Tracing God's Providence: After the Fall of the Berlin Wall - Day 6

Okay, so good evening everyone. I hope you enjoyed yesterday. As I always say to people, I forgot to mention at the beginning of last week this workshop. I'm just throwing stuff out there; some of this stuff I just make up as I go along. Honestly, it's really just something to think about. I'm not claiming to be the source of absolute truth because I don't actually think there is such a thing. I'm just trying to make sense of our reality, the world in which we live, and trying to find a way to go forward. I was very inspired by the story of Esther, which I told you about yesterday. We all find ourselves in certain situations and realities, and we have to work out for ourselves what is the right way to go forward, inviting God to guide us in some way.

I'll share my screen instead of just battling on. So this workshop is about tracing God's providence after the fall of the Berlin Wall. We started yesterday looking at what I talked about then. It's just chemo brain that keeps kicking in, but hopefully I have some idea of what I'm going to talk about today. Oh yes, this is one thing I've got to talk about. This is really important. The more I study and think about it, the more I realise how important it is for us as Europeans to understand the origins of what went on 2,000 years ago, not just in Israel but what was going on in Greece and Rome. In many ways, we are the heirs to that, and so much of our politics and political philosophy comes from there.

This is Socrates. Of course, we all respect Socrates; he's one of the great saints or sages. But it's really important to understand his attitude. This is Socrates as mediated by Plato, so Plato is putting his words into Socrates' mouth. I don't know if Socrates actually said this, but this is what is recorded as having been said. Socrates was accused of corrupting the youth, not sexually, but by introducing them to new ideas and getting them to think. If you remember, we looked at before that Plato himself thought thinking was a bad thing. Everyone should just be obedient, and Plato was very much against the introduction of new ideas or new art that might disturb the state.

Socrates was sentenced to death for corrupting the youth, but instead of being hung or having his head chopped off, he was invited to go home and drink poison. While he was sitting there, many of his disciples or friends tried to persuade him not to drink the poison, asking why he would do this. They argued that he was not guilty and had been falsely accused. Socrates replied that if the laws and the state confronted him and asked what he intended to do, he must honour his country more than his mother, father, and all his ancestors. He stated that the country must be revered and is more sacred, accounting for more among the gods and sensible men. He insisted that one must either persuade it or obey its orders and endure in silence whatever it instructs, whether blows or bonds, and if it leads one into war to be wounded or killed, one must obey. To do so is right, and one must not give way or leave one's post, but obey the commands of one's city and country.

What do you think about that? Obey, obey, obey. When people feel uncomfortable with the phrase 'absolute obedience' in the Family Pledge, the reason they feel uncomfortable is that this has resonated throughout the whole European culture, right through the 20th century, with fascism and communism. Socrates said he would not run away. If you look at the biblical tradition, it's a little different. Those of you who came to my workshop about reading life through the Principle, I told the story of Abraham and how he discovered God, smashed the idols, and confronted Nimrod, who wanted to sentence him to death. That's why Abraham left and went to Haran, then down to Canaan. He was a refugee; he wasn't going to stick around and be executed by a tyrant.

When we think about Moses, what did he do when the Egyptian state wanted to arrest him for the death of the Egyptian slave driver? He went away; he became a refugee. This is a very different attitude compared to what Socrates is doing here. When you talk in the Principle and Family Pledge about absolute obedience, it is the absolute obedience of Abraham. Father taught to listen to your conscience, follow your conscience, and obey your conscience. Father repeatedly said that the conscience is above your parents, above your teacher, and of course, higher than the state or the king. This is really important because this has permeated the whole of the European cultural tradition, such that at Nuremberg, people said, 'I’m not guilty; I was just following orders.' Some of the Nazis looked up to Plato as their source of inspiration for the kind of society they were trying to create.

This Hellenistic tradition created a kind of worship of the state, which is just a form of idol worship, which is pagan. When Christians talk about paganism, they are talking about worshipping the state as opposed to worshipping God, who is the Creator. As I mentioned yesterday, Hegel picked this up: 'The march of the state is the march of God in the world.' Socrates could have said the same thing. As high as the mind stands above nature, so high does the state stand above physical life. Man must therefore venerate the state. Socrates, through Plato, talks about worshipping the state as a secular deity and observes that if it is difficult to comprehend nature, it's infinitely harder to understand the state. The idea that the state exists as a real entity is something I don't think is true, to be honest.

