blair-brexit
Democracy

Brexit, pursued by a Blair

“This is the chase: I am gone for ever,” proclaims the old shepherd Antigonus in Shakespeare’s The Winter’s Tale, immediately before that most famous stage direction: ‘Exit, pursued by a bear.’ And he does go forever, because the bear mauls and munches him for a tasty snack, and doubtless eventually deposits him as skubalon in some Sicilian woods, as bears do.

Blairs, however, have a habit of never going away. If they’re not trying to follow in father’s footsteps or using daddy’s contacts to forge a career or fighting some great cause of equality, they’re trying (and failing) to bring peace to the Middle East, or applying to become ‘President of Europe’. And that’s what Tony Blair’s latest Brexit intervention is all about. Well, maybe not ‘all’: perhaps he really does believe that Britain will be all the poorer for leaving the European Union, and that more powers really should be be given to Brussels and that mass (uncontrolled) immigration is actually very good for the UK. He’s never been one not to bend his convictions to his politics. And he is a genuine pro-European, anti-State, anti-individualist, socialist, federalist, ‘third way’ Catholic-ecumenist.

And now he calls all EU ever-closer Remainers to become “insurgents” against the rabid Brexiteers who are pushing the UK toward ever further detachment into political oblivion and economic ruin. The will of the people must be respected, he insists, but that will must surely change. They voted Brexit (just about) because they didn’t quite grasp the “catastrophic” (his word) consequences: “they’re also open to a better argument in the light of the facts as they come to light”.

As the pound sinks, inward investment dries up, banks depart the City, the NHS collapses, children starve and the moon turns to blood, the people will see that Brexit is not the land of milk and honey which Brexiteers promised. Britain must retain its “essential social democratic” model, Blair insists, hinting that a new progressive ‘third-way’ alliance must arise after the fashion of continental Christian Democracy (ie New Labour revived).

So out goes the “free market, free trading, light regulation, low tax, low social protection” Brexit vision, and in comes the anti-competitive, collectivist, bureaucratic, environmentalist, corporatist social doctrine more attuned to Blair’s apprehension of Catholic Social Teaching. He doesn’t seek to impose this upon the people: it is a case of turning their eyes to the light so they might see and understand for themselves. “The issue is not whether we ignore the will of the people, but whether, as information becomes available, and facts take the place of claims, the ‘will’ of the people shifts,” he explains.

“Maybe it won’t, in which case people like me will have to accept it,” he adds. “But surely we are entitled to try to persuade, to make the argument, and not to be whipped into line to support a decision we genuinely believe is a catastrophe for the country we love.”

And so Parliament must be used to subvert the will of the people, and express its will on their behalf, and then subject that parliamentary sovereign will to the sovereign will of the people, either in a second referendum or a general election. “Right now there is one point and one point only to win: we should keep every option open,” Blair insists. “That this should even be contentious speaks loudly about how much those of us – and after all we were 16 million people – who believe Britain’s future lies within the European partnership, have been shoved on to the defensive.”

Isn’t that the essence of democracy? Some lose, some win; some are in, some are out. Isn’t it then for the minority to accept the will of the majority?

“We have to recognise we’re the insurgents now,” Blair trumpets, like Henry V on the feast of Saints Crispin and Crispinian, shortly before the Battle of Agincourt. “We have to build the capability to mobilise and to organise. We have to prise apart the alliance which gave us Brexit.”

So democracy is to be subverted by the ever-circulating elite, intent on making sure the people get what’s best for them.

He adds: “This is a world which changes fast. There is a downside to that. But there is also an upside. Things which look resolved emphatically can be open to a new resolution.”

Indeed there is. The vision of an ever-closer European Empire ruled by one Emperor belonging to one Church under one God was once emphatic. But it has passed away: the British people have opted for a new resolution. We are sorry if that doesn’t quite cohere with Tony Blair’s mantle of divine right.

  • Inspector General

    Incisive stuff, Cranmer! You have the measure of that scoundrel. No doubt about that.

    It was the ladies, you know. They who propelled the fresh faced young man of vision into Number 10 with that exceptional majority almost 20 years ago. Not this lined, receding of hair, greying older man who does have a haunted look about him these days. Or should that be hunted.

    Few ladies today will stop what they’re doing and watch him now…

  • john in cheshire

    He just won’t go away, will he? Can’t there be a Wikileaks campaign against the Beliars, similar to their destruction of the Clintons? There must be mountains of dirt on them. We know he had his expenses claims shredded just before he left office, so they must have had evidence that he didn’t want to be disclosed; his property empire, perhaps?

  • James Bolivar DiGriz

    “as information becomes available, and facts take the place of claims, the ‘will’ of the people shifts”

    And (in his eyes) it is only possible for the will of the people to shift one way.

    The facts, that have been clear for years, are that rapidly bringing in more and more countries (and especially countries that have very different economic & social positions from earlier members) and trying to have a ‘one size fits all’ policy has simply not worked.

    The most obvious example is the Euro which is not an economic project but a political one. It has enormous economic impacts but entry had essentially no economic criteria only political ones. And the consequence of trying to put the extremely divergent economies into the same category is the financial mess (with the consequential human impact) that most of the southern European countries find themselves in.

    I have always been opposed to the EU in principle but I think that the project might have been able to succeed if the senior people had had the sense & humility to realise that it would take the best part of a century to include the number of countries that are already members.

    Greece joined in 1981 and Portugal & Spain in 1986 (and the 10th, 11th & 12th member) and despite the transfers of money and the significant economic improvements, their GDP per head is still 30-50% lower than the average of the first nine countries.

    Until those countries were at a comparable level to the rest of the members then bringing in more countries that were considerably poorer was guaranteed to create problems.

  • len

    It must be becoming apparent to most people that there are a small group of ‘elites’ who are determined to steer the people in the direction the elites want them to go, TB seems to belong to that group.. The Elites have panicked over Brexit as they see control slipping away from them. Interesting to see how the media plays this out?
    The Media in the US seems to be totally under the control of the establishment and seem to be able to control most of the people most of the time, hope it never gets that bad in the UK?.
    Tony Blair seems to wish to re- invent himself and sees an opportunity to become a leader again at the head of the remainers. If the remainers have their way we will keep on having referendums on the EU until ‘ the right result’ is obtained.

  • David

    Well said Cranmer, you have understood the will of the People and you have the Blair creature in your (holy) crosshairs.

    The British people are a pretty resilient lot. They have been “offered” decades of sneaky propaganda, massaged “facts” and endless cultural disapproval of notions such as the nation state, free trade, open borders; they have experienced a level of indoctrination on a massive, unrelenting scale from a broadcaster supported by almost unlimited funds, obtained via a compulsory tax, to confuse them, to ignore their wishes and in some cases to insult them into submission.

    But this hasn’t worked, at least it hasn’t convinced the majority, who have instead voted, based on both the facts as they have seen it and on the inner urgings of their island, freedom loving hearts.

    Blair’s message is yesterday’s message. The world is moving on, and top-down bossy Socialism has reached it high water mark. It will now slowly, bit by bit, be pushed back by the tidal opinion of the masses led by those dreadful people who believe that often, small is beautiful.

    Goodbye Mr Blair, sweet nightmares !

    • John Main

      Good post.

      There is but one error. TV licenses are not a “compulsory tax”, simply because ownership of a TV or other real-time reception apparatus is not and never has been compulsory.

      IMO, it would take no more than a well-publicised campaign by around 10,000 households, discarding their TVs and citing dissatisfaction with the BBC as cause, to bring about a sea change in the attitudes and prejudices of the most effective government propaganda service in the world.

