I am an atheist but even I know there is far more to Catholicism than endorsing an organisation. There are significant doctrinal differences which are independent of the church hierarchy. I have many friends and family who are Catholic but who support both gay rights, abortion and contraception. So it is entirely reasonable for Cyclefree to write the excellent article and still profess belief in Catholicism.
They should put themselves to the trouble of informing themselves as to what their church actually teaches. Their position as described by you is approximately equivalent to being Nazis who love Jews and think fascism is a no-no.
The best thing about Catholicism nowadays is that it is weak. Anyone who knows any history should know how horrible a belief system it was when it was powerful.
One might say the same about most organised religions. The Church of England (and the other European protestant faiths) was not exactly renowned for its tolerance and understanding when it started. It was a symptom of the times not the religion.
I think the period 1500 - 1650 was a pretty horrible part of European history, despite going hand in hand with huge advances in learning, and the creation of great artworks.
I seem to be joining a chorus (though with my voice I won't be thanked) of praise for this article. Thanks, Ms Free.
I would like to add one complicating factor, however: culture. Some things are *not* mainstays of a religion, and are in fact cultural: yet the proponents want to use religion as an excuse for a cultural practice. FGM is a good example, where it is practiced by some Christian groups (and even, in the past, some Jews), and views on it within Islam are mixed, to say the least.
Even the Burkha and Hajib can be seen as more of a cultural than a religious practice: although even there the boundaries are very blurred.
In Kerala, where my family hail from, the Muslim community number about 25% of the population. In recent years, burkas have become more and more common. When my mum was a child, they were virtually unknown.
A really interesting example is Bahrain. As a child, it was relatively liberal and while religious was certainly not oppressively so. The causeway (and BAPCO running out of oil) has changed that. Cultural religion and the influence and application thereof.
My mum visited Afghanistan on a student trip in 1969 and a lot of the local young women at the university were wearing miniskirts and none of them wore headscarves.
Yasmin Alibi-Brown did a radio series on the loss of liberal Islam for R4 recently - I think it is still on BBC sounds.
I'm a Conservative. It doesn't follow that I endorse the party line on everything.
On contraception, no one is compelled to adhere to Catholic doctrine.
So do you think the Church is teaching in the third world that contraception is bad, or that contraception is bad (but if you want to use it, go right ahead)?
If you have told people the Christian myth, and got them to swallow it, then telling them that x is a mortal sin is actually compelling them, by threats, not to do x.
People can choose whether or not to follow Catholic teaching. In this day and age, no one is compelled to be part of the Catholic Church,
No, but millions are brainwashed into it from an early age.
At what point would you think it appropriate to tell them that being gay or trans is a great choice.
There is a wonderful book called 'Foreskin's Lament' by the New York author Shalom Auslander. It's very funny but accurately describes where fear of the law comes when compared to fear of God......
" When I was very young my parents and teachers told me about a man who was very strong. They told me he could destroy the whole world. They told me he could move mountains and part the sea. It was important to keep the man happy. When we obeyed him he liked us. He liked us so much he killed anyone who didn't like us. But when we didn't obey him he hated us. Some days he hated us so much he killed us or let others kill us.........we call these days 'holidays'"
...seriously!
I do understand religion. I was brought up a Catholic and still am. I am also a mother of a gay son. So this is important to - and personal for - me.
I am going to shout now. Being gay or trans is NOT A CHOICE. It is part of who you are. And it is something that you can be aware of from a very young age. It was certainly the case with my son. So, yes, it should be taught - in an age appropriate way - from primary school onwards.
And those Orthodox Jews will meet lesbians and gay people among those they meet every day but they will be people who are too scared to be who they are be.
They are extremely unlikely to ever meet lesbians and gays. Suppressed ones perhaps but who will ever know? I'm not suggesting you don't understand religion but this is more comparable to a cult than a recognisable religion.
They literally will have no contact with anyone outside the faith. They don't go to university and will have an arranged marriage when the girl is between 18 and 20. The men go to a Yeshiva immediately after leaving school at 16. Their faith is impregnable.
Catholicism cannot be compared to it. It is beyond anything that you can explain logically. They don't have televisions because the content would be unsuitable. They believe the world is 5000 years old.
Why would you think a religion where you can't have milk after meat or tear toilet paper on the sabbath or shake hands with someone of the opposite sex or be obliged to have sex through a hole in a sheet and be forbidden from having sex at specified times in the menstrual cycle be sanguine about learning about LGBT?
Well they might not be sanguine about it any more than some Muslim parents. But tough.
The effect of no deal would be the equivalent of imposing sanctions on ourselves. Put very simply an “exit” on such terms would make trade harder not easier. Like imposing sanctions.
Leavers like you complain that the EU is a political project and then act surprised when they treat it as such. It is about more than the economics. If one of the headbangers you mention were in charge the negotiations would have ended already with no deal whatsoever and we would already be begging for any kind of deal as the economy tanks. The only reason it hasn’t already is the hope that May’s deal would pass. If a headbanger were in charge we wouldn’t have got anything at all.
Utter garbage.
The EU will seek to get the most beneficial [to itself] agreement it can get. The idea it needs to be one type or another is patently false. The EU and Europe in general has never been one-size-fits-all as this famous Venn Diagram shows: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supranational_European_Bodies-en.png
The idea talks would just stop is just ridiculous. We'd get a deal of some sort, it would just have been a different deal. The EU has all sorts of different deals with all sorts of different nations.
I'm a Conservative. It doesn't follow that I endorse the party line on everything.
On contraception, no one is compelled to adhere to Catholic doctrine.
So do you think the Church is teaching in the third world that contraception is bad, or that contraception is bad (but if you want to use it, go right ahead)?
If you have told people the Christian myth, and got them to swallow it, then telling them that x is a mortal sin is actually compelling them, by threats, not to do x.
People can choose whether or not to follow Catholic teaching. In this day and age, no one is compelled to be part of the Catholic Church,
But they are persuaded to be part of it. You are in the position of a confidence trickster arguing that his victim voluntarily handed over the money, with no compulsion involved.
Letwin and Benn to retable amendment on Monday to give MPs the power to vote on alternative options, including 'Common Market 2.0' to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union. Letwin says he is now confident he has the votes to pass it after it lost by just 2 votes last time as at least 5 MPs have now switched in favour of the amendment following changes
I am an atheist but even I know there is far more to Catholicism than endorsing an organisation. There are significant doctrinal differences which are independent of the church hierarchy. I have many friends and family who are Catholic but who support both gay rights, abortion and contraception. So it is entirely reasonable for Cyclefree to write the excellent article and still profess belief in Catholicism.
They should put themselves to the trouble of informing themselves as to what their church actually teaches. Their position as described by you is approximately equivalent to being Nazis who love Jews and think fascism is a no-no.
The church teaches that everyone is made in God’s image. Everyone. That includes gay people. So the church is wrong in seeking to exclude them. The church’s understanding of human sexuality - which is not a matter of doctrine - is fundamentally flawed, one reason why it has gone so wrong when seeking to opine on such matters.
The Credo which sets out the essentials of the faith says nothing about sex. Nor does the Our Father or the Hail Mary. And it is adultery which the 10 commandments don’t like. And you’ll have to look hard for any comment at all by Jesus on homosexuality or contraception. So yes I do know what Catholicism is.
I never said you didn't. You know as well as i do that it is Catholic doctrine that artificial contraception is sinful. So, as far as I can see, islam telling people in Birmingham what they can and cannot do with their genitals - bad, Catholicism telling everyone everywhere the same thing - absolutely fine.
You have entirely misunderstood what my article is saying.
