Choices

The debate about abortion in Ireland has  often been angry but not as bitter as some people feared. We seem to recognise the strengths and weaknesses of each other’s  position.

A strong argument comes from our  tradition of recognising the dignity of human life and the age old belief that human life should not be destroyed. Indeed that argument should be enough because it is a dignified statement of dignified belief which need not be proved, because a person has a right to  belief without being required to prove it is valid .  It is not easy though to go on from that and say we have a right or  obligation to stop others doing what we think is wrong. A moral principle accepted by many Christians, Catholics included, is that in moral matters we are bound to use ordinary persuasive means to get something good done or something bad avoided,we are not bound to take extraordinary means , simply ordinary prudent measures are enough. That leaves the  question  though, can we agree to   abortion in hospitals which are our responsibility as members of the public or the community ? That  question  faces people now and there is a strong body of opinion that  we should not, because we would be cooperating, however remotely,  in something we believe is wrong .There should  be provision for a conscientious decision not to take part in or  encourage it, but how do you register a conscientious decision not to pay for it when other people do it ?

 It is not a new dilemma - we pay for the divorce courts even if we disagree with divorce. But  again, normal means are what conscience requires and if decisions go against us we have done what is morally required by helping in whatever way we can to lessen the incidence of abortion in the future. Some  years ago there was controversy about whether people could in conscience take part in courts in which divorce was managed. Nowadays that moral problem is scarcely heard of. Also, the use of contraceptives was a cause of moral worry but nowadays that moral dilemma seems not to cause much worry any more . Times change and for churches the practice and decision of the Faithful come into play; in  church,  decision makers    decide whether these are  a valid expression of the wisdom of the Faithful or not and they act accordingly. In this way laws are made and changed in  church. However  dealing with life and death of a human being is a much more serious and troubling matter than preventing conception.

In this it would help if a church were to go to the defence of all life more vigorously, for example by being more outspoken against war and more forceful in demanding that everything be done to prevent or stop it; making mother and child life and care  a priority in social policy. The  rules governing the morality of  taking part in war are already there so this is largely a matter of being more vigorous in using them.

Also, since  church attitudes to the use of conrtraceptives have altered in practice,  partly because of circumstances, it would help if it were to look closely at the  arguments it used against them. If use of contraceptives would lessen the possibility of abortions, the moral rule about using the lesser of two wrong things applies. Often in life our choice is not between  something good and something bad, it is between two things both of which are good or  both bad ! And  moralists have wisely made provision for all those possibilities.

It would be wise also for pro-life campaigners to look closely at the arguments they use. For instance  they cannot say the  Catholic Church   has always accepted that a human person begins with conception. This was not always agreed in the history of that church, there was even dispute about how many months would probably elapse before a human person is present. This was in  the days when belief in the infusion by God of  a human soul was generally accepted , so the question, When does it happen ? was discussed but never definitely answered.

Nowadays most people will have to be convinced by arguments other than those of divine law or revelation , and if  arguments based on these are used  one has to be very careful not to use them beyond their strict meaning,. Thou shalt not kill for instance is weakened if human life is not protected in all its phases, and  while  the Bible contains instructions to people not to kill it  not only allows killing in wars of occupation but even commands it ,  sometimes in very strong terms. The Catholic Church would benefit then from  a thorough examination of what it is saying about  life taking and life saving  and state   precisely  the meaning  of what  it believes and teaches,  in present circumstances   about abortion and war especially.  

No matter what the laws of a state say about what is allowable , people have their own principles, privately and perhaps as members of a church and these principles will guide their lives. Obeying the law but not being guided by  what state laws say about morality.  That remains a  church’s strongest argument   or plea in discussion of war and abortion.

The  Irish constitutional  idea of a mother’s right to life being equal to that of the foetus is strange – one would have thought  it would  be more appropriate to express things the other way round if one dares  to express human rights in either of these ways.   

In  future, people will possibly find themselves emphasising the need and  the possibility of reducing the incidence of performed abortions rather than eliminating them since eliminating them could seem  a   probably impossible task. A church’s best plea then could be  respect for human dignity and life  and for a disciplined way of life to protect   what we believe is our God given mandate to manage and cherish all life on the planet.

Human Rights

Human rights organisations are sometimes challenged: You say plenty about  abuses in other countries, why don’t you condemn human rights abuses in your own country too?