      The fact that such a campaign has never materialised shows the depths of apathy of the British people.

  • Tony Phillips

    ‘And so Parliament must be used to subvert the will of the people, and express its will on their behalf…’

    But this is exactly what Parliament has always done. We have always had MPs chosen by party elites, and who ‘represent’ constituencies they have nothing in common with. If you want a representative democracy, you’d better go to the US, where legislatures actually represent the voters…and where they have a Supreme Court to subvert the will of the people.

    Of course, Mr Blair might simply dissolve the people and elect a new one.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Do you think that a country where any multi-millionaire can dream of becoming president is a representative democracy? I am not thinking of Donald Trump. How many people who were not not millionaire (or, allowing for inflation, multi-millionaires) have been chosen as presidential candidates by either the Republican or Democratic parties in the last hundred years?

  • Three men who knew Blair better than almost anyone, having served him as Cabinet Secretary, maintain that he ‘was never a suitable guardian of the public’s trust.’ In which case, Blair can best serve ‘the country we love’ by having the decency to shut his gob and retire from public life.

  • DP111

    The entire establishment tried to make the economy and our selfish interests, as the main concern for people in regards the EU.

    Man does not live by bread alone. It is the establishment that was interested only in money.

    People OTH were more concerned that our long traditions of a free society, were in danger of being lost.

    Moreover we would have lost Habeus Corpus -is a recourse in law whereby a person can report an unlawful detention or imprisonment before a court, usually through a prison official.

    The real issue was simply this – Do we rule ourselves or do we let others rule over us.
    This a recourse available to the poor and meek against the powerful.

    We would have also lost the concept of “presumption of innocence”, as well as trial by jury.

    All these great instruments of freedom, are found only in the Commonwealth of the USA, Canada, Australia, India and New Zealand. All these nations are grateful for such an inheritance.

    No wonder the Establishment was keen to keep the discussion on money.

  • Dominic Stockford

    Paul’s words about nations in Acts 17. But then, Blair was never keen to do God, and always very keen to do what he wanted, so we shouldn’t expect a godly response from him.

  • Orwell Ian

    Blair is deliberately orchestrating this political insurgency because he intends to ensure that Britain not only stays in the EU but never ever gets another chance to leave. If he succeeds any subsequent changes in the will of the people will count for nothing. What else would we expect from this political predator who disguised the true nature of New Labour, sold us out to Europe and choked British culture and tradition through mass immigration and multiculturalism. We the people have voted to leave and that should be the end of the matter. He is no democrat. His scheming is nothing short of treachery.

    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions?q=treason&state=all

    • Martin

      OI

      Are you suggest a petition on Blair, perhaps to deprive him of his British citizenship?

      • Orwell Ian

        No, merely hoping that some may wish to follow the link to a petition that aims to make it an act of treason to attempt to overturn election or referendum results. When a national vote goes against them the EU has always found a way to make the people vote again. They have, so far, never failed to end up with the result the Eurocrats want. They did it with the Danes the Irish and recently the Dutch. The fact that their agents like Blair are already undermining our democratic choice shows they aim to do it to us. Its time to ensure that they don’t.

        • Anton

          That man of blood, Tony Blair…

  • Sybaseguru

    When I was at school in Durham with Tony his deviousness was revealed in a chess tournament. With just the final game between myself and he to play the league was finely balanced. Tony pointed out that should we call a draw by not playing then I would come first equal rather than first if I won or fourth if I lost to him. From his point of view a draw or win would make little difference as he would come third, but a loss would put him in 5th. Having explained all this to me he then suggested not playing. I’ve always wondered what the result of that game would have been.

    • Inspector General

      Tony Blair had time for you, did he…

      Are you an immigrant chap, then?

    • Royinsouthwest

      His defenders would probably say that he was demonstrating his political skills at an early age.

    • Cressida de Nova

      His grandmother’s dying wish on her death bed was to make him promise her that he would never marry a Catholic…He cannot be trusted.

  • len

    Tony Blair fixes us with his hypnotic glare and says “My will can become your will” much as the snake in ‘the Jungle Book’.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Not any more he doesn’t.

  • Dreadnaught

    Yeah Blurr – A fine job you did of being a Peace Ambassador to the Middle East. I was always told don’t start another war before you finished the last one. Why don’t you and Letterbox Gob just piss off back to your pals in Kazakhstan you Traitor.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/11052965/Tony-Blair-gives-Kazakhstans-autocratic-president-tips-on-how-to-defend-a-massacre.html

  • Albert

    in comes the anti-competitive, collectivist, bureaucratic, environmentalist, corporatist social doctrine more attuned to Blair’s apprehension of Catholic Social Teaching.

    That’s a bit bizarre. The idea that Blair is driven by CST is far-fetched. His political principles were formed long before he became a Catholic – after all, he had left office before he became a Catholic. His position on a range of matters, from abortion to homosexuality and the Iraq War show the degree to which his positions are formed by Catholic moral thought. In any case, the assumption that a supporter of CST will be Remain is obviously wrong. A key part of CST is subsidiarity, a doctrine which would point in the direction of Leave.

    • Knee-jerk reaction, as ever when this blog dares to mention CST, seeming to see what patently is not there but has to be corrected immediately because.. O, why bother.

      • Dominic Stockford

        I would humbly agree with ABC. Mr Blair’s links to the general direction of CST before his public declarations were fairly clear – and after all, he is simply ‘ahead of the curve’ on some issues where CST is clearly headed.

        • Where is CST headed to? Do tell.

          • Anton

            Pope Francis might know…

      • Albert

        Not a knee jerk reaction at all. I think my argument stands, and as I read the piece, I couldn’t see any reason why you should have included a reference to CST. I still can’t.

    • Inspector General

      One should think that his principles were formed in close association with Mrs Blair, on a “if you want to continue sleeping with me, Tony” encouragement…

    • Anton

      I agree with you. Which raises the question: Why, holding those views, was he accepted into the Roman Catholic church?

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7157409.stm

      • He was famous! Probably considered a catch by the Catholics. They’re a bit shallow like that.

        • Cressida de Nova

          We don’t want him. Please take him back !

          • Anton

            Just throw him out! Whether he goes to any congregation after that is his business.

          • len

            No way.

      • Why? Because Rome is intent on ruling the world and eventually handing it over to the anti-Christ.

        • Cressida de Nova

          Why would he take instructions from anyone? He does not abide by the precepts of Catholicism now.I think he should be returned to the Protestants.

          • len

            No he’s one of yours, fits the RCC like a hand in a glove.

      • Albert

        Excellent question!

        • Anton

          Wise reply!

  • Dominic Stockford

    Exit Blair, pursued by the truth.

  • Pubcrawler

    It is jut my failing eyes, or is Bleargh slowly morphing into:

    http://www.classickidstv.co.uk/wiki/images/c/c6/Chorlton_and_the_Wheelies_Fenella.jpg

    • David

      That needed a health warning – fair terrified me that did – phew !

  • Should be chained to a wall in Baghdad for the attention of the widows and orphans his policies created.

  • carl jacobs

    As the pound sinks, inward investment dries up, banks depart the City, the NHS collapses, children starve and the moon turns to blood …

    Every once in a while, the Archbishop turns out a phrase that is pure rhetorical gold.

    • dannybhoy

      #Don’t go out tonight -you’re bound to get a fright –
      There is a Blair moon on the rise…

  • Anton

    He sees the chance of governing Britain again, once he is the fully empowered EU President, going down the tubes.

    How sad.