I don't feel we've had enough constitutional tinkering recently. A full separation of the church and the state is overdue. Perhaps something to look at once Brexit is uncontroversial?
No thanks.
I like the established CoE.
Nope I am with Alastair on this one. If we are to use Brexit as an opportunity for real beneficial change then disestablishment is a very good place to start.
I think it’s a fairly harmless (but also valuable) part of our cultural and historical tapestry.
And I love giving prayers to its head, HM Queen Elizabeth, at Christmas in Winchester cathedral.
But I wouldn’t expect you to agree. I am a Conservative, after all.
Sky talking heads just saying that EU leaders think tusk has made a boo boo and now they are thinking to find a fudge to dig themselves out of it.
Given their best outcome is for us to remain a short extension (even one with an implied longer extension ready when the deal is defeated again) is not the best route to that, and really does risk no deal.
From sky / German journalist it sounds like the EU are for once not sure if May might actually go nuclear and no deal and that tusks approach is more likely to end up with it, so they are trying to engineer a fudge to push things back.
Which just goes to show what some of us have said all along, the EU will act differently if they think you're actually prepared to go for no deal. By May coming off like she is prepared to go for no deal she's now getting what she asked for.
Just imagine how much better these negotiations could have gone if someone who wasn't a compulsive liar and was prepared to go for no deal all along had been in charge.
You speak as if being the first leader of a developed country threatening to willingly impose sanctions on itself would have been seen as a credible threat as opposed to the ravings of a madman. They would never have believed such a leader and we would be in exactly the same place. They still don’t IMHO.
Its not sanctions, its an exit. And they didn't believe we'd vote for it.
Given there's at least 100 MPs in Parliament who genuinely seem to want or at least be OK with it, then yes one of those being MP would have been transformative.
The effect of no deal would be the equivalent of imposing sanctions on ourselves. Put very simply an “exit” on such terms would make trade harder not easier. Like imposing sanctions.
Leavers like you complain that the EU is a political project and then act surprised when they treat it as such. It is about more than the economics. If one of the headbangers you mention were in charge the negotiations would have ended already with no deal whatsoever and we would already be begging for any kind of deal as the economy tanks. The only reason it hasn’t already is the hope that May’s deal would pass. If a headbanger were in charge we wouldn’t have got anything at all.
I am an atheist but even I know there is far more to Catholicism than endorsing an organisation. There are significant doctrinal differences which are independent of the church hierarchy. I have many friends and family who are Catholic but who support both gay rights, abortion and contraception. So it is entirely reasonable for Cyclefree to write the excellent article and still profess belief in Catholicism.
They should put themselves to the trouble of informing themselves as to what their church actually teaches. Their position as described by you is approximately equivalent to being Nazis who love Jews and think fascism is a no-no.
No it really isn't. That you believe that says far more about you than it does about Catholics. And I repeat I am a staunch atheist who thinks all religions are a load of rubbish. But criticism has to be based on reason not on lashing out at people who hold genuine beliefs and accusing them of positions far removed from reality.
Google catholicism and contraception, mate. Just fecking google it.
For many Catholics the organisation is not the faith (In spite of some of the words of the Credo). Catholicism is about so much more than just its temporal organisation.
If you want to criticise a religion (and I think that is a fine thing to do) at least do some research into it so your criticisms are informed.
I don't feel we've had enough constitutional tinkering recently. A full separation of the church and the state is overdue. Perhaps something to look at once Brexit is uncontroversial?
No thanks.
I like the established CoE.
Nope I am with Alastair on this one. If we are to use Brexit as an opportunity for real beneficial change then disestablishment is a very good place to start.
I think it’s a fairly harmless (but also valuable) part of our cultural and historical tapestry.
And I love giving prayers to its head, HM Queen Elizabeth, at Christmas in Winchester cathedral.
But I wouldn’t expect you to agree. I am a Conservative, after all.
Why FFS? A minority interest church of dwindling numbers being an established state religion is utterly bonkers. Get rid. Let religion be a private matter.
Religion is already a private matter. And the CoE imposes it not. In fact, it’s normally reflexively apologetic for it.
I see no social gain that would come from getting rid of it, and I think we would lose quite a lot by it.
I am an atheist but even I know there is far more to Catholicism than endorsing an organisation. There are significant doctrinal differences which are independent of the church hierarchy. I have many friends and family who are Catholic but who support both gay rights, abortion and contraception. So it is entirely reasonable for Cyclefree to write the excellent article and still profess belief in Catholicism.
They should put themselves to the trouble of informing themselves as to what their church actually teaches. Their position as described by you is approximately equivalent to being Nazis who love Jews and think fascism is a no-no.
No it really isn't. That you believe that says far more about you than it does about Catholics. And I repeat I am a staunch atheist who thinks all religions are a load of rubbish. But criticism has to be based on reason not on lashing out at people who hold genuine beliefs and accusing them of positions far removed from reality.
Google catholicism and contraception, mate. Just fecking google it.
For many Catholics the organisation is not the faith (In spite of some of the words of the Credo). Catholicism is about so much more than just its temporal organisation.
If you want to criticise a religion (and I think that is a fine thing to do) at least do some research into it so your criticisms are informed.
the parenthesis in your first sentence is so perfectly self-torpedoing that I have nothing further to add.
Letwin and Benn to retable amendment on Monday to give MPs the power to vote on alternative options, including 'Common Market 2.0' to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union. Letwin says he is now confident he has the votes to pass it after it lost by just 2 votes last time as at least 5 MPs have now switched in favour of the amendment following changes
Presumably Bercow will veto it, as it has already been voted on.
No, as I posted it has had some changes and Bercow will allow it, this is all part of his masterplan to ensure at least SM and CU BINO as was his refusal to allow the MV this week, he is a Remainer after all and if he cannot reverse Brexit completely or ensure EUref2 (though he may well try) BINO is the next best option and will ensure his place in history as the most powerful Speaker in decades
Letwin and Benn to retable amendment on Monday to give MPs the power to vote on alternative options, including 'Common Market 2.0' to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union. Letwin says he is now confident he has the votes to pass it after it lost by just 2 votes last time as at least 5 MPs have now switched in favour of the amendment following changes
I'm a Conservative. It doesn't follow that I endorse the party line on everything.
On contraception, no one is compelled to adhere to Catholic doctrine.
So do you think the Church is teaching in the third world that contraception is bad, or that contraception is bad (but if you want to use it, go right ahead)?
If you have told people the Christian myth, and got them to swallow it, then telling them that x is a mortal sin is actually compelling them, by threats, not to do x.
People can choose whether or not to follow Catholic teaching. In this day and age, no one is compelled to be part of the Catholic Church,
But they are persuaded to be part of it. You are in the position of a confidence trickster arguing that his victim voluntarily handed over the money, with no compulsion involved.
Freedom to promote a religion is no different to any other form of free speech, and freedom to belong to a religion is no different to any other form of freedom of association. it's no more confidence trickery than joining a political party or golf club.
I don't feel we've had enough constitutional tinkering recently. A full separation of the church and the state is overdue. Perhaps something to look at once Brexit is uncontroversial?
No thanks.
I like the established CoE.
Nope I am with Alastair on this one. If we are to use Brexit as an opportunity for real beneficial change then disestablishment is a very good place to start.
I think it’s a fairly harmless (but also valuable) part of our cultural and historical tapestry.
And I love giving prayers to its head, HM Queen Elizabeth, at Christmas in Winchester cathedral.
But I wouldn’t expect you to agree. I am a Conservative, after all.
We could turn it into the Church of Windsor.
It’s an independent, very English, church, at the centre of parishes and communities up and down the country, and it plays a useful (if somewhat left-leaning) part in our national debate.