It's not just the German tradition; this is an English political philosopher, a Hegelian political philosopher, who explained it very clearly, much clearer than Hegel. He said that the state is above all things, not a number of persons, but a working conception of life. The force of the state proceeds essentially from its character, being our own mind extended, so to speak, beyond our immediate consciousness. The state is the flywheel of our life. Essentially, it's from our consciousness; it's like an idol, something we worship. Instead of God being the flywheel of my life, around which I orientate my life, my family, and my community, the European tradition has been that the state is the source of identity. Once you worship the state, obey the state, and venerate the state, the state becomes like God.

So, I'll come back to this a bit more later. Now, what about headwing? People often talk about left wing and right wing. What does that really mean? In our own spiritual community, we don't think about these things too seriously. If we go back to the Principle of dual characteristics, masculinity and femininity, I mentioned yesterday that within the Taoist tradition, this is regarded as order and chaos. This is really interesting in terms of political philosophy. Order, following Pythagoras, is on the masculine side, and chaos is on the feminine side. When we think about this in terms of political philosophy, this side can easily go into authoritarianism and totalitarianism, as we saw in the 20th century. This side can very easily go into anarchy and lawlessness, which is chaos, and we can see that in failed states, of which there are quite a few around the world.

From totalitarianism and collectivism, you can get extreme individualism from chaos and anarchy. The Principle then tries to harmonise these two and talks about the purpose of the whole and the purpose of the individual. Both of these purposes need to be realised, and the purpose of the individual can only be realised through the purpose of the whole being realised. The purpose of the whole can be realised only if it allows the purpose of the individual to be realised. It's really important that there should be this synthesis and harmony between these two different purposes. When you end up with totalitarianism and authoritarianism, it leads to suppression and the impossibility of realising the purpose of the individual because the collective is quite happy to sacrifice the individual for its own purposes. Even today, if you overemphasise the purpose of the individual, the purpose of the whole is nothing; nothing can ever get done within a group or business or whatever else it is.

In the Bible, we have these stories, which I talked about before, about Nimrod building the Tower of Babel, and later on, during Noah's time when everything was chaotic. Then you have Egypt and slavery, and a period of the judges, which I talked about in another workshop. You could say these are the two different wings. How to synthesise this? Well, it's all embodied in the word 'freedom.' In previous workshops, I've talked about this. Freedom is an English word that doesn't exist in any other language; it's the English contribution to the world, I guess. This word is made up of two parts: one is 'free,' which obviously comes from the German 'frei,' meaning free, and in French, it's 'liberté.' You can do anything you want, but then there's a second part called 'dom.' 'Dom' in Anglo-Saxon is 'doom.' The Book of Dooms is the Book of Laws. Doomsday in English is Judgment Day, when the law is applied, and you either go to heaven or hell.

The person who coined this word was someone called Alfred the Great. He was translating the Book of Psalms into English and couldn't find an English word that conveyed the meaning of the 117th Psalm, which talks about liberty and law. He thought, 'Okay, because he was a good Anglo-Saxon, I'll just take two different words, 'free' and 'dom,' and stick them together to create a new word: freedom.' So, freedom then is ordered liberty. You're free within the law; you have the rule of law. As long as you don't break the law, you can do anything you want. So it's ordered liberty. You have freedom, which means you're free, but there's also order and structure. This means a headwing would be that; that's why the Principle talks about freedom and responsibility. In English, you can't have one without the other, really.

Here, it's a rule-based society in which everyone observes the laws. You don't break the law; you don't rape, murder, steal, or commit these kinds of crimes. As long as you don't break those laws, you can be as creative as you want. You can do whatever you want: live where you want, travel where you want, work, do whatever work you want, buy what you want, sell what you want, grow what you want, paint what you want. You can do anything you want as long as you don't go around breaking those simple laws. This means it's a rule-based society, not a command-based society. No one tells you what to do; no one has the right to authority to tell you what to do. No one can say, 'Oh, your job's going to be this.' That's a command-based society.

