Europe must rediscover 'its own identity, its own unity', says Pope Francis

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vouthon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The topic is about Europe rediscovering its identity. EU proponents claim the EU is doing just that. Seems to me, and perhaps to other Americans who have been here but left, that it’s nothing but one more secular humanist government with a liberal (as Americans see that) tendency, and one that exercises a great deal of control over its member states in requiring compliance with that tendency. That’s not an “identity” in any meaningful sense, or that’s peculiar to Europe. It’s just one more left-leaning secular government. There are lots of those.
 
What Americans think of as liberal? Well, you Europeans aren’t the only ones allowed to read what’s posted here, even if the topic is about Europe. The original topic was about Europe rediscovering its “identity”. If, to Americans, the EU, as explained and offered as the expression of that “identity”, seems to be just one more secular humanist government with a tendency to espouse things like homosexual marriage or abortion, (that Americans think of as “liberal”) that addresses the topic whether the word means the same to Europeans or not.

If, however, this thread is for Europeans only, you can just say that and I’m sure all Americans who haven’t already left, will do so promptly.
 
Now, do you want to demonstrate how the EU CAN’T EVER legalize abortion in every state?
Perhaps you are unaware that the EU, like the US, has a Constitution. In the EU that Constitution is the treaties, agreed by the member states, which have set up and developed the EU and its institutions. The Parliament cannot amend the treaties which govern the distribution of competencies within the Union, only the member states can do that, by new treaties. Health and medical care are functions of the member states, as agreed by treaty. That’s how it is, your protestations notwithstanding.
 
Would you care to quote it for us from a reliable source, or do you expect us to go hunt it? The EU does have a “non-discrimination” clause in its constitution which covers gender preference. So if Hungary (for example) doesn’t want to pay for “gender reassignment” surgery, can it refuse to do so?

We do know Hungary can’t refuse to allow Merkel’s Millions to move into Hungary without facing sanctions. That, too, is discriminatory.
 
If I may intercede, I feel like every one is talking past each other, altho I may be interpreting one or both sides wrong.

RR, to me, is saying that the EU can impose up in the constituent nations, and that already it has imposed a recognition of SSM on member nations whether they have it or not.

The Europeans think that because of the Constitution, where it is spelled out that some things are the purview of the nation and others of the EU, that the individual nations are free from the “tyranny” the EU might impose if not held back by the Constitution.

As Americans, we know about the emantions the Constitution can give off if judges are inclined to accept it.

So, and I may be wrong in.my understanding of what RR is saying, he warning you of where the path you are following may lead.
 
So, and I may be wrong in.my understanding of what RR is saying, he warning you of where the path you are following may lead.
I think that’s a generous interpretation of RR’s motives, but of course any Constitution is only as good as the courts that uphold it. That applies whether we are talking about any unitary state, or any federation. As a warning it seems to lack point. Laws are only as good as those who uphold them? Sure, but that’s not a criticism of the laws, just of the citizenry.
 
Goodness! A “generous interpretation of (my) motives”?

Is the EU, indeed, the “identity” of Europe? And if it’s the “identity” is it a desirable one?
 
Well, I think it’s an interesting question to a Catholic on this side of the pond 🙂

I mean, is there a feeling of commonality amongst Europeans aside from being in the EU?

One of the problems I see is that when I was young, things seemed really fragmented here (VietNam, etc), but things settled down and then we were more unified. Most people felt similarly in the goals we should reach for, but had differences in how to attain them.

Now we seem to be living on different planets sometimes. It’s not just the vituperation but the fact we have radically different ideas about the goals.
 
I guess I was wondering about an underlying unity rather than personal relationships, which are more individual.

As a Catholic, I think once they were all Catholic! and am sad that is gone.

It just seems like people in Europe could feel akin to people working at a low level in a really large corporation, where they don’t feel much connection.
 
Certainly the case for me in Scotland as well.

Our capital, Edinburgh, was nicknamed the Athens of the North because of its splendid examples of neo-classical architecture and reputation for intellectual attainment by the likes of David Hume and Adam Smith, as part of the broader European Enlightenment, recalling ancient Greece.

From as far back as the mid-16th century there were many Scots trading and settling in Poland and Lithuania, so much so that a “Scotch Pedlar’s Pack in Poland” became a common expression.

Scotland’s primary foreign and security policy throughout much of the Middle Ages, from 1295 onwards, was shaped by the Auld Alliance between the Scots and French:

The Auld Alliance​

Dating back to 1295, the Auld Alliance was built upon Scotland and France’s shared interests in controlling England’s aggressive expansion plans. Drawn up by John Balliol of Scotland and Philip IV of France, it was first and foremost a military and diplomatic alliance, but for most ordinary Scots it brought more obvious benefits through jobs as mercenaries in France’s armies and of course, a steady supply of fine French wines.