  • Anton

    The issue is not whether we ignore the will of Mr Blair; but whether, as information becomes available, and facts take the place of claims, the ‘will’ of Mr Blair shifts.

  • Andrew Holt

    The arrogance of power and privilege once more guarantees the achievement of the opposite of that which was intended. So personally I rejoice at Tony’s timely intervention, it only makes those of us who voted to leave the EU more determined than ever that the will of the majority be carried out. We expect our leaders to both lead and listen. Powerful forces and vested interests will do their damndest to thwart us but we will overcome them.

  • dannybhoy

    ot
    “Chick was best known for creating small cartoon pamphlets, also known as Chick tracts or “chicklets,” which tackled different topics like false religions, Halloween, homosexuality, witchcraft and the occult and abortion. He also focused on contemporary issues in his comics. His works all had one thing in common: they pointed the reader to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.”
    Now there’s a testimony for you!
    http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/67536/20161027/christian-cartoonist-jack-chick-the-most-widely-read-theologian-in-human-history-dies-at-92.htm

    • carl jacobs

      I tell people that when they go into a church, they should examine the rack of free literature. If they see Chick tracts, they should not pass Go. Neither should they collect $200. They should turn and leave immediately. Chick was no theologian. His theology was bad and his apologetic was worse. It displayed all the faults of Fundamentalism (technically defined) – withdrawal, isolation, anti-intellectualism, legalism, ahistoricism. It’s hard not wince when reading some of his work.

      Who knows the fruit that came of it? God can use anything to achieve His purpose. But we should always remember that something isn’t necessarily admirable just because it is more or less orthodox.

      • dannybhoy

        The term theologian is misleading when applied to Chick.
        If anything he was an evangelist. or perhaps even more accurately an old time evangelical Christian, who wanted to share his faith because he believed all those verses that call men to repentance. He believed that men who rejected the Gospel were bound for Hell.
        That was the belief amongst the evangelicals I knew for many many years.
        You wince because you are educated and we live in less certain, less dogmatic times.
        I can’t remember when I first saw this tract, but I do remember we used it in witnessing..

        • Anton

          I hope he was a good evangelist. His anti-Catholic tracts were riddled with basic factual errors – so bad that I sometimes wondered what effect they were actually having.

    • “His works all had one thing in common: they pointed the reader to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior (sic).”

      You jest, right? This has to be sarcasm. The man was delusional. His comics and writings are filled with lurid tales and paranoid conspiracy theories.

      • dannybhoy

        “The man was delusional. His comics and writings are filled with lurid tales and paranoid conspiracy theories.”
        Jack with all due deference to your faith, the same could surely be said of the Catholic Church?
        Weeping statues, visions, secret or exclusive groups etc etc. Some of the teachings of the Catholic Church, whether renounced or not, did a lot of harm.
        If we were to describe your church in the same way you describe JT Chick, you would not like it.

        • carl jacobs

          Far be it from to defend the practices of Rome. But a cardinal rule of apologetics is “Represent your opponent accurately.” The Pope was not allied with Hitler. That is historical idiocy. This is the kind of stuff to which I referred when I said that it is hard to read Chick and not wince.

          • dannybhoy

            http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html

            Please scan the link and whilst it does not condemn the RCC outright, just think about what the Roman Catholic Church believed and taught about itself at that time..
            And for crying out loud, let’s stop referring to Jack T Chick as a theologian; he wasn’t and didn’t claim to be. He was a fundamentalist evangelical Christian.
            He acted on what he believed.
            Every branch of the Christian Church could and has, used the same argument.
            You’re making a mountain out of a molehill, and I am sad to see Anton agreeing with you on this.

            This was the booklet I forgot to include in my last comment to you Carl..

            http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.asp
            It’s one I used myself many times.
            Please tell us where it goes wrong fro a theological perspective..

          • carl jacobs

            This is Jack Chick. Read this if you can. See if you can get through it without bashing your head against a wall:

            https://www.chick.com/m/reading/tracts/readtract.asp?stk=0054

            That kind of slander does not honor God. The best thing you can say about it is that it is dirt ignorant. At worst it is a vicious lie. You should not want Christians taught such nonsense. You would be equipping them as lambs for the wolves. So, no. I am not making a mountain out of a molehill. The man was destructive.

            As for “This was your Life” I found three things that concerned me in a cursory examination:

            1. The anthropomorphized God figure.

            2. The completely wrong reaction of the Unbeliever to being called forth.

            3. A general distrust of narratives regarding things that have not been revealed.

          • dannybhoy

            1The anthropomorphized God figure.
            Yes, that freaked me out too..
            “12 Then I turned to see whose voice it was that spoke to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the lampstands I saw one like the Son of Man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash across his chest. 14 His head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, 15 his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and from his mouth came a sharp, two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining with full force.
            17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he placed his right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18 and the living one. I was dead, and see, I am alive forever and ever; and I have the keys of Death and of Hades. 19 Now write what you have seen, what is, and what is to take place after this.”
            Revelation 4>
            “4 After this I looked, and there in heaven a door stood open! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” 2 At once I was in the spirit,[a] and there in heaven stood a throne, with one seated on the throne! 3 And the one seated there looks like jasper and carnelian, and around the throne is a rainbow that looks like an emerald. 4 Around the throne are twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones are twenty-four elders, dressed in white robes, with golden crowns on their heads. 5 Coming from the throne are flashes of lightning, and rumblings and peals of thunder, and in front of the throne burn seven flaming torches, which are the seven spirits of God; 6 and in front of the throne there is something like a sea of glass, like crystal.
            Around the throne, and on each side of the throne, are four living creatures, full of eyes in front and behind: 7 the first living creature like a lion, the second living creature like an ox, the third living creature with a face like a human face, and the fourth living creature like a flying eagle. 8 And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and inside. Day and night without ceasing they sing,
            “Holy, holy, holy,
            the Lord God the Almighty,
            who was and is and is to come.”
            9 And whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to the one who is seated on the throne, who lives forever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders fall before the one who is seated on the throne and worship the one who lives forever and ever; they cast their crowns before the throne, singing,
            11 “You are worthy, our Lord and God,
            to receive glory and honor and power,
            for you created all things,
            and by your will they existed and were created.”

            I think Jack could be forgiven if he got it wrong don’t you?
            And by the way, I believe he’s been debriefed, enlightened and received into glory; don’t you?

          • carl jacobs

            My concern is that Revelation is Apocalyptic literature. It’s not meant to used as literal narrative. We don’t have clear Scriptural descriptions of the Last Judgment, so it’s always risky to invent one.

            I have no reason to doubt Chick’s faith. I only question the validity of his work.

            And what about the Holocaust tract? Did you read it?

          • dannybhoy

            So there’s the main thing Carl,
            “I have no reason to doubt Chick’s faith.”
            I only question the validity of his work.
            Only God can put him right on that one!
            My approach to witnessing has changed over the years as I have wrestled with what I understand and believe about God. Just like being married, my love for my wife has changed as I have some to understand and appreciate her qualities.
            That’s how it is -and should be as we grow in maturity and depth of discipleship.
            I didn’t read his Holocaust tract, but in his defence as a Christian brother, I would say that he wrote in sincerity even if it was inaccurate.

          • carl jacobs

            Well here is one statement that should give you the flavor:

            It is a documented fact that the Gestapo was run by the Jesuits.

            That is a statement from the character in the tract who is given the role of proclaiming the Truth to the reader.

