Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg is one of the very few British politicians prepared to speak unapologetically in explicitly Christian terms about the life of the nation. In a wide-ranging conversation with the Catholic Herald \u2013 touching on monarchy and migration, Brexit and Trump, the Latin Mass and the role of Catholic politicians \u2013 he returned repeatedly to a single governing conviction. The thread running through his answers was not nostalgia, nor partisan provocation, but a defence of institutions: of the Crown, of Parliament, of the jury system, of NATO and of the papacy itself. For Rees-Mogg, these are not decorative survivals from a more confident age. They are the concrete forms within which liberty, order and faith endure. At a time when Britain seems unsure of its moral inheritance and politically febrile, his reflex is neither rhetorical alarm nor cultural despair, but a disciplined inquiry into what remains structurally sound \u2013 and whether the country still has the will to inhabit it.<\/p>\n
Asked whether Great Britain is approaching a societal tipping point \u2013 particularly in light of migration and the emergence of parallel societies \u2013 Rees-Mogg begins not with alarmism, but with first principles.<\/p>\n
\u2018I think the United Kingdom is still a fundamentally Christian country,\u2019 he says. \u2018Our law and our culture draw very heavily on Christianity. We still have an established Church, and we have an anointed monarch. Other than the Pope, the King of England is the last anointed monarch left.\u2019<\/p>\n
The structures, in other words, remain. What has changed is the vitality within them.<\/p>\n
\u2018A lot of it has been hollowed out,\u2019 he concedes. \u2018Fewer people go to church. Fewer people say they believe in God \u2013 though those polls are often misleading. Many people who say they do not believe in God still say they believe in the supernatural or in an afterlife. So when you look at the matter in totality, Britain is not as secular as it sometimes feels.\u2019<\/p>\n
The underlying concern, he notes, is usually directed towards the growth of the Muslim population. Approximately seven per cent of the country now identifies as Muslim. Yet he cautions against distortion.<\/p>\n
\u2018That means ninety-three per cent are not Muslim. Christianity remains the main religion. Most of the festivals people observe are Christian festivals.\u2019<\/p>\n
Paradoxically, the weakening of cultural Christianity may be generating its own counter-movement.<\/p>\n
\u2018The martyr\u2019s blood is the seed of faith,\u2019 he remarks. \u2018In easy times, nobody worries very much about being Christian. It is all normal; men may not go to church, but they do not need to be aggressive about it. When things are tougher \u2013 when there is pressure \u2013 faith suddenly becomes important.\u2019<\/p>\n
He points to signs of renewed interest among the young.<\/p>\n
\u2018We are beginning to see some encouragement there. Particularly among young people, there is more seriousness about Christianity. That, I think, is hopeful.\u2019<\/p>\n
If Christianity remains foundational, what of freedom \u2013 especially freedom of speech? Rees-Mogg acknowledges tension but resists hysteria.<\/p>\n
\u2018There was recently a rather marvellous policewoman in London who encountered a case of minor disorder. A man was preaching a Christian message in a predominantly Muslim area. Someone complained to her, saying, \u201cDon\u2019t you know this is a Muslim area?\u201d She replied, \u201cDon\u2019t you know this is England?\u201d People are allowed to say these things.\u2019 Such clarity, he implies, is not universal.<\/p>\n
\u2018I do worry that our laws make it too easy to prohibit freedom of speech. The laws restricting private prayer outside abortion clinics, for example, are extraordinarily onerous. They verge on creating thought crimes. That is not merely a freedom of speech issue \u2013 it is a freedom of thought issue. And that is unprecedented in British history.\u2019<\/p>\n
He attributes this tendency to a broader ideological disposition. \u2018Left-wing governments are instinctively inclined to control what people say. It is in their nature.\u2019<\/p>\n
Yet he rejects the claim that Britain has descended into systematic repression. \u2018It is not as bad as some suggest. There is a tendency to exaggerate. There are bad cases, certainly. But one of the great benefits of trial by jury is that juries seem unwilling to convict people for speech offences, whereas magistrates often are.\u2019<\/p>\n
