that of Christ, the King of Kings.' In the Public Records Office is a copy Pope Gregory XIII's sanctioning of her assassination. On December 12th 1580, he declared: 'There is no doubt that whosoever sends her out of the world with the pious intention of doing God service, not only does not sin but gains merit…'
George III responded in the following terms:
'Where is the power on earth to absolve me from the observance of every sentence of that oath, particularly the one requiring me to maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion? Was not my family seated on the Throne for that express purpose, and shall I be the first to suffer it to be undermined, perhaps overturned? No, no, I had rather beg my bread from door to door throughout Europe, than consent to any such measure. I can give up my crown and retire from power. I can quit my palace and live in a cottage. I can lay my head on a block and lose my life, but I cannot break my oath. If I violate that oath I am no longer legal Sovereign in this country.'
"But the Papacy has changed..."
Whether the nation can afford a weakening of its Protestant safeguards must be determined by the claims of the Papacy today. Has she entirely quitted the political realm, or surrendered her contention to dominate world affairs. The claims made at a Papal coronation can hardly be said to be domestic to the interests of that church alone - they still profess to be 'Father of Kings and Princes, and Ruler of the World'. Cardinal Manning asserted the claim of the Pope with these words:
'I acknowledge no civil superior. I am the subject of no prince, and I claim more than this. I claim to be the supreme judge and director of the consciences of men, of the peasant that tills the field, and the prince that sits on the throne; of the household that lives in the shade of privacy, and the Legislature that makes laws for kingdoms. I am the sole last supreme judge of what is right and wrong.'
Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical The Christian Constitution of States affirmed the Church was 'the most exalted of all authority, nor can it be looked upon as inferior to the civil power… the desire for civil liberty is a shameless liberty…'
Leo XII on liberty: 'The Church usually acquiesces in certain modern liberties, not because she prefers them in themselves, but because she judges it expedient to permit them, she would in happier times exercise her own liberty.'
The Syllabus of Pius IX declared: 'Liberty of conscience is a perverse opinion diffused by fraudulent endeavours of infidels.' And: 'The liberty of the press is an evil liberty, never sufficiently execrated or abhorred.'
When former Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie visited the Pope in 1989, he set out to determine the agenda for reconciliation with the Papacy. He proposed a modified Papacy, one with primacy of honour but not primacy of jurisdiction. But, of course, it was not on offer, and the Pope's communiqué made it clear - there could be no modification of the Papacy at all. The whole purpose of the Anglican-Roman Catholic discussions was to bring the Anglican Communion back into submission to the Papacy, over which it claims jurisdiction anyway.
Cardinal Winning, head of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, called the Act an 'insult' to Catholics. Sensing a drive for change, he has consequently made some provocative and imperious statements, asserting that Roman Catholicism will be the sole faith in Scotland in the 21st century. He said, 'The other churches will have to accept bishops. There will be no movement in doctrine and no movement on the seven sacraments.' In an age of ecumenical compromise, any movement has to be by the other churches, towards the Roman Semper Eadem ("always the same").
On 12th March 2000 the media carried a major news story on the content of the Pope's speech given during a Papal mass. It made much of the 'unprecedented' apology the Pope made for the Roman Catholic Church's 'past sins'. The precise wording was more revealing. Without being specific on matters like the Vatican's appeasement of Hitler during the Holocaust, or even mentioning their Concordat with the Nazis, he begged pardon for the excesses of violence used in the 'service of truth'. This is simply an adherence to the zeitgeist. All over the world, violence is being abandoned for diplomacy. Even in Europe, the German nation has replaced its addictions to bombs and bullets with summits and treaties to achieve its ends. The Pope may have apologised for the 'violent excesses' of the Inquisition, but he didn't apologise for the Inquisition itself, for that was 'in the service of truth'. The violence and torture may now be perceived to have been wrong, but the Catholic 'truth' it attempted to uphold was not. When a Pope speaks ex Cathedra, he is still, and has been since 1870, infallible.
Rome does not change her dogmas. Her face changes; she is very different in different countries. In England, she adopts a high moral tone, representing stability where other churches are perceived to compromise. Unpalatable Papal dogma such as Humanae Vitae, banning artificial contraception, are played down. In countries where Rome's grip is surer - Uganda, Haiti, the Philippines - the priests exert a stranglehold over all aspects of life. The Times reported in 1987 (18th April) on the Filipino practice of nailing young Catholics to crosses to obtain the forgiveness of sins. In Mexico only last year, The Express (25th January 2000) reported on a Papal visit in which the Pope urged his audience to 'aggressively combat significant inroads made by Protestantism' and to ignore such 'untruthful ideologies'. The article noted the 'spell' he exerts over the predominantly Catholic nation. The demand to 'aggressively combat' has very real implications in Peru, Chile, Argentina, Colombia and Mexico, where Protestants are persecuted for their faith, and sometimes tortured and killed.