          • dannybhoy

            Okay Carl..
            Here’s the tract.
            http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0054/0054_01.asp
            I see it was written in 1984.
            I had been back in England a year from Israel, so I never knew about this tract, but we could check all the statements you find fault wih together.
            Here’s wikipedia’s entry on the Catholic Church of the time..
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany

            Listen, you may be right about it, but I would say that none of us have unblemished records in our Christian walk. I haven’t and neither have you.
            Now had you started your response by saying “He was a true Christian, but he got some stuff wrong”, we wouldn’t be wasting time and energy going through this exchange.

          • Anton

            You’ve fallen for liberal-theological trash about apocalyptic literature, Carl. What it actually is, is the attempt to describe, using the vocabulary of 2000 years ago, cataclysmic events for which there were then no words, eg meteorite strikes (Rev 8/9) and nuclear war (“blood, fire and pillars of smoke” – Joel 2:30, a perfect description).

          • carl jacobs

            Except the people who taught me were anything but Liberal Theologians.

          • Anton

            Good. But that’s where it came from, at third or fourth hand. Consider the Joel quote…

          • carl jacobs

            I understand. Revelation was a closed book before Darby.

            About 20 years ago, I took a series of courses on Books of the Bible from a good friend who was a Professor and a member of the Plymouth Brethren. I don’t remember the context anymore, but one day he stated one of his theological “rules of thumb” to the class.

            If it’s new, it’s untrue.

            Because I am wicked by nature, and because not even the spirit was willing, I immediately responding “So much for dispensationalism.” He sputtered, laughed, and told me to shush.

          • Anton

            I’m not a dispensationalist (and nothing I said depends on dispensationalism). Where God treats people differently, it is because of covenants with them. And I agree with “if it’s new it’s untrue” certainly in reference to liberal theology. But notice that Daniel was told to seal up his scroll – meaning it would not be understood – until the time of the end.

          • ” …. just think about what the Roman Catholic Church believed and taught about itself at that time.”

            And just what was that Danny and how does it differ from today?

          • len

            The Vatican was certainly allied to fascism they saw it as a defence against communism.

            http://www.newyouth.com/archives/historicalanalysis/catholicism_and_fascism.html

          • Inspector General

            Fascism certainly was the answer to Communism. Of course, no one knew how caustic the product would reveal itself to be – so don’t be a smart arse and pretend you would have…

          • dannybhoy

            The real point you’re missing IG is should the Church that claimed to represent God’s will and authority on earth have taken sides with an earthly anti God, anti Christian anti Jewish political movement?

          • Inspector General

            Do you know how the Spanish Civil war started off Danny? The murder of priests and nuns by the ‘progressives’. That’s how. Now, don’t fool yourself any more…

          • dannybhoy

            Whoooah! Hold on there my excitable Deist friend. What has that to do with the Catholic Church siding with National Socialism as a safeguard against Communism?

          • Inspector General

            Danny, the Spanish progressives as stated were Communist party activists. Look, old chap, that time has been researched by the Inspectorate. Fascism was a promising idea. Do you think a UK fascist government would have allowed abortion, mass alien immigration and same sex marriage? Even now, a refined version of fascism is a damn sight more hopeful than our continued degeneracy…

          • dannybhoy

            But we’re not talking about a UK/GB government are we IG? We’re talking about a Jack T Chick tract about the Holocaust and the role the Roman Catholic Church played in it, and why it supported German National Socialism…

          • Inspector General

            One has not been following the debate on Chick. Merely responding to posts as they arise…

          • dannybhoy

            Well don’t.
            I have no desire to open up another front against someone I rather like!

          • Anton

            Then please respond to mine about relations between the Vatican, Hitler, Mussolini and Pavelic above.

          • len

            Inspector scuttles off to find his comfort blanket.

          • Stop talking bollocks, Danny. The Catholic Church did not “support” German National Socialism.

          • dannybhoy

            IT was a rhetorical question Jack about the contents of a Chick tract on the Holocaust. I thought I made it clear I’d personally never seen it? My own point though is should a church which claims divine authority align itself with any political movement?

          • You said: “We’re talking about a Jack T Chick tract about the Holocaust and the role the Roman Catholic Church played in it, and why it supported German National Socialism…”
            That’s not a rhetorical question.
            Why shouldn’t a Church voice support for a particular political movement? Does belief in God have no role in temporal affairs? For example, the Catholic Church opposes euthanasia and abortion. Is it wrong to do so? It supports intervention by nation states to regulate market economies and to provide safety nets for the young, vulnerable and ill. Is it wrong?

          • dannybhoy

            Listen, I never brought up the contents of his tracts; just that he had passed and I remember using his earlier tracts. Further I can remember that in evangelical circles of the ’60s and ’70s there was as much distrust towards Catholicism as some Catholics still show towards Protestants. So Jack T Chick as an American fundamentalist Christian reflected that in his tracts.
            Here’s one of his on abortion..
            http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1009/1009_01.asp

          • len

            History says different.If you ‘had a pair’ you might accept the guilt of YOUR Church.Glad you have owned the RCC I wouldn`t touch it with a bargepole.

          • len

            Nothing. Precisely nothing. Smoke and mirrors by the RCC to cover their guilt.They have had plenty of practice over the centuries.

          • Who did the Church “take sides” with, Danny?

          • len

            Many people saw the evil that was inherent in fascism you really didn`t have to be that clever.

          • Inspector General

            Says the man who believes the RCC is inherently evil…

          • len

            The RCC’ religious system’ is evil.I never say the RCC ‘people’ are evil.Not even you 😉

          • The British Establishment, hardly Catholic, saw it that way too.

          • carl jacobs

            You are offering me an article written by a Unitarian from a newspaper published by something called the Freedom from Religion Foundation – an article written in response to W. F. Buckley Jr who just happens to be one of the most important influences in my intellectual formation. I know WFB. I don’t know Robert Nordlander.

            Good grief. Learn something about Alfred Rosenberg. Learn something about the pagan nature of the SS. Learn what the Nazis meant by “Positive Christianity.”

          • dannybhoy

            ‘These were some of the reasons why most Christians in Germany welcomed the rise of Nazism in 1933. They were also persuaded by the statement on “positive Christianity” in Article 24 of the 1920 Nazi Party Platform, which read:’

            “We demand the freedom of all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not jeopardize the state’s existence or conflict with the manners and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The Party as such upholds the point of view of a positive Christianity without tying itself confessionally to any one confession. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit at home and abroad and is convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only be achieved from within on the basis of the common good before individual good.”
            https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005206

          • carl jacobs

            OK. You quoted Article 24. Now tell me what it means. “Positive Christianity” is not just a phrase. It has ideological content.

          • dannybhoy

            As I understand it it meant that the Nazi Party would tolerate Christianity and its values as long as it didn’t contradict or offend the aims of the Nazi Party.
            “The statement was carefully crafted, reflecting the general National Socialist principle of non-interference in church matters. While refusing to endorse any particular Christian denomination or doctrinal perspective, it clearly endorsed “Positive Christianity” and religious freedom. Churches in a National Socialist-dominated German state would be free to fulfill their missions, as long as they did not threaten civil order or national security, or advance beliefs and causes that violated historic German ethics and morals.”
            And I didn’t quote it; you did.
            And is this meant to be helpful and en-lightning, or a point scoring exercise?

          • carl jacobs

            Here is neither Jew nor Greek, here is neither slave nor free, here is neither man nor woman, wrote Paul to the Galatians — that last
            remnant of a great Celtic migration down the Danube valley and into Asia Minor. On the basis of this nihilism, which is a denial of
            everything organic, he then calls for a belief in Christ. This constituted a total rejection of all the culture creating values of Greece and
            Rome — although to be sure, Christianity took over a degenerate form of such values — and effected their disintegration. Thanks to its
            strongly exclusive character, Christianity was then able to gather to itself all those who had lost direction.