His advice is characteristically practical. \u2018If you are charged for exercising freedom of speech, make sure you go before a jury.\u2019 The jury system, in his view, remains one of the quiet bulwarks of British liberty \u2013 an institutional check against ideological overreach.<\/p>\n
Turning to the monarchy, Rees-Mogg places current controversies around the Duke of York in historical perspective. \u2018The royal family has always had scandals. One can look at George IV and Queen Caroline, or the abdication crisis of Edward VIII. Scandal is not new.\u2019 What matters is not the absence of difficulty, but the constitutional principle underlying the Crown.<\/p>\n
\u2018The British monarchy is not purely hereditary; it is, in a sense, an elected hereditary monarchy. The Act of Settlement in 1701 excluded fifty-six better claimants than George I because they were Catholic. That tells you something about how the system works. It depends upon legitimacy and public support.\u2019<\/p>\n
History shows, he argues, that when monarchs fail fundamentally, they are removed. \u2018James II was forced out. Edward VIII was forced to abdicate. When we have bad kings, we get rid of them.\u2019 The key question is whether the monarchy functions well as a constitutional institution. His answer is unambiguous. \u2018Yes \u2013 provided the King and the Prince of Wales rise above politics.\u2019 They are not meant to reshape the nation\u2019s culture, nor to intervene in partisan debates. \u2018They should embody the nation. They are not there to change its culture, but to represent it.\u2019 In this sense, the monarchy is not an engine of reform, but a stabilising presence \u2013 a visible continuity that stands above ideological flux.<\/p>\n
If the monarchy represents continuity within the nation, Brexit represents, for Rees-Mogg, the restoration of national self-government. He defends it without hesitation. \u2018Again and again, yes. Brexit is one of the most important things the United Kingdom has done in decades.\u2019<\/p>\n
His objection to the European Union is not only political but also philosophical: \u2018I think the European Union is an ungodly state. If you remember what Pope John Paul II said about the proposed European Constitution \u2013 which became the Lisbon Treaty \u2013 it deliberately excluded reference to God. That is telling.\u2019<\/p>\n
More fundamentally, he sees the EU as anti-democratic. \u2018It centralises power in institutions that are not directly accountable to voters. It diminishes the ability of people to determine their own government.\u2019<\/p>\n
Economically, too, he believes the European model has failed. He cites a remark by Angela Merkel from 2012: \u2018Europe is seven per cent of the world\u2019s population, twenty-five per cent of the world\u2019s GDP, and fifty per cent of the world\u2019s welfare spending. In that single sentence, you have the diagnosis of a failed economic model.\u2019<\/p>\n
Brexit, therefore, was not merely about trade. It was about restoring the link between vote and outcome. \u2018Politicians must be close to their voters. For too long, people in Western countries have felt that it does not matter who they vote for \u2013 they get the same thing. That breeds anger.\u2019<\/p>\n
Donald Trump, he argues, tapped into precisely this phenomenon.<\/p>\n
\u2018Whatever one thinks of his style, Trump demonstrated that you can vote for something genuinely different and receive something different. That revitalises democracy.\u2019 Rees-Mogg does not endorse every Trump policy \u2013 particularly tariffs, which he opposes on economic grounds \u2013 nor does he believe Trump\u2019s style would translate well into Britain. But he sees the broader significance. \u2018He reminded politicians that voters must be listened to.\u2019 Brexit, in his telling, belongs to the same democratic correction.<\/p>\n
The conversation turns to Germany and the policy of isolating the Alternative f\u00fcr Deutschland (AfD) behind a so-called \u2018firewall\u2019. Rees-Mogg approaches the issue cautiously but clearly: \u2018I am not an expert in German politics, but from what I observe, putting firewalls around democratically elected parties is often counterproductive.\u2019<\/p>\n
The problem, he suggests, is perception. \u2018When opposition parties form coalitions solely to exclude another party, it can appear as though there is a single political class \u2013 what some call \u201cthe blob\u201d \u2013 determined to maintain control regardless of voter sentiment.\u2019 This reinforces the very resentment such policies aim to suppress. \u2018You create the impression of a uniparty. That encourages support for the excluded party rather than diminishing it.\u2019<\/p>\n
