BRUSSELS IS WORTH A MASS….
By ATWadmin On January 19th, 2008Let’s go back in time.
In order to secure the French throne, Henry of Navarre renounced his Protestant faith and converted to Roman Catholicism in 1593 cynically adding that "Paris is worth a mass." He ascended to the French throne a year later in 1594.
Step forward in time to 2008. Tony Blair has recently renounced his Protestant faith and converted to Roman Catholicism. Is he triangulating to become the First President of Europe when this role comes into being in 2009? Is Brussels worth a mass?S
Writing in the Daily Telegraph. Charles Moore makes a very plausible case for the Blair presidency.
Initiated Under Blair, the British net contribution to the EU will rise from €2.8 billion to €5.5 billion by 2014. Blair complained that 40% of the European budget went on the Common Agricultural Policy. He then accepted this should INCREASE to 44%. Whatever could have made Blair so weak-willed when it came to defending British interests with the EU?
Under the thing we are not allowed to call the European Constitution, which the Commons will begin acrimoniously debating next week, a President of the European Council will be created in 2009. He will hold the post for two and a half years (renewable once), and he will have "strategic direction" of the European Union. He will be appointed by the council, ie by the heads of government, under the French presidency in the second half of this year.
It is reported that the Lefties do not much want Mr Blair. In Italy, Romano Prodi disapproves of him because he supported Silvio Berlusconi. In Spain, the Socialist government dislikes him so much that the defence minister unguardedly called him "un gilipollas integral", which is too rude to translate.
But the Germans seem friendly, and the French even more so (though a machiavellian rumour says that perfide Sarko is only pretending). A recent poll in Le Figaro reported that 80 per cent of Frenchmen would like Mr Blair in their government, let alone that of the EU. Enraging the Socialists to whom he is nominally allied, Mr Blair recently addressed the annual conference of Mr Sarkozy’s party. By a happy chance, Tony and Cherie were in the same hotel in Egypt as Sarko and his lovely girlfriend/fiancée/possibly bride, Carla Bruni, and the four had dinner together.
The beauty of all this is that, as so often, Mr Blair’s personal ambition sits neatly with his stated beliefs. Throughout his career, he has been as pro-European as a mainstream British politician can safely be. He is particularly Francophile – remember his immediate welcome for President Chirac in Canary Wharf when he became Prime Minister, his St Malo defence treaty, his eloquent speech, in French, to the National Assembly.
He is so good at timing. Even his decision to become a Roman Catholic, though perfectly sincere, comes at the right moment. It would have been a negative while he was Prime Minister. If he wants a top post in continental Europe, it becomes an advantage. Brussels is worth a Mass.
I believe Charles is 100% right. Blair is a triangulator par excellence. I believe he years to become the First President of Europe – the neo Holy Roman Emperor. Look upon his face my friends, and despair.
"Even his decision to become a Roman Catholic, though perfectly sincere, comes at the right moment. It would have been a negative while he was Prime Minister"
What does that say about Britain?
"What does that say about Britain?"
Erm, that it’s not a Catholic nation?
Being a Catholic is still a negative in British politics then?
How many protestant Irish prime ministers have there been?
Historically, Chris the Catholics did try to blow up parliament. Vast majority of the country is protestant, and historically there’s been conflict between protestants and catholics. So, Chris are you really that surprised?
None but we have had Protestant Presidents, and being a protestant would not be considered "a negative". People just wouldn’t care.
You didn’t answer my question though.
Is being a Catholic still a negative in British politics?
I’m not surprised at all Marvin, I have long believed this. However when you talk to most British people they would have you believe that the anti-catholic nature of British politics and the British establishment in general had come to an end.
Bollocks it wouldn’t be an issue Chris. Why have you had NONE in Ireland???
Yes it’s a negative. As it would be a negative to have protestant leaders for catholic countries around the world. If you can’t comprehend that than you have failed to understand the concept of politics altogether.
It’s also legally a negative. The law states you cannot have Catholic advisors to the queen. It would have been legally questionable for a British prime minister to be Catholic. They might try and blow up parliament again!