I'm a Conservative. It doesn't follow that I endorse the party line on everything.
On contraception, no one is compelled to adhere to Catholic doctrine.
So do you think the Church is teaching in the third world that contraception is bad, or that contraception is bad (but if you want to use it, go right ahead)?
If you have told people the Christian myth, and got them to swallow it, then telling them that x is a mortal sin is actually compelling them, by threats, not to do x.
People can choose whether or not to follow Catholic teaching. In this day and age, no one is compelled to be part of the Catholic Church,
No, but millions are brainwashed into it from an early age.
I am an atheist but even I know there is far more to Catholicism than endorsing an organisation. There are significant doctrinal differences which are independent of the church hierarchy. I have many friends and family who are Catholic but who support both gay rights, abortion and contraception. So it is entirely reasonable for Cyclefree to write the excellent article and still profess belief in Catholicism.
They should put themselves to the trouble of informing themselves as to what their church actually teaches. Their position as described by you is approximately equivalent to being Nazis who love Jews and think fascism is a no-no.
No it really isn't. That you believe that says far more about you than it does about Catholics. And I repeat I am a staunch atheist who thinks all religions are a load of rubbish. But criticism has to be based on reason not on lashing out at people who hold genuine beliefs and accusing them of positions far removed from reality.
Google catholicism and contraception, mate. Just fecking google it.
For many Catholics the organisation is not the faith (In spite of some of the words of the Credo). Catholicism is about so much more than just its temporal organisation.
If you want to criticise a religion (and I think that is a fine thing to do) at least do some research into it so your criticisms are informed.
I suspect being an atheist is working against you on this. Religion just doesn't work the way that you think it should.
Apologies that this is my first post but I’ve been following this site for years. A few thing seem clear to me
1. MV3 won’t pass; 2. There is no appetite to revoke in Parliament; 3. The EU will probably give time until the end of the year to find an alternative; and 4. May is a goner
We need to get an untarnished PM in place as soon as possible. This is no longer conventional politics and therefore we have to be creative. Interestingly there is a Tory leader who has been absent for the past 5 months who is about to return from maternity leave........is this Ruth’s moment?
I am an atheist but even I know there is far more to Catholicism than endorsing an organisation. There are significant doctrinal differences which are independent of the church hierarchy. I have many friends and family who are Catholic but who support both gay rights, abortion and contraception. So it is entirely reasonable for Cyclefree to write the excellent article and still profess belief in Catholicism.
They should put themselves to the trouble of informing themselves as to what their church actually teaches. Their position as described by you is approximately equivalent to being Nazis who love Jews and think fascism is a no-no.
The best thing about Catholicism nowadays is that it is weak. Anyone who knows any history should know how horrible a belief system it was when it was powerful.
There are still over a billion Catholics worldwide
I don't feel we've had enough constitutional tinkering recently. A full separation of the church and the state is overdue. Perhaps something to look at once Brexit is uncontroversial?
No thanks.
I like the established CoE.
Nope I am with Alastair on this one. If we are to use Brexit as an opportunity for real beneficial change then disestablishment is a very good place to start.
I think it’s a fairly harmless (but also valuable) part of our cultural and historical tapestry.
And I love giving prayers to its head, HM Queen Elizabeth, at Christmas in Winchester cathedral.
But I wouldn’t expect you to agree. I am a Conservative, after all.
We could turn it into the Church of Windsor.
It’s an independent, very English, church, at the centre of parishes and communities up and down the country, and it plays a useful (if somewhat left-leaning) part in our national debate.
I think that’s, on balance, a positive thing.
It's so independent it has Bishops in the Lords.
If people want to support their medieval superstitions then good luck to them, no reason it should be established though.
The effect of no deal would be the equivalent of imposing sanctions on ourselves. Put very simply an “exit” on such terms would make trade harder not easier. Like imposing sanctions.
Leavers like you complain that the EU is a political project and then act surprised when they treat it as such. It is about more than the economics. If one of the headbangers you mention were in charge the negotiations would have ended already with no deal whatsoever and we would already be begging for any kind of deal as the economy tanks. The only reason it hasn’t already is the hope that May’s deal would pass. If a headbanger were in charge we wouldn’t have got anything at all.
Utter garbage.
The EU will seek to get the most beneficial [to itself] agreement it can get. The idea it needs to be one type or another is patently false. The EU and Europe in general has never been one-size-fits-all as this famous Venn Diagram shows: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supranational_European_Bodies-en.png
The idea talks would just stop is just ridiculous. We'd get a deal of some sort, it would just have been a different deal. The EU has all sorts of different deals with all sorts of different nations.
Bollocks. When a party to a negotiation goes in hard the counter party tends to reciprocate - as bitter experience as a litigator has taught me. You appear to be suffering from the delusion that Johnny Foreigner just doesn’t have the backbone that we do and we just have to act tough and they’d fold. Doesn’t work like that.
Why FFS? A minority interest church of dwindling numbers being an established state religion is utterly bonkers. Get rid. Let religion be a private matter.
Prince Charles wants to be 'defender of faiths' rather than defender of 'the faith'
The effect of no deal would be the equivalent of imposing sanctions on ourselves. Put very simply an “exit” on such terms would make trade harder not easier. Like imposing sanctions.
Leavers like you complain that the EU is a political project and then act surprised when they treat it as such. It is about more than the economics. If one of the headbangers you mention were in charge the negotiations would have ended already with no deal whatsoever and we would already be begging for any kind of deal as the economy tanks. The only reason it hasn’t already is the hope that May’s deal would pass. If a headbanger were in charge we wouldn’t have got anything at all.
Utter garbage.
The EU will seek to get the most beneficial [to itself] agreement it can get. The idea it needs to be one type or another is patently false. The EU and Europe in general has never been one-size-fits-all as this famous Venn Diagram shows: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supranational_European_Bodies-en.png
The idea talks would just stop is just ridiculous. We'd get a deal of some sort, it would just have been a different deal. The EU has all sorts of different deals with all sorts of different nations.
Bollocks. When a party to a negotiation goes in hard the counter party tends to reciprocate - as bitter experience as a litigator has taught me. You appear to be suffering from the delusion that Johnny Foreigner just doesn’t have the backbone that we do and we just have to act tough and they’d fold. Doesn’t work like that.
No I think they'd go hard too. They've gone hard presently.
But I think where they go in hard and we go in hard then we would make a deal where it is mutually beneficial to do so. Which is the point of deals!
That is such a misunderstanding of how religion works that it's difficult to know where to start. A young Orthodox Jew would have no contact with someone outside their community let alone to the joys of LGBT until at least their late teens if then. Then they marry.
They have 613 obligations and the retribution meted out by their divinity trumps 'liberal values' any day of the week. They learn it in their Jewish homes and they learn it in their Jewish schools. At what point would you think it appropriate to tell them that being gay or trans is a great choice. Time for God to get with the program?
There is a wonderful book called 'Foreskin's Lament' by the New York author Shalom Auslander. It's very funny but accurately describes where fear of the law comes when compared to fear of God......
" When I was very young my parents and teachers told me about a man who was very strong. They told me he could destroy the whole world. They told me he could move mountains and part the sea. It was important to keep the man happy. When we obeyed him he liked us. He liked us so much he killed anyone who didn't like us. But when we didn't obey him he hated us. Some days he hated us so much he killed us or let others kill us.........we call these days 'holidays'"
It does become very funny.......seriously!
I do understand religion. I was brought up a Catholic and still am. I am also a mother of a gay son. So this is important to - and personal for - me.
I am going to shout now. Being gay or trans is NOT A CHOICE. It is part of who you are. And it is something that you can be aware of from a very young age. It was certainly the case with my son. So, yes, it should be taught - in an age appropriate way - from primary school onwards.