He draws a parallel with Britain\u2019s own political shifts. \u2018Reform emerged because the Conservative Party abandoned ground that many of its voters regarded as traditional. When voters feel unrepresented, they look elsewhere.\u2019 He does not equate Reform with AfD \u2013 indeed, he notes that AfD is a more extreme formation in a historically sensitive German context. Yet the structural logic is similar. \u2018These movements arise when people feel that decisions are no longer in the hands of politicians accountable to them, but in bureaucracies \u2013 particularly at the European level.\u2019 When political sovereignty appears remote, protest intensifies. \u2018The more power is transferred away from elected representatives, the more voters seek dramatic alternatives.\u2019<\/p>\n
Thus, for Rees-Mogg, the question is not whether one approves of every position taken by such parties. It is whether democratic systems can afford to treat substantial segments of the electorate as permanently illegitimate. Institutions endure, he suggests, not by suppressing dissent but by absorbing it.<\/p>\n
Rees-Mogg takes evident pride in Britain\u2019s early role in supporting Ukraine in 2022. \u2018When the invasion began, we were told Ukraine might last a fortnight. It has lasted years \u2013 and it lasted because it was armed.\u2019 He credits both Boris Johnson and then defence secretary Ben Wallace for their decision to send arms when others hesitated. \u2018We did not even fly those arms over German airspace, because we did not want to place the German government in the awkward position of refusing permission.\u2019<\/p>\n
At the time, he recalls, many European leaders hoped to revive the Minsk framework and negotiate a settlement. \u2018That would have been appeasement. We judged that Ukraine needed arms.\u2019 In that early phase, Britain played what he calls a \u2018key role\u2019. He is less satisfied with Britain\u2019s present posture. \u2018European defence expenditure is rising sharply. British expenditure has been comparatively stagnant. That is a mistake.\u2019<\/p>\n
As for NATO, he offers an unexpected assessment of Donald Trump. \u2018In a curious way, Trump has done more for NATO than anyone since Ronald Reagan. He forced European states to take defence spending seriously.\u2019 The rhetoric may have sounded hostile, but the effect was reinvigoration. \u2018The institution is stronger because it was challenged.\u2019<\/p>\n
If monarchy and Parliament embody constitutional continuity in Britain, the papacy performs a similar function in the Church \u2013 though of a different order.<\/p>\n
Asked for his assessment of Pope Leo XIV, Rees-Mogg answers with characteristic loyalty: \u2018I am a very loyal Catholic. I always think the Pope is marvellous.\u2019 Yet he offers a distinction that is central to his broader philosophy of authority. \u2018What strikes me about Pope Leo XIV, as far as I can observe, is that he appears to understand that the institution of the papacy is more important than the individual pope.\u2019 That, in his view, is decisive.<\/p>\n
\u2018He seems to believe in the office \u2013 in the continuity of the institution \u2013 rather than in a more personalist approach. That creates stability. It enhances the authority of the papacy.\u2019 Without speaking ill of his predecessor, he implies that such stability had not always been evident. \u2018When the office is clearly placed above the personality, the Church gains in coherence.\u2019 Institutional continuity, for Rees-Mogg, is not rigidity. It is credibility.<\/p>\n
The conversation turns to the delicate relationship between ecclesial authority and political questions. Rees-Mogg draws a careful distinction. \u2018Matters of faith are matters of truth \u2013 absolute truth. When the Holy Father defines a dogma, such as the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption, those are truths that Catholics must believe.\u2019<\/p>\n
Public policy, however, operates in a different register. \u2018Whether immigration should be one hundred thousand or one hundred and fifty thousand, whether people should arrive by small boats or through bureaucratic channels \u2013 those are matters of prudential judgment. There is no single revealed answer.\u2019<\/p>\n