Certainly, since the IRA stopped their terror campaign against the UK, and after 9/11, anti-catholic and indeed anti-irish feeling has subsided.
Marvin.
Well said. However Roman Catholicism is not the subtance of this post It is about having Blair as President of Europe.
"Why have you had NONE in Ireland???"
Because the free state is only 80 odd years old for a start. Secondly FF have been the lead party for all that time.
It wouldn’t be an issue and unlike Britain Ireland does not have have anti-protestant legislation for our minority the way you have for catholics (act of settlement)
The fact that being a Catholic would make you unsuitable to be PM in Britain today shows just how far you have to come.
Sorry David.
Ok, back on topic.
Wouldn’t you all agree though, regardless of your feelings of Blair, it would best to have Blair as president of Europe than a foreign european one?
Marvin,
Good question. I have such hostility towards a role that no one on the UK have been allowed to vote on that I could care less who holds it. I will be out to savage them for daring to represent a state which does not exist. This is all about destroying the remnants of the Euro-nation state and Blair would prove as dangerous (maybe more) than any other. Blair as European President, Hillary as US President – I need to go and lie down..!!!
Chris,
Remind me of the % of Protestants living in the Republic?
Around the 5% mark I believe David.
>Historically, Chris the Catholics did try to blow up parliament.
And this is worse than collaborating with a foreign power to invade and overthrow the reigning sovereign ?
As the more perceptive, and perhaps, more cynical among us, have long expected and suggested, Blair’s tenure as PM was but a stepping stone to – what is to him – a higher office.
Either President of the EU, or Secretary-General of the UN seemed the obvious targets. I might have included Chairman of the World Bank to the list, but I don’t think even he has the gall to suggest that he has the intellect for that position.
Blair is merely the modern "Vicar of Bray" from the 18th century comic opera.
I think the article is a stretch by Moore, but we need more of its type. Speculation on motives of our political class is always welcome in the media and we need more of it- but this one is a stretch.
Orlando I don’t understand what you are getting at…
Marvin, I suspect he is referring to William overthrowing James, at the invitation of the protestant dominated parliament.
This post uses Blair’s conversion as a strike against him. The opportunity to disclaim support for him as heading the EU is cover. Quite clear by the emphasis of the title and the content.
This is what passes for religious tolerance and respect for individual choice in certain circles.
No Mahons, this post shows what a traitor Blair is. he saw to it that Britain’s rebate on EU contributions has been reduced in order to finance his ambitions within the EU. It has absolutely nothing to do with becoming catholic. Besides, how can Blair be sincere in his conversion with his views on gay adoption and abortion? This is not to initiate discussion on those matters which have been discussed elsewhere on this site but simply to point out that Blair is, at heart, a gross deceiver.
Yay for Blair! And good luck to him. I hope he does.
And as for the catholic prot thing – give us all a break will you Charles Moore et al. Get over it. The whole idea of using someone’s decision to be a catholic as a reason to slate them in politics is beyond pathetic, puny, outdated and not wanted so sod off! It’s his personal religious choice. It’s a good choice. Good luck to him. I’m still waiting to feel hard done by or limited as a catholic in the UK.
and this
"he wants a top post in continental Europe, it becomes an advantage"
is the most ridiculous commentary ever. Think about it.
Alison,
"I’m still waiting to feel hard done by or limited as a catholic in the UK."
Precisely, – I often wonder at the motives of those who proclaim any real antipathy to the Catholic religion in Great Britain, – as in the mainland! – it just doesn’t happen..
There may well be some angst re the Irish, but not because they may be Catholic.
I always felt we were basically all in the same club, but the Catholics just had fancy way of saying their prayers…
I agree with Ernest. There is negligible anti-Catholic sentimentin the UK apart fom fringe nutty Protestant fundamentalists.
That’s true , Colm. Even the IRA bombings on the mainland in the 1970s never produced any anti-catholic reaction from the populace at large.
