Theresa May 1a
European Union

May promises a real, clean, hard Brexit – “a truly Global Britain”

“The United Kingdom is leaving the European Union,” Theresa May assures. And today she leaves us in no doubt about the manner of that leaving:

We seek a new and equal partnership – between an independent, self-governing, Global Britain and our friends and allies in the EU. Not partial membership of the European Union, associate membership of the European Union, or anything that leaves us half-in, half-out. We do not seek to adopt a model already enjoyed by other countries. We do not seek to hold on to bits of membership as we leave…

This is hard Brexit, or clean Brexit, or pure Brexit, or real Brexit. It is shining, shimmering splendour Brexit; the Brexit of Brexits, the immaculate Brexit, the clear blue Brexit, the mother of all Brexits. When Theresa May said “Brexit means Brexit”, she meant it. There will be no halfhearted Brexit, no lukewarm Brexit, no fudged Brexit; no maybe-Brexit; no vacillating, wavering, backward-looking Brexit. Brexit means hard Brexit: it’s out and into the world:

I want us to be a truly Global Britain – the best friend and neighbour to our European partners, but a country that reaches beyond the borders of Europe too. A country that gets out into the world to build relationships with old friends and new allies alike. I want Britain to be what we have the potential and ambition to be: a great, global trading nation that is respected around the world and strong, confident and united at home.

Free at last. Free at last. Thank God Almighty, we are free at last.

There are those who deride hard Brexit as “economic vandalism” which is “constitutionally illegitimate“. “..17 million English, the lager louts of Europe, voted for Brexit in an act of geopolitical vandalism,” spits Professor Nicholas Boyle of Cambridge University in the New European. And the Dean Emeritus of Durham, the Very Rev’d Michael Sadgrove, calls on Parliament to resist the “populist clamour” and for MPs to vote with their consciences (ie, to subvert the result of the referendum and set aside the democratically determined will of the people). Sorry, guys, you can be as grumpy as you like, but it’s happening. It’s really, really happening.

And all those who care about democracy, accountability and sovereignty should rejoice. All those who repudiate oligarchy, inefficiency and bureaucracy should rejoice. We can be better European neighbours outside the EU. We can be fairer in trade with the poorest nations of the world outside the EU. We can be more compassionate and hospitable toward refugees, migrants and the marginalised outside the EU. We can be less myopically Eurocentric in our outlook and less discriminatory in our immigration policy. Hard Brexit is not a racist or xenophobic act: being open to the Commonwealth and the whole world is a profoundly Christian vision, for the Church is called to the ends of the earth, not just to the borders of the European Union.

With a global vision comes greater freedom – a freedom with profound missiological opportunities. A truly global Britain can be a light to the world; a beacon of justice, righteousness, peace, reconciliation and prosperity. The United Kingdom is leaving the European Union: we are not leaving Europe. We are not repudiating creation or rejecting the commonwealth of love and freedom. We will go on renovating and transforming the world, as is our national vocation, for we are a Christian country; our story has missionary origins. You may see nothing but geopolitical vandalism and hear nothing but the crassness of popular clamour, but we see a motivation for the truth of universalism, and the conviction that national sovereignty offers the best culture for spiritual catholicity and global communion. Thank God for Theresa May.

  • William Lewis

    Missing “no” in second sentence?

    • Bless you 🙂

    • IanCad

      I’ve read that second paragraph several times and don’t see no missing “No.”
      HG does apparently.

      • William Lewis

        It was the second sentence and has been corrected.

        • IanCad

          My reply to this was posted above. Am I still missing something?

          • CliveM

            It now reads ‘no doubt ‘ it use to read simply ‘doubt ‘!

          • IanCad

            That’s not in the second paragraph.

          • William Lewis

            Indeed. No one said it was.

          • IanCad

            Really!!?? I swear I read “paragraph” Did you edit it?

    • IanCad

      There isn’t a “no” in the second sentence.

  • IanCad

    A rosy post YG. Sounds good to me. Politicians though, are shifty beasts; can’t take our eyes off them for a second.

  • Inspector General

    Cometh the hour, cometh the woman!

    • ChaucerChronicle

      Across the chancellories of the European Union, the lights will blaze all night.

      • Anton

        The lamps are going out all over Europe…

        • ChaucerChronicle

          The first strategic reaction of Eurocrats will be tighter control of member states to suppress the risk of secessionary talk.

          A paper curtain will descend across the English Channel.

          On the day that the British flag is lowered in Brussels a million hearts will sink in the newly joined east European states.

          I can see them now, thousands, plunging into the cold waters of the Channel in last desperate bids to get to these shores.

          • Anton

            The EU in its present form is doomed with or without Brexit.

    • David

      Cometh the hour, cometh the Nigel !

  • ChaucerChronicle

    Mein Gott

    She’s about to depress the equivalent of the Eurocratic nuclear trigger:

    ‘We seek a new and equal partnership – between an independent, self-governing, Global Britain and our friends and allies in the EU. Not partial membership of the European Union, associate membership of the European Union, or anything that leaves us half-in, half-out. We do not seek to adopt a model already enjoyed by other countries. We do not seek to hold on to bits of membership as we leave…’.

  • Dreadnaught

    reposted from previous thread comment.

    Ahead of the much leaked Prime Minister’s speech we need to be looking inward at the actual ability of the mechanics of national governance and social commitment to create a viable state of British ‘independence’.
    It would be wrong not to claim that many beneficial changes have come into being through fifty years of European involvement and exposure; certainly in environmental stands and awareness.
    I am thinking of imovable standards prevailing during the late sixties and seventies when self serving elitism and class barriers stunted social mobility and Unions vs Government and vice-versa
    predominated so much of our daily lives. They were not pretty times as far as I am concerned.

    True independence requires much more than jingoistic posturing and flag waving; it requires a far greater degree of unity of direction to build a nation capable of standing on it’s own abilities to create the degree of prosperity and security to call such a major change reversal or for some, an introduction, a success.
    Do we have that ability among the population, industry and civil service? Not yet I fear. There is no lingering patriotism as in the post-war Britain of the fifties. Too many have become so cosseted by the bloated welfare state provisions they could start a mini revolt of their own and the Left would support them.
    We have a major problem of compatability of ideologies now present within the popuation that is untested in its loyalty to our Nation State; a demoralised, skeletal Miitary and an a massive reliance on foreign investment in our industries and our energy supply.
    I am of the opinion that we are going to have to be a lot tougher on ‘ourselves’ to pull off the trick of re-invention: its going to take many years to achieve such and my big question is will the next generation have the guts to take the hardest decisions and make it work?
    .

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      There is, as you rightly say, much to be done internally before this Vision of Albion can be realised. Root and branch reform of some institutions is long overdue, and one would begin with some of the great offices of state, i.e. the civil service. Next on the list is a root and branch weeding out of the statute book, starting with any of the legislation pushed forward by Blair and New Labour, the Hate Crime laws for example.

      • Dreadnaught

        We also need to wrest control of the education system from the politically correct programming that is destroying freedom of speech and dilution of the the meaing of Democracy. We have to focus on teaching self reliance and what we have to do to retain our new found freedom.

      • Anton

        It is not going to happen via the ballot box. But a really major financial crash would crash the Welfare State and cause people to take responsibility for themselves again. Getting out of a deep hole is never pleasant but it is better than continuing to dig it…

      • David

        Yes absolutely. The journey has only just begun.

      • Anton

        I hate the Hate Crime laws.

    • David

      Well said. After exiting the EU we then need to do much work internally as Mrs Proudie explains below.

      • Dreadnaught

        The Economy, Economy, Economy has to be our priority. All our political energies need to be focused in this direction and if that needs input from foreign skilled workers we must have it so. I don’t know if distractions such as repealing Hate Speech Laws is in any way a priority. We can get round to that in due course. If anything needs to be revised it is our lamentable Border Secirity Service and Prison Service, needs the discipline of ex-service personnel and a serious review of our National Defence expaectations. We should start by offering such positions priority should be a natural route back into civilian life for all ex-servicemen and women with an automatic right of citizenship open to such men as the Gurkhas and other loyal non-British personnel.

        • Paul Greenwood

          Yes and remember No4 car exporter on earth is Mexico – soon to be producing BMW 3-Series which is 30% total BMW output. With tariff-free access to UK under FTA and wages of $3.29/hr it might be salutary for Swindon, Sunderland, Burnaston, Oxford

  • IanCad

    Good Lord! And I wasn’t even multi-tasking. I must start drinking tea again.
    My apologies.

  • len

    Knock ’em out Theresa.

  • Maalaistollo

    I propose that lovely, sex-maniac haunted Sadcake Park be renamed Sadgrove Park in honour of the worthy Dean, or would such a suggestion have to be dismissed as representing no more than the opinion of a voter, and therefore worthless?

    • 1642again

      Ah, the ever lamented late Peter Simple.

  • Anton

    Professor Nicholas Boyle should stick to Goethe, which is what he’s good at. He has just shown us that he’s no good at politics. Or even at understanding how different we are, with our Common Law system.

    • David

      Indeed. Hannan’s book is splendid.
      The English although “born” Germanic created its own ideas of freedom and justice under the Common Law, one of our great gifts to the world.

  • May promises

    The Nigel points out that, year after year at the Conservative Party Conference, May promised to cut immigration. Then, year after year, immigration continued to rise. With her proven record of failing to deliver, let’s not get too carried away just yet. For a sober assessment of the path ahead, see the recent Bruges Group study, PDF here.

  • rapscallion

    You can thank May for as long as you like, but the person we really need to thank is one Nigel Farage. Without him, none of this would have happened.

    • Anton

      Yes. And as a close second Daniel Hannan, his counterpart inside the Tory party who got it turned round on the subject.

      • rapscallion

        Not always sure about DH. He is a good speaker, but I’m not so sure about his “turning around” some of his party. There are still far too many Europhiles in the Tory party for me liking – Clarke, Duncan, Grieve, Osbourne and Soames etc)

        • dannybhoy

          Me too. He talks well, but all the credit has to go to Nigel Farage for securing the referendum for the people. I don’t think he will sit well in any party, he’s not really a politician even. More of an extremely articulate likeable patriotic eccentric..

      • 1642again

        Hannan’s a small state liberal globalist. He may be sound on the EU but that’s because he doesn’t like large state solutions.

        • Anton

          I go with him on small State and free movement of goods, but not free movement of gods (ie, the people who worship them).

    • David

      Quite !
      The Conservative Party will do nothing radical, to threaten its position, unless it is pushed hard.
      Ukip was the motive force, and Nigel Farage its splendid, swashbuckling leader.

      • rapscallion

        Concur. He forced the issue. Farage basically scared Cameron into giving us a Referendum, especially after the drubbing UKIP handed out at the 2014 EU elections where they came first. Politics is nothing if not momentum, and that was with UKIP vis-a-vis a referendum. Cameron made two fundamental errors – the first was listening only to those in the “Westminster bubble” – think a win was in the bag, and secondly by not being prepared to walk away from the table should the EU not give him what he wanted for his re-negotiation.
        Coming back with next to sod all was clear to all and sundry and by pushing the line that we could now vote to remain in a “reformed Europe” (not EU you’ll note) he was taking the mickey out of the public.

        I don’t have a religion you understand, and I know it sounds like an oxymoron, but Thank God for Nigel Farage.

        • David

          That’s right.
          Your enemies misperceptions, often offer the opportunity to victory, and Cameron was always very out of touch with much of the country.

  • John

    As a eurosceptic who held his nose and reluctantly voted to remain, your joy at imminent emancipation is infectious. The UK will prosper outside the EU in the end, once global trade deals that the EU will grow to envy are signed. But there is no doubt the UK economy will take a hit in the short to medium term. Jobs will be lost. Hopefully what the Prime Minister announces today give us a clue as to how long the pain will likely last before the gain becomes apparent. I wish her well.

    • David

      Welcome aboard the good ship Brexit, reluctant remainer.
      All must now pull together.

  • Anton

    This is simply the rational position to adopt in negotiations. Brussels tells us that we can’t pick and choose. So if we enter the negotiations saying that we want to retain full membership of the single market then we get screwed. Whereas if we say we are relaxed about a hard Brexit and immigration is not on the table – for it is the one thing we can do unilaterally – then we get a better deal. They can threaten us with tariffs only up to the WTO limits. Beyond that there is nothing we want from them and nothing they can offer us. BUT they would miss our budget contribution and access to our markets. Here, we can negotiate. And remember that Britain runs a large trade deficit with the EU, which is to our advantage in those negotiations. We are actually in a very good position. And even this assumes that the EU is immutable, whereas it actually faces very serious and possibly terminal internal tensions.