Usually two answers are given : one is that human rights organisations can only deal with other countries’ abuses , otherwise they lose the support,material or other, of their own governments.  Governments can  control criticism of what they themselves do. But human rights organisations say all is not lost because if you struggle for human rights anywhere it has an effect everywhere ,and furthermore, if an organisation is prepared to say in all cases  that “ any government guilty of this abuse, no matter who or where , is to be condemned” this  helps. So, if there are abuses at home then they make sure to condemn these abuses when they happen in other places. Often, they say, this is the only way.

But as well as this,some organisations have said that reporting and condemning abuses in countries other than their own means  people will join in condemnation of them  and  perhaps this may be the only way  to create a public revulsion against  the abuses at  home.

It is all very true. Still, the most dignified aim must surely be to make it possible  for every  person and  organisation to speak freely and publicly about human rights use and abuse at home or abroad.  Otherwise we are conniving at abuse. And furthermore, it is inconsistent of government to insist on bringing to light abuses by it own citizens if it is unwilling to shed the light of day on what it does itself, especially if it is abuse of people it is paid to protect.  

All the time the meaning of human rights is being re-defined . The meaning of homelessness was  re-defined . Homelessness used to mean really not having a place to shelter. The meaning became wider and people could  be reckoned homeless for less than that. Such re-defining  broadens the scope of what we understand by human right and dignity, and present day governments seem intent on making sure the re-defining if benevolent should go no further and should even be reversed.

Sometimes re-defining  is not so benevolent. Definition of what torture means and how governments  sanction it has been re-defined, to the great loss of human dignity and loss of centuries of patient work to abolish it.   

In the past the use of children for work,  amusement or sexual gratification was treated with remarkable indifference, remarkable because nowadays people have swung over to a different concept which seems not to have existed during long periods of our history , that of the rights of children. It took a long  time to  get acceptance of the rights of all men, then the rights of all women, then the rights of all children. It  has all been a long and tortuous struggle which is by no means over and indeed judging by  actions and propaganda by present governments , the struggle is being, if not lost, certainly and deliberately weakened   Re-defining  problems and  solutions can be helpful or hurtful depending upon who is doing it. Governments are extremely bad at it. Citizens will have to define their own dignity by the way they insist on re-defining being benevolent , not vicious. And that is a monumental and increasing problem.

The rights of people imply the duties of people. Balancing   these two is so difficult that it deters a lot of us  from even trying to solve problems of human suffering, or human happiness , we may settle for doing our  own private best in our  own circumstances.But we are all in a severe crisis if death and forceful domination and lessening of dignity are  more honourably treated by governments and public opinion than  life and freedom.  

COMPASSIONATE LAW, LAWFUL COMPASSION?

One more extraordinary decision was made in a law court recently. A woman suffering from an illness which cannot be cured and will become progressively worse wanted to make sure that if she decided to end her life her loving husband would not be prosecuted for helping her  to do that..  This is a heart breaking situation that commands all the sympathy, and uderstanding we can express. A heart breaking situation  and a  reminder that we have the duty and the privilege of easing our human burdens and making our laws minister to  that easement.

It was  an extraordinary decision because there must be few if any – are there any ?- laws penalising people for helping someone to do something that is legal. Of course lawmakers  understand that when you make – or unmake – one law you may have to make  – or unmake – other laws to deal with the consequences of what you have done.  The law which made it illegal to help a person taking his or her own life while in distress was made when   attempting to end one’s own life was illegal. One could see the meaning of that. But when it was no longer an illegal act , must  it be illegal to help ? One could see the meaning of  that as well, but one could see inconsistency too. Judges can say there is no constitutional or other right for anyone  to take his or her own life and this is true – there is a difference between saying an action  is without harm to others and not punishable, and saying a right is conferred to do it. There are many things we disapprove of or are regretful about  and  they are not punishable by law. Some people then are afraid that if you allow active help to someone in distress who wants to end life then you open the way to abuse  both of  law and of helpless people. All that adds to the sorrow and fear which is terrible enough in a grieving family. We would never want to add to that.

Lawmakers are facing a problem also in the laws about abortion. Making something acceptable or at least non-punishable by law always creates worry about abuse of law and of people. That is one of the many problems  of the human condition which we as rational and sympathetic beings have a duty –  a privilege – of solving. That is what  creating a dignified and potentially happy human life is about and it is difficult and cannot be done without  fellow feeling, compassion, realising another person’s pain so acutely that you suffer with them .