The danger arises when these categories are confused: \u2018When clerics involve themselves deeply in the details of public policy, they risk undermining the authority attached to matters of doctrine. People may conclude: if he is mistaken about this, might he not also be mistaken about something fundamental?\u2019<\/p>\n
It is not that bishops or popes have nothing to say about moral principles. Rather, political mechanics demand nuance. \u2018Dogma concerns truth. Public policy concerns application and judgment.\u2019 For Rees-Mogg, preserving the distinction protects both Church and state from confusion.<\/p>\n
On the question of the Latin Mass, he speaks with visible concern. \u2018I hope Pope Leo will be generous regarding the extraordinary form. I could never understand the hostility shown towards those who prefer the old rite.\u2019 Sir Jacob rejects the assumption that attachment to the traditional liturgy necessarily signals ideological dissent.<\/p>\n
\u2018Most people who love the old rite simply love the old rite. It does not mean they harbour political axes to grind within the Church.\u2019 Excessive restriction, he warns, risks unintended consequences.<\/p>\n
\u2018What one would not want is to push people who have no sympathy for schism into the arms of those who do.\u2019 He credits Pope Benedict XVI\u2019s earlier approach as constructive. \u2018Benedict\u2019s generosity brought people back. That was surely a good thing.\u2019<\/p>\n
Drawing on his long familiarity with Reformation history, he offers a cautionary reflection. \u2018When one studies the Reformation, there are many moments when reconciliation might have been achieved, but the wrong decisions were made \u2013 and division deepened.\u2019<\/p>\n
The implication is clear: prudence in ecclesial governance can prevent unnecessary fracture. Before the interview concluded, the discussion briefly returns to American politics.<\/p>\n
Rees-Mogg welcomes the presence of Catholic politicians in positions of influence, particularly given the moral weight of life issues: \u2018It is good to have Catholic politicians around. Questions of life are foundational.\u2019 Yet he resists any confusion of ecclesial loyalty with political identity. \u2018A vice-president is not taking orders from the Pope. He must be a politician exercising secular judgment.\u2019<\/p>\n
Catholic faith, he suggests, should underpin core convictions \u2014 not dictate every policy detail. Again, the distinction between truth and prudential governance surfaces. \u2018Faith informs. It does not replace judgment.\u2019<\/p>\n
Across monarchy, jury trial, Brexit, NATO and the papacy, a single pattern emerges in Rees-Mogg\u2019s thinking: institutions matter. They are not merely ornamental, but rather the actual condition in which freedom, order and the faith can endure. Britain, he insists, remains Christian in structure even if hollowed in practice. Its jury system still restrains overreach. Its monarchy still embodies continuity. Brexit restored democratic accountability. NATO, properly funded, remains vital. The papacy, when understood as an office rather than a personality, stabilises the Church.<\/p>\n
Institutions do not eliminate crisis. They enable continuity. And for Rees-Mogg, that endurance \u2013 not ideological novelty \u2013 is what ultimately sustains civilisation.<\/p>\n
The interview was conducted for publication in full, in German translation, in the print journal CATO: Magazin f\u00fcr neue Sachlichkeit.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg is one of the very few British politicians prepared to speak unapologetically in explicitly Christian…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":810563,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5226],"tags":[802,748,2000,299,5187,1699,4884,16,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-810562","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-brexit","8":"tag-brexit","9":"tag-britain","10":"tag-eu","11":"tag-europe","12":"tag-european","13":"tag-european-union","14":"tag-great-britain","15":"tag-uk","16":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/116189194211011095","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/810562","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=810562"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/810562\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/810563"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=810562"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=810562"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=810562"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}