So we talked about this yesterday. What about unity? Well, these universal laws, the seven laws of Noah, are laws that everybody throughout the world has to observe. Within that framework of those seven laws, people can develop all kinds of their own traditions and customs within their own group or nationality. Here, you have self-organisation within the rules. Now you have order within chaos, and that's a really important idea. Even within chaos, if you read books about chaos by James Gleick, they actually say that there is order within chaos. The reason for that is that everything has an inherent direction of nature leading it towards greater and greater levels of complexity, but that is a self-generated order, spontaneous order, bottom-up. So it's order within chaos, then limited government. The main focus and purpose of government is to defend the country and uphold justice. To do that, there should be a separation of functions, as discussed in the Principle and Montesquieu.

It's also very important that the state is not sacred. The state is not the source of law or a person's identity. The state is very functional; it is to defend the country and uphold justice. In order to do that, there must be certain functions that someone needs to do for society to work; otherwise, you will die of cholera if there aren't proper functioning sewers. God, then, around which our lives revolve, should be the flywheel of our life, around which our lives, families, and society revolve. Anyway, moving on now to Europe, this is Europe in 1914. Last month, I talked about...

Different empires existed worldwide, and when looking at Europe, certain countries have remained largely the same in shape and size. Spain and Portugal, for example, were divided after the 15th century. The French Republic and Italy are relatively new countries, but the map of Europe was largely assembled in the 19th century. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was vast, alongside the German Empire, Belgium, Holland, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Norway and Sweden can also be seen, as well as Serbia. The Ottoman Empire was retreating, and new nations like Greece and Albania were coming into existence. Over in Persia, we have the expansive Russian Empire. By 1914, Poland did not exist as a country; it had been absorbed by Russia, which expanded westward and southward. Finland was also part of the Russian Empire at that time, and the German Empire stretched far, with Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia not yet recognised as independent nations. Central European countries were similarly absent, making the map of Europe in 1914 very different from what we see today.

At the end of the First World War, the Conference of Versailles took place. When you win a war, you typically decide what to do with the defeated. Historically, this could mean integrating them into your empire or, in some cases, selling them into slavery. However, the victors of World War I chose to dismantle the defeated empires. The Ottoman Empire was broken up, as was the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Germany became significantly smaller. Russia also lost territory. The victorious empires, on the other hand, expanded their territories; Britain annexed several German colonies in Africa, while France retained its empire. Japan, which happened to be on the winning side, kept Korea. The dismantling of these empires created many problems that continue to affect us today, particularly in the Middle East, where the legacy of the Ottoman Empire has led to ongoing issues in Iraq, Turkey, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Similarly, the Austro-Hungarian Empire's dissolution contributed to ethnic conflicts in the Balkans, and the breakup of the Russian Empire led to significant challenges in Eastern Europe.

After the First World War, Poland was reconstituted. Russia, having lost the war, faced the Russian Revolution and the Bolshevik coup d'état. The Bolsheviks sought peace, resulting in significant territorial losses for Russia, allowing Poland to emerge and control Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania for a time. Poland had only a small connection to the Baltic Sea, which would change dramatically after the Second World War. Czechoslovakia was established, Hungary and Austria became separate nations, and Romania expanded. Yugoslavia was formed from various Balkan states but began to disintegrate after the death of Tito. In Ireland, the Irish Free State was created after the First World War, leading to ongoing issues in Northern Ireland. Additionally, Russia lost Finland, which became an independent nation. The legacy of the Ottoman Empire continued to influence Turkey's establishment as a republic.

The breakup of the Ottoman Empire was marked by significant territorial changes, often under British and French influence. The Allies sought to divide Turkey among themselves, but the Turks resisted and fought for their independence. The Austro-Hungarian Empire had been a unique phenomenon in European history, managing to balance numerous nationalities and language groups. However, its breakup led to struggles that persisted for decades. The Russian Empire also fragmented, giving rise to various republics within the Soviet Union, which would later evolve after the Second World War. By this time, Ukraine emerged as a distinct entity, and the map of Europe continued to shift.