            A further step toward the denial of natural life lay in the dogmatic assertion of the virgin birth. Yet this is commonly a part of a solar
            myth to be found among various peoples from northern Europe to the south sea islands.

            Abstract spirituality, however, was flanked on each side by all the magic of Asia Minor, Syria and Africa. The demons which were
            driven out by Jesus and passed into the swine; the calming of the stormy sea at his command; his certified resurrection from the dead;
            his ascent into heaven — all these were the real point of departure for Christianity, and undoubtedly greatly strengthened the ability to
            endure much suffering.

            Thus the world did not proceed from the life of the saviour (soter) but from his death and its miraculous consequences. This is the
            single motif of the Pauline epistles. Goethe, on the contrary, held that it was the life of Christ which was important, not his death. In this
            he was attesting to the soul of the Germanic west expressed in Positive Christianity, as opposed to negative Christianity based on
            priesthood and witch mania and deriving from Etruscan Asiatic concepts.

            Alfred Rosenberg
            Myth of the Twentieth Centruy

            https://archive.org/stream/TheMythOfTheTwentiethCentury/Myth_djvu.txt

          • carl jacobs

            And is this meant to be helpful and en-lightning, or a point scoring exercise?

            Len posted an ignorant article that consisted of a bunch of quotes to “prove” Hitler was a Christian. I responded. Should I not have responded?

          • Inspector General

            You noticed Len is an ignorant too, then Carl. The Inspector always had him down as a thicko. Much the same thing….

          • carl jacobs

            I said the article was ignorant. I did not say Len was ignorant.

          • Inspector General

            You made the Inspector smile.

          • Anton

            You’ll find the truth about relations between the Vatican and several fascist regimes in an extended post set out under my name above. Chick, as we agree, talked trash.

          • Jack will take a “rain-check” on that one, Anton.

          • Anton

            By all means try to rain on my parade!

          • It would cause “yellow snow”.

          • Anton

            No, you’d be aiming into the wind.

          • Yes, true, but cited by someone ignorant of “the ideological relationship of the Nazi Party to Christianity” who, if informed, “wouldn’t spend 15 seconds on it.”

          • dannybhoy

            You’re a bright chap. Surely it depends on whether you regard Len as a brother in Christ or not. If you do then you would probably treat him with respect and try and point out where he is wrong.
            If you don’t regard him as a brother in Christ you might still want to influence him positively towards your understanding of the faith..
            That’s what it’s all about Carl isn’t it?
            Respecting one another, encouraging one another, preferring one another in love? Or do we live the way the world lives?

          • carl jacobs

            I do consider Len a Brother. I’m not sure he reciprocates the judgment. But no matter. Responding in detail to that article would have taken a week. You can’t just take quotes from Nazi leaders. You have to understand the re-definitions they applied. That’s why I said what I said. That article was intellectually bankrupt. If you understand the ideological relationship of the Nazi Party to Christianity you wouldn’t spend 15 seconds on it. And you certainly wouldn’t quote it as an authority.

          • dannybhoy

            It’s not so much what one says as how one says it.
            I do remember from my YWAM days, living and working with Christians from around the world. Some of them were very clever and intelligent people, and what impressed me was the genuine humility and patience with which they would answer your questions. As a non professional I was always struck by that, and I came to realise that often it’s more important to encourage and inform than to show how clever you are..

          • carl jacobs

            Len’s a big boy. He doesn’t need to be coddled. He gives it out. He can take it as well. A few weeks ago he referred to me as a “Christian”. Did I whine about it? No. That’s just the rough and tumble of a weblog.

          • len

            IMO you are an accomplice to ‘the cover up’ of the crimes of the RCC.Can you still do that and remain a brother of the suffering Church .I think not.

          • carl jacobs

            Do the crimes of the RCC include running the Gestapo?

          • len

            If you did the research you would realise the FULL implications of the connection between the Vatican and Fascism.

          • len

            Anyone is ignorant if they disagree with Carl? . Breathtakingly arrogant!.

          • carl jacobs

            If you read the extended excerpt from Alfred Rosenberg that I posted on this thread, you would understand why I called that article ignorant. That was actually the charitable assessment. The more probable possibility is that it was a deliberately deceptive polemic intended to achieve tactical advantage for an anti-Christian apologetic.

          • len

            I think I was quite charitable to look at your defence of fascism.

          • Positive Christianity was a mix of paganism, ideas of racial purity and Nazi ideology with elements of Christianity

            “In 1937, Hans Kerrl, the Nazi Minister for Church Affairs, explained “Positive Christianity” as not “dependent upon the Apostle’s Creed”, nor in “faith in Christ as the son of God”, upon which Christianity relied, but rather, as being represented by the Nazi Party: “The Fuehrer is the herald of a new revelation”, he said.[3] To accord with Nazi antisemitism, Positive Christianity advocates also sought to deny the Semitic origins of Christ and the Bible. In such elements Positive Christianity separated itself from Christianity and is considered apostasy by Catholics and Protestants.”
            It’s the closest thing to the “Great Apostasy” that Jack has read. Even worse than Communism.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity

          • len

            I don`t know your sources either .But I think you need to take the blinkers off and study history not propaganda.

          • ROFL …..

            This from the man who claims Saint Paul did not see a vision of Jesus but Lucifer.

          • len

            I check everything Jack’ Angels of light’ especially. Perhaps you should do the same with the RCC But… you cannot do that can you Jack because if you did the whole House of Cards which is the RCC would collapse.Best keep propping it up the RCC needs you.

          • You do know Robert Norlander was a committed atheist?

            The website you provided the link to has as it’s stated aim:

            “The purposes of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., as stated in its bylaws, are to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.”
            It claims:

            “The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion. In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women’s right to vote, for death with dignity for the terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion have been freethinkers, just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery ….”
            Wake up, Len.

          • len

            Atheists are not intelligent enough to discern truth about historical events?

          • len

            There are hundreds if not thousands of historical articles on the web documenting collaboration between the Vatican and Fascism. I suppose these are all ‘conspiracies’ in your mind though?)

            In respect for this blog won’t post all the links. But do the research its not difficult.

          • carl jacobs

            There are hundreds if not thousands of articles on the web that prove the US never landed on the Moon. What does that mean? Find me a credible historical source anywhere that substantiates the allegations made by Jack Chick.

          • len

            Not interested in Jack Chick(whoever he was?) but in historical fact.The evidence is there if you look for it.

            http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/08/what-is-the-vatican-hiding/

            I see’ the inquisition’ are gathering the more noise they make the more worried they are getting, truth is not their friend.

          • carl jacobs

            Not interested in Jack Chick

            But that is the context of the discussion – Jack Chick’s claims.

          • len

            Jack Chicks ‘claims’ precisely not the character of the man.This is my point entirely.

          • carl jacobs

            I’m not attacking the character of the man. I’m attacking the integrity of his work.

          • IanCad

            Permit me to jump in late to this squabble.
            That many Jesuits died heroically to save others in WW2 is an undeniable truth.
            That both Hitler and Himmler were admirers of the Jesuit’s organizational skills is also true.
            Blessed are the peacemakers.

          • CliveM

            IanCad

            To be honest (and this statement doesn’t include you), I’m more than a little bemused at this continuous attacking of the supposed evils of the RCC. I sometimes wonder what the point is? Yes let’s have a chat about the basis of our differences, but the badmouthing is getting silly.

            I think our enemies will be wetting themselves with mirth when they read it.