A Protestant missionary in Zambia wrote in 1990: 'My country is plunged into misery… Catholicism is ruling the land. Politics - social and spiritual - have been sold to the Vatican. Every effort to evangelise is being thwarted… The Catholics, through their agents in Parliament, have passed a law banning the formation of any other Christian ministry… Religious freedom is slowly declining and respect for the Pope is mounting.' (All Roads Lead to Rome, Michael de Semlyen, Dorchester House Publications, 1991).
The outworking of these statements is that the Roman Church still contends:
The Pope is over all kings, prime ministers, and presidents.
The Church may use force to execute its plans.
Priests have the power to direct the people in politics.
Education must be under control of the Church.
Marriage laws must serve the ends of Rome.
Religious houses cannot be fettered by state control.
We cannot therefore afford to overlook the fact that a Roman Catholic monarch, who must be submissive to the Papacy, would have to submit to these aims.
The Act of Settlement must be upheld by all lawful and constitutional means because:
The Papacy is, by its own admission, a political institution. It would be intolerable to have, as the sovereign of a Protestant and free country, one who owes any allegiance to the head of any other state.
The Sovereign is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and swore in her Coronation Oath to maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion. It would be unacceptable to have a Sovereign who is a member of the Roman Catholic Church.
Bearing in mind the inevitable tensions and divided allegiances within a mixed marriage, and having regard to the practices within the Roman Catholic Church relating to the children of such marriages (who have to be brought up as Roman Catholics), it is inconsistent with the maintenance of the liberties of this Nation that the Monarch or Heir to the Throne should be permitted to marry a Roman Catholic.
Will the Act of Settlement survive?
The internet debate on the issue yielded this simplistic but very attractive reasoning from a professing agnostic: 'Well, considering the monarch is the head of the Church of England, doesn't barring Catholics make sense? A Roman Catholic monarch would be a bit like a Protestant Pope.'
Lord Forsyth's Bill failed because it was not wide enough in scope, and not properly thought through. The Act of Settlement remains on the Statute Books not because there is not widespread support for its amendment or repeal, but because our forebears made the Protestant Constitution so watertight it is immensely difficult to undo.
The Bill of Rights 1689, the Coronation Oath Act 1689, the Act of Settlement 1701, and the Act of Union 1707 all uphold the Protestant Constitution and the Throne. In short, no less than nine Acts would need to be repealed. On top of this, fifteen Commonwealth countries of which the Queen is Head of State would also have to enact similar legislation, and it would also touch upon the establishment of the National Church. Even with minimal opposition, the parliamentary time involved would be colossal.
While repeal looks unlikely, reform is considerably easier, leaving the Throne and an established Church intact for Rome once again to absorb.
It must also be noted that if the Act were placed before the European Court of Human Rights, now Britain has taken and accepted the European Convention of Human Rights into UK law, it would be ruled as discriminatory on the grounds of religion and deemed to be illegal. But this is rarely how the EU operates. Nothing as overt as repeal will take place - the shift would be too seismic - but deeper integration into Europe would mean the Act had implicitly been repealed, and suddenly, after a further decade or so, the British people will wake up to the fact, and it will be too late to change.
The clause of this Act preventing British troops being used overseas without parliamentary approval is already compromised by the emerging European Rapid Reaction Force. Romano Prodi's desire to form a European Army under the authority of the European Commission would be a blatant contravention of this Act, but its consequent repeal would only be implicit.
The philosopher Hegel observed: 'experience and history teach us…that nations and governments have never learnt anything from history, or acted upon any lessons they might have drawn from it.' Historical reflection and perspective is important if history is to be our tutor. Alvin Toffler said ' If we do not learn the lessons of history, we will have to relive it. If we do not change the future, we may have to endure it, and that could be worse.'
If we are to prevent a return to unaccountable divine rights, in Brussels or Rome, and defend British National Sovereignty, I can do no better than leave you with Lord Forsyth's own plea:
"The Monarchy is strong in its essence and in its place in the hearts and confidence of the British people. It is our greatest guarantor of stability… The overriding concern must be to keep the foundations of the Constitution upon which our liberties rest. Are we really to throw away the achievements of centuries to sound more modern and up-to-date: achievements for which our ancestors spilt blood and even gave their lives?'
To state this, with all conviction, and to simply dismiss the Act of Settlement as outdated and bigoted, is to display his own ignorance of history, his ignorance of the stated aims of the Papacy, and his confusion of what make up the true foundations of our constitutional rights, liberties, and the peace and security of the Kingdom.
On 7th June 1977, the Queen travelled to St Paul's Cathedral for a thanksgiving service for her Silver Jubilee. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Donald Coggan, preached a sermon about the wise man who built his house upon the rock, and referred in his sermon to the stability of the United Kingdom emanating from the stability of the Crown. As the Queen approaches her Golden Jubilee in 2002, it is timely to remind her that the maintenance of the Constitution, including the preservation of the rights and liberties of her subjects according to the Common Law, is the Monarchy's very raison d'être.
