Mairead McGuinness is the first Vice President of the European Parliament, in post since 2017. In several news interviews following Nigel Farage’s final speech at the European Parliament she highlighted Nigel’s use of the word “hate”, shock-horrified at the use of that word. However, contrary to her disingenuous insinuations, Nigel did not say that he hated any person, or group or nation, merely the structures, the system. It’s reasonable to assume that Ms McGuinness would hate to live under the totalitarian regime in North Korea and she would be outraged, surely, if anyone misinterpreted that sentiment to suggest that she hates the people of North Korea.
In an email exchange earlier today, the reader who expressed enthusiasm about marking Brexit Day with this thread, threw cold water on Mairead McGuinness’s remarks about the use of the word “hate” by Nigel Farage in the above clip – he writes:
“I don’t care what that humourless Irish woman thinks. I hate the EU as well. It seems that ‘hate’ has become a crime, but there’s nothing wrong with hate under certain circumstances. It’s quite right to hate evil. The EU is of its nature thoroughly evil, as are all totalitarian systems (although whether every willing participant realises that is another matter) so there’s nothing wrong with calling it evil. I feel like I’ve just got out of prison! And a Happy Brexit Day to you!”
Anyway, share your thoughts on the UK’s future outside the EU. With no need to implement EU directives, is there a chance we can begin to restore Christian culture, not least in the area of personal morality, and the teaching of marriage and family life in schools?
Finally, as an acknowledgment of the one million-plus Scots who voted to leave the EU – but who have been generally ignored in virtually all the discussions about Brexit since 2016 – let’s launch this discussion by flying our national flag, as we pray for Scotland and the rest of the UK, at this important juncture in our history.
St Andrew, pray for us!
St George, pray for us!
St David, pray for us!
St Patrick, pray for us!
Our Lady, Queen of Peace… pray for us!
As we prepare to go to the polls in the General Election on 12 December, it is worth reflecting on Church teaching and the principles which should guide us in deciding how to use our vote without violating God’s law.
Click here to read a guide prepared for American Catholics, which seems to be fairly comprehensive. I’ve not studied everything on that [EWTN] site, but I have checked out some key topics and I think we will all find it useful, and a source for fruitful discussion.
Below, a video clip from the trial of St Thomas More, saint and martyr, patron of lawyers and politicians, who has been an inspiration to many, including many who are not Catholics, because of his strong, conscientious insistence that God’s law must always be above any law created by man.
If the voting guide given in the introduction above still leave you with unanswered questions or doubts, feel free to ask for clarification on this thread.
Here, at Catholic Truth, we are apolitical and we discuss politics only in the context of our Catholic duty to be decent members of society, contributing, where possible, to the common good. Please, therefore engage in discussion in a spirit of respect, bearing in mind that the Church exhorts us to adhere to certain principles but does not dictate that we should support (or not) any particular political party. Our overall aim must be to take care not to offend God in the way we vote; not to support the transgression of His Moral Law. To this end we pray…
St Thomas More, intercede for us, and for all the politicians participating in the forthcoming election; guide and inspire us in the weeks ahead… Our Lady, Help of Christians, pray for us.
The woman behind this court case, Gina Miller, was all smiles today, absolutely delighted, speaking victoriously outside the Supreme Court in London, after winning her anti-Brexit, and anti-democracy case. Here’s one editor’s opinion of her and her shenanigans to stop Brexit – this editor doesn’t trust herself to find words that would keep her beyond the scope of the Thought Police.
Is anyone out there actually surprised at the decision of the Supreme Court? There is, is there not, a total absence of morality in the world of politics today – remember, the MPs in court today supporting Gina Miller’s efforts to stop Brexit (and many others in Parliament) don’t give a toss about the 17.4 million of us who voted to leave the EU. That’s surely more than merely anti-democratic – but immoral as well. Agreed?
Daily, we hear the mantra that we need a second BREXIT referendum because we know so much more now that we did in 2016 when we voted to leave the EU.
