Catholics in the pews have clipped the EU’s wings
Catholics in the pews have clipped the EU’s wings Daniel Hannan says Ireland's 'No' to Lisbon has revealed a gulf between bishops and lay people 20 June 2008 In the aftermath of Ireland's "No" to Lisbon, several pundits declared that the result had been a repudiation of the Catholic hierarchy. And they had a point: while the Church didn't issue guidelines on how to vote, it made its preference pretty clear, ostentatiously denying a number of "myths" that pro-life groups had been circulating in advance of polling day. In consequence, some non-Irish observers revived the oldest of anti-Catholic prejudices: the notion that priests were leading their flocks to the polls. "Just as His late Holiness gave many coded pronouncements on his support for the EU, so His present Holiness is lending his considerable religio-political weight to the Treaty of Lisbon," wrote the acerbically Pro-*test*-('")ant and eminently readable blogger, Archbishop Cranmer, just before the vote. "It has taken a German pope to revive the Sacrum Romanum Imperium Nationis Germanicae, and since the Empire needs an Emperor, it comes as no surprise that the Vatican is supporting the creation of such an office, effectively fulfilling a function last performed by Pope Clement VII in 1530." Well, maybe. But such analysis misses rather a critical factor, namely the salience of Catholic organisations in the "No" campaign. Anti-abortion groups have been central to the "No" coalition in successive Irish referendums since 1972. Irish Europhiles, tearing their hair in frustration, tell anyone who will listen that the EU cannot change the abortion laws of its constituent members. But pro-life groups in Ireland have never been comfortable with enshrining the right of Irish nationals to procure terminations elsewhere in the EU. Nor do they care for the EU's increasing role in the field of embryo research. They dislike Brussels tying its development aid programmes to pro-choice policies in the recipient states. And they weren't exactly cock-a-hoop about the ostentatious excision of any mention of God from the text they were voting on. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/opinion/o0000258.shtml I only picked up a copy of the Catholic Herald after Mass yesterday because there was some coverage of the Traditional Latin Mass - but then I found this fascinating piece on the comment page. It provides a different, and very interesting, view - which all reinforces the notion (which we've known here for a long time), that this is only about the "elites" which are in favour of the E.U. ... I fear that those elites include the successors to the Apostles. I don't know if the Irish Episcopate is anything like the English (R.C.) Episcopate, if it is I'm not entirely sure that the word "elite" is appropriate...but the sense is still conveyed.

But pro-life groups in Ireland have never been comfortable with enshrining the right of Irish nationals to procure terminations elsewhere in the EU. Nor do they care for the EU's increasing role in the field of embryo research. They dislike Brussels tying its development aid programmes to pro-choice policies in the recipient states. And they weren't exactly cock-a-hoop about the ostentatious excision of any mention of God from the text they were voting on So if the EU gave concessions to Ireland on abortion, embryo research and put a couple of mentions of God in the treaty/constitution, would we see Irish priests whipping their flocks into the Yes lobby? The EU issues are bigger than these imo, but I guess we should be grateful for anything that helps throw a spanner in the EU works.

I think the underlying aspect is more important. If my local rep is bad on these issues, it is less offensive than if someone out of state or country tells me how to run my affairs. The first reponse is "Who the #%@ are you? Go home!" and the second response is some insult to the country or state or city of the individual who suggested it. The Eurocrats want to create a "United States of Europe" so they can match the USA in power. Notice that I said "They" and not Europe. Now after only 243 (1607-1860) years of British North American and localized traditions, there was a war over the centralization of powers and the direction of the country. There's no wars today over it today, but still many political battles over the direction of state/federal powers today. How is that going to work in Europe with several different languages, diffrent cultures, longtime rivals, and thousands of years of tradition among several countries which at one time were a premier "superpower" of the world (UK, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Russia, Greece), etc. That's not to mention old v new Europe. The Euro is one thing. Trade agreements are one thing. That makes some sense considering the distance between major cities in Europe is close to the distance between major cities in the US (and Canada's Vancover, Montreal, and Toronto). On the other hand, full powered governments involved in military matters, cultural matters, soverignty fights, and most of all resource allocation (taxes, etc) is going to make things real sticky over there. The US fought a war over this stuff, one to this day is the costliest war by far in our history, and one whose ghosts are alive and well to this day. God help us all if the EU fights get to that level. This is a dangerous road to travel.

Well said above Yank. Nail hit on head for me that.