Christian EU Debate
Ethics & Morality

Christian EU Debate: Giles Fraser and Ann Widdecombe unite for Brexit

 

On 26th May at St James’s Piccadilly, London, ‘Christians for Britain‘ president the Rt Hon Ann Widdecombe and co-chairman the Rev’d Dr Giles Fraser united to discuss the UK’s membership of the European Union with Baroness (Sal) Brinton and Sir Stephen Wall, representing ‘Christians for Europe‘. The objective was to illuminate the national discourse with some Christian insight, while disagreeing well (which was variously interpreted). BBC Radio 4’s The World Tonight covered the debate, which was chaired by the Rector of St James’s, the Rev’d Lucy Winkett.

It was a distinctively Christian EU debate, focusing on thorny issues of faith and morality in the context of European union, rather than the interminable focus on GDP and whether or not the NHS would lose or gain £100 million a week. The evening was reviewed by Christian Today, who also offered further comment on the “good disagreement” objective.

It is for you to judge the merits of the argument and the success (or otherwise) of the attempt to make a distinctively Christian contribution. Either way, Giles Fraser and Ann Widdecombe deserve a chat show. Enjoy:

  • sarky

    Love him or hate him, Boris just player a blinder on Andrew Marr. John Major was all hysterical scaremongering, Boris calm and measured.
    Looks like the remainers are losing the argument.

  • David

    This is an interesting idea. Hopefully it will assist Christians in selecting how to vote.

    Many theologically aware Christians that I know are hopelessly unprepared for relating their faith to the political process. In short they know hardly anything about politics. They seem to vote on the basis of vague impressions and not fact, evidence and argument, which is how I would like to see to them deploying their faith.

    Although a truly huge subject, the basics of the IN or OUT are I believe essentially simple, from the Christian viewpoint. It goes something like this : – would you willingly submerge, and eventually destroy, what is still, basically a Christian conceived democratic constitution (of an independent sovereign UK) for a Christianity-denying, Humanist, undemocratic constitution led by an unelected and unaccountable elite ? Which system is likely to be more sensitive to the needs, welfare and flourishing of the peoples ?

    • Coniston

      ‘They seem to vote on the basis of vague impressions and not fact, evidence and argument’. I fear this is true of the great majority of the electorate in every election.

      • David

        Yes, sadly.

      • Pubcrawler

        I think that is what our insect overlords intend.

    • dannybhoy

      It’s one of the great weaknesses of the (true) Church. Christians in this country have been taught that it is unseemly to express an interest or opinion on political issues. Whilst we know that only God can change men’s hearts, so we should get on with preaching the Gospel in season and out; we also know that we have responsibility to improve and protect society.

      • David

        Quite !

      • chiefofsinners

        One of the essential features of a democracy is the freedom to not vote if that is your choice.

        • dannybhoy

          Ah, but that is not the same as shrugging your shoulders because you don’t care. Sometimes we are presented with two bad choices and whichever one we vote for it won’t improve anything. But personally I think Christians should try to be clued up on social/political issues.

    • jsampson45

      To know something one has to trust one’s sources of information. Hence the lack of knowledge.

  • carl jacobs

    Assume Brexit wins 51% to 49%. Could the Gov’t simply refuse to act upon the results? What actually would effect legal separation?

    • Uncle Brian

      I think that’s the key difference between a plebiscite and a referendum. If this was a plebiscite, the result would be binding, with immediate effect. But because it’s only a referendum, the government will legally free to treat it, in practice, as no more than an opinion poll.

      • James Bolivar DiGriz

        I believe that you are right but there is a world of difference between what the government is legally free toanmd what it is pratically free to do.

        • Uncle Brian

          Agreed. Politically, I don’t see how any government could announce its decision to disregard the result and then expect to carry on as though nothing had happened.

          • carl jacobs

            If DC actually believes Brexit would be a catastrophe, then the responsible act of leadership would be to ignore the result. A close vote would aid this decision since opinions will always fluctuate over time. Also, a clever politician might discern ways to stall until opinion favors ignoring the vote. If the vote is not binding, I wonder how real the outcome will be.

          • CliveM

            In the devolution campaign of 1978 in Scotland, a threshold was added to the requirements prior to the campaign proper. I think it was 60%. If I’m honest I do feel that big constructional questions a simple majority isn’t enough.

          • Inspector General

            It ain’t 1978, that man…and no threshold is in place on this one…

          • CliveM

            I know, I wondering if there should be.

