Will the Grinch steal Brexit?


2 pings

Skip to comment form

  1. He seems like a good man. He wanted a clean break from the EU , he voted against the bill to destroy marriage and is anti-abortion. Also he is from the town I was born in, which is also famous for Edmund Burke. There’s road named after him. People in that town are sensible. It’s the richest town in the country as well. You’d like it and I have many fond memories of it from my younger days. It’s the towns where the stupid people live which send dodgy MPs to parliament that one has to watch out for!

    Read Edmund Burke’s view on what an MP should be like.

      • Rocks
      • Rox G on 12 January 2019 at 01:45

      It appears that Dominic Greave was born in Lambeth, Edmund Burke in Dublin.
      But he is MP for Beaconsfield, where Edmund Burke died. Full of rich Londoners and at one time Enid Blyton, it is the “richest town” based on its house prices, not on its productivity. Famous for its rather pointless model village, too.

      1. That’s a very tabloid view. Each real town has a character to it, and Beaconsfield is one of those place which is traditional, nicely looked after and the people are easy-going and friendly. You’d never know unless you lived there. You say rich as if that were a socialist condemnation, but they are real people, and you can’t just bundle them all together and think of them as a certain species, because in the areas like that they have their own minds, and don’t do anything stupid. So Edmund Burke’s view of the ideal MP holds pretty true and prosperity follows. It’s when your MP turns against your interests you have trouble.

        What goes around comes around, so acting responsibly and in a non-hostile way ends up that you are blessed with a peaceful life. The town is peaceful and pleasant. Tony Blair tried to run for the seat once. He didn’t get very far. Well not in that town anyway.

        Was the model village pointless? Not for me it wasn’t. I met a lovely girl who lived next door and fell in love with her.

      • Eddie
      • Eddie on 15 January 2019 at 13:54

      I met Mr Grieve at a fringe meeting as a visitor to the Conservative Party conference around 2005.I had been pressing him as shadow attorney general to intervene in an unduly lenient sentence on child abduction in our Town Blackpool.I had no useful help from Gordon Marsden our local Labour MP so kicked up a fuss and petitioned anyone in authority to get Justice.Our Reform Group was locally very active at the time.Chris Davis MEP was approached at the Lib Dem conference but he was nothing short of hung over.
      Mr Grieve was no use at all,he talked a good talk but had no inner conviction to help justice be served.

      Grinch is a good title for a man like Mr Grieve
      Who are these people?

  2. The only reason why Brexiteers would need to vehemently oppose a further referendum would be becauze they are afraid that the people might have changed their mind. And if people have changed their mind it would be quite undemocratic to veto their choice.

  3. Parliamentary procedure is important as the means of regulating how the democratic will of the people is effected. However, there must be a means by which standing orders are updated and improved. To me it seemed ridiculous that after days of debate on May’s deal in December, the Government could at a drop of a hat delay the scheduled vote by more than a month without the approval of Parliament. The Speaker may have broken precedent by allowing Grieve’s amendment, but it was in response to the Government’s blatant abuse of power, enabled by defective rules. The House of Commons should have ultimate democratic control of it’s own agenda, and standing orders should facilitate this.

    • Rocks
    • Rox G on 12 January 2019 at 01:43

    “And as for the suggestion from Caroline Lucas that a #peoplesvote should be between May Deal and Remain, well excuse me, but The People have already voted against Remain.”

    More recently, there was a general election and people voted for an unstable government which is not really working properly.

    Still, there should not (never ? ) be another general election, because the people have already voted.

      • Stephen
      • Stephen on 12 January 2019 at 10:01

      That’s a silly thing to say. We do as a rule general elections in this realm. We don’t do referenda as a rule.

        • Rocks
        • Rox G on 12 January 2019 at 14:16

        It is a silly thing to say, reductio ad absurdum of the idea that one vote fixes things for all time even if circumstances and opinions change. I hate to say so, but dictatorships are sometimes based on that.

        There is no reason why the result of a referendum should stay fixed, any more than the result of a general election (or of any other election, or the choice of directors of a company). We voted enthusiastically to stay in Europe in 1975, but by 2016 we knew more about being in a developing Europe, and by now voters know more about the consequences of leaving, and realise above all that the Government is not finding it such a simple and beneficial move as one might have imagined. I don’t remember you being opposed to the 2016 referendum because only one referendum is allowable and that had already taken place.