And those Orthodox Jews will meet lesbians and gay people among those they meet every day but they will be people who are too scared to be who they are be.
If you "are a Catholic" you endorse an organization which has damaged the world more, and more avoidably, than Islam or Judaism ever did, by refusing to tell the third world that contraception is ok. I am therefore puzzled that you felt able to write this piece.
I'm a Conservative. It doesn't follow that I endorse the party line on everything.
On contraception, no one is compelled to adhere to Catholic doctrine.
Catholicism is a religious believe. Conservatism is an irrational creed based on fear and ignorance Discuss. A perfect essay title for my students
I hope you tidy up your spelling and grammar first!
Why FFS? A minority interest church of dwindling numbers being an established state religion is utterly bonkers. Get rid. Let religion be a private matter.
I think it's great that your lads in nighties have political oversight of we Jocks.
The Government Petition site has a really interesting map showing how many signatures per constituency. It is turning steadily darker as the overall number increases. They are distributed pretty much as one would expect, roughly following the pattern at the EU Referendum. The big exception appears at first glance to be Northern Ireland, which voted Remain overall but seems less keen than you might think on revoking. Look very closely however and you see a lot of petitioners concentrated in the Belfast areas where the DUP is strongest.
Does this mean the DUP will be sympathetic to Revoke? And would that make them less likely to give way on May's Deal.
Letwin and Benn to retable amendment on Monday to give MPs the power to vote on alternative options, including 'Common Market 2.0' to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union. Letwin says he is now confident he has the votes to pass it after it lost by just 2 votes last time as at least 5 MPs have now switched in favour of the amendment following changes
The Government Petition site has a really interesting map showing how many signatures per constituency. It is turning steadily darker as the overall number increases. They are distributed pretty much as one would expect, roughly following the pattern at the EU Referendum. The big exception appears at first glance to be Northern Ireland, which voted Remain overall but seems less keen than you might think on revoking. Look very closely however and you see a lot of petitioners concentrated in the Belfast areas where the DUP is strongest.
Does this mean the DUP will be sympathetic to Revoke? And would that make them less likely to give way on May's Deal.
Not sure. Difficult to imagine how the DUP think.
Those maps are fascinating. Usually they conform to expectations.
I don't feel we've had enough constitutional tinkering recently. A full separation of the church and the state is overdue. Perhaps something to look at once Brexit is uncontroversial?
No thanks.
I like the established CoE.
Nope I am with Alastair on this one. If we are to use Brexit as an opportunity for real beneficial change then disestablishment is a very good place to start.
I think it’s a fairly harmless (but also valuable) part of our cultural and historical tapestry.
And I love giving prayers to its head, HM Queen Elizabeth, at Christmas in Winchester cathedral.
But I wouldn’t expect you to agree. I am a Conservative, after all.
We could turn it into the Church of Windsor.
It’s an independent, very English, church, at the centre of parishes and communities up and down the country, and it plays a useful (if somewhat left-leaning) part in our national debate.
I think that’s, on balance, a positive thing.
It's so independent it has Bishops in the Lords.
If people want to support their medieval superstitions then good luck to them, no reason it should be established though.
I'm a Conservative. It doesn't follow that I endorse the party line on everything.
On contraception, no one is compelled to adhere to Catholic doctrine.
So do you think the Church is teaching in the third world that contraception is bad, or that contraception is bad (but if you want to use it, go right ahead)?
If you have told people the Christian myth, and got them to swallow it, then telling them that x is a mortal sin is actually compelling them, by threats, not to do x.
People can choose whether or not to follow Catholic teaching. In this day and age, no one is compelled to be part of the Catholic Church,
But they are persuaded to be part of it. You are in the position of a confidence trickster arguing that his victim voluntarily handed over the money, with no compulsion involved.
Freedom to promote a religion is no different to any other form of free speech, and freedom to belong to a religion is no different to any other form of freedom of association. it's no more confidence trickery than joining a political party or golf club.
Let them promote it amongst adults, not 4 year olds. Indoctrination of children into hocus pocus is child abuse.
I don't feel we've had enough constitutional tinkering recently. A full separation of the church and the state is overdue. Perhaps something to look at once Brexit is uncontroversial?
No thanks.
I like the established CoE.
Nope I am with Alastair on this one. If we are to use Brexit as an opportunity for real beneficial change then disestablishment is a very good place to start.
I think it’s a fairly harmless (but also valuable) part of our cultural and historical tapestry.
And I love giving prayers to its head, HM Queen Elizabeth, at Christmas in Winchester cathedral.
But I wouldn’t expect you to agree. I am a Conservative, after all.
We could turn it into the Church of Windsor.
It’s an independent, very English, church, at the centre of parishes and communities up and down the country, and it plays a useful (if somewhat left-leaning) part in our national debate.
I think that’s, on balance, a positive thing.
It's so independent it has Bishops in the Lords.
If people want to support their medieval superstitions then good luck to them, no reason it should be established though.
Yes and many of those Bishops contribute more to debates than the party donor hacks who take up too many places nowadays, the same applies to the Rabbis who have had seats there and representatives of other faiths could also have a presence
I understand her sermon from the No10 lectern – damning of her Parliamentary colleagues on Brexit – has snapped the final bond of trust between Theresa May and Julian Smith - the man she relies on to deliver discipline, and most importantly, votes.
In the tea rooms and offices of Parliament, the Chief Whip has been openly admitting today that he found last night's statement in Downing Street "appalling."
Having railed against the intransigence of MPs last night, blaming them for the impasse in Parliament, rather than her own inability to find a compromise, I understand the Whips' Office now feel the PM has made their efforts virtually pointless.
MPs have not been persuaded to switch and back her deal in a third Meaningful Vote next week, given she has blamed them entirely for the fact that she cannot get it through. Furthermore, at a time when communication between No10 and No9 (the official office of the Chief Whip) couldn't be any more vital, I understand the phone lines may as well be cut.
"She just won't listen to us," Julian Smith told one MP.
I'm a Conservative. It doesn't follow that I endorse the party line on everything.
On contraception, no one is compelled to adhere to Catholic doctrine.
So do you think the Church is teaching in the third world that contraception is bad, or that contraception is bad (but if you want to use it, go right ahead)?
If you have told people the Christian myth, and got them to swallow it, then telling them that x is a mortal sin is actually compelling them, by threats, not to do x.
People can choose whether or not to follow Catholic teaching. In this day and age, no one is compelled to be part of the Catholic Church,
No, but millions are brainwashed into it from an early age.
Whats the penalty for leaving?
Burning in hell presumably, although I'm told hell isn't quite as bad as it used to be.
Letwin and Benn to retable amendment on Monday to give MPs the power to vote on alternative options, including 'Common Market 2.0' to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union. Letwin says he is now confident he has the votes to pass it after it lost by just 2 votes last time as at least 5 MPs have now switched in favour of the amendment following changes
Will the EU allow us fee free access to CU+SM terms ?!
We will have to pay them anyway under the Deal and the exit fee but it would make the backstop terms for NI apply permanently to the whole UK so even if BINO would at least appease the DUP
I don't feel we've had enough constitutional tinkering recently. A full separation of the church and the state is overdue. Perhaps something to look at once Brexit is uncontroversial?
No thanks.
I like the established CoE.
Nope I am with Alastair on this one. If we are to use Brexit as an opportunity for real beneficial change then disestablishment is a very good place to start.
I think it’s a fairly harmless (but also valuable) part of our cultural and historical tapestry.
And I love giving prayers to its head, HM Queen Elizabeth, at Christmas in Winchester cathedral.
