I mentioned yesterday that a majority of Spain’s Catholic priests are in favour of optional celibacy. In this book ‘South from Granada’, Gerald Brenan suggests it was ever thus. Sacerdotal celibacy has never been so strictly observed in Spain as in northern countries. . . . Influenced by the Muslim view that sex is not spiritually polluting, the Spaniards have never accepted the belief that a Mass celebrated by a priest whose body had been soiled by sexual intercourse lacks efficacy. . . The Spanish villager admires a priest who is chaste if in other ways he seems to be a good man but he does not think the worse of one who shows he has natural instincts. . . . In any unhypocritcal country such as Spain, the priest’s influence depends not upon his being free of this or that sin but on his general character.” Of course, I doubt this is true of urban sophisticates, even if it’s still true of down-to-earth villagers. And Spain is increasingly a country of urban sophisticates.

Talking of Spanish views, you’d be hard-pressed to find a eurosceptic commentator here. Given the cash that continues to stream ever-more-affluent Spain’s way, this is hardly surprising. So it’s natural Mrs Merkel has become something of a hero [heroine?] in the Spanish media for her intention to revive the EU Constitution. Someone has to provide a counter-view so here’s the take of Daniel Hannan, who is Conservative Euro MP for ‘South East England’. This appears to be a region whose existence is unknown in the UK. In 50 years’ time, it will probably be pushing to be a nation. But back to Mr Hannan’s view of the EU. And to the question – Is Spain what he calls a ‘Euro-junkie’? . . . If the EU didn't exist, we'd have to invent it," runs the refrain. I wonder. The EU was invented, 50 years ago this week, for two specific purposes: to prevent France and Germany from fighting each other; and to make Europe self-sufficient in food. Having achieved these goals, it ought logically to have dissolved itself circa 1962. But, of course, bureaucracies never disband voluntarily; they cast around for new ways to validate their existence.

Thus, the justification for the EU keeps changing, even as the apparat remains unaltered. During the 1960s it was sold as the economic arm of Nato: a way to bind Europe's democracies together against the Soviet threat. Then, in the 1970s, the big idea was market liberalisation: the unelected European Commission, it was claimed, could be far more reformist than national governments, subject as they were to protectionist lobbies.

As Brussels drifted towards both anti-Americanism and intrusive regulation, the argument shifted to "solidarity". The EU was presented as a mechanism whereby the wealthier members would help build the economies of the poorer, thereby creating a larger market for their own businesses. The trouble was that, far from making the recipient states more competitive, EU subventions simply created a dependent class of Euro-junkies.

Now the Euro-enthusiasts have hit on a new argument: "soft power". Brussels will project democratic values, not with bombs, but with human rights accords. It's a nice theory but, in practice, the EU is sponsoring Hamas, collaborating with Beijing on a satellite system, refusing to back anti-Castro dissidents and, within its own borders, swatting aside inconvenient referendum results. The US was born out of a popular revolt against a remote government, and its constitution is consequently concerned with the rights of the individual and the constraint of government.The Treaty of Rome is concerned with precisely the opposite principle: "ever-closer union". The EU's founding fathers had a guarded attitude towards democracy which, in their eyes, had led to fascism and war. So they deliberately vested supreme power with functionaries who would be immune to public opinion.

Would we really invent such a system today? Wouldn't we aim for something more democratic, less centralised? Something that allowed members to determine their internal affairs? I've even thought of a name for it. How about "European Free Trade Association?

Finally, another example of the lunacy of life in the UK:- The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act, 2006 will mean that any adult who comes into contact with a child through work or volunteering will be put on a database and be subject to constant criminal records vetting. This massive system will affect around 9.5 million adults: not only teachers, but also fathers who volunteer at the local football club and mothers who help out at their child's school. Non-compliance will be a criminal offence, punished with a £5,000 fine.