          • IanCad

            Clive,
            The currently benign and seemingly weak RCC is paying for its past. Awful, horrible – that’s why The Reformation. That said, when any religious body becomes all-powerful, the rot sets in; thus my suspicion- more like fear – of the ecumenical movement. Denominationalism may be ridiculed, particularly by those of no religious belief. Those varied sects may squabble but that’s about it.
            In times of terrible strife the world turns to God, the RCC is still the largest and best organized club in Christendom, and, still holds herself up as Joseph, with his brothers bowing down before him.
            Maybe Rome will rule again, maybe not. We must watch the signs of the times. In the meantime we should be fulsome in our praise for the millions of RC priests and laity who labour so hard to better the lot of the poor of this world.
            Conspiracy theories can be based on religious interpretation, rumour, speculation, and, in some cases, out and out paranoia.
            As we are counseled to be as wise as serpents, so we should also be mindful that the blood brother of conspiracy theory is false witness.

          • CliveM

            I’m not particularly ecumenical either. But I don’t see why we should spend our time attacking each other. Seems an awful waste of time.

            I also wonder what it says about your own faith, if you spend more time attacking then you do promoting Gods promises!

          • IanCad

            When those spats occur they do – or should at least – serve the purpose of sending us back to the source of all truth; the Written Word.

          • len

            Truth is worth fighting for some think its worth dying for.

          • CliveM

            Who in the RCC is stopping you from speaking the truth?

          • len

            Try telling that to those martyred by the RCC. You won`t have to look very far.

          • CliveM

            Telling what? I was asking a question.

          • Albert

            There’s loads of stuff on the internet that regurgitates the Nazi ideology against Jews. Do you accept these conspiracies as historical?

          • len

            Not all conspiracy theories are’ theories’ some are historical fact.

          • Albert

            So the evidence is…? Look Carl disagrees with you, he’s both intelligent and informed, and an Evangelical. And look at his reasons – you discredit your own position when you say such silly stuff.

          • len

            You missed the point Albert.Its not me saying this stuff

          • Albert

            That is the point – since it is not you saying all the anti-Semitic stuff either, but you don’t believe that.

          • Anton

            It actually takes some effort to get right, and Chick never put it in. What was actually signed was a Reichskonkordat between the Vatican and the Hitler regime in 1933, as quickly as possible after the latter came to power, that assured the Catholic church of various rights and immunities in Nazi Germany. The Vatican withdrew its support from a Catholic democratic political party, the ‘Centre Party’, in favour of an ascendant fascist dictator. Probably it was desire to preserve the privileges won from Hitler in 1933 that lay behind Rome’s failure to protest at the Nazis’ increasing acts of State gangsterism, until in 1937 – with Hitler routinely ignoring the Concordat – Rome calculated that it had nothing to lose by protesting publicly. It then protested publicly in the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge. The Nazis nevertheless collected taxes from Catholics on behalf of the Vatican all through the war (the kirchensteuer). Perhaps this is why Hitler was never excommunicated or Mein Kampf placed on the Catholic Index of prohibited books.

            In 1929, six decades after the bottling up of the Roman Catholic church in the Vatican in Italy in 1870, the papacy (in the person of Pius XI) was enabled to run the Vatican as a sovereign State uncontested by the Italian authorities – by then under Italy’s fascist dictator Benito Mussolini. The Vatican had already withdrawn its support from a Catholic democratic political party, stranding its leaders. Under the ‘Lateran Accords’ of 1929 the Vatican gave up its claims over a larger area; the Pope could now move round Italy without fear of arrest. The Vatican also received a financial settlement of 750 million lire plus 1000 million more in Italian bonds – a total equivalent to about 1000 million US dollars in 2013. What was in it for Mussolini? Political support. Later in 1929 Mussolini, having turned Italy into a one-party State, went to the polls in what was effectively a plebiscite on his regime. On March 17th, one week before the day of voting, the Vatican’s daily newspaper L’Osservatore Romano published an appeal for all Catholics to vote Yes, leading the way for the Catholic press to do the same. In 1932 the Pope received many hundreds of priests who were accompanying a fortnight of Italian Fascist youth group exercises around Rome, during which those priests wore hats bearing a cross superimposed on the fascist emblem.

            In the wartime Croatian State, Catholic clergy played a notorious role in the genocides and forced conversions of Jews and Orthodox Christians. At the very least, Pius XII and/or his Metropolitan Archbishop in Croatia, Aloysius Stepinac, disastrously failed to exert control over the priesthood in that land. Then, after hostilities had ceased, the leader of that Ustaša regime Ante Pavelić hid for nearly three years in Vatican buildings in Rome (most of them not within Vatican City but having similar immunity), moving between buildings with bodyguards in cars with Vatican plates. Once it became clear that Pavelić could not raise forces to take Croatia back from communism and resurrect a Catholic (and fascist) State, his escape to Argentina was expedited. Pavelić was, as a result of the Ustaša’s genocides, the top war criminal unaccounted for after the dust of war had settled. A single decree from Pius that Pavelić was not welcome, early in his stay in Rome, would have brought him to justice.

          • len

            Thanks for that info Anton.

        • According to Chick:

          The Catholic Church keeps the name of every Protestant church member in the world in a “big computer” in the Vatican for use in future persecutions.

          In the sixth century, Catholic leaders manipulated Mohammed into creating the religion of Islam to use as a weapon against the Jews and to conquer Jerusalem for the pope.

          The Jesuits instigated the American Civil War, supporting the Confederate cause and seeking to undermine the Union. When they failed, they arranged the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Later, they formed the Ku Klux Klan.

          Jesuits worked closely with Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin to create Communism, and it was believed that Communism would rise up as the new strong daughter of the Vatican. It was Rome that instigated the Bolshevik Revolution and the murder of the czar’s family. The Communist “liberation theology” movement also is a Vatican plot.

          The Nazi Holocaust was a Vatican-controlled attempt to exterminate Jews and heretics. Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were backed by the Vatican for the purpose of setting up a one-world government to usher in the Millennial Kingdom under Pope Pius XII.

          The Vatican conspiracy is so extensive that, through the Jesuits, Rome controls the Illuminati, the Council on Foreign Relations, international bankers, the Mafia, the Club of Rome, the Masons, and the New Age movement.

          The Jesuits created the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, Unity, Christian Science, and other religious groups.

          Pope John Paul II was a Communist for many years and engineered a phony assassination attempt against himself in 1981 to shame Islam into warming relations with the Vatican, since the would-be killer was a Muslim.

          Jack could go on. The man was crazy.

          • Anton

            Jack might provide the references. But I am not beginning from a position of scepticism that he claimed these things and I agree that they are absurd.

          • My Name . . . In the Vatican?
            The Poor Pope?; The Big Betrayal,
            The Godfathers,
            Fat Cats.
            Holocaust.
            Four Horsemen,
            The Force,
            The Prophet,
            The Story Teller.

  • CliveM

    So someone as politically toxic as Blair nails his colours to the Remainers mask.

    They will be in despair. All hope gone.

  • Gy1aa

    This seems to me to be one of your Grace’s thinner sermons. I think it is reasonable to ask what authority Parliament should have both now and in two years time – many believe that we have had many centuries of struggle for Parliamentary sovereignty and representative democracy. It is also reasonable to ask whether a quite different kind of society:’free market, free trading, light regulation, low tax, low social protection’ was really what all those who voted Leave understood they were voting for – or whether this is being smuggled in. And it is reasonable to allow that continued debate and argument is fundamentally important in a democratic society – and that as time passes and circumstances change, better arguments prevail.
    And name calling is no argument

    • Inspector General

      Familiar whine, yours. If the electorate had ALL the facts at hand, they would NEVER have voted Brexit. That’s the trouble with universal suffrage. It allows people you personally would never allow to have a vote to put their X down. What madness!