Deep down, the sensible Brits knew it was not a religious ‘war’. The media tried to portray it as such, as they did with catholic Argentina versus Protestant Britain in the Falklands war; but failed.
Mahons
I think that the strike against him is the timing and the motivation behind his decision, which some supect is, well em, suspect ;o)
President of Europe, what a horrible thought!!
"the Catholics just had fancy way of saying their prayers… "
Exactly. Plus our churches smell nicer (incense)
The thing is that David made the ridiculous suggestion, which nobody here has called him on, that Blair converted to Catholicism as a way to further his political ambitions in Europe. This really stinks of old-Paisleyite paranoia about the EU because it was based on the "Treaty of Rome".
However, neither Paisley nor Charles Moore nor David Vance tries to show us how the EU is particularly Catholic (in fact, it contains all the predominantly Protestant countries in the continent) and how or why being a Catholic enhances ones chances in EU politics.
Because of course it doesn’t.
Noel
That fact that he married a devout Catholic, raised his children as Catholics and attended Mass on a Sunday for years were all part of a clever plan on his part to be the first President of Europe.
You have to hand it to Blair, he’s all about the bigger picture
Noel – i touched on both those points – not as well rounded out as you though, i was too hacked off at the time. However it isn’t David making the points it’s the man who wrote the article.
Of course I don’t believe in any conspiratorial reasons why Tony Blair has coverted to Catholicism , I think the only reason why he has done so is to placate the demands of his domineering manipulative missus.
Can I gently point to Noel that Charles Moore is a prominent Roman Catholic. Go figure.
David
What sinister difference does that make ?
I think he is pretty religious Colm. But a smart one as he kept it out of political decisions as well he should. NO to American style religious politics here thank you! However im still baffled by the idea that secular Europe would value his catholicism as a political assett.
Colm,
Noel suggested that I, as a fundmentalist type Protestant, had made a silly suggestion. I am poiting out that it was a fellow Roman Catholic who made the allusion to Henry of Navarre.
MY point is that I reject anybody being President of Europe and yes, that means even you!!!
Oh but David I would make Europe such a great place. For starters my first Eurowide law would be to make A Tangled Web the compulsory homepage of every individual European citizens Internet service
Colm,
Then again…
>>However im still baffled by the idea that secular Europe would value his catholicism as a political assett.<<
Exactly.
I doubt if anyone in continental Europe, or anyone to the South-East of Dromore for that matter, would even consider any connection whatsoever.
This Chrles Moore obviously hates Blair to such an extent that he can’t resist even the most insane suggestion if he thinks it could blacken his name.
Noel
You are determined to keep Dromore at the top of the ATW reference charts
Charles Moore has reason to hate Blair. Moore may be a serious Catholic, but he is also essentially patriotic. Blair is a deceiver and liar of Clintonian proportions and, for these reasons, can never be trusted by Moore.
Allan
"Moore may be a serious Catholic, BUT he is also essentially patriotic."
;o)
Well spotted, Aileen. I should have written ‘and’ because being a Catholic is not inherently unpatriotic. After all, many Catholics in NI vote for Unionist parties.
Alison, re your question, why is it a political advantage for Mr Blair to be a Catholic, in his ambitions within the EU -
It’s nothing too sinister or complicated in my opinion. It’s merely a question of the "Old Boys Club" type of thing, in reverse from the way it works here in the UK.
I mean, here in the UK, it is favourable in high politics, to be ex-Oxford Uni, and C of E, simply because it’s the old boys network, and you’re looked on as "one of us", "in the club". Its the establishment, and being CofE still matters in the UK establishment, not for any religious reasons of course.
If Ivan Yates had remained in politics he would have become leader of Fine Gael rather than Enda Kenny. Under his leadership the opposition would probably have won the last election and he would have been a Protestant Taoiseach. The last Green leader was also a Protestant.
But if you asked most people they would not even know the religion of either. It’s simply not an issue in Irish politics. Catholicism is Britain’s largest denomination yet it is excluded by law from the throne and by practice from Downing Street.
Is British euro scepticism simply a manifestation of anti-Catholic bigotry? I would hate to think so.