    • CliveM
      • Anton

        Yes, behind the scenes Barnier has got his orders from Merkel, who in turn has got them from German big business.

        • CliveM

          With Trump threatening tariffs, what Germany won’t want is a trade war in two out of three of their largest markets.

          • Anton

            War on two fronts for Germany? No, that could never happen…

          • CliveM

            And look how that ended!

          • ChaucerChronicle

            That’s an interesting scenario: An Anglo-American trade war with an EU dominated by Germany.

          • CliveM

            I think in that scenario, a face saving compromises will be found. Europe isn’t really the issue for Trump, China, Mexico and India are.

          • 1642again

            Only one winner there.

  • William Lewis

    Pound spikes +2.5%!

    Theresa May needs to stop talking up our strengths. It’s making us less competitive.

    • Anton

      Makes hols cheaper!

      • William Lewis

        We all need to pull together now, Anton, and that means holidaying in the UK! This year we’re all going to Torquay.

        • 1642again

          You poor chap.

          • William Lewis

            Don’t think you’re exempted! I saw a good documentary about a hotel there. Slightly quirky owner but very entertaining.

          • 1642again

            We are Devonians and avoid Torbay! Isles of Scilly for me every year.

          • William Lewis

            Yes, very nice. We went to St Martin’s a few years ago. Lovely.

          • 1642again

            It is, but the others are better IMHO.

          • William Lewis

            Any recommendation? Actually, we have yet to book anything.

          • 1642again

            St Agnes is my favourite, Tresco my better half’s (we stay there), St Mary’s the best base if you want see all the islands, and Bryher has the best hotel if you want a complete rest. We travel about all the islands.

        • CliveM

          No, we need to expose the lies that we are all zonophobic, foreigner hating bigots.

          I’m holidaying abroad!

          • William Lewis

            I hope you know what you are doing, Clive. Some of them don’t even speak English!

          • CliveM

            Well the answer to that I’ve found is to speak English very slowly and loudly.

          • William Lewis

            Sound thinking.

          • Anton

            England, you mean…?

        • Anton

          I’d rather stay at home!

        • chefofsinners

          Sorry. Have just booked Western USA. Yellowstone to the Grand Canyon, most of August. 2.5% cheaper thanks to St Theresa of the immaculate Brexit.

          • Anton

            “I think you are another of these desert-loving English.”

          • chefofsinners

            I am one of those dessert-loving English. Have you seen the puddings they serve at the Grand Canyon North Rim Lodge?

          • Anton

            You are in for some American Pie.

    • Paul Greenwood

      According to Big Mac index Sterling is 35% undervalued against US Dollar

      • William Lewis

        Or we’re just more discerning eaters.

  • David

    Splendid article Your Grace, you have surpassed yourself. Thank you indeed.

    “After this I looked up, and there was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne..” Revelations 7 : 9

    God’s eschatological vision is of redeemed peoples standing before Him, each in their own national, tribal and language groups. So it has since from the Tower of Babel. Vaunting imperial ambitions are vanity. To live amongst one owns kind is natural and more likely to generate a spirit of peaceful coexistence. But nations should be good neighbours one to the other. Understanding this is intuitive to mature adults, except to those indoctrinated by the globalists, who seek power, money and control, whilst hiding behind the deceptively attractive facade of lofty ideas, which are hollow, and instead spread misery and division. Given humanities’ fallen nature it is best for peoples to live within their own groups. But this guideline must be applied with wisdom, equity, justice and compassion.

    Let Brexit proceed.
    God Save the Queen.
    Let the glory be to God !

  • 1642again

    One of the things that struck me in the run up the Referendum, and I found it purely by fat fingered Google searching, was the number of Protestant pastors and theologians, going back years, who said that Britain would leave the EU before it morphed into the Beast of Revelation. An interpretation based on passages from Daniel primarily, and that Britain was clearly the intelligent lion with broken eagle’s wings, a reference in itself to the loss of the USA. Another interpretation puts Britain, along with the young lions, presumably the US and old Dominions, coming to the restored Israel’s defence in the end times.

    It’s wonderful to see that this old fallen land and people still has enough of the right stuff to reject the Beast of the EU late in the day and start the long march back to the Light. Today is another step in that march.

    The implications for the Rome based Papacy in this interpretation are quite stark.

    • Anton

      I too believe that the four beasts of Daniel 7 represent the four empires that lead up to Christ’s second coming, just as the four parts of the statue in Daniel 2 are the four empires that led up to His first; I too reject the traditional “recapitulation” view that Daniel 7 and Daniel 2 refer to the same things. I also agree that the lion with eagle’s wings is the British empire which lost the USA. The bear is clearly the Soviet Union, and the last beast is clearly the endtime world empire. That leaves the four-winged leopard, which is imminent. I am in no doubt that it is either an Islamic entity or China, but am uncertain which. Any suggestions?

      All nations are going to come against Israel at the end, including ours, sadly.

      • 1642again

        The identity of the leopard is completely unknown, although some have identified it with German hegemony.

        Ezekiel 38 has been interpreted as identifying the merchants of Tarshish and its young lions with the UK and old Dominions (inc USA) who are prophesied to support Israel against invasion from the far north, probably Russia. Prophecy interpretation is like road signs reversed the wrong way at night. It tells you where you’re going when you’re already committed to the journey. No one can know the plan or the time, and any interpretation is fraught with danger.

        • William Lewis

          The merchants of Tarshish come from the south of Israel and it seems we are already increasing our presence (militarily) there. I don’t know if the young lions incudes the US and I think that Trump will prefer to concentrate on the Pacific but with large support for the UK in Europe and the middle east.

          • 1642again

            No, they are to be identified with the trading colony of Tartessos near Cadiz which handled the metal trade with Britain, i.e. it’s synonymous with the Far Western isles, i.e. Britain and its offshoots.

          • William Lewis

            Hmmm. As you say, interpretation is a tricky business.

          • 1642again

            Yes, but most people do make the identification with Tartessos.

          • chefofsinners

            Not sure what you mean.

          • William Lewis

            Essentially I was agreeing with …
            “Prophecy interpretation is like road signs reversed the wrong way at night. It tells you where you’re going when you’re already committed to the journey. No one can know the plan or the time, and any interpretation is fraught with danger.”

          • chefofsinners

            it was by way of being a joke

          • William Lewis

            I thought it might be, you being the Chef an’ all, but thought I’d check.

        • Anna

          “The identity of the leopard is completely unknown, although some have identified it with German hegemony.”

          It could represent Islam. Please see my reply to Anton above.

      • dannybhoy

        The thing about prophecy is that in some places it seems to be talking about the now, and then appears to jump to future events.
        I accept the validity of prophecy but there’s passages like in Revelation that I don’t pretend to understand. Even in Matthew where our Lord is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of days it’s hard to follow.
        Matthew 24..

        • Anton

          Yes, but not impossible to make sense of, and I’m talking specifically about Daniel; better not to complicate the issue.

          • dannybhoy

            I get the four beast/empire thing, but after that it becomes a free for all. I remember Hal Lindsey’s book The Late Great Planet Earth. Made great reading, and it all flowed prophetically. But he was wrong about Gog and Magog..

          • Anton

            I’m not trying to “take you on” but I don’t know what you mean by “after that it becomes a free for all”, because after the 4th beast Christ returns.

          • dannybhoy

            What I meant is that the various groups who study prophecy can have quite different interpretations. Which is why I tend to leave it alone these days.
            Loren Cunningham founder of YWAM and a very godly man used to joke that he was ‘a pan-millenialist’.

          • Anton

            If I had to recommend one book it would be David Pawson’s When Jesus Returns, but even with that I have some differences. I’m convinced that ‘apocalyptic’ language is just the attempt to describe things like nuclear detonations and meteorite strikes using the vocabulary of 2000 years ago, not a “literary genre”. And in discussions about the endtimes I prefer to ask questions, such as:

            • If the book of Revelation depicts only spiritual battle between good and evil in the heavenly places (the idealist view), then why does the action in its midpart alternate between heaven and earth? What does each detail mean?

            • If the book looks ahead prophetically but is entirely spiritual, how could you know when these prophecies have been fulfilled?

            • If the book is prophetic mainly about the early church era in which John lived (the preterist view), then to what in the history books does each detail of those prophecies correspond?

            • If God came bodily to this earth as Jesus once within human history, why not again? Do those who doubt his bodily Second Coming differ from someone who, before Christ, scoffed at Isaiah’s prophecy (9:6) of the Incarnation?

            • Do the letters in the Book of Revelation to seven congregations in Asia Minor really fit successive eras of church history (the ‘historicist’ view), once the tale of Christianity outside the historic boundaries of the Roman Empire is taken into account, or the existence of dissident churches within its boundaries (such as the Lollards and the Waldenses)?

          • dannybhoy

            Lots of interesting stuff there Anton. Starting from the end of your comment, I believe the seven churches were the seven churches of the time rather than a prophetic overview. I think a lot of these end time ideas spring from the Calvinistic, predestinational, ‘God has it all planned out’ theology..
            I lean more towards the Arminian free will model, where God responds to man’s acts of genuine repentance. Like for example Abraham ‘bargaining’ with God over the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, or Jonah and Nineveh and many other examples in the Old Testament.
            “I’m convinced that ‘apocalyptic’ language is just the attempt to describe things like nuclear detonations and meteorite strikes using the vocabulary of 2000 years ago, not a “literary genre”.
            Me too.
            “If the book of Revelation depicts only spiritual battle between good and evil in the heavenly places (the idealist view), then why does the action in its midpart alternate between heaven and earth? What does each detail mean?”

            I don’t know about the details, but I do believe that there is to be some kind of interaction/clash between the forces of heaven and those of Satan. I think Satan prefers to work behind the scenes, and only shows himself when forced to. Which of course will come according to Revelation with the beast, his prophet, the two witnesses etc.
            I believe it. It may be inter-dimensional, it may involve ufos, but things will happen. I’m just not sure about the order of things and even who’s who.
            (What about the three spirits that looked like frogs? Rev. 16.)
            I think the imagery thing is important because these writers were immersed in the Scriptures of the Old Testament and would be connecting with that.

            I tend to see it that God has an overarching plan for human beings, that our world has a ‘shelf life’ which grows shorter with increasing population and human activity. I think it’s also obvious that as resources shrink men will make more of an effort to control people and freedoms using technology. So I can see how these global economic demographic and environmental projections fit in with Biblical prophecy, and I’m content to leave it at that.
            The main thing of course is that we will be found faithful and ready for His return.

          • chefofsinners

            God does have it all planned out. Nothing in scripture could be more clear. He is the First and the Last.

          • dannybhoy

            I know. But if it’s all mapped out down to the last stir of your whisk before you’re taken off to glory and your pre-assigned place, what is the point of free will? What indeed is the point of any of it if it’s all fixed, done and dusted?
            I have no problem with God’s will and that it will be done, but it’s the degree to which human beings exercise their free will and as Christians or Godly people our prayers can change things.
            I think the Scriptures teach that we really do have free will and our choices have real consequences. So we can’t thwart God’s overall purposes, but we can play an active part. Whether for or against..

      • Anna

        It is likely that the animals in Daniel 7 represents different world systems rather than actual nations.

        Let us begin by assuming that these animals represent either nations or huge geographical areas rather than systems. The lion was, traditionally, a symbol of royal authority. In the Bible the lion represents Israel, although several countries around the world – Sri Lanka, Singapore, Armenia, Morocco, ancient India (in the pillars of Ashoka) and many nations in Europe – have used the lion as a national symbol. It is important to remember that the lion is not native to Britain.

        The Hebrew word ‘namer’ could mean either a tiger or a leopard. The Israelites in Daniel’s time were familiar with leopards (not tigers), so it would not be strange if Daniel used the available word ‘namer’ to identify a tiger, an animal which closely resembles the leopard. If the animal in Daniel’s vision was indeed a tiger, then it is fair to assume that is represents the Far East, but if it was a leopard, then it more likely represents the Islamic nations. Interestingly leopards are mostly found in regions that have had some Islamic influence. In China, the dragon, rather than a tiger or lion, was used to portray imperial authority.

        Now, if these animals represents world systems, as I believe, then the first system – represented by the lion with eagles’ wings – is one that spread globally before its influence waned, and it lost its power to control others. The second – the bear – had the power to terrify and devour others, while the third – the leopard or tiger with four wings – also spread globally, and began to rule.

        To make sense of this vision, we need to ask ourselves, if there is a specific point in history after which the 4 systems will emerge in the given sequence. Assuming they arise after the State of Israel was born (1948), then it is likely that lion represents the modern liberal democracies (with roots in Judeo-Christian values) – mostly nations in the West but also countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America; the bear represents atheistic systems which included the Communist nations (Russia and China), but now also the secular societies of the West; while the leopard represents a resurgent Islam (which never changes its spots).