Well, if that is true about BREXIT, it is true, also, about abortion because there is no question that we know MUCH more about life in the womb today than we knew when the Abortion Act was passed in 1967.
If Rachel Riley’s comments in the above interview about the behaviour of her baby in the womb don’t convince you, check out the several 3D videos available on YouTube where you can see for yourself the activity of unborn babies. Very busy little people, no question about it!
For the record, I saw Rachel Riley interviewed on this subject on Sky News where the female interviewer was clearly – it seemed to me – taken aback by her remarks, and none too pleased, realising, no doubt, the implications for the “pro-choice” lobby of what Rachel Riley was saying. However, try as I have done, I can’t find it on YouTube. Thus, the above clip from the BBC news will have to suffice for now.
So, what, now? Should there be a national debate – and a referendum – on the concept of the woman’s right to choose, now that we have SO much more information about life in the womb than we did back in 1967, when there were actually campaigners claiming that the foetus (Latin word for “offspring”) isn’t human at all. Of course, gradually that position was dropped in favour of the “pro-choice” – the woman’s right to choose to kill her baby if that is what she decided – argument , with that right set to be extended until the moment of birth or immediately after birth (infanticide) which is already legal in the USA. The pro-abortion MPs in Parliament are pushing for that here, using the euphemism “decriminalisation” of abortion. They are among the anti-BREXIT MPs demanding a second referendum “because we know so much more now than when we voted to leave the EU in 2016.” I’ve written to a number of them putting the same argument for a national abortion debate and, needless to say, not one of them has replied.
Over to you – are we justified in calling for a referendum on abortion, now that we can actually see for ourselves that there is a truly human life in the womb, more active than certain folk outside the womb… (think lazy teenagers!)
In Parliament last night, Prime Minister Johnson was in very good form, firmly insisting that the UK will leave the EU on 31 October, despite all the disgraceful shenanigans of the “remainer” MPs to stop Brexit. Rushed through legislation to try to tie the Prime Minister’s hands did not appear to faze him at all, as he proceeded with assurances that the UK will leave on the 31 October, as promised to the electorate. Shocking scenes, staged by MPs, furious that all their demonic efforts had apparently failed, took place in the House of Commons as the procedure began for suspending Parliament for five weeks, prior to a Queen’s Speech and a new session of Parliament.
Are these scenes evidence of diabolical activity – or simply another instance of frustrated “remainers” refusing – like spoilt children – to take “yes” [we want out of the EU] for an answer? Would someone please explain to me what is so attractive about remaining in the EU which, more or less everyone agrees (leavers and remainers), is a corrupt outfit? Why the desperation on the part of the “remoaners” not to leave? I don’t get it…
The central place of the family in society is clearly taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Issues surrounding the ideal of family unity is in the news this week, due to the resignation of the Prime Minister’s brother, Jo Johnson, who is both a Member of Parliament and a Government minister.
Headlines like this (Guardian headline below) have added to the Prime Minister’s woes, as he is attacked on all sides for the crime of trying to do what the majority of us asked him to do in the referendum of 2016 – take us out of the European Union…
The news of Jo Johnson’s resignation reminded me of the dilemma facing all too many Catholics, these days, as they choose, in conscience, to move from attending the new Mass in their local parishes, to attending a traditional Mass elsewhere. This has led to friction within families, as I’m certain, Jo Johnson’s decision has caused disquiet, to say the least, within his family. Indeed, on a popular news programme, one commentator opined that he doubted if the brothers “would ever recover from this.”
So, the question is, what price family unity? There are people (in my own circle) who believe that family unity trumps everything else – although, scratch beneath the surface, and often what they really mean is “keeping up the appearance of family unity” trumps everything else.