        I should imagine that Stephen would have supported the Divine Right of Kings, and insisted that we don’t do democratic elections in this country.

          • Stephen
          • Stephen on 12 January 2019 at 17:56

          Of course the Remainers want a second referendum. That’s what the elite do. Especially the EU elite. Remember Ireland? Twice they were made to vote again. But they do referenda in the Republic. We do general elections here.
          BTW, Beware lest your imagination runs away with you:
          Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
          King Charles was, unless I am very much mistaken, reliant on this verse of scripture for his ‘divine right of kings’:
          Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
          But the Apostle goes on to qualify that verse. The ruler, whoever he is, is subject to Almighty God:
          Rom 13:4  For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
          Both Caesar (when that was written down) and King Charles I, did not like that. The Jews in Thessalonica said this of Paul and Silas:
          Acts 17:7 Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.
          Indeed there is another King, whom all earthly kings must obey:
          1Tim 6:15 … the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
          Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
          As for democracy, you think we really have such a thing in the UK? Benjamin Disraeli wrote in Coningsby:
          “So you see, my dear Coningsby, that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” (Sidonia speaking)
          When the UK leaves the EU, it will be an utter and rare triumph of the people, not to mention the will of Almighty God, over the elite.

            • Rocks
            • Rox G on 13 January 2019 at 01:15

            Unfortunately for your theory, the Tory élite in this country are NOT all in favour of a second referendum in order to remain, not by any means.

            Are you seriously saying that there is no real merit in elections at all, as everything is really decided in Heaven or behind closed doors anyway ? You have given that impression before.

            The warning about using one’s imagination only holds good if a translation happens to use the word “imagination” in Genesis 6.5. Many don’t, for example the Revised English Bible has “inclination”, which might apply equally to you or anybody else. The New International and several other translations also prefer “inclination”; the Contemporary English Version has “everything they thought and planned”. Modern French translations go for “pensées” (thoughts), and Italian ones for “disegni” (intentions). Modern German goes for “Trachten” (endeavours), but so did Luther himself.

            Anyway, this applied specifically to people before the Flood, who were destroyed. It was not said of the people at the time of Jesus, for example. The previous verse (6.4) reads: “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” That is how remote the context is. Altogether, it’s pretty difficult to take 6.5 as a warning against imagination generally in all the centuries after the Flood.

            • Stephen
            • Stephen on 14 January 2019 at 14:15

            That’s not true. In fact God says right after the flood has ended:
            Gen 8:21 … the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
            Jeremiah says of the rulers of his day:
            Jer 9:14 But have walked after the imagination of their own heart, and after Baalim, which their fathers taught them:
            And Jesus Christ himself said:
            Mark 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. 
            So whether its imaginations or inclinations, the unredeemed heart of man is corrupt.
            Did I say ‘Tory elite’?

            • Rocks
            • Rox G on 15 January 2019 at 14:39

            Sorry, but as I explained in a longer reply which has not appeared, I don’t in that case know what élite you were referring to.

            I think it is important to take quotations in context, but perhaps you disagree. Mark 7.20 is particularly interesting.

            • Stephen
            • Stephen on 15 January 2019 at 16:44

            It’s a link verse: Mark 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. 
            Because previously there was an discussion about ritual washing before meals. Now I always wash my hands before a meal, but that’s not quite what is going on. The Lord does not say that eating with unwashed hands cannot make you poorly, he says it cannot ritually defile you. The latter was the position of the Bet Shammai Pharisees. That’s the context.
            And then the Lord goes on to show that the words we speak can defile us and that our thoughts come from within, from the heart.

            • Rocks
            • Rox G on 15 January 2019 at 20:24

            Sorry, I should have said Mark 7:18 – 7:19. I didn’t have it in front of me.

            But the hand-washing discussion is 7:1 to 7:13 . The second discussion starts at 7:14 “On another occasion he called the people and said to them”, As you say, 7:20 “He went on …” links two parts, but the two parts of the second discussion, not the second discussion to the first (the hand-washing) discussion.