After the Second World War, the Baltic states disappeared into the Soviet Union, while Poland expanded significantly, gaining a large coastline along the Baltic Sea. Germany was divided into East and West, and the overall landscape of Europe was transformed. My view, rooted in the biblical understanding of God's providence, is that every nation should be self-governing, independent, and sovereign, ideally led by humble leaders who worship God. This principle is reflected in the United States, where the President swears an oath on the Bible to uphold the Constitution. Even in the UK, the recent state opening of Parliament featured a prayer for God's blessing, highlighting a legacy from the Christian past, despite an increasingly secular society.

The painful process of achieving this new order is often overlooked. At the end of the last workshop, we discussed the situation of Palestinian refugees, who claim their plight is unique, having lived in refugee camps since 1967 or even 1948. However, the end of World War II initiated the largest population movements in European history. Millions of Germans fled from the advancing Red Army, which committed atrocities as it moved through Germany. Many Jewish survivors of the Holocaust sought secure homes but faced hostility upon returning to reclaim their properties. Consequently, many fled to Israel, Palestine, or the United States. Refugees from Eastern Europe sought to escape newly installed communist regimes. At the Potsdam Conference in July 1945, the Allied leaders agreed to transfer German populations remaining in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, leading to the expulsion of many who had lived there for generations.

The shifting borders in Europe often meant that while the borders changed, the people did not. After the Second World War, the decision was made to expel many Germans, leading to significant suffering. In the city of Königsberg, annexed by the USSR, the food supply collapsed, and by 1949, nearly all surviving Germans had been driven out. In Poland, German-owned farms and houses were handed over to Poles, as the borders shifted westward. Many Germans were forcibly removed by Polish militias, and in Czechoslovakia, over 2.2 million Germans were expelled. Official West German accounts estimate that at least 610,000 Germans were killed during these expulsions. The total number of Germans expelled or deported from Eastern Europe after the war reached 11.5 million, a staggering figure that highlights the scale of the tragedy. Meanwhile, nearly 2 million Poles were forcibly transferred from Eastern areas annexed by the USSR, as the Polish border moved westward into Germany and eastward to allow Belarus to expand. This was not a voluntary migration; it was a compulsory relocation, often enforced with threats of violence. The aftermath of the war saw a significant reshaping of populations across Europe, with many Ukrainians, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Croats, and others fleeing westward, hoping to reach North America. By 1959, 900,000 European refugees had been absorbed by Western European countries, with many finding new homes in Britain and the United States.

In 1959, the United Nations launched an ambitious effort to resolve the refugee problem, aiming to clear the camps that had persisted since World War II. By the end of 1960, for the first time since the war, all refugee camps in Europe were closed. My question is, why are the Palestinian refugee camps still in existence 70 years later? It is a complete scandal. Unlike other refugees who settled in various countries and were granted citizenship, Palestinians remain in limbo. Those who went to America became American citizens, and those who came to Britain became British citizens. They integrated into society, their children attended British schools, and they became part of the fabric of their new communities. So, when I reflect on the Palestinian situation, I wonder why Arab countries refused the United Nations' offer of $200 million to resettle the refugees, allowing them to gain citizenship and start anew. It is a scandal that this situation continues, with millions of refugees still in camps, while other nations have moved on.

After World War II, many nations recognised the need for lasting peace in Europe. The devastation from the wars left Europe impoverished, and there was a growing consensus that the cycle of conflict could not continue. Before the First World War, much of the world, apart from China and South America, was ruled by European empires. However, the aftermath of the First World War saw the collapse of these empires, leaving Europe in a state of disarray. The economic and social impacts of the wars were profound, leading to discussions on how to establish peace and stability. Various visions emerged, including the Council of Europe, which Winston Churchill advocated for, envisioning a united states of Europe. This council aimed to foster cultural and educational cooperation among European nations.

The Treaty of London in 1949 established the Council of Europe, which served as an intergovernmental body for representatives of different governments to meet and discuss various issues. One of its significant outcomes was the European Declaration of Human Rights and the establishment of the European Court of Human Rights. In contrast, the European Union, founded later through the Treaty of Rome, represented a different vision for Europe. This treaty established a supranational government with institutions that could overrule national parliaments, creating a European Parliament and a European Commission. This shift towards a supranational governance model marked a significant departure from traditional national sovereignty.