        The fourth, the terrifying beast, which is also described in Revelations 13 seems to incorporate characteristics of all the other world systems and religions – it is possibly a syncretic system which has elements imitating the Christian faith (lamb’s horns). This is probably the final global empire ruled by the Anti-Christ.

    • len

      I have little doubt that a combining of false religion to an oppressive world political power is become more likely as time goes on.

  • carl jacobs

    One word of caution. The EU is a re-creation of the Hapsburg Empire and therefore it cannot last. But that doesn’t alter the necessity of Europe figuring out how to develop a unified defense policy. It must possess a unified military under a unified executive that is not held hostage to individual Parliaments. It must purchase shared capability so that resources can be pooled. Otherwise it is largely a collection of weak states that cannot defend themselves.

    • Anton

      Last attempt at that was called the Wehrmacht.

      • len

        And we know the result

        • Paul Greenwood

          When has the UK “been attacked” ? Usually it is the UK attacking other countries and declaring war

          • len

            Your’e joking of course…?

          • Paul Greenwood

            Name me an occasion when the UK has been attacked and that attack led to war

          • carl jacobs

            Both world wars were wars of survival for Britain. If Germany had won either war, Britain would have inevitably become a German vassal state. It therefore matters little whether Germany directly attacked Britain. The war was forced upon Britain either way.

            Carl <– Not a Brit

          • Paul Greenwood

            Britain wanted war in 1914. It kept its Agreement with France “secret”. When does any keep an alliance “secret” ? Mind you it was secret from most of the Cabinet. German General Staff were on vacation in July. They had no reason to expect war with British Empire – didn’t happen in 1870

          • carl jacobs

            You can speculate all you like about what Britain “wanted”. We know how the war started. The historical record is clear enough. WWI was Germany’s bid to preempt the rise of Russia and displace Britain as the dominant European power. How does Britain avoid that war?

            Prussia in 1870 was not Germany in 1914. And anyways France started that war. Prussia went to great lengths to avoid it.

          • Anton

            Some think Prussia provoked France into that war. Others think Bismarck simply exploited the French attack. Either way it is not accurate to say that Prussia went to great lengths to avoid the conflict.

          • carl jacobs

            The Prussians compromised on the Spanish Secession. The whole thing should have ended at that point. There were no lies in the Ems Dispatch. If the French went to war over what was an accurate recitation of the facts, that’s on France. I’ve never been much of a believer in the whole “He made me do it!” argument. France chose to do what it did no matter what Bismarck wrote.

          • Anton

            But on what basis do you say that “Prussia went to great lengths to avoid” the conflict? In that case why did Bismarck release the Ems dispatch in doctored form?

          • carl jacobs

            Because they didn’t hold firm on Spanish secession. And Bismarck didn’t “doctor” the dispatch. He had the authority to write it as he did. He didn’t lie. It was arguably an appropriate response to an arrogant French demand. That dispatch was not a casus belli.

          • CliveM

            Dear me, read Asquiths private correspondence in the run up to war, he certainly wasn’t wanting war with Germany or anyone else.

          • 1642again

            Total rubbish. The First Sea Lord Jacky Fisher in the late 1900’s predicted the outbreak of war as soon as the Germans completed the Kiel canal. It was finished in July 1914. The Germans wanted war to break the rapidly industrialising Russia before it became too strong and the Schlieffen Plan meant knocking France out in a first strike. In invading Belgium they compelled British intervention. They knew what they were doing.

            You’re just another neo-nazi sympathiser.

          • carl jacobs

            Britain did not fight to save plucky little Belgium. Britain fought to save its Empire. Nations do not sacrifice 5% of their male population to secure the independence of a foreign country.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Britain did not expect to sacrifice so many men. No country expected the First World War to be so costly.

          • carl jacobs

            What Britain expected is not nearly as important as what Britain sustained. If the war had simply been about Belgium, the nation would not have accepted those casualties. WWI was for Britain a fight to the death over Britain’s place in the world.

          • 1642again

            I don’t think that’s fair. Britain was a guarantor of Belgium’s neutrality and in effect in defensive alliance with France. Britain was simply following it’s 400+ year settled policy of letting no dominant power control the Low Countries and Channel Ports. Once war was started no one had the will to stop it.

          • carl jacobs

            You’re just another neo-nazi sympathiser.

            Yes. That is my impression as well.

          • bluedog

            The crux of the alliance system in 1914 was France-Russia and Germany-Austro-Hungary. Britain was an after-thought in French planning, and the French were hell-bent on revenge for 1871. Do some reading. You will find that after the death of the Austrian arch-duke, the President of France invested three weeks on a cruise through the Baltic to visit Czar Nicholas and stiffen his resolve. Britain had most to lose from war.

          • Dreadnaught

            The War of Jenkin’s Ear.

      • Paul Greenwood

        Yes but the Wehrmacht was going eastwards until Chamberlain decided to put a useless roadblock in Danzig

        • 1642again

          Unbelievable. You’re just quibbling about the order in which the Nazis gobbled up Europe.

          • Paul Greenwood

            No simply pointing out that had Admiral the Hon. Sir Reginald Aylmer Ranfurly Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax, KCB, DSO, JP, DL actually been able to negotiate with Molotov in August 1939 the Agreement with Ribbentrop just down the corridor would not have been signed and Chamberlain could have honoured his worthless guarantee

          • 1642again

            What ifs. Fake History. Hitler was set on European hegemony and Poland was his next victim. Britain had left it too late already by 1939, should have moved against him before 1938 when the head of the German Army was an anti-Nazi and would have moved against Hitler if he could have been sure of Allied support.

          • Dreadnaught

            There was no appetite in Britain for another war just 20 years after the industrial slaughhter of Flanders.

          • Paul Greenwood

            True. It still does not prove that any nation has attacked the UK and that led to war

          • 1642again

            There was no leadership. A major war could have been avoided in 1936/7 if the west had moved then.

          • Paul Greenwood

            Hitler was not set on European hegemony. He wanted an alliance with Britain against USSR. He even stated the only two nations he could see as allies were Britain and Italy

          • Anton

            He wanted Lebensraum in the east and he wanted to avenge the 1918 defeat to France and regain Alsace in the west.

          • 1642again

            So what? You’d trust Hitler’s word and are prepared to sacrifice all the smaller nations of Europe on that premise, and then end up with a Nazi dominated Europe 22 miles from our shores?

          • dannybhoy

            He had a fondness for gelati and pizza I believe.

          • len

            Alliances meant nothing to Hitler.

          • CliveM

            You think we should have been?

          • carl jacobs

            Oh I see. He didn’t want hegemony. He just wanted to dominate the continent with Britain as an “Ally”. Yes, that makes ever so much difference.

          • Paul Greenwood

            BTW. Poland was a fascist dictatorship in 1939 and had already planned to attack Germany in 1935 but France refused to join in

          • carl jacobs

            planned to attack Germany in 1935 but France refused to join in

            So do you have a reference for this? This is certainly the first time I have heard of this alleged invasion, and it took me a significant amount of searching to even find a vague reference to this idea, and even then is was referenced to 1933. This reference was of course surrounded by denials of its truth.

            Oh, and btw. Invading Germany to depose Hitler some time between 1933 and 1938 would have been a damn good idea!

            Just saying…

          • CliveM

            Unarguable really.

          • Ivan M

            Churchill and Roosevelt’s complex maneuvering put the stupid Poles to it. They should have given up Danzig and ceded the Pripet Marshes to Stalin and bought some quite. It may even have saved the all important Jews.
            So great was the sanctity attached to the guarantees given to Poland by the Western powers, that they acquiesced in Stalin swallowing her whole at the war’s end. It seems that the stupid Poles never learn goading the Russians again with the Nato exercises. Hence the prevalence of Polish jokes.

    • CliveM

      Carl,

      Yes you are right, but it is impossible. NATO worked when it did because it had a clear identifiable threat. It also had a clear, lead country. Anything that Europe could cobble together would be an aimless, compromise from the start, with no nation with the necessary clout to take the lead.

      • 1642again

        Until something changes…

        • CliveM

          I can see a small defence grouping IE France/Germany with maybe the UK. But anything larger would be unwieldy.

          I read an interesting article in Der Speigal yesterday, about Germany’s current thoughts on its own nuclear deterrent, now that the US maybe threatening to remove the nuclear umbrella from Europe.

          • Paul Greenwood

            The B-61 nuclear bombs are kept in Germany near the Luxembourg frontier to fit to Luftwaffe Tornadoes but the new Cruise Missiles delivered to Poland can also carry nuclear warheads as can the Aegis platforms in Romania and Poland.

          • CliveM

            I’m sure that’s true, but they aren’t controlled by Germany. They are not a German deterrent.

            Fitted to Luftwaffe Tornadoes? Evidence please.

          • Paul Greenwood

            Look it up yourself. It is the only reason the Luftwaffe flies Tornadoes

          • CliveM

            I’m curious as to the relevance of your point. My point is about Germany discussing a non US nuclear deterrent and you talk about US controlled bombs. The whole issue is how does Europe respond if they are removed.

          • Paul Greenwood

            http://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/politik/Neue-Atombomben-fuer-Deutschland-id30734577.html

            In einer noch 2008 gedruckten Taschenkarte für Soldaten – der zentralen Dienstvorschrift 15/2 – heißt es eindeutig, der Einsatz atomarer Waffen sei deutschen Soldaten verboten. Dieser Passus findet sich seit der Überarbeitung der Dienstvorschrift 2013 im umfangreichen Handbuch nicht mehr wieder….

          • CliveM

            See reply on other post.

          • dannybhoy

            The Americans have shouldered the main part of the burden for long enough.

          • Dreadnaught

            We have to revisit the purpose of NATO and should be engaged on reworking its funding and expectation of it’s effecacy to defend southern/eastern European Borders. ISIS is at war with all Western States and we should already be engaged in managing a response to its encroachment within the continent and at ports and coasts of entry irrespective of Brexit.

          • Anton

            Bit late for that… tell Merkel

          • Dreadnaught

            Don’t be stupid, you are capable of a better response than that.

          • Anton

            There is an ambiguity in your use of “we” (Western States? Or just UK?) and you and I might be taking it differently. Whatever, she might yet go down in history as equally catastrophic a Chancellor for the German people as Adolf Hitler.

          • Dreadnaught

            WE; the Westernised nations of Europe have a costly organisation that could be dumped by the US at any time. We; the nations of Europe and the UK in particular have spent a fortune on what could be a unified military force if revised and refunded by those nations it would seek to defend,
            Couple this with the momentum of Brexit and the UK could make its presence and importance to Europe patently clear and may even add weight to May’s daunting task of responding to our detractors in Brussels and Strasbourg.

          • 1642again

            The western elite are unwilling to recognise the threat that is the burgeoning Muslim population in Europe, indeed they seem to be facilitating it and cracking down on those who speak out. Going on about ISIS is a complete distraction from the much larger Islamic invasion of Europe. Sure we should tackle ISIS but we haven’t seriously. The truth is that Saudi and Gulf State money has bought our elite’s compliance..

          • Dreadnaught

            Talking about elites is too vague. People, ordinary people, are being swayed toward a more extreme reaction to the conditions the ‘elites’ whoever you think they have created. ISIS or Islamism is capable of shape-shifting as it did out of Al-Qaida. What future prospect of peace in the ME is non existent. Things are definitely going to be much worse than this at present. Massive migration has yet to start as Erdogan has clearly stated if he doesn’t get his way.
            ISIS and similar on the ‘Sunni side of the street’ is focused on an ideological war with Saudi Arabia and Iran. Its the latest stage in a 1500 year old war of domination.

          • bluedog

            Not only that but they direct fund the migrants themselves. We are witnessing the actions of hostile powers but the political elites deny the threat.

          • Dreadnaught

            Then its up to ordinary people to demand their democratic right to dismiss them as we are dimissing the EU.

          • bluedog

            Quite right, accomodating the Saudis and Qataris is suicidal.

          • Dreadnaught

            I was thinking more of the people of Europe being foced to accommodate Muslim migration.

          • bluedog

            I get your point, but the Saudis and Qataris seem to be the planning hub of the invasion.

          • Dreadnaught

            They are certainly doing nothing to stop it thats for sure.

          • Royinsouthwest

            How many refugees have they taken, I wonder?

          • dannybhoy

            It is tragic that the southern nations of Europe have been left so defenceless by the northern nations.

          • Dreadnaught

            Tragic? It’s bloody criminal negligence.