But I wouldn’t expect you to agree. I am a Conservative, after all.
We could turn it into the Church of Windsor.
It’s an independent, very English, church, at the centre of parishes and communities up and down the country, and it plays a useful (if somewhat left-leaning) part in our national debate.
I think that’s, on balance, a positive thing.
It's so independent it has Bishops in the Lords.
If people want to support their medieval superstitions then good luck to them, no reason it should be established though.
Yes and many of those Bishops contribute more to debates than the party donor hacks who take up too many places nowadays, the same applies to the Rabbis who have had seats there and representatives of other faiths could also have a presence
I'm a Conservative. It doesn't follow that I endorse the party line on everything.
On contraception, no one is compelled to adhere to Catholic doctrine.
So do you think the Church is teaching in the third world that contraception is bad, or that contraception is bad (but if you want to use it, go right ahead)?
If you have told people the Christian myth, and got them to swallow it, then telling them that x is a mortal sin is actually compelling them, by threats, not to do x.
People can choose whether or not to follow Catholic teaching. In this day and age, no one is compelled to be part of the Catholic Church,
But they are persuaded to be part of it. You are in the position of a confidence trickster arguing that his victim voluntarily handed over the money, with no compulsion involved.
Freedom to promote a religion is no different to any other form of free speech, and freedom to belong to a religion is no different to any other form of freedom of association. it's no more confidence trickery than joining a political party or golf club.
Let them promote it amongst adults, not 4 year olds. Indoctrination of children into hocus pocus is child abuse.
Speaking for myself, I don't consider I was abused by going to church with my mother.
I don't feel we've had enough constitutional tinkering recently. A full separation of the church and the state is overdue. Perhaps something to look at once Brexit is uncontroversial?
No thanks.
I like the established CoE.
Nope I am with Alastair on this one. If we are to use Brexit as an opportunity for real beneficial change then disestablishment is a very good place to start.
I think it’s a fairly harmless (but also valuable) part of our cultural and historical tapestry.
And I love giving prayers to its head, HM Queen Elizabeth, at Christmas in Winchester cathedral.
But I wouldn’t expect you to agree. I am a Conservative, after all.
And indeed, every day of the year, "O Lord, save the Queen" is intoned as one of the responses at Evensong services in cathedrals, college chapels and parish churches.
(I say this having sung that very sentence on Sunday - no, I'm not a priest, but our priest for Sunday's service didn't feel confident intoning, so as conductor/DoM it was up to me. Fairly amusing as I'm no royalist but hey ho... you can't argue with the William Smith responses.)
6 weeks unconditional extension according to chap on BBC
If so the EU have looked into the abyss and stepped back for the first time this process.
What a waste of three years that they haven't been made to do that more often.
Interesting. That takes us to 2nd May? General election to be called next week?
Probably too late now for an election on 2nd May as Dissolution would have to be next Tuesday - which would have to be preceded by a Commons vote to authorise it. Election announcement would need to be next Monday at very latest.
I don't feel we've had enough constitutional tinkering recently. A full separation of the church and the state is overdue. Perhaps something to look at once Brexit is uncontroversial?
No thanks.
I like the established CoE.
Nope I am with Alastair on this one. If we are to use Brexit as an opportunity for real beneficial change then disestablishment is a very good place to start.
I think it’s a fairly harmless (but also valuable) part of our cultural and historical tapestry.
And I love giving prayers to its head, HM Queen Elizabeth, at Christmas in Winchester cathedral.
But I wouldn’t expect you to agree. I am a Conservative, after all.
We could turn it into the Church of Windsor.
It’s an independent, very English, church, at the centre of parishes and communities up and down the country, and it plays a useful (if somewhat left-leaning) part in our national debate.
I think that’s, on balance, a positive thing.
It's so independent it has Bishops in the Lords.
If people want to support their medieval superstitions then good luck to them, no reason it should be established though.
Yes and many of those Bishops contribute more to debates than the party donor hacks who take up too many places nowadays, the same applies to the Rabbis who have had seats there and representatives of other faiths could also have a presence
I don't feel we've had enough constitutional tinkering recently. A full separation of the church and the state is overdue. Perhaps something to look at once Brexit is uncontroversial?
No thanks.
I like the established CoE.
Nope I am with Alastair on this one. If we are to use Brexit as an opportunity for real beneficial change then disestablishment is a very good place to start.
I think it’s a fairly harmless (but also valuable) part of our cultural and historical tapestry.
And I love giving prayers to its head, HM Queen Elizabeth, at Christmas in Winchester cathedral.
But I wouldn’t expect you to agree. I am a Conservative, after all.
We could turn it into the Church of Windsor.
It’s an independent, very English, church, at the centre of parishes and communities up and down the country, and it plays a useful (if somewhat left-leaning) part in our national debate.
I think that’s, on balance, a positive thing.
It's so independent it has Bishops in the Lords.
If people want to support their medieval superstitions then good luck to them, no reason it should be established though.
I am an atheist but even I know there is far more to Catholicism than endorsing an organisation. There are significant doctrinal differences which are independent of the church hierarchy. I have many friends and family who are Catholic but who support both gay rights, abortion and contraception. So it is entirely reasonable for Cyclefree to write the excellent article and still profess belief in Catholicism.
They should put themselves to the trouble of informing themselves as to what their church actually teaches. Their position as described by you is approximately equivalent to being Nazis who love Jews and think fascism is a no-no.
No it really isn't. That you believe that says far more about you than it does about Catholics. And I repeat I am a staunch atheist who thinks all religions are a load of rubbish. But criticism has to be based on reason not on lashing out at people who hold genuine beliefs and accusing them of positions far removed from reality.
Google catholicism and contraception, mate. Just fecking google it.
For many Catholics the organisation is not the faith (In spite of some of the words of the Credo). Catholicism is about so much more than just its temporal organisation.
If you want to criticise a religion (and I think that is a fine thing to do) at least do some research into it so your criticisms are informed.
I suspect being an atheist is working against you on this. Religion just doesn't work the way that you think it should.
There is a world of difference between religion and faith.
The Government Petition site has a really interesting map showing how many signatures per constituency. It is turning steadily darker as the overall number increases. They are distributed pretty much as one would expect, roughly following the pattern at the EU Referendum. The big exception appears at first glance to be Northern Ireland, which voted Remain overall but seems less keen than you might think on revoking. Look very closely however and you see a lot of petitioners concentrated in the Belfast areas where the DUP is strongest.
Does this mean the DUP will be sympathetic to Revoke? And would that make them less likely to give way on May's Deal.
Not sure. Difficult to imagine how the DUP think.
The DUP has a different problem to the rest of the UK.
Were Northern Ireland to have a problem the more intelligent parts of the Protestant community (who are already sympathetic to the Alliance Party or simply abstain) may decide that a border vote that resulted in a united Ireland would be better than remaining outside the EU.
And I suspect the odds of a border vote occurring are rapidly increasing alongside the odds of such a vote being won / lost (from a DUP viewpoint).
I seem to be joining a chorus (though with my voice I won't be thanked) of praise for this article. Thanks, Ms Free.
I would like to add one complicating factor, however: culture. Some things are *not* mainstays of a religion, and are in fact cultural: yet the proponents want to use religion as an excuse for a cultural practice. FGM is a good example, where it is practiced by some Christian groups (and even, in the past, some Jews), and views on it within Islam are mixed, to say the least.
Even the Burkha and Hajib can be seen as more of a cultural than a religious practice: although even there the boundaries are very blurred.
In Kerala, where my family hail from, the Muslim community number about 25% of the population. In recent years, burkas have become more and more common. When my mum was a child, they were virtually unknown.