            The first part ends (in the Revised English Bible) “By saying this he declared all foods clean”. The second part ends at 7:23 “all these evil things come from within, and they are what defile a person,” (So in total, eating pork is nothing like as bad as being slanderous or greedy). Then he moves on to the territory of Tyre.

            The contrast Jesus makes is phrased as a distinction between what comes out from within (the thoughts and actions as manifested to other people) against what goes in and merely passes straight through (because, not having a modern view of digestion, he sees the pork as “going out into the drain”, rather than staying within the person to pollute him in any way).

            I do realise that the REB’s “By saying this he declared all foods clean” is a lot more elaborate than the AV “purging all meats”, but this translation was approved by 15 of the main churches and bible societies in Great Britain and Ireland.

            The International Standard Version doesn’t go as far as the REB , but it does say “into his stomach, and then into the sewer, thereby expelling all foods.” which highlights the idea that the pork (for example) has completely gone. I doubt if they actually had many sewers in Galilee, actually. A modern French translation combines modern plumbing with exactly the REB explanation: “puis est évacué dans les toilettes.» Il déclarait ainsi que tous les aliments sont purs. [aliments = foodstuffs] I don’t know where this clear statement came from, but it is to be found also in Italian (va nella latrina?» Così dicendo, dichiarava puri tutti i cibi.). In German too (Damit erklärte Jesus auch, dass alle Speisen vor Gott rein sind = With this, Jesus also explained that all foods are pure before God)

            Anyway, the passage is not chiefly about condemning imagination. QED.

            I do hope you will allow me to have my say on this.

            • Stephen
            • Stephen on 16 January 2019 at 06:09

            I’m not sure what your problem is. Men had evil thoughts before the flood. You did not believe they had evil thoughts after the flood or indeed up to the modern day. But the scripture passages I quoted not to mention the evidence of the news shows the human race still did and still do.

            • Rocks
            • Rox G on 16 January 2019 at 21:20

            Thank you for allowing my comment to appear.

            In answer to your question, there are two problems, the original one, and an interesting one which turned up when I was investigating your biblical quotations.

            Problem 1. Of course I agree with what you are now saying about some men having evil thoughts, but why pick on me ? You originally presented Genesis 6.5 (from before the flood) and Mark 7:21 and others to support your warning to me :
            ” BTW, Beware lest your imagination runs away with you.”
            Had I suggested the mass deportation of Muslims or homosexuals, or that the end of the world was near ? No, I had merely been suggesting (like many MPs and journalists) that another referendum was as much a legitimate possibility as another election. Your reaction seems a little over the top.

            Problem 2. At Mark 7:19, an additional new sentence has appeared, more or less similar to the REB’s “By saying this he declared all foods clean”, in various modern translations in various languages. It is nowhere to be found in older translations. Where has this come from ? It seems to be in the nature of a useful commentary on the deeper significance of the text, but is it normal to add such things as if they were part of the text ? I think not.

            For example, take Isaiah 7:14 .
            “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son”.
            It would be unthinkable to add here “This did happen, and it was the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ”.
            Quite the reverse, the REB (approved even by the Roman Catholics) has
            “A young woman is with child, and she will give birth to a son”, which is no more miraculous than a heifer having its first calf.
            [This arises, as Stephen knows, because the AV seems to have used the Septuagint, and the Greek word “parthenos” means “virgin”; whereas the Hebrew “almah” is like a heifer, any young female which has not yet produced offspring but may possibly have attempted to get pregnant. I’m not suggesting that Mary had, but Isaiah is not specifying that she hadn’t].

            This small change to Isaiah 7:14 (in many modern translations) is perfectly proper, and quite well known by now, but it must seem revolutionary to many Christians. However, to get back to my Problem 2, Mark 7:19, a whole extra sentence has been quietly inserted, with no footnote to explain it in REB. Where has this come from ? Who dunnit ? I have a protestant Italian bible printed in 1984 which includes it without any footnote, as does the 1961 New English Bible (“Thus he declared all foods clean”). There is no trace of this is the Vulgate, but a clue does appear in a footnote to the Osty Bible of 1973 ! This gives “c’était purifier tous les aliments” (it was to purify all foodstuffs) with the footnote “Purifier : c’est à dire ‘déclarer purs’, mais texte difficile et construction irregulière” (to purify : that’s to say ‘to declare pure’, but text difficult and construction irregular). Could it be that the early translators just found this bit too difficult and left it out ?