To understand the development of Europe and its political landscape, it is essential to examine the historical context. Following the fall of Rome in 476, various European states sought to position themselves as heirs to the Roman Empire, claiming its authority and prestige. The legitimacy of rulers became a central theme in political philosophy, questioning what makes a government legitimate and why people should obey the laws it enacts. The collapse of the Roman Empire left a vacuum of authority, prompting rulers to seek ways to establish their legitimacy, often through claims of divine right or historical continuity.

Charlemagne, for example, sought legitimacy by having the Pope crown him as Emperor of the Romans, despite the existence of the Byzantine Emperor in Constantinople. This act was rooted in the so-called Donation of Constantine, a document later proven to be a forgery. The Holy Roman Empire emerged from this tradition, presenting itself as a continuation of Roman authority, further complicating the political landscape of Europe. The concept of a supranational rule has persisted throughout history, influencing the formation of modern political entities like the European Union, which embodies the long-standing ambition to unify Europe under a single government.

The political philosophy underpinning the European Union reflects a historical desire for a united Europe, reminiscent of the ancient Roman Empire. This ambition has manifested in various forms throughout history, including the idea of a Christian empire, where the Pope wielded significant political power. The integration of Europe has been shaped by these historical narratives, with the legacy of the Roman Empire haunting European history for the past two millennia. The Treaty of Rome, therefore, represents not just a political agreement but a continuation of a historical quest for unity and authority in Europe.

The union, as it later became known, was signed in Rome to try to transfer the rule, the prestige, and the authority, pretending it was the legitimate heir to the Roman Empire and Roman rulers. This is quite interesting. In the eastern parts of the continent, which we often forget in Western Europe, the Russian Tsardom and ultimately the Russian Empire declared Moscow to be the 'Third Rome'. This vision of Rome has haunted the whole of the European continent, especially after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. This is what Putin is referring to; it forms a large part of his worldview. The gap between the Greek East and the Latin West had already been widened by the political schism, which was the splitting of the Roman Empire in the fourth century, and the Great Schism of 1054, when the Eastern Orthodox and Western Roman Catholic Churches excommunicated each other. This divide was further widened by the Iron Curtain from 1945 to 1991, and later by the enlargement of the European Union towards Eastern Europe since 2004. Thus, what is happening today has a 2000-year history, and there is a lot of background to the current situation with Russia, Ukraine, the EU, and NATO that one needs to be aware of to untangle the complexities involved.

Now, let us examine the Roman Empire, as it figures so powerfully in the European consciousness. The Roman Empire in 117 A.D. encompassed Britannia, Spain, Portugal, and essentially formed a Mediterranean empire, stretching across the Mediterranean and most of the Black Sea area, including what is now Turkey. It was preceded by the Greek Empire of Alexander the Great, which started in Greece but only expanded eastward, never westward. The Roman Empire made a significant impact on England, where the border between Scotland and England is palpable. You can feel the difference in atmosphere, culture, and people. England was part of the Roman Empire, while Scotland and Ireland were not, leading to a different kind of cultural feeling.

The founding myth of Rome, which I am sure you all heard in school, involves two boys, Romulus and Remus, who were suckled by wolves and came from Troy. They decided to build a city on the seven hills of Rome. However, Remus made fun of Romulus, leading to a fight in which Romulus killed his brother. This myth illustrates the idea that might is right, which became the foundation of Rome's militaristic rule. The Romans glorified war, expanding their empire through their legions. Unlike the biblical vision of peace from Isaiah, the Romans celebrated violence and bloodshed, as seen in the Coliseum where gladiators fought to the death. This brutal culture was all about power and might, not ethics.

The Roman Empire was also characterised by its exploitation. They conquered Egypt, primarily because it was a breadbasket that could supply food to keep the populace in Rome content. This greed led to high levels of taxation and exploitation throughout the empire. Additionally, the Roman state was pagan, embodying a theocratic state where the state was seen as the highest form of human community. In contrast, the biblical tradition views the people of Israel as the people of God, whose identity comes from their relationship with God rather than the state. For the Romans, the state was sacred, and religion existed to serve the state. This is why Constantine adopted Christianity; he sought a unifying religion for the Roman Empire, as the pagan gods were merely idols.