A really interesting example is Bahrain. As a child, it was relatively liberal and while religious was certainly not oppressively so. The causeway (and BAPCO running out of oil) has changed that. Cultural religion and the influence and application thereof.
My mum visited Afghanistan on a student trip in 1969 and a lot of the local young women at the university were wearing miniskirts and none of them wore headscarves.
If you read the excellent Afgansty, you learn a lot about Afghanistan before the Russians, the Mujahadeen and the Taliban.
The religious groups were the groups that were the most effective at fighting the Soviets. And so, when the Soviets left, they filled the void by their departure.
I don't feel we've had enough constitutional tinkering recently. A full separation of the church and the state is overdue. Perhaps something to look at once Brexit is uncontroversial?
No thanks.
I like the established CoE.
Nope I am with Alastair on this one. If we are to use Brexit as an opportunity for real beneficial change then disestablishment is a very good place to start.
I think it’s a fairly harmless (but also valuable) part of our cultural and historical tapestry.
And I love giving prayers to its head, HM Queen Elizabeth, at Christmas in Winchester cathedral.
But I wouldn’t expect you to agree. I am a Conservative, after all.
And indeed, every day of the year, "O Lord, save the Queen" is intoned as one of the responses at Evensong services in cathedrals, college chapels and parish churches.
(I say this having sung that very sentence on Sunday - no, I'm not a priest, but our priest for Sunday's service didn't feel confident intoning, so as conductor/DoM it was up to me. Fairly amusing as I'm no royalist but hey ho... you can't argue with the William Smith responses.)
I know it might seem old fashioned to some, and I don’t want to come across all Rees-Mogg (who is a Catholic, I understand), but I am a royalist and support the CoE.
That doesn’t mean I’m uncritical of either. Far from it. But as a Conservative I value national institutions and traditions.
I am an atheist but even I know there is far more to Catholicism than endorsing an organisation. There are significant doctrinal differences which are independent of the church hierarchy. I have many friends and family who are Catholic but who support both gay rights, abortion and contraception. So it is entirely reasonable for Cyclefree to write the excellent article and still profess belief in Catholicism.
They should put themselves to the trouble of informing themselves as to what their church actually teaches. Their position as described by you is approximately equivalent to being Nazis who love Jews and think fascism is a no-no.
No it really isn't. That you believe that says far more about you than it does about Catholics. And I repeat I am a staunch atheist who thinks all religions are a load of rubbish. But criticism has to be based on reason not on lashing out at people who hold genuine beliefs and accusing them of positions far removed from reality.
Google catholicism and contraception, mate. Just fecking google it.
For many Catholics the organisation is not the faith (In spite of some of the words of the Credo). Catholicism is about so much more than just its temporal organisation.
If you want to criticise a religion (and I think that is a fine thing to do) at least do some research into it so your criticisms are informed.
I suspect being an atheist is working against you on this. Religion just doesn't work the way that you think it should.
There is a world of difference between religion and faith.
Re; Afghanistan in the 'sixties, many London Afghan taxi drivers have told me the same. There's a striking nostalgia for this more liberal era among many Afghans I've met, which is not perhaps the preconception some might have.
I don't feel we've had enough constitutional tinkering recently. A full separation of the church and the state is overdue. Perhaps something to look at once Brexit is uncontroversial?
No thanks.
I like the established CoE.
Nope I am with Alastair on this one. If we are to use Brexit as an opportunity for real beneficial change then disestablishment is a very good place to start.
I think it’s a fairly harmless (but also valuable) part of our cultural and historical tapestry.
And I love giving prayers to its head, HM Queen Elizabeth, at Christmas in Winchester cathedral.
But I wouldn’t expect you to agree. I am a Conservative, after all.
And indeed, every day of the year, "O Lord, save the Queen" is intoned as one of the responses at Evensong services in cathedrals, college chapels and parish churches.
(I say this having sung that very sentence on Sunday - no, I'm not a priest, but our priest for Sunday's service didn't feel confident intoning, so as conductor/DoM it was up to me. Fairly amusing as I'm no royalist but hey ho... you can't argue with the William Smith responses.)
I know it might seem old fashioned to some, and I don’t want to come across all Rees-Mogg (who is a Catholic, I understand), but I am a royalist and support the CoE.
That doesn’t mean I’m uncritical of either. Far from it. But as a Conservative I value national institutions and traditions.
How can you 'support' a religion? You either have faith in its fairy stories or you don't.
I am an atheist but even I know there is far more to Catholicism than endorsing an organisation. There are significant doctrinal differences which are independent of the church hierarchy. I have many friends and family who are Catholic but who support both gay rights, abortion and contraception. So it is entirely reasonable for Cyclefree to write the excellent article and still profess belief in Catholicism.
They should put themselves to the trouble of informing themselves as to what their church actually teaches. Their position as described by you is approximately equivalent to being Nazis who love Jews and think fascism is a no-no.
No it really isn't. That you believe that says far more about you than it does about Catholics. And I repeat I am a staunch atheist who thinks all religions are a load of rubbish. But criticism has to be based on reason not on lashing out at people who hold genuine beliefs and accusing them of positions far removed from reality.
Google catholicism and contraception, mate. Just fecking google it.
For many Catholics the organisation is not the faith (In spite of some of the words of the Credo). Catholicism is about so much more than just its temporal organisation.
If you want to criticise a religion (and I think that is a fine thing to do) at least do some research into it so your criticisms are informed.
I suspect being an atheist is working against you on this. Religion just doesn't work the way that you think it should.
There is a world of difference between religion and faith.
That may be, but based on the above posts, we're all talking about the former.
Is this what is known as a non-survivable situation?
"In the tea rooms and offices of Parliament, the Chief Whip has been openly admitting today that he found last night's statement in Downing Street "appalling." That is quite the outburst for a man known - indeed hired - for his discretion."
The Government Petition site has a really interesting map showing how many signatures per constituency. It is turning steadily darker as the overall number increases. They are distributed pretty much as one would expect, roughly following the pattern at the EU Referendum. The big exception appears at first glance to be Northern Ireland, which voted Remain overall but seems less keen than you might think on revoking. Look very closely however and you see a lot of petitioners concentrated in the Belfast areas where the DUP is strongest.
Does this mean the DUP will be sympathetic to Revoke? And would that make them less likely to give way on May's Deal.
Not sure. Difficult to imagine how the DUP think.
The DUP has a different problem to the rest of the UK.
Were Northern Ireland to have a problem the more intelligent parts of the Protestant community (who are already sympathetic to the Alliance Party or simply abstain) may decide that a border vote that resulted in a united Ireland would be better than remaining outside the EU.
And I suspect the odds of a border vote occurring are rapidly increasing alongside the odds of such a vote being won / lost (from a DUP viewpoint).
A border vote is a very sensible way to solve The Brexit Problem.
For the whole of Britain, that is. Why limit it to Northern Ireland? Bye bye Sunderland, see ya Barnsley, goodbye Great Yarmouth, ta ta Merthyr Tydfil. You can be free not just of Europe, but of soft Southerners and Saesnegs too.
I'm not quite sure how Remainia will manage without you, but I'm sure we'll find a way to cope. You can even keep the bus.
I don't feel we've had enough constitutional tinkering recently. A full separation of the church and the state is overdue. Perhaps something to look at once Brexit is uncontroversial?
No thanks.
I like the established CoE.
Nope I am with Alastair on this one. If we are to use Brexit as an opportunity for real beneficial change then disestablishment is a very good place to start.
I think it’s a fairly harmless (but also valuable) part of our cultural and historical tapestry.
And I love giving prayers to its head, HM Queen Elizabeth, at Christmas in Winchester cathedral.