          • bluedog

            There is no doubt that the three former Axis powers, Germany, Japan and to a lesser extent, Italy, could go nuclear over a bank holiday weekend if they put their minds to it.

          • Anton

            From scratch, a few months rather than a few days even if you have all the knowledge.

          • CliveM

            Are you including a delivery system in this timescale?

          • Anton

            The Germans cooked up the V2 pretty quickly and that included gaining the necessary knowledge for the first time.

          • CliveM

            Hmmm, it would take years rather than months.

        • Dreadnaught

          Change never changes.

      • dannybhoy

        That’s right. Whether they liked it or not the UK gave the lead, but interestingly the more we tried to become good EUers the less leading we were able to do. I can understand a certain amount of resentment, but in the absence of a strong German military the UK remained the most professional military force. I suspect that Germany will start to build their armed forces up for various reasons.

      • Pubcrawler

        Not entirely unlike the Crusades.

  • chefofsinners

    But hard! What light through yonder window breaks? It is the East, and Theresa is the sun.

  • David

    Yippee ! A helpful rise in the £ makes our trip to Canada cheaper !

  • Dominic Stockford

    We now have a chance to reclaim our historic Christian status. The Eu did nothing but undermine the Christian principles which once made this country Great. Get back to relying on Christ, and on the Bible’s teaching, and we can have laws which respect man, respect God, and will rebuild this nation into something worth being in.

    • chefofsinners

      And yet when you examine our past you find there never was a golden era.
      Ecclesiastes 7:10

      • Dominic Stockford

        I agree, but things were better than now simply because God’s involvement was recognised.

        • chefofsinners

          Were they better? The prisons were as full, and that was with the help of transportation and hanging and abysmal crime detection rates if you could even get anyone to care.

          • Royinsouthwest

            I think the rate of crime in the first half of the 20th century was a lot lower than in the second half.

          • chefofsinners

            Possibly because millions of our young men had perished in two world wars. Hardly a golden age.

      • Anton

        That’s because it never was a Christian country. No country has been or will be until Christ returns. The church is called out of every nation. (As I keep saying here, to general spluttering, although not by you.)

        • Maybe not but at least our rulers and the Established Church held to Christian principles as they understood them.

          • Anton

            They understood them to mean persecuting anybody who disagreed. That happened whenever the Established church had enough political power to do so, regardless of whether it was Catholic or protestant.

          • As Jack has said repeatedly, this is because there was a time when heresy was defined as treason against the state. Catholic emancipation took a long time coming to Britain.

          • Anton

            The reason doesn’t matter. The point is that Established churches always persecute their opponents whenever they can. Given what the gospel says, that is a disgrace – on protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Establishment alike. Can you imagine what it says about the gospel to a Chinese, for instance?

          • Rather a sweeping statement.

  • bluedog

    Well Mrs Proudie, let’s hear it for Theresa May. Will we now see an end to ‘Mrs Dismay’ and other slurs from now on? We have been given delivery in a heroic and uncompromising style. Bravo, Mrs May.

    • David

      I wish Mrs May well, but she is now, eventually, progressing the very policies that Ukip has been advocating for many years, after a referendum that Cameron was manoeuvred into by Nigel Farage. In short Mrs May’s party is being steered from outside itself, by Ukip and most importantly the British public.

      • bluedog

        You don’t think the arguments put forward by the very strong Eurosceptic faction within the CP had something to do with it? Others have mentioned Hannan, but week after week John Redwood has been chipping away, putting arguments, rebutting europhile scare campaigns, being available for radio and TV. Farage provides colour and movement, but the intellectual horse-power has been elsewhere.

        • David

          Yes there is merit in that point.
          Of course people like Daniel Hannan, who wrote that excellent book, and John Redwood reinforce the views of people like you and me, the readers of serious books, and then we persuade others. That’s excellent.
          But this is a democracy and the bulk of the voters are not persuaded by books, but by media appearances and newspapers, which is where Farage makes impact. Without that demographic we would just be a interesting minority. Moreover it is the electoral threat that Ukip provides which motivates many of the rank and file Conservative MPs to take notice of the Hannan and Redwood.

  • chefofsinners

    This is ‘Diamond Brexit’. Hard, clear, precious, brilliant. A girl’s best friend, Theresa.

  • Martin

    At last, I’ve been trying to get in all night.

    • William Lewis

      Forgot your key?

      • Martin

        William

        Nah, kept getting a database error when I tried to access the blog.

        • chefofsinners

          Database error

          • The blog went down for several hours.

          • carl jacobs

            Eye witnesses report seeing an angry-looking blueberry fleeing the scene while in possession of a severed ethernet cable.

          • Grouchy Jack

            These “eye witnesses” number as many as the goals Manchester City scored this weekend.

          • Now you are deliberately seeking to provoke Jack. That’s “micro-aggression” and “foolishness”.

          • carl jacobs

            The guilty blueberry flees when no man pursues. That’s as good as a confession. GRUMPY JACK DID IT!

          • Now you are seeking to deliberately provoke Jack. That’s “micro-aggression” and “foolishness”.

          • Grouchy Jack

            “Knavery seems to be so much the striking feature of its inhabitants (America) that it may not in the end be an evil that they will become aliens to this country.”
            (George III)

        • William Lewis

          Yes. Chef was frying the chips.

  • wisestreligion

    If any of our C of E bishops are actually interested in bringing our country back to Christ surely now is the time for them to speak out boldly and without compromise. We have a chance not just to tinker with the law-making process but to re-engage with our deeply-dyed Christian culture which for centuries has blessed not just us but many other nations. As Cranmer says we are a Christian country with a missional narrative. Our politicians are nearly all spiritually illiterate and cowardly in the face of PC pressure so they cannot be expected to initiate change to a deeper level. This is what bishops in an established church are for, if they care to step up to the plate.

    The atheist elite whose long march has now captured most of our institutions are discredited. Time to undermine their false religion. What about some provocative blasphemy against the false, and so far unquestioned, gods of Equality, Incontinence and Progressiveness? Come on bishops, you might risk being called names but you probably won’t have your head chopped off.

    • Anton

      Can anybody think of a false religion which might actually do that?

    • “If any of our C of E bishops are actually interested in bringing our country back to Christ surely now is the time for them to speak out boldly and without compromise.”

      Isn’t the Church of England actually based on a series of compromises between Calvinists and Anglo-Catholics and now an assorted array of other liberal and traditional Evangelical beliefs?

      “Come on bishops, you might risk being called names but you probably won’t have your head chopped off.”

      It’s not their heads they should be concerned about.

    • 1642again

      Great comment, but don’t hold your breath. You’re right that the atheist elite are discredited, their arguments for atheism ever more shaky, some of their intelligent followers growing disenchanted. A huge opportunity for a strong evangelical revival if the church could only find confident, article and tough minded leadership to articulate what ever more people are feeling about where where we are headed.

  • chefofsinners

    Archbishops Sentamu and Wallaby would like to apologise for all the crimes against democracy committed by the Church of England during the period of history known as The Referendum.
    In particular they regret nailing 95 Theresas to their church door.
    With hindsight they recognise that this historic split from the treaty of Rome could have been handled a bit more graciously. Er, sorry.

    • carl jacobs

      Many will also remember the lasting damage done five centuries ago to the unity of the Church

      The lasting damage to unity was inflicted by Rome. There is no sin in separating from a false gospel.

      We therefore call on all Christians to seek to be renewed and united in the truth of the gospel of Christ through our participation in the Reformation Anniversary, to repent of divisions, and, held together in Him, to be a blessing to the world in obedience to Jesus Christ

      Translation: So when in the next year or so the CoE affirms homosexual relationships as morally good, we would expect all of you Evangelicals to repent of your reaction to take your money and leave depart for other churches. We really need your money to hold together.

      • “The lasting damage to unity was inflicted by Rome. There is no sin in separating from a false gospel.”

        Really? This rather assumes Catholic theology was wrong rather than there were some sinful leaders in Rome misusing the Church’s authority. No one disagrees the Church was in a woeful state and in need of reform. What happened wasn’t reform. The way Jack sees it is that Luther didn’t address these abuses but used them as a platform to sell a false gospel based on his own anxieties about salvation and his need for certainty. Temporal powers were then all too eager to use this to their advantage.

        It’s not Rome who has abandoned Christ’s truth.

        • 1642again

          LoL. You must be joking? While accepting that most medieval Christians were genuine but in severe error because of the corruption of the higher clergy, the medieval church was pretty much an inversion of the True Faith: its obsession with power and ‘authority’, indulgences, prohibitions on the Bible in the vernacular, schisms with and betrayals of Eastern Christianity, extreme wealth, playing politics, celibacy for clergy, violent suppression of dissent… If Satan had wanted to turn the faith into a false trap for the faithful, he could scarcely have done a better job.

          • ” … the medieval church was pretty much an inversion of the True Faith …”

            The list you’ve provided is not about the “True Faith” but a list of human sins and errors connected with the politics of the time. The doctrines and dogma of the Church remained faithful to Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. The authority and assurance of indefectibility given her by Christ did not include impeccability of its priests and bishops.

          • 1642again

            Mere sophistry. If ‘by their fruits you will know them’ The medieval RC faith was rotten and ignored its inconvenient true foundation. Like all human institutions it became corrupt over time. The true spiritual church is perfect, no man governed is.

          • The medieval Catholic faith consisted of the teachings of Christ and the Apostles as preserved and developed by the Church through its divinely protected magisterium. The visible and organised Church is both spiritual and human.

          • 1642again

            Groan. Can’t you do better than that? And please don’t try by copying-and-pasting reams of turgid guff off the Vatican website or from some Jesuit manual on attacking Protestants. Why not do something positive and work on saving some Muslims or atheists on line rather than fellow believers?

          • Mike Stallard

            I adore this website! It is the only one where people can transmogrify a paen to the Brexiteers into a discussion on the theology of the Reformation!

          • That’s Carl Jacobs for you.

          • Anton

            The 1517 hit parade:

            Ev’rybody’s doing a brand new dance now
            C’mon baby, do the Reformation
            I know you’ll get to like it if you give it a chance now
            C’mon baby, do the Reformation…

          • Hmmm ….

            “Come on, baby
            Jump up
            Jump back
            Well, now, I think you’ve got the knack
            Wow, wow”

            Jump here, jump there, jump anywhere that suits.

          • len

            Not into the fire though….that’s Rome.

          • Anton

            Do it holding hands if you get the notion
            (Come on baby, do the loco-motion)

            Clearly a reference to allowing ordained priests to marry.

          • Sounds more like the erosion of Christian faith and morality to Jack.

            “There’s never been a dance that’s so easy to do
            It even makes you happy when you’re feeling blue”

          • len

            Are there any happy Catholics Jack?.
            You all ll sound so grumpy and defensive?.

          • How many Catholics do you know Len?

          • len

            No self confessing ones(bit of an oxymoron there? ), only the ones on this site.

          • Anton

            That’s Luther in failing to find inner freedom despite busting a gut doing Catholic practice, then finding it in Christ alone.

          • You do know about Luther’s inner doubts and his need for certainty about his own salvation?

          • Anton

            Everybody needs that, and Christ gives it.

          • Certainty about one’s own salvation is not in accord with scripture and is the sin of presumption. Scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. As Jesus himself tells us, “He who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:31–46). One who dies in the state of friendship with God will go to heaven. The one who dies in a state of enmity and rebellion against God will go to hell.

            As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul, we work out our salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).

          • Anton

            The Christian faith has an experiential aspect due to the Holy Spirit and one knows if one has (had) that. That is why we may be sure of our own salvation.

            ‘Salvation’ is ambiguous, as the quotes you provide show: there is salvation from the fate one deserves, and salvation to do good works while still on earth.

          • See, Jack doesn’t see salvation as ambiguous at all. It is a process requiring our cooperation with the abundant grace of God.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Anton like Dawkins is all knowing, Jack. I’m surprised you are not aware of this.

          • *Sigh*

            “turgid guff off the Vatican website … some Jesuit manual on attacking Protestants.”

            That’s respectful.

            ” … work on saving some Muslims or atheists on line rather than fellow believers?”

            How self righteous. Perhaps you should practice what you preach. Muslims on line? Name one who frequents this site. And Jack does his best with atheists here.

            And, just to remind you, it was not Jack who started this particular exchange. Carl Jacobs said: “The lasting damage to unity was inflicted by Rome. There is no sin in separating from a false gospel.”.

            You replied to his post and, without qualification, supported him with: “Well said” and then threw out a series of accusations. This from someone who has called for the failures of the past not to get in the way of Christian “unity”.

            Jack is not going to stand idly by whilst his faith is maligned and doesn’t believe in faux ecumenicalism.

