Subsidiarity, solidarity and responsibility

There’s an uncomfortable tension in what we want from Europe, and from government more broadly. We want agency, the right to determine the course of our own lives and enjoy the freedoms our individualistic culture promises us. What we don’t want are the responsibilities that come with that self-determination. Unfortunately, we can’t have one without the other.

Catholic Social Teaching has long explored the relationship between the individual and the state, and all the organisations that lie in between the two. Subsidiarity is the principle that responsibility should be devolved to the lowest appropriate level. It states that a higher, more centralised authority should not carry out a task that can better be completed by a lower, more local one – something that resonates strongly with voters in the UK.

In terms of political organisation, that cashes out as something approximating common sense. The government shouldn’t decide what’s on the menu at a local primary school and Neighbourhood Watch groups aren’t tasked with national defence. The state – or super-state body, for our purposes – serves an important but limited role. So far, so good.

Real subsidiarity might be an attractive option when we contemplate the high costs and red tape that have put so many off continued EU membership. Although ‘subsidiarity’ was established in EU law by the Treaty of Maastricht, many Brits would claim we pay only lip service to it, along with our weekly instalment of £350 million.

But what about when it comes to the problems of Europe that don’t result from unnecessary bureaucracy?

Chief amongst these are the migrant crisis, but we might also include unemployment and economic stagnation. At that point, we are less inclined to stick our necks out and claim our rights to self-determination. Douglas Adams, celebrated author of the Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy ‘trilogy’, writes of the SEP (Somebody Else’s Problem) field: a device which ‘relies on people’s natural disposition not to see anything they don’t want to, weren’t expecting, or can’t explain.’ In our case, the problems aren’t invisible, but they are very firmly Someone Else’s. The ‘Someone’ for us tends to be the government, onto which we load all the responsibilities we don’t want for ourselves.

Catholic Social Teaching’s principle of Solidarity – what has been called a ‘preferential option for the poor’ – is a reminder that we, first and foremost, hold responsibility for the wellbeing of our fellow humans. Pope Benedict has described it as ‘a sense of responsibility on the part of everyone with regard to everyone, and it cannot therefore be merely delegated to the State.’ This shouldn’t come as any surprise; after all, how many of the Bible’s hundreds of exhortations to look after the poor, the alien, the orphan and the widow are addressed to the state?

In or Out of Europe, these principles are hugely challenging. Stay in and we will continue to surrender some of our autonomy, forced to put up with whatever imperfections remain after the renegotiation process. Leave and we lose our seat at the table, potentially waving goodbye to any control over what happens on our doorstep.

They also hint towards another uncomfortable reality: that many of the most serious problems we face won’t be solved by a referendum at all and will remain with us, practically and morally, long after we have marked our ballots.

About the author

Guy Brandon is the Research Director at the Jubilee Centre in Cambridge. He joined the Jubilee Centre in 2006 as a part-time researcher and author and is now its Research Director and resident author. He is a trained counsellor and freelance writer, and has a degree, MPhil and PhD in Old Testament theology from Cambridge University. He is married with two children.