We have removed what  used to be called the “stigma” of taking away our own life . And we remember that there have been times in history when ending one’s own life for the sake of others – not losing it but actively ending it – has been publicly called heroic, although we never admitted that it could be other than an exception to the most stringent of human or superhuman rules.

The present state of law  regarding the awful dilemma of a grieving husband and a suffering wife seems to be that there are times when  grief and suffering will dictate certain irresistible measures and those who take them will have to put themselves at the mercy of the courts in the hope that , as the founder of the Christian philosophy of life said , sympathy and compassion will govern law and not the other way about.

Ambition

It is a strange irony. A women dies who quoted  St Francis on the steps of 10 Downing Street and then went and made  war,  a man becomes Pope who  takes the name of Francis so everyone hopes he will make peace. As if two worlds were in conflict  and either one   might just possibly be more likely to win. There has not been a public figure so heartily condemned as Margaret Thatcher or a public figure of whom more is expected than the new pope. Whose work and legacy will be most significant for the world remains  to be seen.

Prime ministers and  popes have  similar problems. Both are surrounded by ambitious people. Either of them  may be ambitious himself or herself. Most of the historical problems of church and state are about ambition. And greed. And the awful struggle between resulting good and ill. Similar problem for both institutions. For instance, massive privatisation  took place when Catholics rebelled against their religious leadership centuries ago and created what became known as the Protestant Reformation, when monasteries  along with their places of refuge, medical facilities and schools were taken over for private profit, even the very stones being used for what became known as “great houses”; present day governments are selling  off what could be, and often are, national possessions to private owners for private profit, so  history is always, as they say, like history. It never happens just once. Church and state and everything else can be, have been,  are being, will be  used for private gain, power or pleasure. The wonder is not that it happens – it would be  a wonder if it didn’t – but that we always seem surprised when it does. Like being surprised if it rains.

One thing we are entitled to be surprised about though is that our universities, media, churches and suchlike seem  so complacent about it ; we may make the excuse – or give as reason- that  the universities have lost their independence, depending for funds too much on government and big business, that the churches  have lost their power to think and speak in realistic moral terms  because they accepted that private and communal obedience are   the  overwhelming  virtues , that the media are advertising media rather than informing media  because they have to survive on money from somewhere and are more likely to get it from those who sell everything than from those who want to know something.  All of this is sadly true but there were  times in our history  when penalties for speaking your mind were much more severe than they are now. Yet some people did it.  And now there are more ways of saying your piece than ever before. For some reason we have not got round to thinking of the communications media  as means for us to say  what we want  to say to the world at large; we seem still to think of the communications media as ways in which “they” will speak to “us”.  We can  think out, write out , arrange, edit , set up books of our own, but many people who have realised this have set about communicating so many trivial – or hurtful – things that many sensible people stand aghast at the frivolity of it all. Nero still plays and sings while Rome burns but our  Nero may live just down the road from us. And in face not just of danger but of such triviality one is tempted to turn away and think of something else.

But the great questions of the world , about good and bad, about happiness and sadness, about sickness and health, about redistributing  the world’s goods not just among the already rich but among us all, these questions are ready and waiting. And we would make a mistake of we are simply waiting also,  for someone else to give us the answers. If Margaret Thatcher ruined some lives and  enhanced some , that is a matter of fact; if a new Pope can make a new Sacred Deal, that’s a  possibility.  But we can  decide what effect if any that has on our lives and do something about it , however small that may seem . The man who wrote , The great appear great because we are on our knees looking up at them, was shot dead for his trouble, but we are still remembering there was great   sense in what he said.

22.4.13

Real Change

Somebody said ,- possibly Einstein ? – that it is useless to go on doing over again something that has failed already. But  this is not really true. When  something you do hasn’t worked , the circumstances in which it hasn’t worked may change and in that case this time round it may well work. Depends on the circumstances around you. Demanding negotiations to solve the Israel/Palestine problems will not work now; but if the time comes when  Washington’s economic needs  change and if the EU becomes less stable , then demanding such negotiations may well produce a result. There was a time when no amount of pleas  would produce political talks about N. Ireland. But when governments found their own situation had changed – public opinion began  to go against them – negotiations became possible. And  those who asked for talks were doing the same as they had always done.

