It is interesting that David Cameron sends out an Easter message each year. Such a thing is a symptom of the decline of Christianity. When Britain was a Christian country, no prime minister would have thought it necessary (or proper) to speak urbi et orbi. Today, Easter takes its place alongside Eid, Diwali, Rosh Hashanah, Gay Pride etc as a day for which No. 10 issues public blessing. Mr Cameron is at pains, however, to speak of Christians as ‘we’ and to remind everyone that the nation has ‘an established faith [the more accurate word ‘Church’ is avoided] that together is most content when we are defined by what we are for, rather than defined by what we are against.’ This is an excellently Anglican way of looking at things, and I am sure Mr Cameron is sincere. But it is also his positioning for when he tries to introduce homosexual marriage — ‘I am for it,’ he is implying, ‘you are against it. Therefore my approach is more Christian than yours.’
•••
The Prime Minister is right that Christians should not waste all their energies opposing things, but he does not realise how difficult he is making it for them to follow his rule. Most past reforms in relation to homosexuality — decriminalisation, age of consent, even civil partnerships — may or not be opposed by Christians but they are not central to any religious understanding of society. Gay marriage is different, because it is not merely a matter of extending rights to minorities. It is the abolition of the idea — central to civilisation throughout history — that marriage is for a man and a woman. It is a profound redefinition for which there is no direct warrant in any mainstream religious teaching ever. Marriage is a social institution, not a private one, and so Christians cannot simply say, ‘You do what you like and we’ll do what we like’: their concept of marriage is inextricable from their view of society. For this reason, they would be bound to oppose polygamy, and the argument against gay marriage is equally strong. The secularist retort is ‘Stuff you, why should you decide?’ and it is one that has some force in modern circumstances. But this is not Mr Cameron’s line. He loves the via media and said this week that he opposes secularism, yet he has made himself the prisoner of the secular dogmatists.
•••
In the eirenic spirit of Easter, however, I must offer an apology to Mr Cameron’s party leadership. In my column in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday, I attacked the private party line about the tanker drivers’ dispute. This was that the stockpiling of petrol would be the government’s ‘Thatcher moment’, like her stockpiling coal for the miners’ strike. I summarised this message in inverted commas, thinking it was clear from the context that this was not a real quotation, but the gist. I was rather surprised on Saturday to be rung up by lots of television stations asking me to appear, but it was a beautiful day in the country so I refused their requests without asking what they were on about. It turned out that some people thought I had disclosed a terrible ‘secret document’, when all I had actually done was to report the line that was being used by MPs in their constituencies. All hell broke loose. Since I was attacking Francis Maude for careless talk, I should have been more careful with my own.
•••
By chance, it was in the middle of the numerous political fiascos of last week that I was interviewed by a highly intelligent Japanese journalist. Why was it, he wanted to know, that in Britain, politicians told the truth in public, made bold decisions and did not go into the trade for the money? He particularly singled out Mr Cameron and George Osborne for praise. It was inconceivable, he told me, that their Japanese equivalents would have spoken so openly about economic problems and been so determined to deal with government debt. It was marvellous that we had a tradition of parliamentary disagreement, fostered by debate and independent thinking at our best schools and universities. His attitude was very striking. Normally, when we seek the gift to see ourselves as others see us, it is in order to understand our faults, but in this case it could help us recognise our national virtues.
•••
Disagreement is seen differently on the Continent. In Paris recently, I interviewed Jean-Claude Trichet, the former President of the European Central Bank. M. Trichet is very correct, and so we did not discuss politics at all. Nevertheless, it was thanks to him that I realised just how unimportant it is whether Nicholas Sarkozy or François Hollande wins the French presidential election next month. The euro, in whose history M. Trichet has played such an important part, is part of an imperium and a belief system. For him, the lesson of its travails is that ‘we need to go further’ towards economic, fiscal and political union. No eurozone leader is permitted to question this (look at the fate of Berlusconi). Each is allowed, for electoral purposes, to protest about bad deals that his country is getting from their EU partners, and on these grounds Sarkozy and Hollande can scrap, but their real differences are trivial. Perhaps this compulsory unanimity will give Europe the strength to hold together — this has happened before, after all, in the face of crises. But the danger is that the eurozone becomes like the Warsaw Pact, an organisation dedicated to not recognising the truth, and so, when the truth finally intrudes, it collapses.
•••
My sister Charlotte, like all decent people, has difficulties being ‘emotionally literate’ in the manner now required. So it was a surprise to see her dabbing her eyes on The Lorraine Show on breakfast television last week after a film of her autistic sons, George and Sam, was shown as a prelude to an item on her book about them. ‘Oh, Charlotte,’ said the delighted interviewer, ‘this must be so moving for you.’ ‘No,’ explained Charlotte, ‘it’s just that I’m not used to wearing so much make-up at this time in the morning.’
Comments