          • carl jacobs

            If Remain wins 50.001% to 49.999%, that will be sufficient for DC to say “The people have spoken.” Remain needs a majority of one vote and the whole issue is over.

          • CliveM

            For a short time perhaps!

            However I’m using the same principle as the US Constitution. Change requires more then a simple majority. So yes Cameron Wouk be able to claim victory in your example, because he’s campaigning for the status quo.

          • IanCad

            True, a super majority should be required. However as I’m on the out side it should only be applied if the Remainers win.

          • Uncle Brian

            Cameron might just feel free to do that, I think, if there should be a big difference between the vote in England and in Scotland. Bearing in mind that the Scottish electorate amounts to only about 9 percent of the UK total — 4 million out of 46 million — it’s not inconceivable that Leave might win overall, with a narrow majority UK-wide, while the vote in Scotland alone might be heavily in favour of Remain. If that should happen, then Cameron would have plausible grounds for arguing that taking the whole UK out of the EU has become an impossibility, because Scotland would demand a second independence referendum, giving it the right to stay in.

          • carl jacobs

            That’s a cute argument but it’s logical and legal nonsense. The UK is a unitary state of which Scotland is a part. Decisions by the UK are binding upon Scotland, and the UK is under no obligation to give Scotland another referendum ever. Scotland is not a separate legal country. It is under the sovereignty of Parliament.

            Wouldn’t persuade me anyways.

          • Uncle Brian

            For that matter, Carl, the UK was under no obligation to give Scotland a referendum the first time. But it did.

          • carl jacobs

            Like this EU referendum, it could have been a strategy of “Let’s defeat them by giving them what they want.”

          • DanJ0

            Except that Scotland would probably have to apply for membership in its own right. I’m not sure the principle of continuity would apply there. Scotland would have a torrid time at the moment trying to go it alone, and I hope the Scottish voters realise that.

          • Uncle Brian

            DanJo, of course this is only a hypothetical question, but it’s an interesting one. Let us assume a 66 percent turnout, the same as at last year’s general election. Let us further assume a 60-40 win for Remain in Scotland, and a 52-48 win for Leave in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. In millions of votes, this would work out as:

            Leave: England + Wales + N.I., 14.5 million; Scotland, 1.1 million; total 15.6 million

            Remain: England + Wales + N.I., 13.4 million; Scotland, 1.6 million; total 15.0 million

            In other words, 51% for Leave and 49% for Remain in the United Kingdom as a whole. Now, DanJo, the question is: In the unlikely event that the outcome should be exactly this, what would Cameron do next?

          • bluedog

            Some years ago (8th April 2013) Cameron answered this implied question in an interview with an unlikely medium, the Spanish newspaper El Pais:

            http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2013/04/08/actualidad/1365419719_656809.html

            Cameron had announced a referendum on the EU on 23rd January 2013.

            It seems highly unlikely that Cameron’s intention has changed from that outlined in El Pais. In the opinion of this communicant, Cameron retains a degree of self-confidence and entitlement that ensures he would in fact seek to over-turn the result of a pro-Brexit outcome. The only possible way of stopping Cameron from sabotaging Brexit is for his party to sack him as PM. This is entirely possible within the Westminster system. There are signs that a revolt has long been planned but currently lacks the numbers to succeed. A post-Brexit betrayal by Cameron would be an important catalyst for implementing his dismissal.

      • IanCad

        UB, I did not know that. Were, or are you a politician?

    • Royinsouthwest

      As we have had more than enough time by now to see just how untrustworthy our prime minister is I expect he will try and keep us in by appealing to his fellow EU leaders to give him another piece of paper with a few more meaningless promises, e.g. that the British government will be full consulted on any moves to further European integration, which would be the case anyway, or even an assurance that the EU would not tell us what shapes our bananas should be.

      To ensure that Britain leaves if there is a majority for Brexit then we will probably have to demand Cameron’s resignation.

      • PaulMcKechnie

        Obviously if there is a vote for Brexit, Cameron will be gone the next morning. So this speculation is worthless.

        • Royinsouthwest

          To resign would be the honourable thing. That is why it is not obvious that he will do so if Brexit wins by a narrow margin. Nowadays politicians often try to cling to office in situations where resignation would have been a foregone conclusion 30-50 years ago.

    • IanCad

      No. 1 – Yes. https://www.rt.com/uk/345545-mps-majority–single-market/
      No. 2 – When the treasonous wretches attempting to keep us bound to the EU are in jail or at the end of a rope.