In the Catholic Church  demands for  negotiations about change did not work .Now such  demands may get a better response, because circumstances in the Vatican have changed. To give up in despair because there was no response in the past would be a pity. There can be change.  But people must go on demanding it.  At the same time they cannot leave the work for change to the leaders.  Whatever they demand of the leaders they must be prepared to do themselves in so far as  they  are able.  It is not logical to demand dialogue  between leaders when  that may produce only  institutional adjustments – when what we  need is a thorough discussion of our whole intellectual spiritual way of life and what we ought to do about it. Dialogue which   is only   whisperings among the Titans means   nothing for such a life unless Dialogue  becomes normal  all over the place.

New groups are forming  in the Catholic Church as willingly   as did the various “movements”( liturgical, worker-priest, catholic action and such)  in the past  seeking new evangelisation, solidarity , the quest for meaning even. Whether they will be content to reintroduce people into  the  Church for whatever message happens to be there or whether they will help revive the intellectual , spiritual  life of the Church remains to be seen. There is a haunting fear that some of them may be content to  draw people  back into a church and its ceremonies to  hear the same message that persuaded them to leave them . Instead of that , a refreshed life- ideal is  what a tired world needs, the offer of nothing less than an exciting vision of a gracious world  we all  can help create. And which we all need.

And this is very far from repeating in the future what failed in the past. The world has changed.So have we. So has the message.

THE SEDIA GESTATORIA IS GONE.

If you look at a picture of a Pope of the last century you may see him wearing not one but three crowns; you may have had the experience of hearing people singing about “….the Pope, the royal Pope who rules from sea to sea”, perhaps been surprised by the  sedia gestatoria in which he was carried into audiences, and by other signs and symbols of royalty.

For Catholics  in Britain and Ireland most of whom had been excluded from taking part in royal things  but felt the need of royalty in their lives, it was consoling to have some equivalent – for them the Pope with  his entourage was their royalty.

Nowadays however things are different. Catholics have regained a lot of their self-confidence in the USA, Britain, Ireland , Europe, and the image of the pope has changed. Changed from the image of King to the image of President. No crown. Inauguration rather than enthronement. Talking to crowds not just making pronouncements to them. Visiting foreign countries, no longer “ prisoner in the Vatican” or quietly making sure not to arouse new antagonisms abroad.And so on .

But all that was then. What of now ? Now there are   further developments. Who would have thought  a century ago of a Catholic president in the USA? Or of a President of the USA playing a saxophone and letting “ordinary people” hear him?When such things occur, what is more natural – or more necessary – than that a Pope should wear more ordinary clothes, do more ordinary things , walk among “ordinary” people (if  people can ever be ordinary), even perhaps take the bus and cook a meal or two for himself ? Be more a president than a pope? That is to say, the Catholic Church leadership is passing though another phase of change which on the one hand is spectacular, and on the other is hardly noticed for what it is because this is the age of such leadership , a mighty transition working its way through from the period when monarchs ruled to that in which presidents rule . A time when even the Duke of Edinburgh bought himself a black taxi.

Many people, possibly most people, will welcome such a change. But some few wise heads will caution – don’t expect too much. Just because a Pope wants to have a significant rather than a spectacular presence , and wants to have conversation with the rest of us, does not mean he will be able to do it. He may be able to go part of the way. But if dialogue is required, and intellectual leadership and a fresh theology and goodness knows what else, many more people than he must be involved . Talking. Discussing. Stopped from talking by the strength of other people’s arguments sometimes  but stopped by fear, never.

The greatest  thing about change is not just that it happens. It happens so often we don’t notice most of it. The greatest thing is not even that we recognise it for what it is when we see it. It’s that we are the ones who actually make the change and invite the “great”people of the world to come along and enjoy it with us.

19.3.13

THE PAPAL ELECTION 2013

It seems agreed that whoever is elected Pope , the various Vatican departments of the Catholic Church have to be reformed.Not re-formed, that is, get now bosses and new officials but  be changed from head to toe. This is no new demand. As far back as the nineteen fifties the old among us can remember rather timid suggestions that this should be done. Later, less timid suggestions were made and occasionally a demand for reform. Unfortunately many of those who did this walked away in despair of ever getting it done.

In the nineteen nineties a book was published by a strongly non-religious company (Kaos) in which a Catholic group known as I Millenari made strong claims and assertions about how the Vatican departments managing Church affairs were working, not working or working for or even against the Church. The book was called Via Col Vento in Vaticano. The writers did not give their names although they were said to be important people – maybe that is why they did not give their names. That irritated , but it was a sign of times when  many  people gave other people power simply by being afraid of them.  James Connolly many years before had said the reason why some people  seem great is that we are on our knees looking up to them.