            So, there you are, I have clearly identified two problems for you, and done my very best to solve the second one. Can you enlighten us more ?

            • Stephen
            • Stephen on 17 January 2019 at 18:08

            Mark 7:19: That addition isn’t in any of the ancient texts, and the verse isn’t about food, it’s about the washing hands ritual. Very odd. Another reason to use the King James Bible!
            Isa 7:14: The Hebrew word Almah means a maid or lass or unmarried ‘young woman’. In Bible times it would be unheard of for such a one not to be a virgin. See what Jews for Jesus say. And they must carry authority.

            • Rocks
            • Rox G on 17 January 2019 at 19:08

            I think that is the answer, one would normally have assumed that this respectable unmarried young woman would be a virgin. And yet, then as now, if there seemed to be proof to the contrary, one wouldn’t normally have assumed that this was miraculous.

            In the case of what is said to have actually happened (i.e. not Isaiah prophesying it) we can take it from Mary’s own words that she is a virgin (Luke 1:34) without needing to rely on Isaiah, although confusingly the New Testament depends on quoting Isaiah in Greek to back this up.

            Let’s look again at Mark 7:19 in the Authorised (aka King James) version :
            “Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? ”

            The verse before this was :
            “And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;”

            Are you quite sure that this doesn’t apply to food, in no way whatsoever ? A lot of scholars all over Europe seem to disagree with you. It does seem reasonable to assume that according to Jesus no meat will defile anybody. This is of course later confirmed in Acts (in a much better known passage).

            But thank you for looking at this.
            Who added the sentence originally, do you think ? I suspect somebody in Oxford or Geneva myself.

            What else has crept in ? Have traditionalists made a search to expose these modern translations ?

            P.S. Maybe “text difficult” refers to the physical condition of the original manuscript(s?) making it difficult to decipher ?

            • Stephen
            • Stephen on 18 January 2019 at 12:05

            The context was about ritual washing before meals. But the Lord broadens it out to warn about the thoughts of the heart. I see the meat inference as incidental if it is there at all. But I may of course be very much mistaken. And my advice is stick to the King James Version. At least those scholars had the humility to attempt a word-for-word translation, not a paraphrase. So much so that when they added words for clarity or to smooth the flow into English they put them in italics, showing they were not in the original.

            • Rocks
            • Rox G on 18 January 2019 at 19:14

            Aha ! The context depends on the translation.

            In modern translations, the first discussion is indeed about ritual washing before meals, but the second discussion is not. The two discussions are separated by “ON ANOTHER OCCASION he called the people ….” (REB 7:14).

            At that point in the AV, it has simply “And when he had called all the people unto him…”. My impression is that the modern scholars producing the more scholarly modern translations are not stupid, and are merely clarifying here what they honestly believe the original to mean. You can’t even translate modern English into modern French word for word without making a complete mess of it (in most cases).

            We are lucky to have the Authorised Version to stick to, but what would you advise people who are Danish or Polish ? And would you advise them to leave the EU ?

            • Stephen
            • Stephen on 18 January 2019 at 20:02

            There is nothing in the text to indicate ‘another occasion’. That’s just weird.
            So long as your Danish and Polish friends faithfully translate the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek Textus Receptus they won’t go far wrong. the Trinitarian Bible Society specialises in this enterprise.

            • Rocks
            • Rox G on 19 January 2019 at 14:25

            Online, the Trintarian Bible Society has only the AV and a bible in Dutch. The latter includes in Mark 7:19

            “…..reinigende al de spijzen.” (purifying all foods).
            This is the same as Segond 21, “….purifier tous les aliments”.

            Their AV has, of course, the usual “purging all meats”. So that is how the Dutch translator and most translators are interpreting this, but it is not obvious what it means unless it is explained. Stephen apparently did not spot it as being essentially the same. (“That addition isn’t in any of the ancient texts, and the verse isn’t about food”).

            Apart from these two complete bibles, they concentrate on the gospel of John, not Mark.

