Technology: General Doctrine
Technological development is not synonymous with human progress, and should be judged by its effects on autonomy, family, community and work.
Positions
This catalogue answers a narrow question: what does Restore Europe hold on this issue? It does not replace the manifesto. The manifesto sets out the worldview; this sets out searchable, topic-by-topic positions.
Where Catholic moral teaching is clear, Restore Europe generally adopts it as the moral baseline, and states civil-law implementation separately. One departure is recorded explicitly: on capital punishment Restore Europe takes the older traditional allowance for exceptional cases rather than the contemporary abolitionist position.
The catalogue distinguishes the constitutional order Restore Europe seeks from European law as it currently stands. Several positions — on nationality, on deprivation of citizenship, on speech, on the public standing of religion and on capital punishment — would require constitutional or treaty change before they could be enacted in particular European states. Where that is so, the entry says it.
Version 0.2 settles the questions version 0.1 had left open: the European institutional relationship, asylum, deportation, wages, taxation, pensions, housing, labour representation, digital identity and currency, biometric surveillance, genetic engineering, sentencing, the energy mix and every standing question of foreign policy. Where a v0.2 formulation revised an earlier entry, the newer text governs.
Every question in this catalogue carries a position. Entries marked Derived follow the direction of the manifesto without their implementation being fixed, and several name the legal or treaty change they would require. Positions are revised as the movement decides; the version and date above say which text you are reading.
6 of 89 positions match.
V
What may be built, what should be deployed, and what must remain within reach.
Technological development is not synonymous with human progress, and should be judged by its effects on autonomy, family, community and work.
Citizens should retain meaningful private spaces free from permanent surveillance, with the detailed rules not yet settled.
A CBDC must not replace physical cash or become a compulsory, programmable system of transaction surveillance.
Lawful cryptocurrency ownership and transfer should remain permitted, while fraud, theft and abusive centralized custody remain regulated.
Permanent or indiscriminate facial-recognition surveillance of the general population should be prohibited.
Indiscriminate permanent retention of the communications metadata of the entire population should be rejected.