Share your thoughts on this – is there a line to be drawn? Is there a limit to family unity/loyalty? Look at that Guardian headline again and ask yourself if anything, absolutely anything, should come before family…
The determination with which the remainers continue to work to overturn Brexit – using the excuse of a “catastrophic no deal” – is a lesson in zeal for us all. However, if the above short video content [dated yesterday, 15 August] is true, and the Prime Minister is acting to make sure we DO exit on 31 October, with or without the support of Parliament, is that wrong? A lot of us, if not the entire Catholic Truth blogging community, are Brexiteers to our fingertips, but should we support Boris – “do or die” – to get us out of the EU?
Does Boris Johnson’s reputation as a man who has a loose relationship with the truth, to put it mildly, mean that he cannot be trusted even to deliver Brexit, which he insists he will do?
And does the rest of his (im)moral lifestyle mean that Catholics really shouldn’t support his candidature?
Below, an extract from the Statement by President Donald Tusk on the draft guidelines on the framework for the future relationship with the UK published on the European Council website on 3 March, 2018…
“…Now, coming to the core of our future economic relationship. During my talks in London last Thursday, and in her speech last Friday, Prime Minister Theresa May confirmed that the UK will leave the Single Market, leave the customs union and leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ (European Court of Justice). Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the only remaining possible model is a free trade agreement. I hope that it will be ambitious and advanced – and we will do our best, as we did with other partners, such as Canada recently – but anyway it will only be a trade agreement.
I propose that we aim for a trade agreement covering all sectors and with zero tariffs on goods. Like other free trade agreements, it should address services. And in fisheries, reciprocal access to fishing waters and resources should be maintained…” Ends.
When Brexiteer MPs have mentioned the above offer in TV interviews, they have been brushed off, the impression given that this is now in the past, was rejected or is no longer available. No need to ask why. We know that the mainstream media, along with the majority of MPs in Parliament do not want to leave the EU and are doing everything in their power to stop Brexit. “STOP BREXIT” was actually the official slogan of the Liberal Democrats in the recent EU elections, with other parties openly campaigning to overturn the 2016 referendum result, albeit hiding behind the demand for a second referendum, confirmatory vote etc.
The level of dishonesty, the machinations being employed, must surely concern anyone considering Brexit through the prism of Christianity. Below, Conservative, Steve Baker MP, who said in media interviews last weekend that he was giving consideration to standing as a candidate in the current leadership election to be the next Conservative leader/Prime Minister, speaks about Donald Tusk’s offer in his resignation speech in Parliament, following his resignation from the Government on the grounds that he was unable to support Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement/”deal”.
Given the level of dishonesty, double-speak, and the various machinations being employed to prevent Brexit, isn’t it time for everyone who values truth and integrity, certainly every follower of Christ, to stand full square behind the 2016 vote and insist that the UK Parliament implements Brexit? Christ, remember, said: “Let your ‘yes’ be ‘yes’ and your ‘no’ be ‘no’ – everything else comes from the Evil One” (Matthew 5:37).
17.4 people across the UK said YES to leaving the UK, despite huge pressure from the Government to vote to remain, and subsequent polls and interviews reveal that our YES meant YES notwithstanding attempts to rig and/or interpret results to show the opposite. So how are we to interpret the fact that Donald Tusk’s above offer was not explored by the UK negotiating team, alongside the fact that the remainer lobby continues to speak about the impossibility of being able to agree a “deal”? What’s going on? And should we all be praying that Steve Baker puts his name forward for the leadership / premiership, since he would, more likely than not, hold the powers-that-be in the EU to that offer?
Note: as always in Brexit discussions, our concern is not with the various political parties and their policies, or with the voting records of individual MPs, but focuses purely on the issues surrounding Brexit. Regular bloggers and readers will know that I am apolitical in that, for a long time now, I have been forced to spoil my voting paper (by writing a note to the effect that I cannot support the Godless laws introduced/supported by all of the above) because all UK political parties have supported the introduction of laws which contradict God’s moral law and so, in conscience, I am unable to vote for any of them. I voted for The Brexit Party in the EU elections purely on the Brexit ticket.