Anyway, the Vatican like any governing  body has its external and internal power struggles and these can be as severe as any other people’s.  When we ordinary folk try to enter into discussion about how our affairs are managed , we are told, The Church is not a democracy. Which is strange because the Church should be the greatest democracy in the world, since its members are told they are inspired by the Holy Spirit from perhaps the age of about 12. So they should have something useful to  say, especially about what concerns them most, the meaning of life, the careful management of goods, the existence of God. So whoever is appointed Pope, people know their own dignity and know how to keep it. So they speak and write and eventually make decisions. That has to be understood by the Vatican Departments .

11.3.13

MAGDALENES

The recent Mc Aleese Report on Magdalene Laundries may  possibly - but not probably - lead to further reports on how women , and children, and men, have been treated in the past and are being treated at present.
Do people remember that in Belfast rope works the  noise of the machines was so intense that women left the factory deafened for life? Or that women in domestic service had their names changed for  their employers' convenience  ? Or that in the linen mills women worked in bare feet in appalling conditions some of them returning to work  within days of childbirth, some suckling their children at the mill gates , the child in the arms of  another child of the family ? That a good mill employer was one who gave workers a bowl of porridge, which the workers  paid for, in the mornings after a couple of hours work? That women in tobacco factories were exposed to what we now try to get people to avoid ? That  our match factories filled women's lungs  with phosphorus or that the men working in the holds of ships breathed in asbestos which killed many of them ? Is there any report coming about what "hard labour" meant when a judge  handed down that sentence to women as well as men ?
The linen was beautiful and graced many a beautiful table and altar; the ships' tackle and cargoes made some people rich, the tobacco gave many an hour's pleasure , the judge went to lunch satisfied with a good job done.
Some reports then ?

21.2.13.

New Pope 13.2.13.

The election of the  new Pope will cause  excitement in places high and low. In high places because governments have an interest in 1)getting the “right” person into the position and 2) keeping the “wrong” one out. The words right and wrong being of course in the sense governments mean by the words – what profits them and hurts their opponents. Their interest in morals or ideas like truth, freedom, happiness is self serving.

For a long time  some governments were anxious to have a Pope who would aid their struggle against communism. Getting one was easy, and using the resources of the Catholic church ,  material, intellectual and spiritual , was easy also. So that got done. Then governments need prominent  people who either will not oppose their wars or will approve  them   “in certain circumstances”.  That gets done too.

Keeping the wrong one out of prominent positions including papacy is not all that difficult because   often churches have been , not a loyal opposition, but a supporter of government policies.  Cardinal Basil Hume had a notable – and public –disagreement with one of his senior clergy because that man campaigned against nuclear deterrents in Britain and the Cardinal was in favour of nuclear deterrents in Britain and the US. Getting popes and cardinals on side has been an important – and for churches damaging –  part  of the policy of governments.

Now there are  changes . Trade with China means  governments  have to be more diplomatic, because  China will be  the hub of the most massive trade possibilities the world has ever known. And the policy of making the US,  France , Britain  or NATO the police of the world with sole right to nuclear arms is not going to work as the Koreans and others are showing. Crude anticommunism and crude forceful control are  just too crude nowadays.

Also, if the new Pope proposes or encourages or even permits   new church attitudes to divorce, abortion etc. – a very delicate but not impossible task – this could please a lot of governments,  but taking a traditional stance on such things need not matter much to them because more and more people will probably swing over to  a more “liberal” side anyway.

So what will decide how the election will go ? The truth is we don’t know because we don’t   get enough information about who is influencing whom.  What we do know is that it is  difficult for a  Pope to have a free hand surrounded by so many arrangers, influencers, advocates and civil servants. The passage of a suggestion from the Pope’s desk going round the departments and back again can often result in a somewhat different suggestion landing  on the Pope’s desk  for his signature.

And none of the papal gifts, human or divine, will necessarily  cope with that successfully .

So really  what perhaps we should be asking is – who will the civil servants be?