          • Anton

            Jack is not going to stand idly by whilst his faith is maligned

            Nobody in this exchange has maligned faith in Jesus Christ and the gospels!

          • William Lewis

            ay there’s the rub!

          • So far as Jack is concerned, an attack on the Catholic faith is an attack on the gospel and the origins of the Christian faith.

          • William Lewis

            There’s your problem. People here don’t believe that faith in the Catholic church and faith in Jesus Christ are synonymous and that it’s possible to have one without the other.

          • The Catholic Church does accept the baptised are Christian who share faith in Jesus Christ.

          • William Lewis

            Again, that doesn’t matter to most people here. It’s faith in the Christ that counts.

          • How can you have “faith in the Christ” if you don’t listen to, understand and accept His revelation of His Father and the teachings of the visible Church He entrusted this to?

          • William Lewis

            You are just phrasing our differences another way. It won’t help.

          • Seriously, we don’t agree on the predestination, how human free will interacts with grace, the nature of the atonement, what the Church is, and how salvation is obtained. The differences are considerable between Catholics and Protestants and between Protestants.

          • Anton

            But less than what we agree on.

          • William Lewis

            Life’s messy. Peace be with you.

          • So is theology.
            And also you William.

          • Anton

            Decent of it!

          • Cressida de Nova

            I know that is the Catholic position but I have never been comfortable with it.

          • len

            Rubbish. Oh that’s RCC ‘theology’ isn`t it.

          • Cressida de Nova

            It is an attack on the true Christian faith.

          • 1642again

            Fine. I have no problems with Catholics at all, only those who spend all their time decrying the validity of Protestant’s faith. That’s pretty much all you do on here.

            I agree with Carl on the Reformation. On balance it was a great thing and it is interesting how the Protestant countries, particularly the Dutch, British and US transformed science, industry, agriculture, politics, governance, geo-politics in a few short centuries after centuries of near torpor, leaving the RC countries far behind. A sign of God’s blessing perhaps?

            My accusations are simply matters of historical fact.

            I do actually write a lot from a Christian viewpoint on predominantly atheist sites, one in particular, although I will concede that a Muslim presence is rarely present on line for fear of having their ideas challenged.

            I’m not that bothered by ecumenism beyond considering that all Trinitarian denominations are essentially rooted in Christ and the True Church, and I have as little regard for the Protestant fundamentalists who believe all Catholics are Hell bound as I do for RC fascists who call Protestants heretics. Both views are scandalous as we should face outwards to the world, not inwards.

            Many mansions and all that. Likewise, Jesus didn’t qualify “wherever two or three are gathered in my name” with “as long as they accept the supremacy of the Pope/Patriarch/ ABC etc.”

          • “I agree with Carl on the Reformation.”

            Well, yes, you would, wouldn’t you. You want your cake and want to eat it too. Carl believes the Reformation freed people rom a “false gospel”.

            “On balance it was a great thing and it is interesting how the Protestant countries, particularly the Dutch, British and US transformed science, industry, agriculture, politics, governance, geo-politics in a few short centuries after centuries of near torpor, leaving the RC countries far behind.”

            The protestant ethic. You think material progress is the measure of faith in Christ and a sign of God’s blessing?

          • Rhoda

            the teachings of Christ and the Apostles as preserved and developed by the Church through its divinely protected magisterium.

            Developed? Weren’t the teachings of Christ and the Apostles good enough?

          • Are you saying all truth was fully understood by the Apostles? That contradicts Christ and the development of key Christian doctrines.

          • Rhoda

            No.

          • Anton

            What do you mean, ‘If’?

        • len

          Romes ‘theology ‘is what gave birth to Islam.Oh and also caused the Reformation and the split with the Eastern Church.
          .

          • Morning, Len.
            Jack won’t waste his time asking for evidence as in all the 6 years he’s read you making this claim, you’ve never produced any.

          • len

            Still got those RCC blinkers on Jack…..Oh dear

          • Anton

            Agree with you about that, Jack.

          • len

            Has Jack lent you his blinkers? …oh well whatever…

          • 1642again

            I wouldn’t accept that ?en. If anything Judaism gave birth to Islam, added with elements of moongod (Sin) devotion, and some heretical extreme monophysite beliefs, and possibly some Manichean influence as well. It’s as if the Devil took all the human bad bits out of the main faiths of the time and blended them into a sweet but deadly toxin.

          • len

            Jesuit Cardinal Augustine Bea;

          • Anton

            As reported by a crank.

            Just seconds in: “A Jesuit Cardinal named Augustine Bea showed us how desperately the Roman Catholics wanted Jerusalem at the end of the third century.”

            Use of the phrase “Roman Catholics” implies other denominations, which was wholly untrue in the third century. There were just Christians, the church, and they were persecuted throughout the Roman Empire. The church had negative political power at that time and its aim was simply survival and expansion. Mention of “the Vatican” as behind the invention of Islam shows how illiterate this video is. There was probably a church on Vatican Hill but “the Vatican” as an institution simply did not exist.

          • len

            Seconds in?….Gave it a good look then..

          • Anton

            I didn’t stop there; I skimmed it. Crank conspiratorialist stuff. 1642 has it right about the origins of Islam.

          • len

            1642 is partially right.
            The Jews sold false OT Bible stories to Mohammed as ‘a wind up.’
            Mohammed also met with false forms of ‘christianity’.

          • Anton

            May I have your sources, please?

          • Cressida de Nova

            Len thinks source is a condiment you put on a steak and kidney pie.

          • len

            Sauce is some you have got plenty of Cressida

          • len

            You Calling Cardinal Bea a …crank….whatever next?

          • Anton

            I didn’t. I am sceptical that he actually said that.

          • len

            By all means be sceptical.But this real test of truth is does it resonate with you?.
            One must obviously be aware that the world is full of deception and truth is often buried under piles of rubbish one must wade through to find the truth.

          • Anton

            Yes indeed; I’ve done a lot of wading on the subject of early Islam.

          • Ivan M

            Before the relationship with the Muslims entered its current state, it was common wisdom in some circles that Islam is the Taliban wing of Judaism while Christianity is the liberal one.

          • CliveM

            Shows you what a pile of cack common wisdom can be.

          • Ivan M

            Suppose the Muzzies didn’t go around bombing people. Just quaint burnooses and purdah . How different do you think this is from the life of say the Yemeni or Moroccan Jews? In those same circles it is St Paul that is credited with universalising Judaism.

          • Anton

            Muslims and Jews are never going to agree on which son of Abraham he nearly sacrificed, given the contents of the Quran and the Old Testament.

          • Anton

            Christianity is the messianic wing of Judaism, actually.

          • Anton

            Would you explain the Islam comment, please?

      • 1642again

        Well said.

      • To say nothing of contraception, abortion, divorce and remarriage, and the ordination of women. There’s only Church remaining true to scripture and sacred tradition on these issues and holding firm to the truths about justification, sanctification and salvation.

        • Anna

          What about the Orthodox churches of the Middle East? They are even more true to traditional beliefs, and their priests and nuns have not been caught in widespread sexual immorality.

          • Do you mean the Melkite Greek Catholic Church? This Eastern Catholic Church is in full communion with the Holy See as part of the worldwide Catholic Church. There are a number of Orthodox Churches not in communion with Rome. Many of these have suffered their own internal schisms which resulted in churches returning to communion with Rome e.g. the Chaldean Catholic Church. The politics of Eastern Orthodoxy
            “They are even more true to traditional beliefs … “

            So far as Jack knows, none support “reformed” Protestant theology although they have different views on original sin and the sacramental nature of marriage.

            ” … and their priests and nuns have not been caught in widespread sexual immorality.”
            No, that’s seems to be a Western blight that has affected all the main Christian churches and society at large, not a specific Roman Catholic phenomena.

          • Anna

            The Melkite Greek Catholic Church has its own patriarch, but it is not an Orthodox church. I was thinking of the Oriental Orthodox churches. They hold true to tradition and they are descended from the first Christians of Antioch. Unlike the RCC, they have maintained higher standards of morality among the clergy and lay people. Abortion, divorce, remarriage, gay marriage or even ordination of women are not even topics for debate in these churches – what was true once is still true today as far these Christians are concerned. Have they not a greater right to be called the true churches? They consider the ‘Western blight’ affecting the RCC and the protestant churches as evidence of your common falling away from the truth.

            What set the protestant churches apart from these traditional churches (both the RCC and Orthodox churches) was their faithfulness to the scriptures. They were built on the rock – the words of Jesus. Yes, the mainstream protestant churches today have fallen away and become corrupt, just as the RCC fell away centuries ago (as evidenced by sinfulness they still tolerate in their midst). Does this present apostasy nullify the faithfulness of those original protestants? No. Based on what Paul wrote in Romans 11, only a remnant will keep the faith.

          • So what “sinfulness” does the Catholic Church “still tolerate in [its] midst”? And, if every time there was sin in the visible church a new church was formed there would be an unending cycle of schisms.

          • Anton

            Only if you think in hierarchies.

          • Or in terms of an Apostolic Church with an ordained ministry and a teaching authority.

          • Anton

            One is ordained a priest by grace through one’s faith, according to St Peter himself (2nd letter, 2:9).

          • Yes, and there is also a specific sacerdotal priesthood – just as scripture calls all the people of Israel priests and yet there was separate priesthood too.

          • Anton

            Show me from the New Testament, please.

            In any case, the rite of ordination declares the candidate a priest, with the unambiguous and antiscriptural implication that he was not one beforehand.

          • A sacerdotal priest with the God given power and responsibility to consecrate bread and wine, to forgive sin and to teach.

            1 Peter 2, verses 5 and 9 references Exodus 19:6: “. . . and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” This text indicates a universal priesthood in the Old Testament. And yet, in Exodus 19:22, we read, “And also let the priests who come near to the Lord consecrate themselves . . . “ In other words, a universal priesthood in the Old Covenant did not exclude a distinct ministerial priesthood. The same applies to the New Covenant.

            Saint Paul speaks specifically of his ministry as an apostle, referring to it as a priestly service: “. . . because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service (Gk. hierourgounta) of the gospel of God…” (Rom 15:15b-16a)

            Jesus definitively chose and sent apostles to act as priests, or “mediators between God and men.” For example, after the Resurrection, He appears to the apostles and says to them: ” “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained”” (Jn 20:21-23). Here, Jesus communicated the power to forgive and retain sins – just as he Himself had done – to the apostles. This is a priestly ministry (see also Lv 19:21-22)

            In James 5:13-17:

            “Is any one among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise. Is any one among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church . . . and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. Elijah was a man of like nature . . .”

            When it comes to one “suffering;” James says, “Let him pray.” “Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise.” But when it comes to sickness and personal sins, he tells his readers they must go to the “elders”—not just anyone—in order to receive this “anointing” and the forgiveness of sins.

            Matthew 16:18-19: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

            Here Jesus promises Peter the power to proclaim the gospel on earth with the infallible authority of heaven to back him up. It also has implications in relation to the forgiveness of sins. In both cases, we are talking about priestly functions; that is, Peter and his successors are here promised the power to be mediators of both the message of God’s truth and the healing communicated through God’s forgiveness.

            As Dr. James Allen Hewett comments, the text itself is clear in that it uses a very rare Greek construction that profoundly brings out the sacerdotal nature of the Petrine office. It uses the future perfect periphrastic tense, which employs the future tense of the verb “to be” along with the perfect participle :

            “This tense . . . occurs rarely in the [Greek New Testament], but the student will do well to be familiar with it. Consider Matthew 16:19 (two examples) and 18:18 (two examples): “Whatever you bind on the earth will have been bound [estai dedemenon] in heaven and whatever you loose on the earth will have been loosed [estai lelumenon] in heaven.” The construction declares that a completed heavenly action and its continuing results will come to exist on earth upon the completion of a future earthly event.”

            (New Testament Greek: A Beginning and Intermediate Grammar, 152)

            To put it simply: God’s power being released “from heaven” is contingent upon a future event of Peter and his successors acting on earth. That could be a dictionary definition of priest.

          • Anton

            The operational meaning of a priest is a servant ambassador of God. Clearly Christians are that. Founders (apostoloi) and leaders (episkopoi) of congregations have special roles and may received office by the laying-on of hands, but all Christians are priests. it is not the laying of hands onto congregation leaders that I object to, but the formula that they are thereby ordained “as a priest”. No amount of obfuscation about categories of priest can get round the implication that they were not regarded as a priest beforehand. That is counter-scriptural.

            Not one New Testament letter is to ‘the priest’ of a congregation. That is a baffling omission if a distinct priesthood existed, is it not?

          • The actual definition of a priest is a mediatory agent between humans and God.