    • grutchyngfysch

      They’re already talking about doing this in Parliament running sabotage bills after a Brexit vote. It’s dangerous territory, though. Push it too far, especially when coupled with a political system that already delivers very skewed results in terms of votes-to-seats, and you’re not far off the day when people feel like rioting is an appropriate response (for the record, it never is, but I’m not so naive to believe I’m in the majority in all contexts there).

      • carl jacobs

        Also dangerous in terms of permanently alienating a huge subset of voters. It depends upon an unprovable counterfactual -“You would have regretted getting your way” – just as it spits in the face of the voter. It could fatally wound the Conservative party. And no amount of cover from Labour will help.

      • Anton

        Not riot, but I would certainly take peaceably to the streets in any mass demonstration, and repeatedly so.

        • grutchyngfysch

          Oh I’m not saying that a riot would be the first port of call. I’m saying it would look more appealing to many people if you had a situation where you had a popular mandate, followed by an elite stitch-up and an utter disregard for said mass demonstration.

          • Anton

            1642 and all that, although with one or two roles reversed.

    • Inspector General

      Should Brexit achieve 50+% and Cameron does not surrender to the will of the people, then our most esteemed and glorious head of state, Her Majesty the Queen would have no choice other than to dismiss Cameron as Prime Minister and dissolve parliament. The authoritive powers are there in place, old chap, just waiting…

      • Anton

        I think she hasn’t the guts, but very interesting contingencies indeed…

        • Inspector General

          You dare question the resolve of Queen Elizabeth!

          • Anton

            On the basis of the ungodly laws she has signed into statute set against the Coronation Oath, and on the basis that a spokesperson for the Crown during the Scottish Referendum said that HM “did not involve herself in politics” (which a division of her realm is far greater than), Yes, I Do. Don’t you?

          • Inspector General

            We are not talking of the union which is the UK. We are talking of the constitutional crisis that is, being a member of EU, since the monster first declared that it wished to be called the EU….

          • Anton

            We are actually talking about The Queen’s resolve, and I have cited episodes which bring it into question should it become an issue in the present situation.

          • Inspector General

            The threat is there. Cameron would be a fool to ignore it.

          • Anton

            How wise do you think Cameron is?

          • Inspector General

            What are you getting out of this? Your humble opinion declared valid?

          • Anton

            Look, I could ask you the same question as a diversion too…

          • Inspector General

            Be off with you, you time waster. One is turning in for the night…

          • Anton

            Sweet dreams…

        • Inspector General

          What! And go against the will of the people as it be vested in their representatives at Westminster…

          • Anton

            Plato would not have regarded what we have as democracy. Nor did Plato think much of referendum-style democracy. Nor is it in the Bible. These are all deep matters.

          • Inspector General

            Make the most of democracy, it won ‘t be around forever. Not in its current form, and not if muslims are going to out-breed us…

      • Eustace

        That’s right, just like she saved you from equal marriage…

    • chiefofsinners

      This would be suicidal. The leave voters would unite behind Farage at the next election and the political mainstream would be annihilated.

    • Royinsouthwest

      If Parliament refuses to bow to the will of the British people then we should do two things:

      1) Hold mass demonstrations demanding the government’s resignation and a general election.

      2) Make it clear to the MPs that we expect them to be charged with treason at a future date.

  • Uncle Brian

    comment deleted

  • Inspector General

    EU referendum: Inspector General’s anger at Sir John Major’s Remain campaign ‘deceit’

    He insisted he was not making a personal attack on the former Prime Minister but on the Vote Remain campaign as a whole, saying: “They are misleading people to an extraordinary extent”.

    • Anton

      Tremble, ye hills and valleys, for John Major is angry.

      • len

        like being savaged by a dead sheep?

        • Anton

          The men on either side of that comment died within a week of each other last year!

          • len

            When a famous politician died someone was heard to remark” how could they tell?”. Wit is somewhat lacking in our politicians today.. Some of Churchill’s remarks were classics.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Unleash the Wet Lettuce…

  • Inspector General

    In his speech, the Inspector explained that Britain had always been a leading economy in the world and that it was down to the resourcefulness of the British indigenous and not reliant on hordes of Eastern European chancers putting an incredible strain on the country’s infrastructure…

    • Anton

      Chancers? Because there is much less Welfare State in eastern Europe these people still have the work ethic. Your comment about the infrastructure is true, however. But the real issue about immigration is not from Europe but from the 3rd world, and involving people who wish to take over. That we could always have dealt with without EU permission but haven’t, and shame on Cameron, Brown and Blair.