5.2.13
So they found poor King Richard the Third under a carpark. That is not only interesting for the rest of us but it's a great achievemeht for those who did it. Poor Dickey , he was one of the victims of a very sophisticated propagandist, William Shakespeare who led us to believe he was a ripe villain whose victims included helpless children. For some reason  we have never quite understood there are always good people who don't like that kind of thing and so a society gets formed , as in the case of Richard the Third, to restore the good name of the man we used to refer to in school as Dickey Trio ( Richard the Second being Dickey Duo). In Shakespeare's day theatre was as much an instrument of propaganda as it is today - theatre on the boards or on TV or radio -and  Shakespeare had to trim his sails to suit the prevailing political wind. But in his day the penalties for saying the wrong thing were a lot worse than now. Heads  did literally roll and if you were lucky enough to avoid that, you could find yourself without job or reputation and with very little help from anyone apart from those willing to help behindbacks. People argue still about what side was William on, religiously or politically, even  was  he a Catholic or what. Actually he was  a man of his time, with ideas swirling around his head which included  handed-down myths and stories from history and from religious beliefs and superstitions and political propaganda. The strange thing is not that he appears one thing now and another again but that he made such a wondrous job of what he knew and experienced and what other people said other people experienced. In school we relished stories of villainy - Cicero's speech against a rascal called Verres was a delight amid otherwise encircling gloom and Richard the Third was much more appealing that either Romeo or Juliet. So it is likely that some of us at least will feel disappointed  that Dickey Trio is being honoured at last and may turn out to be quite a reasonable fellow after all.
One uneasy thought though. There was a time when people who wanted to portray someone as wicked would give that person some physical difference as if physical difference, a limp, a less  appealing face or whatever had to be accompanied by mental or spiritual defect. That existed well into our own times and is only disappearing now. And was it Laurence Olivier  who emphasised Richard's  supposed villainy by acting him with distorted physical features as well?
Historical narrative  works two ways of course - Shakespeare was not the only one to portray Dickey Trio as a hopelessly wretched villain - he seems to have taken  that picture of him from Thomas More - variously called Saint Thomas More or Sir Thomas More depending on your point of view . More is looked on by some as a saint,has been for many a day, but people like  Hilary Mantel  have now painted a different picture and made him look like someone who greatly approved of and caused other people to be tortured.
So the lesson seems to be , if you are really keen to separate historical or theatrical wheat from chaff, truth from fiction, propaganda from truth, well, it can be done. Certainly. It may however take a long time until you can persuade the archeologists to dig up a carpark  or scholars to blow the dust of some of their long neglected tomes.

The capitalist system seems to owe its origin to what is called the Great Reformation, that is, the revolt  by Catholics against the centralised power of their church , a revolt which later became known as the Protestant Reformation because there were so many protesting Catholics who caused it. When control of religious worship and laws became a struggle for power and possessions the princes and kings and queens and suchlike saw their chance and  entered in with a will. Religion was a great possible source of wealth and was used as such ; monasteries and abbeys and the like were seized and plundered on the plea that they were wasteful and corrupt, which some of them were .But often the very stones from them were used to build great houses for the newly  enriched. Hospitals or hostels attached to them were , as would be said nowadays " privatised" and in most cases ceased to exist except as sites for money making. New wars were fought with new money ; but wars also meant more taxes, class divisions became more and more acute , in the churches as well as elsewhere.After the awful Black Death which reduced Europe's population by about one third, wealth could be shared among fewer people - an economcic change came over the Continent like the economic change in Ireland when its population was reduced by millions through bad and ambitious government before and during the Great Hunger .Most of our European history then became a series of adventures in a ceaseless round of theft of power and other people's resources .The capitalist system had its origin and growth in  some of the most horrifying episodes in human history .Slavery was one.Wars of foreign conquest another .Wars between cousins for crowns another,  and cold war to preserve the system even against former allies .So who is surprised if our capitalist system is alive today in all its harsh realities? Health care privatised , human welfare reduced to what tax gatherers are willing to pay rather than what people need, three hundred and fifty million pounds for new nuclear submarines  and crude cutbacks for nurses ? Much of recent Europen history was carefuilly designed to move towards such ends and away from the ideals of shared power and prosperity . Centralising is a normal part of all that . Centralise economic control in Brussels or Berlin , centralise law making in Strasbourg , centralise church affairs , finance and speech in Rome or Canterbury , centralise education by inventing singular concepts like Education for Job Creation, Education for Economic Growth . Growth  from the  artificially contrived centre outward and from the top down is the order of our day.It is not necessarily a good order. Simply because it is designed to hurt many to enrich some.