      • Gy1aa

        And who then should not have the vote?

        • Inspector General

          That’s YOUR area, vote exclusion. As you say, you aren’t happy with those who voted Leave who DIDN’T understand what they were doing…

          • Gy1aa

            But you said: “It allows people you personally would never allow to have a vote to put their X down”. I presume the ‘you’ refers to yourself. So who are such people? Are you content for this view of yours to be more public?

          • Royinsouthwest

            Don’t you recognise irony? If you have been reading this blog for long you would appreciate the Inspector’s way with words.

          • Inspector General

            You assume wrong. Come on man, get over it. The vote was taken and your side lost. Time to move on. Otherwise you’ll end up like Nicola Sturgeon, demanding that we “let her people go”, including the 55% who don’t want to go anywhere. That, and calling for another referendum every time the pound sterling goes down as well as ending up personally infertile…

          • Gy1aa

            I put three straightforward and substantive points about the current debate. You seem to have no response other than vilification. I am genuinely interested in the nature of our future democracy and Parliament’s place within it. Have you no views on this important set if issues? And pace Royinsouthwest, it didn’t sound like irony to me and so perhaps you could answer for yourself?

          • Inspector General

            We both know which side of the argument you are coming from, don’t we?

            Don’t take us to be fools here, sir.

          • Gy1aa

            Why is that relevant? I do not take you to be a fool – why should I? I merely made some points in response to His Grace’s post. You have avoided responding which is disappointing. It’s too easy to post negative comments and then refuse to enter into substantive discussion.

          • Inspector General

            Well here’s some positive for you then. We don’t know what the future holds, but we do know what the future held. Increasing ineffectiveness in a regime run by and for Germany. Not good enough. Not for the British. We are among the finest people on earth, if not the very finest. We’ll get by and thrive, while that quasi Marxist being that is the EU will have to muddle on with it’s economically middling states and deprived of the Social Security that we used to prop them up with.

    • bluedog

      ‘And it is reasonable to allow that continued debate and argument is fundamentally important in a democratic society – and that as time passes and circumstances change, better arguments prevail.’ No problem with that, and the better argument that prevailed was Brexit. PM Cameron explicitly informed that a vote to leave the EU was also a vote to leave the single market. In their wisdom, the British people noted the prosperity of the many nations not within the EU and declared ‘Out we go’. It is patently absurd and a breach of the trust placed by the electorate in the Parliament at the referendum to now try to usurp the will of the people, expression of which the Parliament permitted.

      • Gy1aa

        Thank you. I of course agree that the Leave arguments persuaded more people than the Remain arguments and that government must acknowledge that fact, albeit explicitly advisory by Parliamentary legislation. I don’t think it follows that all debate is now ended, nor that Parliament should have no continuing role in the matter – Parliamentary sovereignty was an important issue in the debate after all. The argument and debate in the country and in Parliament surely must be allowed to continue without unhelpful name calling and on the merits of the arguments as the outcomes unfold. That is how Parliamentary democracy works is it not. Personally I have always been against referendums for the same reason that I am against current trend in Labour towards ‘direct democracy’ and I think this is a key long term constitutional matter for us all, irrespective of the EU referendum outcome and I would like to see more discussion on this and less name calling.
        Probably enough on this for this evening, although I note that Inspector General declines to say what he meant about universal suffrage.

        • bluedog

          Mrs May has it right. Brexit means Brexit, there can be no backsliding on that. His Grace rightly comments that in this instance, as in all others, democracy means that the losing minority must accept the will of the majority.

          Blair is clearly unaware of a remarkable irony in his calls for a second referendum. It was he who allowed the Scottish devolution that led to the 2014 independence referendum, comprehensively defeated by the Scottish electorate. Blair had assured us that devolution locked Scotland more tightly into the Union, although some of us knew the SNP better and disagreed. Now, like Sturgeon, Blair wants a second chance! Nobody should give Blair a second chance on Brexit, he did enough damage to Britain while PM.

        • David

          Mts May has understood the situation well. The politicians and others who supported the EU have had decades in which to persuade the nation to accept rule from Brussels. But during the whole of that long period there was a clear atmosphere of public unease regarding our increasing subjugation to distant rulers, who acted in their best interests, not in ours, or the interests of justice as we understand that concept.

          Then we had a short period during which both sides aired their cases, albeit one side was greatly favoured by THE well financed media, plus the entire weight of the establishment, and assorted foreign leaders.

          That was followed by the vote and the result was clear. The public had been told, by its then PM, that if the result was that we should leave, he would indeed implement that decision immediately. It is crystal clear that the democratic role of the government is now to implement that peoples’ decision to leave the EU.

          Parliament’s rediscovery of its falsely claimed parliamentary sovereignty, simply for the purposes of interfering with the democratic will of the UK public, after it voted to leave, stands in sharp contrast to its decades long enthusiasm for surrendering its true sovereignty to foreign powers. The hypocrisy of those in the Remain camp, that act as if they own the mechanisms of democracy, is indeed striking !

  • Royinsouthwest

    “The issue is not whether we ignore the will of the people, but whether, as information becomes available, and facts take the place of claims, the ‘will’ of the people shifts,” he explains.

    Has Bliar already forgotten the claims made by the Remainiacs before the Referendum? Probably not because they are busy trying to make those claims come true by talking down the country at every opportunity. They are even behaving in an unnecessarily provocative way towards Russia, as if they want one of their more extreme predictions to come true – that Brexit would increase the risk of another world war. It is fine to be firm in our dealings with the Russians provided that we are also fair and strong. Bliar, Brown and Cameron between them have run down our armed forces to such an extent that we hardly had enough naval vessels even to keep an eye on the Russian fleet when, on Trafalgar Day, it sailed through the English Channel.

    • Anton

      Russian fleet? We might not be in very good nick ourselves but that was Putin’s only aircraft carrier, and it is 30 years old.

  • ‘The vision of an ever-closer European Empire ruled by one Emperor belonging to one Church under one God’

    Indeed. A frightening vision. The trouble is such are the pressures of globalisation that sooner or later it seems likely to come about. Babylon, the lascivious engorged Satanic parody of the New Jerusalem, ruled and regaled by the beast of the sea ideologically/religiously undergirded by the beast of the earth, has a remorseless inevitability to it. When the kingdom of God is rejected its diabolical counterpart is the siren alternative.

  • Merchantman

    Tell us about your insurgency Mr Tony. Learnt something in our middle east travels did we?

  • chefofsinners

    As Hallowe’en turns to the Day of the Dead, the skeletal ghost of illegal wars past rises to haunt us. Have no fear of such phantasms. They are but the shadows of evils which have been banished into everlasting burnings. Speaking of which, bonfire night is coming. Does anyone know where we can get an effigy of a Catholic to brighten the evening? Preferably one who has plotted to overthrow democracy.

    • Anton

      To quote another Prime Minister, I couldn’t possibly comment.

      • chefofsinners

        Well, a few clues on which PM will top the bill this bonfire night:
        The lady’s not for burning.
        The chillax murderer will live to chop another day.
        His predecessor will remain Golden Brown.

        Come on Tony, we could use a Guy like you.

  • Skidger

    Does Mr Blair wish to become Pope as well; after all he believes he is infallible after all?

  • The New European is constantly printing propaganda and lies in the service of a minoritarian agenda, and it’s typical of them to print an article (by somebody I can only describe as a war criminal) saying that if the will of the people doesn’t suit the Establishment then the will of the people must be changed.