    • “In his speech, the Inspector explained …. “
      What speech?

      • len

        Yes….. what speech ?

      • chiefofsinners

        That was a wedding reception to miss.

      • Royinsouthwest

        I suspect the Inspector was telling us about a dream in which left wing demonstrators prevented Nigel Farage from reaching a hall in which a debate with David Cameron was due to take place, In Farage’s absence the Inspector stepped into the breach and saved the day by wiping the floor with Cameron.

        Of course it is just a dream because Cameron would probably be terrified of debating with the Insector let alone Farage!

  • len

    Really good presentation from the leave camp as the saying goes now lets’ just do it’.

  • IanCad

    Can’t help but get the impression that, had the panelists been on the Titanic, both Ann Widdecombe and Giles Fraser would have somehow, survived.

    • Anton

      I trust you are not singing The Vicar of Bray

      • IanCad

        Not quite sure how to take that Anton. You would be very hard pressed to discover any inconsistency in my opposition to the EU over the years. Pudding time is now – the time for all good folk to pile on the pressure to leave. It won’t come along again.

        • Anton

          Take it (as I intended it) more as an implicit question addressed to Giles Fraser and Ann Widdecombe than to yourself!

          • IanCad

            Thanks Anton. I feel much better now; and, with a slower heart rate, shall confess that I’m sure I’ve contradicted myself many times on this blog. Over other matters however.

    • Eustace

      Considering they’re both equipped like Arctic walruses with tough hides and a thick layer of subcutaneous blubber, it’s perfectly reasonable to assume they’d survive a ducking in the icy waters of the North Atlantic.

      • IanCad

        OK! OK! That’s actually pretty funny.

        • carl jacobs

          No, it’s not. It’s cruel.

          • IanCad

            Only if taking it seriously Carl. In the rough and tumble of political debate participants must be able to take the slings and arrows of unjust criticism in stride.
            Is it any less cruel to repeatedly call Donald Trump an idiot when it is abundantly clear he is not?

          • carl jacobs

            When I call Trump an idiot, I am referring to the gap between his political acumen, and that acumen required to be a successful President. It’s a political and not a personal judgment. Linus was making a personal attack that had no connection to any idea other than rank prejudice.

          • Anton

            You only find out if someone has what it takes when they enter the Oval Office. People said Reagan was an idiot during his campaign against Carter.

          • carl jacobs

            Reagan had been Governor of California. Trump has no idea what he is doing.

          • Eustace

            When I call Fraser and Widdecombe walruses, I am referring to the obesity that so often characterizes the image of the Christian hypocrite who preaches the Gospel of “do as I say, not as I do”.

            “Abstain from everything abhorred by the Lord!” they cry. Homosexuality, adultery, fornication, lying, and cheating are all verboten on pain of eternal damnation. But not gluttony. No, gluttony’s a completely different story. You can’t be a gay Christian. But you can be a gluttonous one.

            I wonder, how is that possible?

            True repentance is the process of atoning for and modifying your offending behaviour. Fraser and Widdecombe may feel remorse for their repetitive acts of egregious overeating, but that doesn’t stop them from getting up the next day and doing it all over again. Their waistlines bear witness to their lack of repentance. And an unrepentant Christian is no Christian at all.

            So Widdecombe and Fraser’s defence of the EU does not come from a Christian perspective. How can it when neither of them (as unrepentant overeaters) can possibly be Christian? And what about carl jacobs’s defence of them? How can it be Christian to defend one kind of unrepentant sinner while attacking another?

            Although I’ve never seen him (and sincerely hope I never will), I strongly suspect that Mr jacobs’s accusations are linked to his own struggle with the sin of gluttony. That’s the way it generally goes. Call a glutton out about his gluttony and all the gluttons in the room will come down on you like a ton (or more) of bricks. “Fatshaming” is cruel, they wail. It’s a personal attack.

            No, it’s not. It’s a way of highlighting the hypocrisy that motivates the twisted and self-serving world view of the obese Christian, who claims complete untouchability in his own sin, while demanding carte blanche to attack, belittle and admonish everyone else for theirs.