          • Anton

            According the the NT Christians don’t need one of those, and non-Christians can’t have one. But we can be ambassadors of God to the world.

          • Anna

            Sexual immorality, idolatry (2 Corinthians 6:16), veneration of human beings (1 Corinthians 3:5), love for worldly power (Matthew 20:26-28), forbidding to marry (1 Timothy 4:3).

            Every time sin is found in the church, we have a duty to get rid of it, while seeking to restore the sinner. If a church continues in sin, it is better to “come out and be separate” (2 Corinthians 6:17).

          • 2 Corinthians is not a scriptural basis for schism but a call to unity in the one faith and living according to Christ’s commands.

        • Anton

          Perhaps this Catholic Archbishop should be your next Pope:

          http://www.breitbart.com/faith/2017/01/14/top-bishop-europe-will-soon-muslim-stupidity/

          He has just said that Europe will soon be Muslim because of stupidity in high places. Meanwhile, Francis yesterday welcomed the first ‘ambassador’ to the Holy See from a country that doesn’t exist, called Palestine.

          • Palestine is recognized by 136 UN members and since 2012 has a status of a non-member observer state in the United Nations.

          • Anton

            Who cares? Not recognised by God.

          • He revealed this you personally, did He?

          • Anton

            Me and anybody else who understands the Bible.

          • Well all Christians claim to understand scripture and they can’t all be right. This is why God in His wisdom established the Church as a visible body with teaching authority.

          • Are you saying all those who are calling for two state solution don’t understand scripture? Is that an infallible dogma?

          • Anton

            Yes and yes.

            All this waffle about teaching authority… yet here at Cranmer it is simply you who have to discuss it with me, and if the Magisterium is so wonderful then it should be an easy job to reach an argument off the shelf and crush me, shouldn’t it?

            After you…

          • You need to demonstrate your position scripturally that the two state solution is contrary to God’s revealed will.
            Jack has already posted enough on the scriptural basis for accepting the teaching authority of the Church. As for “crushing you”, this is the work of the Holy Spirit, not Jack.

          • Anton

            I would accept the chastisement of the former but it seems not to be happening.

            In Genesis 15 God makes a covenant with Abraham, that specific descendants of his shall be given a certain portion of land. This gift will be forever and is not conditional on faith even, only on a cultural tradition of circumcision (Genesis 17). The same chapter is specific that the covenant runs through Isaac alone; then in Genesis 26:3-4 through Jacob/Israel specifically. The whole thing is summed up in Psalm 105:8-11: He remembers his covenant forever… the covenant he made with Abraham, the oath he swore to Isaac; he confirmed it to Jacob as a decree, to Israel as an everlasting covenant: “To you I will give the land of Canaan, as the portion you will inherit.”

            Notice that this is not the Mosaic covenant, which is radically changed in Christ, as Paul explains. It is the Abrahamic covenant, which stands as surely as does that with Noah. If you question the Abrahamic covenant today then you may as well question the Noahide covenant promising no repeat of the Flood, and be worried when it rains hard.

            Furthermore, a prophecy given to ancient Israel about Israel has to mean the people of Israel, or else God would – impossibly – be failing to keep his word to them if it never came true for them. There is a wider interpretation of this covenant that applies to Christians, but any wider interpretation of this sort must hold as well as the original meaning applied to Israel, not instead of it.

            So the land specified by the borders stated in Numbers 34, roughly Mandatory Palestine plus a little land to its north and the east bank of the Jordan, but not the southernmost Negev desert with Eilat, still belongs to the Jews today. I should explain what I mean by ‘belongs’, for in Leviticus 25:23 (and elsewhere) God states that the land is his – he created it – and that the Israelites would be tenants and he is capable of exiling them from it. It is clearest to say that God has reserved this land indefinitely for the Israelites. So whenever they are permitted to return to it, they have divine right to jurisdiction within it. Notice, please, that they are back today under the Abrahamic covenant, not the Mosaic one; they do not have divine right, as Joshua did, to go in and kill everybody and take their possessions. But they do have divine right to jurisdiction over that whole area, and to enforce that jurisdiction where necessary.

            That they were out of the land as a nation for 18 centuries until 1948 changes none of this. All that is necessary is to identify the sin responsible, some 25 times worse than those for which they were exiled to Babylon for 70 years. Any Christian can tell them what that is: they did not recognise the time they were visited (Luke 19:44). But God keeps his promises and they are now returning in unbelief to undergo a spiritual cleansing, just as Ezekiel (36:24-6) prophesied. (In contrast the return from Babylon was led by the most zealous for God, so Ezekiel cannot mean the return from Babylon.) There are further prophecies of return which do not match the return from Babylon: when Zechariah spoke of a return his words were given from Jerusalem after the return from Babylon (Zech 1:11 in conjunction with Haggai 1:1). Amos (9:13-15) spoke of a permanent return, which the return from Babylon proved not to be. Isaiah 11:11-12 speaks of a return from the four corners of the world, not just from one place (ie, Babylon), uniquely matching the present return.

            I am willing to change my views but if you disagree, please show me from scripture where you consider I am wrong, and why.

          • We’ve covered all this before. Let’s save it for an appropriate thread.

          • Anton

            Certainly I’ve set out that reasoning before. But let me add Joel 3:2 to the mix.

          • Cressida de Nova

            I am surprised you did not know that Anton like Dawkins knows everything.

          • Anton

            The point is to know what you don’t know.

          • carl jacobs

            Ummm … So?

      • David

        Yes indeed.

      • Anton

        And two of the last three “news release” from the Church of England have been about… climate change!

        https://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news.aspx

        I’d be glad of some bishop change.

      • CliveM

        Now look what you started!

        I think this endless persecution of Happy Jack is most uncalled for and a little unChristian.

        and Len, I have known a few Catholics and they seem the usual mix of happy, sad, depressed, elated, positive and negative that we all are, depending on how things are going.

        • Pubcrawler

          It’s almost Pavlovian, isn’t it?

          *sigh*

        • len

          I think Jack is an OK chap…..for a Catholic.

          • dannybhoy

            Me too. Jack is a convinced Catholic and nothing anyone here says will change that.
            Of course we think he’s wrong, just as he thinks we are wrong. Our Lord will sort it out sooner or later.

          • len

            Jack reminds me somewhat of the helmsman of the Titanic…”Did you feel that bump?”….”Felt nothing” said Helmsman Jack….

          • Cressida de Nova

            Jack is lovely
            Jack is right
            Jack never acts
            from fear or spite

        • chefofsinners

          Don’t worry. Glasgow cathedral has decided to build bridges with Catholics by replacing the communion wine with Bloody Marys. (Cocktail umbrellas optional).

          • Cressida de Nova

            A cocktail umbrella is a bridge too far.

        • carl jacobs

          I honestly can’t tell if you are being serious, Clive. I ask because I want to know if you think I did something wrong.

  • not a machine

    I fainted ,felt like Shaun Connery coming round in Honour Blackmans airplane in goldfinger:)

  • Holger

    How absurdly comical to see the British so happy at the prospect of doing a trade deal with the US. I wonder how pleased you’ll be when cheap hormone-soaked American beef and GM grains have driven your farmers out of business and you’re all driving plastic Chevrolets and Pontiacs.

    Out of the frying pan into the fire. “Global Britain” can be nothing more than a satellite state of the US, and one that’s significantly less interesting to them than it used to be. Without access to the Single Market, you’ll no longer be their bridgehead into Europe, just a small overseas territory where excess US production can be dumped at knockdown prices leaving
    your own companies unable to compete.

    What’s your alternative? Become a tax haven? With a closed-door immigration policy? And how will that work? You’ll take their money but you won’t take them. Kind of defeats the purpose of being a tax haven…

    Watching a neighbour shoot himself in the foot is a cringe-making business, but we’ll get over it. You’ve never been the most popular family on the block. Snobbish and contrary and always demanding special treatment. We’re starting to realise how welcome your departure will be. Watching you fall flat on your faces will make us look through our fingers and wince, but pratt-falls can be very entertaining too.

    • CliveM

      Linus, your forecasting abilities have zero credibility based on a 100% record of getting it wrong.

      Therefore I find your prediction of doom quite reassuring.

    • William Lewis

      “Out of the frying pan into the fire.”

      So you admit that being in the EU is akin to bring in a frying pan. That’s progress, I suppose.

    • William Lewis

      The malice you project is a microcosm of the EU’s prevailing attitude to the UK. Who would want to be a member of a club on such terms? A club that would inflict economic harm on its own members pour encourager les autres? Cutting off its nose to spite its face.

    • bluedog

      ‘Snobbish and contrary and always demanding special treatment. ‘ A perfect description of the French. Now tell us, how is Marine getting along? Can Macron surprise her by coming strongly from behind? Poor old Fillon seems to have done a u-turn on Thatcherism and once again it’s a two horse race.

      • Holger

        We’ll see who wins the French presidential election. At the moment it looks as though Le Pen has little chance quite simply because the nation will unite behind whoever her opponent turns out to be: Fillon or Macron.

        The next French president will therefore be strongly European and, despite her current dip in popularity, Merkel is likely to be re-elected. Britain will find itself sandwiched between a newly strengthened EU on one side and the US on the other.

        Your choices are stark. Either you let yourselves be colonised by the US and become, to all intents and purposes, the 51st state whose economic and political policies are dictated by Washington, or you decides to go it alone as a tax haven.

        Either way your economic choices are limited.

        May knows this and is trying to put a brave face on it. The markets are undecided at the moment and will remain so until the current round of EU elections are out of the way and the threat of populist sabotage has abated. This will be around about the time when you start to realise just how unacceptable the reality of any “free trade” deal with the US is. Your agricultural sector will be the first to go. And then what other markets will Trump demand free access to? Healthcare? Defence? Education? Your whole social model is at risk and the political cost of dismantling it to satisfy American demands for greater access will bring down any government that attempts it.

        Brexit is an own goal that you’ll live to regret. Bitterly. Still, that’s your problem, not ours. So gloat while you still can. You only have a narrow window before reality starts to bite. Enjoy it.

        • bluedog

          ‘Either way your economic choices are limited.’

          Only in your imagination. Just remember that the Anglosphere is not just a policy wonk’s dream, it’s based on institutional structures such as the Five Eyes intelligence sharing network that the French and Germans are always trying to join, but can’t. Another post-Brexit model for the UK is closer relations with Canada, Australia and NZ, all four of which share the same head of state. Aggregate the populations and you have 125 million and a GDP bigger than that of Japan, the third largest economy globally. So belittling the UK as the 51st US state slightly misses the point. Another way to look at Brexit is to see the UK leaving the Eurosphere and rejoining a far more powerful group of nations with whom it has a great deal in common. It is always said of the best clubs that there are no rules, because all the members know what they are without being told. So it would be with a meeting of the Anglosphere leadership, although one has to concede that new boy Trump may need some coaching in etiquette before greeting Mrs May.

          • youhavenewmail

            My guess is, he’s going to say, “Hiya Tessa!”

          • Holger

            Australia and New Zealand’s economic future lies in Asia, not in renewing ancient and obsolete imperial ties with a country that abandoned them decades ago and, now that it’s desperate for new trading partners, suddenly wants them back.

            I have no doubt they’ll be happy enough to sign trade deals with Britain, but you won’t have them as captive markets the way you used to. They’re smart enough to know that Britain can’t be trusted. Once bitten, twice shy.

            In any case, what’s their combined population? Twenty million or so? They’re hardly going to fill the gap left by loss of access to the Single Market.

            Canada will go where the US goes and the US is going nowhere you can lead it. They’re going to lead you and drag you along in their wake like the obedient poodle nation you’re going to become. Only now that the poodle is banned from taking walks in Europe, you’ll only be of limited use to them. When you were their back door in, they loved you. Now you’re just another slave state whose only purpose is to consume their products and top up their coffers.

            “Global Britain” my eye. Backwater Britain would be more accurate. Your economic policy will be decided in Washington DC, and Washington DC permits no competition. Their playing field is tilted firmly in their favour and while they may throw you enough scraps to keep you just rich enough to continue consuming, true prosperity is something I doubt you’ll ever know again.

            Ah well, you chose your own fate and you can’t say you weren’t warned.

          • Anton

            Yes, warned by someone who called the Referendum result wrong…

          • Holger

            Which referendum? The Scottish independence referendum or the Irish equal marriage referendum?

            Two out of three ain’t bad. 100% would mean I possess a working crystal ball, which I do not.

            I call it right more often than wrong. What about you? Apart from the Brexit result, which was a shock to everyone, even you, what have you called correctly?

          • Anton

            You know which Referendum I mean.

            Some of us have the sense not to make daft predictions.