    This is my review of the New European: http://www.quarterly-review.org/the-problem-of-hegemony/

  • len

    Tony Blair The New European….Pope in waiting… fully qualified for the job.

  • magnolia

    Always great to see Blair lending his credibility score to the Bremoaner cause!

  • weirdvisions

    The only thing that self-righteous, self-serving cretin ever did right was to resign.

    • Royinsouthwest

      He chose exactly the right time for that. Gordon Brown had been dreaming of becoming prime minister for years but just after he had achieved his ambition Britain, and the world, was hit by the worst economic crisis since the 1930s!

  • Mike Stallard

    “The issue is not whether we ignore the will of the people, but whether, as information becomes available, and facts take the place of claims, the ‘will’ of the people shifts,”

    Precisely.
    In the 1970s we all voted for the common market because we wanted to remain in it. We should because, as you infer, your Grace, the will of the people is sacred. The EEA is the name the common market has now become. Therefore we should remain in it.
    In this very year, we voted to leave the European Union. And so we should too. It is a small clique of corrupt (books not audited for yonks) unelected officials who are making the most terrible blunders (Africans and Afghans camping in the centre of Paris! Greeks going through the landfill.) Their remedy? More Europe! For heaven’s sake!

    Hope that is clear. Now, where are my tea and crumpets?

    • peter_dtm

      Beg to differ

      an awful lot of us voted to remain in the Common Market because of the lies told. To wit :
      1) No change to our relationship with the Commonwealth
      (free trade to which was immediately terminated)
      2) UK fisheries would remain the UK’s
      (the fisheries had already been signed away; so not only a lie a very deliberate and pre-meditated lie)
      3) There would be no change to the UK’s sovereignty
      (this was before the internet; no; none of us knew Ever Closer Union under a Brussels based bureaucracy was written into the core principles of the Treaty of Rome; nor that the whole concept was anti democratic; don’t believe ? then trouble your self to find out HOW a new directive is created; from start to implementation into UK law)
      4) Our courts would remain sovereign
      (Yes; I know not strictly CM/EC/EU; but if you don’t sign up to the European Law oversight you can not join the CM/EC/EU )

      In the 1970s *I* voted to join a COMMON MARKET (customs union) as did oh so many of my friends.

      They lied in the 1970s; they still lie today.

  • John

    I voted to remain, not because I like the EU – I don’t – but because I felt the pain would outdo the gain in severing ties. The referendum was won by the Leave campaign and now I am committed to the idea of leaving the EU and making a good job of it.

    But I think we should be careful to fall into a mentality of accepting uncritically the democratic will of Parliament or The People. I for one will never, ever recognise “gay marriage” as actual marriage even though it is on the statute books. I will never accept abortion on demand either as anything other than infanticide. The law can call black “white” and white “black” if it wants but it will never define what I perceive to be true just because Parliament votes for it or more than 50% of the population supports it. If there were a referendum tomorrow in the UK asking “Is Jesus Lord?” the No vote would certainly carry the day but it would not alter the truth that he is.

    I am no advocate of Tony Blair. But in a democracy he has the right to argue for what he believes – and be listened to with courtesy – even if he is in a minority of one.

    • Anton

      No. He has the right to be ignored with courtesy.

      • Inspector General

        That’s it, Anton. Imagine Peter Tatchell being listened to ‘with courtesy’!

    • Albert

      I am no advocate of Tony Blair. But in a democracy he has the right to argue for what he believes – and be listened to with courtesy – even if he is in a minority of one.

      I agree with you. The problem is however, that people like Blair (i.e. people with such views as Blair) have spent a lot of time dominating our political landscape and changing our country. They have clearly not brought the people as a whole with them, but they have pressed ahead because they think they know best. It is then very irritating to hear Mr Blair whining because, he hasn’t got his way on this one.

      Having said all that, if I were pro-Remain, I would be wanting him to shut up…

  • dannybhoy

    No I wasn’t. I respect our Jack even though I disagree with him. Here’s a poem I ;love by a first world war padre and poet Geoffrey Studdert Kennedy, aka ‘Woodbine Willie.
    ‘IT is not finished, Lord.
    There is not one thing done,
    There is no battle of my life,
    That I have really won.
    And now I come to tell Thee
    How I fought to fail,
    My human, all too human, tale
    Of weakness and futility.
    And yet there is a faith in me,
    That Thou wilt find in it
    One word that Thou canst take
    And make
    The centre of a sentence
    In Thy book of poetry.
    I cannot read this writing of the years.
    My eyes are full of tears,
    It gets all blurred, and won’t make sense
    It’s full of contradictions
    Like the scribblings of a child,
    Such wild, wild
    Hopes, and longing as intense
    As pain, which trivial deeds
    Make folly of—or worse:
    I can but hand it in, and hope
    That Thy great mind, which reads
    The writings of so many lives,
    Will understand this scrawl
    And what it strives
    To say — but leaves unsaid.
    I cannot write it over,
    The stars are coming out,
    My body needs its bed.
    I have no strength for more,
    So it must stand or fall
    — Dear Lord —
    That’s all.”
    I think Jack T Chick would claim that as His own, as would I..

    • Do some research, Danny.

      Jack Chick was undoubtedly “troubled”. Look at his literary and “historical” influences:

      John Todd
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Todd_(conspiracy_theorist)

      Alberta Rivera
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Rivera_(activist)

      • dannybhoy

        There were/are many troubled folk in the Roman Catholic Church andthe Protestant Church too Jack.
        I have no wish to upset you or anyone. My point is that what ever his faults I believe Jack T Chick was a born again Christian and a saint, and he is now with His Lord, suitably enlightened, and full of joy and worship at being in the presence of His Lord.
        We should all want that for ourselves and for all who own the Name of Jesus.

        • That may be so, but it’s no reason to promote his anti-Catholic nonsense.

          • len

            ‘The garments’ of the RCC are ‘blood soaked’ however you might want to view them.

      • Anton

        Like Chick, those two are not worth reading.

  • len

    Blair like Heath and others who led us into the common market knowing full well the implications of doing so is ‘the traitor within’. Don`t let Blair (or others) try and overturn the referendum.

    “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

    ― Marcus Tullius Cicero.

  • IrishNeanderthal

    I have downloaded the first of the current series of Reith Lectures, and skimmed through it. Link to PDF here: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/radio4/transcripts/reith1_mistakenidentities.pdf

    Am I mistaken, or does it smell strongly of Blairol?

    • IanCad

      Paddy SL, You have a point.

      George Kennan, Daniel Boorstin, Jonathan Sacks. Worthy men; Wise men.

      Kwame Anthony Appiah doesn’t quite cut it.

  • len

    I found Danny to be an upright and honest Christian.cannot say Jack and co have always been so.

    • CliveM

      So do I.

  • Edward Treen

    “…perhaps he really does believe…”

    And therein lies the rub: as the man is clearly psychotic and delusional, I have little doubt that he does genuinely believe…

  • Archie Dougalmcguire

    Leo Abse nailed this jelly to the glass ceiling way back.
    How the hell he manages to slither down the walls like a tanned jellyfish-and stay alive and protected-is beyond me.
    The Tories lost their purpose when they clawed back the Demon Eyes poster in 1997. Truest thing they ever said.
    He killed Labour, and the pirated husk he left them is due a scuttle.
    He killed the Catholic Church too, the day that Benedict let him in through the side door. Total anthrax to the psyche, the spiritual life and to anything his slug like slime comes into contact with.
    The BBC love him of course…no further questions yer honourless!