But I wouldn’t expect you to agree. I am a Conservative, after all.
We could turn it into the Church of Windsor.
It’s an independent, very English, church, at the centre of parishes and communities up and down the country, and it plays a useful (if somewhat left-leaning) part in our national debate.
I think that’s, on balance, a positive thing.
It's so independent it has Bishops in the Lords.
If people want to support their medieval superstitions then good luck to them, no reason it should be established though.
Yes and many of those Bishops contribute more to debates than the party donor hacks who take up too many places nowadays, the same applies to the Rabbis who have had seats there and representatives of other faiths could also have a presence
Hell no.
There is no reason why religious leaders should not be in the Lords in the same way ex politicians, businessmen, academics, lawyers, scientists, former sportspeople and figures in the arts are
I don't feel we've had enough constitutional tinkering recently. A full separation of the church and the state is overdue. Perhaps something to look at once Brexit is uncontroversial?
No thanks.
I like the established CoE.
Nope I am with Alastair on this one. If we are to use Brexit as an opportunity for real beneficial change then disestablishment is a very good place to start.
I think it’s a fairly harmless (but also valuable) part of our cultural and historical tapestry.
And I love giving prayers to its head, HM Queen Elizabeth, at Christmas in Winchester cathedral.
But I wouldn’t expect you to agree. I am a Conservative, after all.
And indeed, every day of the year, "O Lord, save the Queen" is intoned as one of the responses at Evensong services in cathedrals, college chapels and parish churches.
(I say this having sung that very sentence on Sunday - no, I'm not a priest, but our priest for Sunday's service didn't feel confident intoning, so as conductor/DoM it was up to me. Fairly amusing as I'm no royalist but hey ho... you can't argue with the William Smith responses.)
I know it might seem old fashioned to some, and I don’t want to come across all Rees-Mogg (who is a Catholic, I understand), but I am a royalist and support the CoE.
That doesn’t mean I’m uncritical of either. Far from it. But as a Conservative I value national institutions and traditions.
How can you 'support' a religion? You either have faith in its fairy stories or you don't.
For many people it isn't binary. The Church of England has pretty much made equivocation an art form. Literally, in fact - the two greatest CofE composers of the 20th century (Vaughan Williams and Howells) were both agnostics.
May is now a rogue PM, isn't she? Supported by no-one and driving us to disaster. The Tory party has to act and get rid of her, if it wants to survive.
The Government Petition site has a really interesting map showing how many signatures per constituency. It is turning steadily darker as the overall number increases. They are distributed pretty much as one would expect, roughly following the pattern at the EU Referendum. The big exception appears at first glance to be Northern Ireland, which voted Remain overall but seems less keen than you might think on revoking. Look very closely however and you see a lot of petitioners concentrated in the Belfast areas where the DUP is strongest.
Does this mean the DUP will be sympathetic to Revoke? And would that make them less likely to give way on May's Deal.
Not sure. Difficult to imagine how the DUP think.
The DUP has a different problem to the rest of the UK.
Were Northern Ireland to have a problem the more intelligent parts of the Protestant community (who are already sympathetic to the Alliance Party or simply abstain) may decide that a border vote that resulted in a united Ireland would be better than remaining outside the EU.
And I suspect the odds of a border vote occurring are rapidly increasing alongside the odds of such a vote being won / lost (from a DUP viewpoint).
Even among upper middle class Protestants, support for the DUP far exceeds support for Alliance.
I don't feel we've had enough constitutional tinkering recently. A full separation of the church and the state is overdue. Perhaps something to look at once Brexit is uncontroversial?
No thanks.
I like the established CoE.
Nope I am with Alastair on this one. If we are to use Brexit as an opportunity for real beneficial change then disestablishment is a very good place to start.
I think it’s a fairly harmless (but also valuable) part of our cultural and historical tapestry.
And I love giving prayers to its head, HM Queen Elizabeth, at Christmas in Winchester cathedral.
But I wouldn’t expect you to agree. I am a Conservative, after all.
We could turn it into the Church of Windsor.
It’s an independent, very English, church, at the centre of parishes and communities up and down the country, and it plays a useful (if somewhat left-leaning) part in our national debate.
I think that’s, on balance, a positive thing.
It's so independent it has Bishops in the Lords.
If people want to support their medieval superstitions then good luck to them, no reason it should be established though.
Yes and many of those Bishops contribute more to debates than the party donor hacks who take up too many places nowadays, the same applies to the Rabbis who have had seats there and representatives of other faiths could also have a presence
Hell no.
There is no reason why religious leaders should not be in the Lords in the same way ex politicians, businessmen, academics, lawyers, scientists, former sportspeople and figures in the arts are
May is now a rogue PM, isn't she? Supported by no-one and driving us to disaster. The Tory party has to act and get rid of her, if it wants to survive.
But nothing has changed since December. Literally.
The Government Petition site has a really interesting map showing how many signatures per constituency. It is turning steadily darker as the overall number increases. They are distributed pretty much as one would expect, roughly following the pattern at the EU Referendum. The big exception appears at first glance to be Northern Ireland, which voted Remain overall but seems less keen than you might think on revoking. Look very closely however and you see a lot of petitioners concentrated in the Belfast areas where the DUP is strongest.
Does this mean the DUP will be sympathetic to Revoke? And would that make them less likely to give way on May's Deal.
Not sure. Difficult to imagine how the DUP think.
The DUP has a different problem to the rest of the UK.
Were Northern Ireland to have a problem the more intelligent parts of the Protestant community (who are already sympathetic to the Alliance Party or simply abstain) may decide that a border vote that resulted in a united Ireland would be better than remaining outside the EU.
And I suspect the odds of a border vote occurring are rapidly increasing alongside the odds of such a vote being won / lost (from a DUP viewpoint).
Even among upper middle class Protestants, support for the DUP far exceeds support for Alliance.
Yet those Protestants are clearly seeing Ireland boom compared to Northern Ireland even after the 2008 crash.
I will admit that my sample set is biased but I can see the sands shifting and could see that sand becoming an avalanche were things to go wrong.
Is this what is known as a non-survivable situation?
"In the tea rooms and offices of Parliament, the Chief Whip has been openly admitting today that he found last night's statement in Downing Street "appalling." That is quite the outburst for a man known - indeed hired - for his discretion."
It should be. But this is Theresa May we’re talking about.
And we thought it was hard to get rid of Gordon Brown...
(I should say I’m really very sorry what’s happened to May. I openly admit I was a big fan when she became PM. I thought she misstepped badly in the election, but I admired her for carrying on. I’m afraid as each day goes by though, she is just making a bad situation worse).
The Government Petition site has a really interesting map showing how many signatures per constituency. It is turning steadily darker as the overall number increases. They are distributed pretty much as one would expect, roughly following the pattern at the EU Referendum. The big exception appears at first glance to be Northern Ireland, which voted Remain overall but seems less keen than you might think on revoking. Look very closely however and you see a lot of petitioners concentrated in the Belfast areas where the DUP is strongest.
Does this mean the DUP will be sympathetic to Revoke? And would that make them less likely to give way on May's Deal.
Not sure. Difficult to imagine how the DUP think.
The DUP has a different problem to the rest of the UK.
Were Northern Ireland to have a problem the more intelligent parts of the Protestant community (who are already sympathetic to the Alliance Party or simply abstain) may decide that a border vote that resulted in a united Ireland would be better than remaining outside the EU.
And I suspect the odds of a border vote occurring are rapidly increasing alongside the odds of such a vote being won / lost (from a DUP viewpoint).
Even among upper middle class Protestants, support for the DUP far exceeds support for Alliance.