        • Anton

          Aren’t you forgetting the elections in the Netherlands and the banking crisis in Italy? The EU in its present form is doomed. As a Europhile but an EUphobe I say Good riddance.

          • Holger

            The Dutch are far too realistic to fool themselves into thinking they can survive outside the EU. And Italian banking crises come and go.

            The EU is here to stay. It’s the UK that’s doomed to second rate status as a US tributary nation. As one who knows the country well, I can’t say I’m surprised. You’ve never been proper Europeans and have always done your best to disagree with your neighbours and impede progress towards a united Europe. So good riddance. You won’t be missed.

          • Anton

            You speak for fewer than you suppose.

          • Holger

            I speak for at least 70% of the Dutch electorate. Wilders is polling at 30%. No other party will work with him in coalition. He will not be prime minister. The Netherlands will stay in the EU.

            End of story.

          • Anton

            For now, perhaps, but look at the curve. And the Netherlands is not the only country which is getting sick of Brussels. Look at the youth unemployment figures in the Med nations, look at the failure to protect that coast from economic migrants of a hostile culture, look at the looming banking crises that not even the Germans can or will cover. The EU is doomed in its present form. As a Europhile I wish it ill.

          • The Explorer

            WIlders has pledged to close the borders, close down mosques, leave the Euro and leave the EU. Your nightmare politician on all four counts.

          • Holger

            Wilders’ party may (or may not) win the largest single bloc of seats in the Dutch parliament, but it won’t win an outright majority. With all other parties forming a cordon sanitaire around him and refusing to enter into coalition, Wilders has zero chance of becoming prime minister and zero chance of taking the Netherlands out of the EU.

            What you far right fascist types fail to understand is just how loathed you are by everyone else. We’ve seen where your policies take us and don’t want a repeat of the 1930s and 40s. We won’t work with you, so unless you can get an outright majority, which in the splintered Dutch political landscape is functionally impossible, you can’t govern.

            Your dreams of Brexit heralding the break-up of the EU are just dreams. The UK is on its own now. Out in the with its begging bowl pleading for scraps from Trump’s table. Good luck with that.

          • The Explorer

            I simply said Wilders is your nightmare politician.

            While it is reassuring to know that views such as his exist, I think it unlikely, given the depths of Dutch political folly, that he will be successful.

            While he’s certainly the best hope for Amsterdam’s long-suffering gays, and while it’s amazing he’s managed to stay alive for as long as he has, I suspect he’ll eventually go the way of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh. The form of fascism he has long opposed will get him.

          • Holger

            If Wilders cannot come to power, which given the Dutch political landscape is most certainly the case, then he cannot be my nightmare politician.

            Politicians who shout out hatred and exclusion are just an annoyance rather than a nightmare. In some ways they’re useful because they focus opposition and ensure their own defeat.

            My nightmare politician is someone who is both a fascist and electable. The only candidate (in Europe) who fitted the bill was the Austrian guy whose name I forget. Probably because he was defeated and therefore no longer poses a threat.

            There are no politicians in my nightmares, on the rare occasions I have one. I used to wake up in the night thinking I was still in London and that certainly caused me a moment of anguish, but it’s been months since that happened. Now that I’m happily ensconced in my home territory, what do I have to be afraid of? A bunch of hysterical doomsayers and religious nuts? Or Donald Trump, maybe?

            If he pushes the button, you die too. All the world’s problems solved in a flash of light. No more Christians. No more Muslims. No more Jews. No more Atheists either, but how will that bother me if I’m not around to be bothered?

          • The Explorer

            You make it sound as if exclusion is, by definition, a bad thing; but this is not so. Violent children are excluded from school, and the educational opportunities of the others are thereby enhanced. Criminals are excluded from society by being imprisoned, and society is better able to function as a result. Christians would be excluded from your ideal society, and the intelligence level would rise. And so on.

            Even hatred need not be negative. Hatred of suffering can drive medical discovery.

          • Holger

            So what imaginary good do you believe flows from the exclusion of gays from marriage?

            Will there be fewer earthquakes and tornadoes as a result? Or do gay marriages send a kind of Christ-repellent (a bit like garlic to a vampire) into the atmosphere meaning he can’t come back until they’ve been eradicated?

            Perhaps banning gay marriage will make straight couples happier? I can’t say I noticed they were any happier before gays were allowed to marry, but I’m grasping at straws here because no self-evident harm is caused to anyone by a marriage ceremony, gay or straight, so the effect must be very subtle.

            Could it have something to do with silver tarnishing more quickly because of all the gay pheromones floating about (you know, the ones causing all the tornadoes…) But they were there before gay marriage. I have quite a lot of silver and my housekeeper hasn’t informed me that she has to polish it any more vigorously than she used to. And believe me, I get a blow by blow account of all her other griefs and unhappinesses, so extra polishing duties would be grist to the mill.

            No, it must be even more subtle than that … could it be that two men or two women saying “I do” sets up some kind of feedback loop in the religiosphere that’s equivalent to fingernails down a blackboard for Christians and other homophobic religionists? If you aren’t plugged into that particular network, you can’t hear a thing. But if you are, it’s like a permanent dentist’s drill hacking away at the nerve, and you’re strapped in the chair with no anaesthetic! Ouch!

            Tell you what, prove to me that this religiosphere exists and that gay marriage is making it torture you and I’ll happily campaign to make governments find a solution for you. Some kind of jamming device to reduce your suffering, perhaps. Or free tin foil hats on the NHS. I won’t ask gays to stop marrying: they shouldn’t be punished for your hypersensitivity. But you should certainly be helped.

            Can’t say any fairer than that, can I?

          • The Explorer

            Gays can marry each other as far as I’m concerned. Gays are going to screw each other, with all the health risks involved, so they might as well marry each other if they want to. It might even reduce gay promiscuity a little, and so reduce the strain on the various health services. Just don’t ask the church to conduct the ceremonies.

            Wilders isn’t particularly against gays, is he? Rather he’s against Muslims reducing former Dutch freedoms. Rather in the tradition of the gay Pim Fortuyn, who said that if Muslim rights were not restricted, gay rights would be instead. The fact that he was assassinated suggests that he may have had a point.

      • Cressida de Nova

        Now now poodle,you don’t really mean that about the French. They have some very good attributes which are too long to list here.

        • bluedog

          Indeed, Cressida. We have so much in common. But don’t expect to find anyone who will admit it.

    • The Explorer

      Dear nostalgic old Linus, dreaming of the days before World War One when Britain had independence courtesy of the Empire. Two world wars destroyed all that.

      If the choice is to be a satellite of the US or to be independent, then, of course, to be independent is better. In reality, the choice is to be a satellite of the US or to be a satellite of the EU. Britain, has chosen, very sensibly, not to be a satellite of the EU.

      • Holger

        The choice is to be a satellite of the US and feed off the crumbs they toss you, or to be an equal member of the EU and share in opportunities of the Single Market. Independence is a fool’s paradise. Who are you planning to trade with? Will New Zealand keep your economy afloat?

        • The Explorer

          “an equal member of the EU ” What does that mean, exactly? Are you saying that all EU members have equal status regardless of size, or when they joined?

        • William Lewis

          Don’t be daft. We’re going to trade with the EU.

          • Holger

            From the wrong side of a tariffs barrier. British goods will be so expensive you’ll be priced out of the market. Not to mention all the red tape associated with import licences and customs inspections.

            And quite frankly, who wants to buy British now? You’ve walked out on us, fine. But don’t expect things to be like they were before. When a friend repudiates you, you naturally look to form relationships elsewhere with more reliable partners.

            I don’t buy British any more. Why should my money go towards funding your national vanity project? Fund your own stupidity. My money will be spent supporting firm allies, not faithless fairweather friends.

          • William Lewis

            We are now at liberty to compensate those companies that trade with the EU and encounter friction costs, should we choose to do so. Nissan probably already knows this. And it will be much cheaper than having to compensate French farmers, et al, as well.

            Of course, one cannot legislate for those who are rich enough to entertain a spitefulness such as yours but, for most people, if the price is right …

    • Anton

      The EU is not viable in its present form with or without the UK. I look forward to seeing it fall apart and free the peoples of that great Continent from its dead hand. As for us, tax haven means lower corporation tax so that companies prefer UK labour to continental labour. That deals with the logical objection you make. And I’ll be glad to be free to buy the cheapest car on the world market in my chosen quality range.

      • Sybaseguru

        I’m sure it will collapse, but not for a while – its basically a German Empire – the Euro feeds the German economy by keeping the exchange rate down at the other countries expense. Our leaving will mean the Germans will have to bear more of the cost of their empire or loose it. But all earthly empires fail.

    • William Lewis

      …you’re all driving plastic Chevrolets and Pontiacs.

      I’ll be driving a Tesla. (0 to 60 mph in 2.5 seconds).

      • Anton

        Then three hours recharging it!

        Actually the imminent revolution is not electric cars but driverless cars.

        • William Lewis

          Yes, both electric and driverless, but recharges will be quicker than that.

          • Anton

            Any significant time spent in recharging would be bad. We want a drop-in battery system so that garages are replaced by battery exchange, charged for uncharged.

          • William Lewis

            Ultimately, as you imply, it won’t matter because we won’t own any cars but will simply order a driverless car to take us from A to B. The cars will recharge themselves when not in use.

          • Anton

            Better make sure you haven’t any fines outstanding or the car will take you unexpectedly to the nick instead…

        • IanCad

          You may find this short article interesting Anton:

          http://wolfstreet.com/2016/10/28/evs-will-crush-jobs-in-auto-manufacturing-vw-warns/

          If the price was right I’d spring for one as most of my trips are short.

          • Anton

            Yes, but you only need to make one trip every month to someone out of battery range for it to be a hassle.

          • IanCad

            I’d always keep an old clunker on hand for that eventuality.

          • Dreadnaught

            Excellent link – thanks IC

        • Sybaseguru

          As owner of a Nissan Leaf, the 9 yr old diesel Jaguar Estate doesn’t get off the drive much as its always second choice car. Ikea charging takes 30 mins when caught short – barely time to visit the cafe for a cup of coffee. At 3p/mile and zero road tax it will pay for itself before the batteries deteriorate too much. Its so much fun burning all and sundry off at the lights as response is instant and no gear changes. I suspect the Dutch will still want to buy our Leafs (or should it be Leaves?) even when we leave the EU

      • Holger

        Be sure to try the autopilot feature, won’t you?

        So that’s one less Christian fascist to deal with. If they all get Teslas, problem solved!

        • ChaucerChronicle

          Ad hominem.

        • William Lewis

          nice

      • dannybhoy

        How many points is that on the school run?
        What’s the point anyway? I wouldn’t want a car that went that fast. I like cars that are as kind to the environment as possible, flexible and reliable.
        As long as I get to my destination in one piece at a reasonable 60mph and eighty to the gallon or ninety to a torch battery, I am well chuffed.

        • William Lewis

          Tesla are electric so potentially much better for the environment.

          • dannybhoy

            I know that, but 0-60mph in 2.5 seconds? What’s the point?
            Now if you had a Trabant De Luxe that did 1000mpg to a bowl of dirty dishwater, with a decent Chardonnay as an exhaust byproduct, I’d be well impressed.

          • William Lewis

            You’re right. No point 🙁 … but a man can dream can’t he?

          • Anton

            Divine Fiat?

          • dannybhoy

            Rolls Canardly?

          • Anton

            The electricity has got to come from somewhere…

          • William Lewis

            Yes. Hence “potentially”.

    • len

      Wouldn`t mind a Pontiac because all the french cars I have owned have ended up going for scrap…Literally.

      • You should purchase cars at auctions, Len. Bad idea.

        • len

          One of my cars had nuns as previous owners I think it was anti protestant and self destructed.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Ha ha !Catholic Karma!

          • len

            Now Cressida ,that not very kind. 100 hail Mary’s please.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Oops …my karma has just run over your dogma !

          • len

            Oh…. nasty!.

          • Anton

            Surely Carma?

          • Cressida de Nova

            Tsk…overstated !

          • 1642again

            They’d probably wound the clock back 50k miles or more Len.

          • len

            Possibly, didn`t seem to have done many miles before it expired.

          • It had probably been blessed, Len, and reacted badly to having a heretic as its new owner.

          • len

            LOL.

      • Holger

        All cars end up on the scrapheap sooner or later. Some rather sooner than later. Good luck with your Pontiac. American cars are made from cheap materials and don’t last long. But as you’ll be so rich from all that trade with the US, you’ll be able to replace it every year, won’t you?

        In your dreams…

        • ChaucerChronicle

          All euro cars end up on the scrap heap sooner or later.

          • 1642again

            Especially those with fraudulent emissions tests!