            • Stephen
            • Stephen on 19 January 2019 at 17:32

            It’s all about the thoughts of the hearts, which was where we came in, with you denying that any said anything about subject in the Bible after the flood. Usually, if the Lord is explaining something else, the Gospel writers put, ‘He said this signifying …’ But there is no such clue in Mark 7:19, so I suggest we just leave it.


            • Rocks
            • Rox G on 19 January 2019 at 17:57

            Actually, it was about my “imagination” allegedly running away with me, all your biblical quotations concentrating on that word (in the Authorised Version only). The exception which you chose was Mark 7:21 which has “evil thoughts” rather than imagination — not really the same thing ! Also, according to you it is basically a discussion about hand-washing, or according to me and most translators it is about ritually “unclean” foods. Examining that, I noticed what appears to be a strange discrepancy, which we have been discussing.

            I didn’t deny that there was anything about evil thoughts after the flood, but before the flood you quoted “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually”, and I don’t think it gets as bad as that afterwards. In Mark 7.21 Jesus wouldn’t need to list (as he does) lots of evil thoughts, if there were only evil thoughts.

  4. Do you happen to know what odds the bookies are offering, on each of the manifold outcomes that are (as the popular Christian saying goes) “humanly possible”?

      • Rocks
      • Rox G on 12 January 2019 at 14:29

      Nice to see another face, John ! How did we manage it ?

      I am not a betting man, but as far as I am able to interpret the appropriate websites, they think that a second referendum is slightly more likely than not.

      However, this is presumably based on the opinions of people who frequent betting shops rather than of the political élite or even the reasonably well-informed on this matter. As far as I know, they aim not to be out of pocket from either result given the number of bets they get on both results from their customers. This is not necessarily the same as doing their best to predict the result.

        • Rocks
        • Rox G on 13 January 2019 at 01:34

        A website called Paddypower is quite detailed and specific.

        Will there be a second in/out EU referendum before the end of 2019 ?
        No 1/2 . Yes 6/4

        Result of 2nd EU referendum (it doesn’t say what happens to your money if there isn’t one).
        Remain full member 21/10 Leave in 2019 5/1

        Article 50 to be officially extended ?
        Yes 4/9 No 13/8

        I am not an expert on this, but it looks to me as if the voting public is not at all sure what will happen, and there is not very much money to be made on it whatever happens, EXCEPT that if there is a 2nd referendum, they don’t really expect us to leave, at least not in 2019 (so Stephen could confidentially put all his limited budget on that one to increase it fivefold).

  5. Bless you Stephen for enlightening the laymen about the ‘goings on’ in Parliament. I watch the daily antics being performed, which is absolutely shameful. Praying daily that whilst God is sovereign that His will shall prevail. Amen.

  6. I am sick and tired of the cry, we need another ‘People’s Vote’. We had one and we won…..end of.
    The question on the referendum was simple, in or out, yes or no. Repeat we won. If the remainers won I wouldn’t have been happy buy I’d respect the outcome. Satan has his dirty fingers all over this!

  7. The Parliamentary Prayer, read each day in the Commons, is as follows:

    “Lord, the God of righteousness and truth, grant to our Queen and her government, to Members of Parliament and all in positions of responsibility, the guidance of your Spirit. May they never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals but laying aside all private interests and prejudices keep in mind their responsibility to seek to improve the condition of all mankind; so may your kingdom come and your name be hallowed. Amen.

    I believe it is appropriate that we pray this, or something like it, regularly, and particularly at this time.

      • Rocks
      • Rox G on 15 January 2019 at 20:33

      It is certainly a timely reminder of what they should be doing .

      Or think they should be doing.
      “never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please”.

      Some MPs might see this as leaving the EU to please their constituents and not lose their own seats, while believing in fact that staying in the EU (or some compromise) might be the best thing for their constituents and the nation as a whole.

  8. I have an update on this.

    “The Telegraph understands that Dominic Grieve is facing a no confidence motion at the annual meeting of Beaconsfield Conservatives on Friday March 29.”

    Like I was saying, the people of Beaconsfield do not like being messed about with. It looks like he’s going to get a serious grilling.

  1. […] Will the Grinch steal Brexit? […]

  2. […] Will the Grinch steal Brexit? […]

Comments have been disabled.