The right of the United Kingdom to remain independent politically, economically and religiously has been surrendered to Brussels without consent or understanding. The blind are leading the blind into an irreversible 'ever closer union'. This timely and lucid book throws light on the spiritual and political powers at work throughout Europe. It examines:
- The importance of Sovereignty
- The political role of the Vatican and the Papacy
- The threat to the throne of the United Kingdom
- The Constitution - Magna Carta and the Act of Settlement
- The divided loyalties inherent in dual citizenship
- The consequences of economic and Monetary Union
- The European propaganda offensive and broadcasting bias
- The European Army and the control of British Armed Forces
France and Britain joined forces, on Wednesday, to demand the creation of a powerful new president of the European Council who British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, believes will become the public face and driving force of Europe. The goal is to give Europe a high-profile political leader, who would also serve as the European Union’s face in international affairs and take a key role in developing defence and foreign policies, reports the Financial Times.
Spanish accept of UK-French idea expected
They think the new president would give the European Union a sharper identity, providing much-needed leadership and accountability. Spain is expected to add its support to the UK-French idea, which is also favoured by Valery Giscard D’Estaing who is chairing the convention on Europe’s future. However winning the backing of Germany is still a major hurdle.
Commission contests weakening its powers
The European commission, which is fighting to preserve its influence, will contest the plans vigorously, since the move would be seen as weakening the powers of the unelected Commission and its own president Romano Prodi, writes the Financial Times.
If approved by member states, the post would be created in 2005 or 2006. The idea of an appointed EU council president was introduced by Mr Chirac in a speech in Strasbourg on March 7 as part of his plan to bolster the idea of a Europe of member states.
Elected for five years by EU leaders
Under the new proposals, the council president would be elected by all European Union leaders for a five-year term to coincide with that of the Commission president.
The new system would replace the current six-month rotating European Union presidency, which has been blamed for failing to give strong leadership and political direction, which would become even more unsatisfactory with the admission of up to 10 new countries to the European Union in 2004
Saturday, 14 December, 2002, 01:39 GMT
Expansion plans were almost universally welcomed
The popping of champagne corks added to the atmosphere as leaders from both current and future European Union member states celebrated the Copenhagen summit's agreement on expansion.
Current EU President, Denmark's Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen:
This is a truly proud moment for the European Union. It is a triumph for liberty and democracy, and to our new members I say warmly welcome to our family - our new Europe is born.
European Commission President Romano Prodi:
Accession of 10 new member states will bring an end to the divisions in Europe... For the first time in history Europe will become one because unification is the free will of its people.
Polish Prime Minister Leszek Miller:
Poland has taken a huge historic step, I deeply believe that our nation fully deserves this chance which opens the door for us and future generations.
Estonian Prime Minister Siim Kallas:
Economies of the new members will develop faster, and investment will come, we can sell our goods in Europe and we can travel and work in Europe. Europe represents a new space for opportunity for us.
Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan:
We think the double standards the EU countries apply in their political practices are not in line with contemporary values.
French President Jacques Chirac:
One cannot but think this evening of the victims of the numerous wars of the 20th Century, the absurd deaths... the victims of anti-Semitism and racism, of all the catastrophes .... and man's folly.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair:
When we look back at the history of Europe... and we reflect back on all the war and conflict, we realise that we are reuniting Europe. It is a day we can truly be proud of.
White House statement:
The European Union's decision further unites the new and the established democracies of Europe, and advances the creation of a Europe whole, free and at peace.
30.07.2008 @ 09:26 CET
European businesses would choose the UK's ex-leader, Tony Blair, as the new EU president, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Luxembourg's prime minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, featuring as other front-runners for the position in a fresh poll.
The survey was carried out by financial news channel CNBC Europe, with Mr Blair supported by 37 percent of respondents, Ms Merkel 23 percent and Mr Juncker 12 percent of pollsters, UK daily the Guardian reported.
Tony Blair and Angela Merkel are the two most popular personalities for the top EU job among businesses (Photo: European Community, 2006)
The British Labour leader was mentioned as a possible candidate for the new post already last year, mainly after French President Nicolas Sarkozy signalled he would back him.
But the idea also sparked some objections in other European capitals, with Chancellor Merkel herself reportedly arguing against such a choice.
The creation of a new EU president post - to be held for two and a half years and partly replace the current six-month rotating chairmanship of the bloc's member states - is still an open question due to the failed referendum in Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty, which would have introduced institutional changes to how the EU is run, including the new position.
The current French EU presidency had been planning to hold a debate on the tasks of a bloc's new president and also on which personality should fill the position, and that of a new common foreign minister.
But after the Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty in June, the main question mark remains on how the EU can move on with the institutional reform that needs to be approved by all member states.
Tony Blair, Britain's prime minister for 10 years (1997-2007), is currently working as an international peace envoy to the Middle East while also serving as an advisor to insurance firm Zurich and investment bank JP Morgan.
[ Main Contents ]