          • Anton

            Smart move, that. Absurd emissions standards that chopped the b*lls off the cars thanks to the Greens. Too bad it got rumbled. Can I get one cheap?

      • dannybhoy

        Bigot.
        I’ve had some decent French diesel cars..

        • len

          So did I , until the suspension, the steering, and the brakes all failed at the same time(all at the entrance to the tunnel under the Mersey)
          Never again.

          • William Lewis

            When they go on strikes they ALL go on strike.

          • Anton

            Just like when they go on holiday they all go on holiday.

          • dannybhoy

            At least they were consistent.
            I never figured out why British cars were so susceptible to rusting.
            Rain we’re not short of.
            Stop moaning Len.

          • len

            Look here I want to moan , Its a British tradition.Wer’e allowed our British traditions now were leaving the EU.

          • dannybhoy

            I’m sure that there’s a scripture somewhere in Proverbs that says,
            “Yea! thus sayeth the Lord; French cars are an abomination and a direct cause of emerods. Unhappy is the man whose garage is full of them…”
            You shoulda known that Len.

          • len

            I think the word ‘cars’ was omitted?.

          • dannybhoy

            Very good. :0)

          • Anton

            You could be guaranteed a prompt tow there anyway!

          • len

            Certainly. I believe the tunnel police tow you out of the tunnel?.However I stopped short of the tunnel entrance by about 50 yds

        • Anton

          Is “Bigot” the name of a French make or model of car?

          • dannybhoy

            You’re thinking of the Citroen Baguette Gran Vexuse

    • ChaucerChronicle

      “Global Britain” can be nothing more than a satellite state of the US, and one that’s significantly less interesting to them than it used to be.”

      Let me just point out to you one area, amongst many: sharing of sensitive intelligence information. There is no way that the US would share information with us if it believed that we would share it with the EU. There is a reason for that. The former Soviet satellite states that have joined the EU have been penetrated by Russian spies.

      Germany needed Britain in the EU as it knew that the US did not trust it.

      “Without access to the Single Market, you’ll no longer be their bridgehead into Europe, just a small overseas territory where excess US production can be dumped at knockdown prices leaving your own companies unable to compete.”

      We’ll have access to the Single Market as German, Italian, French industrialists beg their governments to ensure they have access to the British market (and in time the market of the Commonwealth). The EU sells more cars to us than we do to them. I can’t see French wine and cheese makers, Italian ham exporters, Spanish real estate agents, Greek olive oil sellers, Portuguese sherry producers keeping quiet. Can you?

      “What’s your alternative? Become a tax haven? With a closed-door immigration policy? And how will that work? You’ll take their money but you won’t take them. Kind of defeats the purpose of being a tax haven..”.

      Tax haven with welcoming arms to foreigners with money (same as the Swiss).

      Thank you!

      “Watching a neighbour shoot himself in the foot is a cringe-making business, but we’ll get over it. You’ve never been the most popular family on the block. Snobbish and contrary and always demanding special treatment.”

      We demanded special treatment and our demands were met: opt out for this and opt out for that.

      We have superior standards for liberty, security, freedom and democracy. As the EU grows ever more centralised and expands eastwards (German for ‘living space’) you will be impelled to suppress your populations’ cry for liberty, freedom and democracy whilst simultaneously triggering war on your ‘eastern front’. Ukraine is only the beginning

      “We’re starting to realise how welcome your departure will be. Watching you fall flat on your faces will make us look through our fingers and wince, but pratt-falls can be very entertaining too.”

      The risk is greater for you and your friends as, soon to be, President Trump places high tariffs on EU (German goods). He’s been advised that the depressed value of the euro (engineered by Germany) makes, in effect, German goods cheaper than American.

      In short, it will be your own industrialists and farmers who will make the case for us.

      You’ve got problems in your own back-yard.

      • ChaucerChronicle

        Oh! By the way: how are the suicide rates in the southern EU states?

      • 1642again

        Excellent comment but the troll isn’t worth the breath.

        Eire will be the big loser in all of this. As the UK and Trump slash corporation tax rates while the Irish are forced by the Franco-German axis to increase theirs, the multinationals based in Ireland will spilt their operations between the US and UK, crushing the Irish economy, which is already four times more dependent on the UK than the rest of Europe put together. Add in Sterling’s depreciation and Eire’s agricultural exports becominge uncompetitive… Eire will have to follow the UK out and enter a form of loose federation with us or be ruined.

        Trolltastic!

        • Anton

          Well spotted. The border between north and south is going to have to be barbed wire while the Republic is in the EU and the UK isn’t.

          • Dreadnaught

            There has been an open border since 1923 – nothing to do with the EU.

          • Anton

            I know. But if that border becomes an EU border then that will have to change.

          • Dreadnaught

            That will be up to Eire and the EU to sort through if we stand for the 90 year status quo.

          • Anton

            Unless the UK puts up an impenetrable barrier just inside its territory along the border then every deadbeat and half the terrorists in the EU would come to the Republic and then slip across to the UK.

          • Dreadnaught

            As they can now; but how many have?.

        • Ivan M

          What manufacturing base does Ireland have? Is it anything like Taiwan’s? They will loose their status as a sophisticated tax laundering haven for corporations such as Apple and Google. But Trump will want it all back. He won’t give a cent to the British.

          • 1642again

            You have clearly missed the recent trend for US multinationals to have their global HQ in the US and base their international HQ is in London, including the US tech giants, mainly since 22 June 2016. Hard Brexit will merely accelerate this to Eire’s loss.

            While the relationship will always be unequal because of sheer size, the main issue the UK has had is pathetic leadership. Strong leadership in the national interest will win US respect.

          • Anton

            Would you clarify the difference between global and international HQ, please?

          • 1642again

            All companies define it differently, but a rough rule of thumb is the head office and operations for the Americas based in the USA, and operations for Europe, Africa,and Asia out of London. Some may have East Asia separately headquartered in Tokyo. The point is these companies seem to like two principal bases, one outside the US and increasingly in London.

          • Anton

            Thank you. There must be economic reasons for that arrangement…?

          • 1642again

            Risk management, tax flexibility, headquartering in the two largest global financial centres, access to valuable skills, time zone management. Depends on company circumstances.

            Nice to seue we Protestants are up early – that old work ethic eh!

          • Anton

            I often get theoretical physics ideas at that time!

      • William Lewis

        Outstanding!

    • Ivan M

      You may well be right Linus. Without a globe straddling Royal Navy the UK is just an island. Those days are not coming back. Depending on the century long pathetic, one-sided and unrequited “special relationship” with the US is not going to cut it. The Donald has already warned : You guys are in trouble if Steele is one of yours. The Brits ought to be realistic.

      • ChaucerChronicle

        ‘You may well be right Linus. Without a globe straddling EU military Germany is confronted by western and eastern fronts. Those days are not coming back. Depending on the century long pathetic, one-sided and unrequited “special relationship” with your neighbours it’s just not going to cut it.’

        • Ivan M

          They will just make up with the Russians. Manufacturing in Germany. Lebensraum and raw materials from the Russians.

          • len

            Putin’s Poodles then?

      • Anton

        Steele was trained by British Intelligence but has been out and running his own company (Orbis) for 8 years now.

  • Mike Stallard

    Do you believe in miracles?
    M.Juncker and M. Schultz abandoning the German election and welcoming Brexit with open arms! The 27 countries of Europe meeting without our presence, all being kindly and welcoming and nice and saying, “Yes of course, dear Mrs May, please have everything you like and more! We love you!” The diligent men and women of the customs posts in Rotterdam, Calais and Bremen saying – ” Hell, let’s just allow the Brits to trade with us and we will waive the customs inspection.” Translators hurrying out of bed and abandoning their sick children, their hangovers and their late trains to get to that important meeting where EU Directive 16/143545 on the dredging of canals is to be so hotly discussed.
    Well, thanks to Mrs May this is all going to happen within two years! What a marvellous Vicar Mr May must have been to teach his daughter such Christian faith!

    • William Lewis

      “Do you believe in miracles?”

      yes

    • Anton

      Sometimes it doesn’t take miracles… just self-interest. They sell us more than vice-versa.

  • IanCad

    Although encouraged by her splendid speech, I am still not so sure of her constancy. She is after all, a politician. What offers me the most hopefulness is David Davis, who, as the power behind the scene, has no stain on his record in our fight for independence. He gave a good interview with John Humphreys this AM – 2:10 in:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08bhpbs

    • 1642again

      A combination of electoral fear if they fall short, moral pressure from Trump, and the EU’s obduracy will give us a full Brexit. Mrs May after does want to win an election as PM.

    • Dreadnaught

      He gave a superlative Q&A session that lasted 100 minutes fielding 80+ questions with honest answers and great humour

  • Albert

    She’s doing brilliantly. Can you imagine what Cameron would have made of this?

    • William Lewis

      It’s the difference between a woman of substance and a man of smoke and mirrors.

      • Albert

        That’s a really helpful distinction. May kept her mouth shut about all this until she was ready and it was all thought through. Cameron was always the PR man who wanted to say something even if it was ill-considered (like “Let’s have a referendum” – good from our point of view, but bad from his).

        • CliveM

          Albert

          You are right.

          “If you can keep your head when all about you
          Are losing theirs and blaming it on you”

          I think that sums up the difference.

          • Dreadnaught

            “If you can keep your head when all about you
            Are losing theirs and blaming it on you”
            – then one clearly don’t understand the situation.
            D Cameron.

      • dannybhoy

        Well said. Women tend to be more conscientious and down to earth. Considering the situation she found herself in she’s done very well.

        • IanCad

          You’re trying to get a rise; aren’t you?

          • dannybhoy

            Ummmm, let’s see…
            Edward Heath the piano tuner. He’s the fellow who took us into the Common Market without fully explaining or revealing terms and conditions..

            Mr Neville Chamberlain the gentleman politician who proclaimed “peace in our time”..

            Then there’s Tony Blair who not only committed our young soldiers to war, he allowed them to go out with inadequate equipment and armour. In the meantime he showed solidarity with these young (now dead or limbless people) by heroically undergoing plastic surgery to transform himself into Dubbya’s poodle.
            The nation showed its gratitude by allowing him to become the first very very rich red blooded socialist Prime Minister…

            Trying to get a rise?
            I think not.

          • IanCad

            I have to admit Danny, my sentiments parallel those of Lord Chesterfield when it comes to the fair sex:

            “Women, then, are only children of a larger growth; they have an entertaining tattle, and sometimes wit; but for solid reasoning, good sense, I never knew in my life one that had it, or who reasoned or acted consequentially for four-and-twenty hours together. Some little passion or humour always breaks in upon their best resolutions. Their beauty neglected or controverted, their age increased or their supposed understandings depreciated, instantly kindles their little passions, and overturns any system of consequential conduct that in their most reasonable moments they have been capable of forming. A man of sense only trifles with them, plays with them, humours and flatters them, as he does with a sprightly, forward child; but he neither consults them about nor trusts them with, serious matters; though he often makes them believe that he does both, which is the thing in the world that they are proud of.”

            Time for us gents to acquit ourselves as men – after I get done with these dishes.

          • dannybhoy

            Ha ha, very amusing.
            Actually I agree in the main, but then women were not intended to be leaders but help-meets and mothers.
            Many are just not interested in the more serious aspects of life and true, their talk is often light, boring and ‘soap centred’ from our pov.
            That’s why I didn’t marry one.
            But then I know loads of blokes who are afraid to say what they really think
            Are interested only in how ‘fit’ a woman is, and see themselves as God’s gift to women. Or it’s the football club and sinking pints.
            That’s pretty moronic too.
            Life would be pretty boring without a lady in your life to love you support you and have a different take on things. My wife is lovely and I would deck any man who insulted or tried to harm her. She is the better part of me.

  • Anton

    How can a conversation which Jack is free to walk away from without penalty be persecution?

    • CliveM

      Tbh I think HJ is big and ugly enough to look after himself. I was simply amused (in a “here we go again” sort of way), how keen people were to go over old ground and pile into an argument well farrowed.

      • Anton

        It’s unlikely to stop because each side needs to put its arguments to the next generation.

  • carl jacobs

    I don’t worry about Jack. He’s like the chief villain in a martial arts movie. A worthy adversary but you know that in the end he will always be defeated.

    • CliveM

      HJ gives as good as he gets. I see the outcome as 50/50!

  • Two cheers for Mrs May.
    If she will now kindly do something about Dame Louise Casey, oaths of allegiance and so-called British values, and if my useless waste of space of a M.P. Hugo Swire will retire, I might consider voting Conservative again.
    On the other hand, Paul Nuttall’s made a good start………

  • jsampson45

    Apparently May wants to conclude a free trade deal with the Europeans in two years. How is this going to be done?