            If you claim to be a Christian but completely ignore Christian injunctions against gluttony, and then bleat about it when someone calls you out, you’re nothing more than a self-serving hypocrite using religion as a weapon to beat others over the head with, and as a shield to protect yourself.

          • carl jacobs

            Linus, why are you cluttering up my inbox with rationalizations for your own prejudices? Go bother someone who cares.

          • Eustace

            Everyone has a right of reply. You hurled an accusation at me via Linus, so it’s perfectly legitimate for me to refute it. You can claim to ignore me all you like, but we all know you read my posts assiduously. If you didn’t, how could you what I say?

            Interesting that you strenuously ignore MY accusation, or rather supposition, regarding your own BMI. It reinforces the image of an obese American so heavy he can barely heave his way between car, couch and computer. Is that what being a faithful Christian is all about? Feeding your food habit in direct contravention of the injunction against gluttony, and then projecting your own self-loathing onto everyone else during those regular fits of moral outrage you so often indulge in on this site?

    • chiefofsinners

      Yes, women and children first.

      • carl jacobs

        Ouch!

    • Anton

      I hadn’t known that Fraser was at the church where the Putney Debates were held between the parliamentary military victory and the execution of King Charles. The Christian radicals in the New Model Army are held up today as wreckers when in fact they supported one-man-one-vote and regular elections to a parliament that would be above the crown, the restoration of common land to the poor, an end to monopolies, and freedom of non-politicised religion. All of that more than 350 years ago, and they worked it out from the Bible, not ancient Greece. That is the best of the Left. The worst comes from the French Revolution.

  • Richard Hill

    I hope someone has already paraphrased Robert Burns…
    “A people sold for German gold,
    What a parcel of rogues to lead a nation.”
    From a Christian point of view, did Christ’s death
    postpone until AD70 the dreadful bloodletting of the Jewish revolution?
    If so, where is Britain in the historical parallel?
    At moment it seems at the beginning of the Herodian dynasty.
    So we can expect something awful in about 100 years.

    • Anton

      Did Burns draft earlier versions of this poem, which you are quoting?

      http://www.robertburns.org/works/344.shtml

      I know it only through – ironically – the Steeleye Span version. Their version by an English folk band almost makes this Englishman feel Scottish.

      Neither England nor Scotland nor Wales is a covenant nation, by the way, so don’t take the parallels too closely (and don’t take seriously the people who reckon we are the Lost Tribes of Israel!)

      • Eustace

        This would be the same Scotland that recently voted to maintain the Union with “such a parcel of rogues in a nation”, would it?

        Perhaps not all of them are quite as Anglophobic as their national poet. But that’s no surprise. Extreme characters always shout louder than anyone else.

        • Anton

          Why are you replying with this comment to me rather than to Richard Hill?

          • Eustace

            Did I? Blame it on the vagaries of posting from a smartphone.

          • chiefofsinners

            Smartphone or smartarse?

          • Pubcrawler

            Blaming his tool, either way.

        • Inspector General

          You’re rather extreme, for all the good it does you. You don’t see the others passing by and laughing up their sleeve as they distant themselves…

        • Royinsouthwest

          Burns was a patriot. That did not automatically make him Anglophobic. Patriotism is defined as love of your own country, not hatred for another.

          • Eustace

            “Parcel of rogues in a nation” is not a patriotic term. It’s a racist and xenophobic one.

          • CliveM

            Who do you think the quote was referring to? Have you checked the history behind this poem?

            Hint: not the English.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Have you actually read the poem? Burns was referring to the ruling class in Scotland who he claimed had sold out the country for English gold. Since he was referring to his fellow-countrymen those lines were not even remotely racist or xenophobic.

          • CliveM

            I was going to make him work it out for himself!

          • Pubcrawler

            Me too. Hehe!

          • CliveM

            Best way to learn!

          • Eustace

            Of course it’s racist and xenophobic. It implies that Scotland was sold down the river to the English in some kind of unscrupulous and underhanded deal.

            If those who did the selling were rogues, what did that make those who were buying? It implies that the English were guilty of some kind of nefarious and corrupt fraud, when in reality all they were doing was trying to assure their own long-term security by helping their effectively bankrupt northern neighbour out of the insolvency it had brought upon itself by foolhardy and doomed speculation.

            In return for a guarantee of security from future attack, the Scottish economy was bailed out with English money. Sounds like a pretty fair deal to me. To characterise it as a crime means that both parties to the deal had criminal intent. How much more Anglophobic could it get?