Henry V’s victory at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415 was one of England’s greatest military achievements, but for the French it was a disaster on such a scale that it led to the near collapse of the country. In desperation the French Dauphin turned to the Scots, England’s traditional enemy, for help. As always, anxious for a fight with the Auld Enemy, more than 12,000 Scots boarded ships bound for France.

Many Scots remained in France with some joining Joan of Arc in her famous relief of Orleans. Others formed the Garde Écossais, the fiercely loyal bodyguard of the French Kings. As permitted by terms of the alliance, many of the mercenaries eventually settled in France, although then just as now, as immigrants they would always think of themselves as Scots first.

As previously mentioned, the Auld Alliance wasn’t simply a military alliance, a commercial alliance also developed which was founded on the Scots love of wine… French wine in particular!

It was due to this special relationship that Scottish merchants had the privilege of selecting the finest wines for themselves, much to the annoyance of wine drinkers south of the border. Wine that was landed in barrels at ports like Leith was mostly for consumption by the elite of Scottish society, with most commoners seemingly content with drinking whisky or beer.

(continued…)
 
This French influence persisted through the Stuarts and Jacobitism in Scotland: Mary Queen of Scots, raised in France like many Scottish monarchs, returned in 1560 to rule.

Even though she suffered a tragic fate at the hands of her cousin Elizabeth of England, her son James VI became the first Stuart King of Great Britain and Ireland, and when this dynasty’s Catholic line was displaced in 1689 by King William of Orange and then succeeded by the Protestant German Hanoverians in 1715, many Scottish highlanders refused to break with their royal house and swore allegiance to their ‘true’ King across the waters in France.

This history of Jacobitism is intensely yoked with Irish history - because many Protestant Scots had settled in Ulster, while Catholic and Episcopalian Highlanders came over to fight with Gaelic Irish Catholics in French & Spanish backed Jacobite armies to resist the House of Orange in the Williamite War, of which the Battle of the Boyne is the most famous.

The movement was strong in Scotland and Wales, where support was primarily dynastic, and in Ireland, where it was mainly religious. Roman Catholics and Anglican Tories were natural Jacobites.

In March 1689 James II himself landed in Ireland, and a parliament summoned to Dublin acknowledged him as king. But his Irish-French army was defeated by William III’s Anglo-Dutch army at the Battle of the Boyne (July 1, 1690), and he returned to France. A second French invasion misfired completely (1708).

The third attempt, the Fifteen Rebellion, was a serious affair. In the summer of 1715 John Erskine, 6th earl of Mar, raised the Jacobite clans and the Episcopal northeast for “James III and VIII” (James Edward, the Old Pretender).

A hesitant leader, Mar advanced only as far as Perth and wasted a considerable amount of time before challenging the duke of Argyll’s smaller force. The result was the drawn Battle of Sheriffmuir (November 13, 1715), and at the same time the hopes of a southern rising melted away at Preston. James arrived too late to do anything but lead the flight of his chief supporters to France. The fourth Jacobite effort was a west Scottish Highland rising, aided by Spain, which was quickly aborted at Glenshiel (1719).

The final rebellion, the Forty-five Rebellion, has been heavily romanticized, but it was also the most formidable. The outlook in 1745 seemed hopeless, for another French invasion. The number of Scottish Highlanders prepared to turn out was smaller than in 1715, and the Lowlands were apathetic or hostile, but the charm and daring of the young prince, Charles Edward (later called the Young Pretender or Bonnie Prince Charlie), and the absence of the government troops produced a more dangerous rising.
This is elementary Scottish history. Every Scot knows “Bonnie Prince Charlie” (the half-Polish Stuart heir raised in Italy & based in France whom these Scots Highlanders fought & died for to gain him the British throne).

And the famous ballad about it:
 
Last edited:
Well, the uprising did ultimately fail after the Battle of Culloden - although it succeeded in (re-conquering) the whole of Scotland (i.e. victory at Battle of Prestonpans) for the Stuarts again for that brief period.

It should be remembered that this (predominantly Scottish Highland) Jacobite Rising of 1745 was the greatest internal military threat that the British Crown would face until the Irish War of Independence in the 20th century.
 
Last edited:
It’s always struck me as more of a Vietcong-style guerrilla war, which is probably always the smartest way to go for a small nation attempting to successfully harry and deplete the morale of a superpower it could never actually hope to beat in a traditional war.

Weirdly and tragically enough, your civil war was far more deadly afterwards.

The Scottish Jacobite Rising of 1745, by contrast, was an old-style advance of armies and pitched battles like you say - the last, really, to be fought anywhere within the United Kingdom.

And, to be fair, the Jacobite forces did pretty well at the beginning - even reaching Derby in England, until it all went disastrously wrong ending in the last ever pitched battle on British soil, the Battle of Culloden - where the Jacobite Scots and their allies (including English recruits plus French and Irish professionals in the French service) were thoroughly crushed.

Regardless, the entire war has been heavily romanticised by Scottish literary greats like Walter Scott and Rabbie Burns, making it probably the most important and poignant event in the Scottish national memory.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top