Constantine's adoption of Christianity was pragmatic. He wanted a religion that could unify the Roman state, and when he discovered that Christians were often embroiled in disputes about the nature of Jesus and the Trinity, he called the Council of Nicaea. He presided over the council, urging the bishops to come up with a creed that everyone could accept. Anyone who did not accept this creed was deemed a heretic and had to leave the empire. From the very beginning, religion inherited the pagan Roman view that the gods exist to serve the state. The state became the source of law and identity, and the Romans worshipped the state as sacred. This vision of Rome, the 'Eternal City', based on might and exploitation, has haunted Europe for 2000 years.

You might wonder about the competing visions that emerged from this historical context. My lectures are not particularly systematic, as I am not an academic. About 30 years ago, I wrote an essay comparing Britain and Europe, predicting that Britain would eventually leave the European Union. It seemed obvious to me that Britain and Europe were incompatible and could not exist within the same political framework. In terms of religion, the Latin Roman tradition in Europe contrasts sharply with the Celtic Germanic traditions of the people living in Britain. Augustine, a key figure in European Christianity, came from North Africa and initiated a total Christian society that used coercion to impose uniformity of belief. He justified the use of the Roman state to persecute heretics, which laid the groundwork for Christian totalitarianism.

Augustine's view of human nature was that all are born completely corrupt and deserving of damnation, a perspective that is not biblical. He believed that without God's grace, no one could do anything good, and that salvation was unmerited and predestined. This predestinarian view, which is rooted in the Manichaean tradition, posits that certain individuals possess a divine spark, while others do not. Augustine's teachings on original sin and human nature have permeated European Christian tradition, influencing figures like Luther and Calvin. In contrast, Pelagius, a contemporary of Augustine from the Celtic Church in Britain, held a different view. He believed that everyone has the capacity to choose virtue and could take steps towards salvation through their own efforts, apart from God's grace. This perspective is much more aligned with the principle view that emphasises free will and the ability to choose one's path towards God.

That's a principle position: everybody has the capacity and potential to be saved and to go to heaven. That's a biblical view—God's grace and Christ's example aid on the way to perfection that all should attain. The Beatitudes would be lived and not just admired. There is a strand within Christianity that suggests the Beatitudes are for when Christ comes back again; they are not for this world but for the next. This idea posits that everyone is free to choose between good and evil, but Pelagian Christianity is fundamentally a moral force for changing and improving society, which aligns very much with the biblical view from the Old Testament. How one lives is more important than what one believes, which is very different from Augustine's perspective. Augustine asserted that what counts is what you believe; you have to subscribe to the Nicene Creed. However, Pelagius, following the biblical tradition, emphasised that living a moral life is paramount.

This is what he preached in Rome, and when Augustine heard that Pelagius was well received, he became outraged. Augustine then wrote extensively about original sin and related topics, which he had not addressed before. All of Augustine's writings on original sin were reactions to Pelagius's popularity in Rome. Pelagius is often referred to as part of the English heritage by the Roman Church because his views permeated English Christianity, influencing figures like John Wesley and Queen Elizabeth. This illustrates a significant difference in thought that has persisted for over a thousand years.

Now, let's consider the differences in law. Roman law originally started as custom and tradition but became codified by Emperor Justinian. The question arose: what is the authority for law? Justinian asserted that what the emperor determined has the force of law. He claimed authority because he was the emperor, and in the Roman view, emperors were regarded as divine. If you are a god, you can create laws and impose them upon people. Mount Sinai is an example where God reveals the law. Even though Justinian was a Christian, he inherited this pagan view of authority, leading to a totalitarian regime where laws regulated every aspect of people's lives. This brings us back to Pelagius: order is imposed upon chaos.

In this context, if something is not allowed by law, it is deemed illegal. I recall a conversation with a sister from Germany at church headquarters. We discussed how, in England, if you want to form a chess club, you simply do so. In contrast, she explained that in Germany, such activities need to be official for legitimacy. This difference in perspective highlights how, in Britain, anything official can be viewed with suspicion. The Roman tradition, however, is very different, as it views the state as a source of identity. In this system, the state appoints magistrates, and if a magistrate is good, they support the state and reach conclusions based on what the state desires.

Justinian's law court code was rediscovered in medieval Europe, and kings sought to adopt this authority for themselves, leading to the doctrine of the divine right of kings. This doctrine posits that the king is above the law because the king makes the law. This concept became particularly popular in France and influenced the Napoleonic Code, which is based on Justinian's law code. Consequently, civil law across Europe today is a direct descendant of Roman law, carrying with it a very abstract, rational, and logical framework.