Yet those Protestants are clearly seeing Ireland boom compared to Northern Ireland even after the 2008 crash.
I will admit that my sample set is biased but I can see the sands shifting and could see that sand becoming an avalanche were things to go wrong.
Maybe, but the DUP hammered Alliance in the latter's strongest areas at the last general election.
May is now a rogue PM, isn't she? Supported by no-one and driving us to disaster. The Tory party has to act and get rid of her, if it wants to survive.
But nothing has changed since December. Literally.
Why shouldn't she have been replaced then?
She should have been. She needs to go now and an elder statesmen needs to come in - temporarily - in her place to steady the ship, calm nerves and steer the country into safer waters while we work out what the hell we want to do and how.
Well it’s a plan, granted it’s crap but it’s no worse than the others we’ve seen in the past 3 months
If Cabinet Members are really thinking these things they have no excuse for staying in the Cabinet. So as bad as things no doubt are there, it seems like it is just more attempts to focus on who gets blamed, ie not them. 'Me? I was against her the whole time I was in Cabinet'.
2 weeks of can kicking then. Might as well just say it must be a long extension, and force us to decide what we want to do next week. Not sure what the point is of this April plan.
May is now a rogue PM, isn't she? Supported by no-one and driving us to disaster. The Tory party has to act and get rid of her, if it wants to survive.
But nothing has changed since December. Literally.
Why shouldn't she have been replaced then?
She should have been. She needs to go now and an elder statesmen needs to come in - temporarily - in her place to steady the ship, calm nerves and steer the country into safer waters while we work out what the hell we want to do and how.
Revoke, 6 months for parties to formulate plans / replace leaders (if Desired) and a mid October election.
Well it’s a plan, granted it’s crap but it’s no worse than the others we’ve seen in the past 3 months
If Cabinet Members are really thinking these things they have no excuse for staying in the Cabinet. So as bad as things no doubt are there, it seems like it is just more attempts to focus on who gets blamed, ie not them. 'Me? I was against her the whole time I was in Cabinet'.
Sounds like its bitter soft Brexiteers realising they might not get what they want too. They should resign if that's what they think though.
Well it’s a plan, granted it’s crap but it’s no worse than the others we’ve seen in the past 3 months
If Cabinet Members are really thinking these things they have no excuse for staying in the Cabinet. So as bad as things no doubt are there, it seems like it is just more attempts to focus on who gets blamed, ie not them. 'Me? I was against her the whole time I was in Cabinet'.
Sounds like its bitter soft Brexiteers realising they might not get what they want too. They should resign if that's what they think though.
Name me one No Deal Brexiteers left in the cabinet?
Comments
The EU will seek to get the most beneficial [to itself] agreement it can get. The idea it needs to be one type or another is patently false. The EU and Europe in general has never been one-size-fits-all as this famous Venn Diagram shows: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supranational_European_Bodies-en.png
The idea talks would just stop is just ridiculous. We'd get a deal of some sort, it would just have been a different deal. The EU has all sorts of different deals with all sorts of different nations.
And I love giving prayers to its head, HM Queen Elizabeth, at Christmas in Winchester cathedral.
But I wouldn’t expect you to agree. I am a Conservative, after all.
utterly, utterly deranged.
What a waste of three years that they haven't been made to do that more often.
If you want to criticise a religion (and I think that is a fine thing to do) at least do some research into it so your criticisms are informed.
Macron is full of shit
I see no social gain that would come from getting rid of it, and I think we would lose quite a lot by it.
I think that’s, on balance, a positive thing.
1. MV3 won’t pass;
2. There is no appetite to revoke in Parliament;
3. The EU will probably give time until the end of the year to find an alternative; and
4. May is a goner
We need to get an untarnished PM in place as soon as possible. This is no longer conventional politics and therefore we have to be creative. Interestingly there is a Tory leader who has been absent for the past 5 months who is about to return from maternity leave........is this Ruth’s moment?
If people want to support their medieval superstitions then good luck to them, no reason it should be established though.
But I think where they go in hard and we go in hard then we would make a deal where it is mutually beneficial to do so. Which is the point of deals!
Does this mean the DUP will be sympathetic to Revoke? And would that make them less likely to give way on May's Deal.
Not sure. Difficult to imagine how the DUP think.
says
I understand her sermon from the No10 lectern – damning of her Parliamentary colleagues on Brexit – has snapped the final bond of trust between Theresa May and Julian Smith - the man she relies on to deliver discipline, and most importantly, votes.
In the tea rooms and offices of Parliament, the Chief Whip has been openly admitting today that he found last night's statement in Downing Street "appalling."
Having railed against the intransigence of MPs last night, blaming them for the impasse in Parliament, rather than her own inability to find a compromise, I understand the Whips' Office now feel the PM has made their efforts virtually pointless.
MPs have not been persuaded to switch and back her deal in a third Meaningful Vote next week, given she has blamed them entirely for the fact that she cannot get it through. Furthermore, at a time when communication between No10 and No9 (the official office of the Chief Whip) couldn't be any more vital, I understand the phone lines may as well be cut.
"She just won't listen to us," Julian Smith told one MP.
Says trust between whips office and 10DS gone
On the other hand, the EU giving her six weeks unconditional could be like someone very nearly putting a new column in its place.
https://www.itv.com/news/2019-03-21/has-the-prime-minister-cracked-her-chief-whip/
(I say this having sung that very sentence on Sunday - no, I'm not a priest, but our priest for Sunday's service didn't feel confident intoning, so as conductor/DoM it was up to me. Fairly amusing as I'm no royalist but hey ho... you can't argue with the William Smith responses.)
Were Northern Ireland to have a problem the more intelligent parts of the Protestant community (who are already sympathetic to the Alliance Party or simply abstain) may decide that a border vote that resulted in a united Ireland would be better than remaining outside the EU.
And I suspect the odds of a border vote occurring are rapidly increasing alongside the odds of such a vote being won / lost (from a DUP viewpoint).
The religious groups were the groups that were the most effective at fighting the Soviets. And so, when the Soviets left, they filled the void by their departure.
All most depressing.
https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1108807303489380358
I know it might seem old fashioned to some, and I don’t want to come across all Rees-Mogg (who is a Catholic, I understand), but I am a royalist and support the CoE.
That doesn’t mean I’m uncritical of either. Far from it. But as a Conservative I value national institutions and traditions.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1108076954874449922
"In the tea rooms and offices of Parliament, the Chief Whip has been openly admitting today that he found last night's statement in Downing Street "appalling."
That is quite the outburst for a man known - indeed hired - for his discretion."
https://www.itv.com/news/2019-03-21/has-the-prime-minister-cracked-her-chief-whip/
For the whole of Britain, that is. Why limit it to Northern Ireland? Bye bye Sunderland, see ya Barnsley, goodbye Great Yarmouth, ta ta Merthyr Tydfil. You can be free not just of Europe, but of soft Southerners and Saesnegs too.
I'm not quite sure how Remainia will manage without you, but I'm sure we'll find a way to cope. You can even keep the bus.
House of Unelected Has-Beens!
Why shouldn't she have been replaced then?
I will admit that my sample set is biased but I can see the sands shifting and could see that sand becoming an avalanche were things to go wrong.
Well it’s a plan, granted it’s crap but it’s no worse than the others we’ve seen in the past 3 months
I wonder if they've confused me for OGH, or whether they want me as a donor, as not much of my body's lacking hair.
And we thought it was hard to get rid of Gordon Brown...
(I should say I’m really very sorry what’s happened to May. I openly admit I was a big fan when she became PM. I thought she misstepped badly in the election, but I admired her for carrying on. I’m afraid as each day goes by though, she is just making a bad situation worse).