          • CliveM

            ROFL, one of the most rediculous defences of an argument I think I have ever seen!

            Please Linus, don’t ever delete this, it’s too funny for words! Let it be your legacy.

    • Inspector General

      Well done, sir!

      One does appreciate your gift to Cranmer’s site…

  • chiefofsinners

    This debate perfectly demonstrates the hollow and disingenuous nature of the Remain arguments. They try to equate cooperation with EU membership, when the EU is actually a giant system for excluding the rest of the world. They claim peace as a benefit of EU membership, where peace in Europe is actually down to the sacrifice of millions of lives in the last war and the existence of a nuclear deterrent. Anything good that has occurred in the last 40 years is, apparently, due to EU membership and would cease on the day we leave.
    And the great argument of the Remain campaign, economic growth. Per capita national income has not risen: we only have growth because of immigration. Osborne fears his ‘economic miracle’ will be exposed for the charade that it is.

    • Economic growth in the EU is in decline. They have negative interest rates in the euro zone not only between the banks themselves and the businesses but also in retail banking as well. I read the Germans call it punishment rates. And the Danes who are not in the euro zone also have negative rates but have offset some of the punishment by paying interest on some of the mortgage debt. Their economy is all debt.
      if we hadn’t been in the EU Russia would still be trading with us, same goes for other countries the EU falls out with, we get dragged along.

    • David

      Exactly – well said !

  • The Explorer

    I don’t believe that the British vote will determine the future of the EU. We could vote to remain, and the EU could still collapse.

    I suspect that continued immigration could place an intolerable strain on Greece that would re-ignite its financial crisis. That could put further financial strain on Germany, itself divided as a result of its immigration policy. Result: implosion.

    I could, of course, be wrong, but my gut feeling is that the future of the EU will be determined by what happens in its eastern, rather than its western, sector.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Almost half the young people in Greece are unemployed and the situation is only slightly better in Spain. In Italy the youth unemployment rate is 39.1% and even in France it is almost a quarter. In contrast Germany has a rate of 6.9%. Germany is one of the few countries to benefit from the Euro. If it still had the Deutsche Mark its exchange rate would be higher making it easier for industries in other EU countries to compete, e.g. French and Italian car makers would have a price advantage of their German counterparts.

      How long will the youth of Europe put up with an economic crisis brought about by the ambitions of the EU “elite” to pursue an ever closer union? I put “elite” in inverted commas because normally an elite would consist of people who are very good at what they do.

      Youth unemployment rate in EU member states as of February 2016 (seasonally adjusted)
      http://www.statista.com/statistics/266228/youth-unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/

      The statistics shows the seasonally adjusted youth unemployment rate in EU member states as of February 2016. The source defines youth unemployment as unemployment of those younger than 25 years.

      • The Explorer

        Fair enough, but if Germany wants to keep the EU intact it may have to bail out more than Greece. That strain on the German taxpayer, combined with divisions over immigration, could put Germany under pressure.

        • Anton

          And yet… a far higher proportion of Greeks own (rather than rent) their own house than the proportion of Germans.

          The present situation is bad for both nations. Economics is certainly part of life, but there is more to life than economics.

      • alternative_perspective

        Quite,
        the debate in the EU simply hasn’t moved on from bashing the evil anglo-saxons. Almost no one talks about the productivity imbalances that favour Germany to the cost of the rest of the EU. This is proof positive that the EU is a political adventure not an economic one.
        Moreover, its a cruel game at that. To sacrifice millions of people on the altar of a political ideology is terrible. Lady T was vilified by the left for cutting the last mines on the grounds of economic necessity yet when it comes to the EU, the left are silent or make a few whining noises and wash their hands of it.

  • David

    Having found time to watch the debate, I’d say I was impressed with the quality and clarity of the arguments from Giles Fraser especially, and also Anne Widdecombe. The two “liberal”, pro-EU people gave the usual woolly, fairy tale wish-list of nonsense that has little to with what The Bible teaches about human nature. It is the head in the sand regarding reality that may be the downfall of the west.

  • gerv

    While Giles and Anne are good debaters and had the best of it, I was disappointed that the discussion seemed little different (apart from in a couple of spots) from that you might find at any other Leave/Remain debate. Certainly the opening statements had little to distinguish them from a secular analysis.

    And when we did at least have a question about what it means to love your neighbour, I thought that was one of Anne’s few weak spots. “Love them by leaving them” got a laugh, but there are much better Leave answers to that question.