In contrast, the source of authority in the Germanic tribes was ancient unwritten universal custom. In Britain, the Anglo-Saxons continued this tradition. The law was understood through observing how people behaved; customs and traditions created expectations. For example, if everyone stands in a queue, that becomes a law based on custom. Thus, a law is a description of the way things are, reflecting the habits and thoughts of the people. In this sense, the law is bottom-up, created by the way people live their lives, and it protects the established order.

The purpose of the law is to protect this established order. Law is not imposed to create order; it exists to safeguard the social order that already exists. The legal profession traditionally holds that it is not a judge's duty to create or change laws but to apply existing laws. Over time, as society changes, customs and traditions evolve, leading to changes in the law. A notable example occurred in the 1970s when it was impossible for a man to rape his wife, as it was not recognised as a crime. However, as societal values shifted, a case was brought to court, and the judges recognised that the law had changed, leading to a new understanding of marital rape.

Under common law, the law reflects and supports societal values rather than attempting to change them. Decisions create precedents, and when the court recognised that societal values had evolved, it established that a husband could be found guilty of raping his wife. This illustrates how the law adapts to reflect the community's values. In this tradition, a jury trial protects people's freedom. Instead of a judge deciding guilt or innocence, a jury of twelve ordinary people listens to evidence from both sides and makes the determination. This system ensures that justice is done and protects individuals from government overreach.

In England, magistrates are typically unpaid volunteers from the local community, and the police represent the law and the people rather than the state. This distinction creates a respected position for police officers, who are there to uphold the law and protect society. These two very different traditions feed into European culture, and one of the major reasons Britain left the EU was the belief that European law was undermining English law. The role of the state differs significantly between the Roman tradition, which views the state as master, and the Germanic tradition, which sees the state as a servant.

With the king or the queen, not with the state. The state's there to mend the roads. In terms of philosophy or theology, we have different kinds of temperaments. On the continent, there is something called realism. Thomas Aquinas said universals were thought to have an independent existence apart from entities that exhibited those qualities. This is the Platonic view I talked about; there is such a thing as truth somewhere out there. There is beauty somewhere out there. Yes, the state really exists; it's not just a figment of my imagination. This very easily leads into collectivism. The tradition in Britain, in terms of theology, is called nominalism, the idea that universals, as proposed by William Ockham, are products of the mind and have no other existence.

People here who believe in realism think that numbers really exist outside the human mind. Pythagoras was an example of this; many mathematicians are realists who believe numbers exist somewhere in a sort of Platonic realm. Normally, they say numbers exist only inside my head, and that's the only place they exist. From this, you get collectivism; the state really exists, society really exists. Here, you get the idea that only individuals exist and that there is no such thing as society. Society isn't a thing, leading to individualism, which is a very different kind of approach.

In terms of differences in philosophy, the continent tends to be more rationalist. You have Descartes, the rationalist, and a very strong strand of rationalism in German philosophy, particularly with Kant, before it moves off into mysticism and romanticism. With rationalism, truth is derived through reason and logic. One thing I forgot to mention about English law is that it is incredibly confusing and illogical. There is no logic in it, just like the British system of government. You might have seen it on television and thought, who would ever design or create such a system? There are all kinds of archaic, almost random rules and regulations that people follow. No one designed it; it's really illogical, but it just works anyway.

Here, truth is releasing, and logic leads to constructive rationalism, the idea that you can create some kind of design and plan for society. This leads to the planned, regulated economy, which feeds very much into fascism and communism. In Britain, the tradition is empirical; truth comes from experience. Many people here do not have formal qualifications; they just have experience. They know how it works. Does it work? It's more important than whether it is logical. If it works, don't fix it; don't try to make it logical because it just works. David Hume said that the rules of morality are not the conclusions of our reason. Here, ethics is very rational, but Hume pointed out that the rules of morality are often quite irrational. This leads to a very skeptical view of utopian projects, which is where Euroscepticism comes from, this whole empirical tradition. Thus, you have the free market, as there is skepticism about planning and regulation; just let people get on with it and make their own decisions.