It Cannot Be Untied, so . . . Bring Out the Sword

The Brexit Knot

By Douglas Murray
National Review Online

[An excellent summary of Brexit and its opponents; the issues and the pettifoggery. Ed.]

Being a classicist, Boris Johnson would be familiar with the Gordian knot. But for anybody whose schoolroom memories need refreshing, the knot in question was put in place by Gordius, king of Phrygia. Reputedly only a ruler of Asia would be able to untie the knot — making it a slightly less glamorous version of King Arthur’s sword in the stone. In any case, when confronted by the knot, Alexander the Great is said to have spotted the fast way to undo the problem and simply whacked at it with his sword, so proving that he should become the king of Asia.

If ever there was a fearsome knot in modern politics it is the question of Brexit. Not that the knot was as completely tied in 2016, when the British people were given a straightforward choice. The question the public was then asked was whether it wanted to “remain” in or “leave” the European Union. The public voted by a majority (52 percent to 48 percent) to leave, though it has since appeared that for those who set the question this was the wrong answer. Or at least not the answer that the political class expected the public to select. And so the knot tightened and became ever more knotty with each resulting effort to untie it.

The civil service, it turned out, had not been instructed to prepare for the eventuality of a “leave” vote. Then–prime minister David Cameron and his colleagues may simply have expected the “remain” side to win. Or they may have feared that if word had got out that the civil servants were preparing for the possibility of a “leave” vote then that would have bolstered that side of the campaign. Whatever the reason, on June 24, 2016, Whitehall turned out to be unprepared for what was one of only two possible results.

With Cameron having resigned just hours after that vote, the stunned victors plunged into a bout of fratricide. The lead Brexiteer — Boris Johnson — was politically assassinated by his own leadership-campaign chief, the second most prominent Brexiteer — Michael Gove — who then made an unsuccessful bid for the leadership himself. Unsuccessful because, with the victors in disarray, a path through the middle of the Conservative-party membership (who vote in leadership elections) was created for Theresa May. And so the former home secretary who had given a single half-hearted speech in favor of Remain ended up becoming the Conservative-party leader, the prime minister, and the person responsible for making sure that Britain exited the European Union.

For almost three years May tried to untie the knot. Her government initiated Article 50, the previously unused mechanism by which member states are supposed to be able to leave the EU. That set the Brexit clock ticking, for the departing country is meant to leave the EU two years after the Article 50 process is initiated.

As we survey the resulting problem it is worth remembering that all of this was done with the approval of Parliament. Now that the opposition parties are resisting efforts to leave, they and some segments of the governing Conservatives like to pretend that Parliament is representing the people against the government’s injudicious wishes. But this is to assume that the British public has no memory as well as no voice.

For all the major parties in the British Parliament voted to approve the holding of a referendum on the EU. Some — such as the Liberal Democrats — had made it party policy to hold such an in/out referendum before David Cameron’s Conservative party promised the same. Parliament also oversaw the initiating of the Article 50 process, a process that Cameron and other “remain” campaigners in the 2016 referendum had described many times and very plainly. If after two years the U.K. and the EU could not agree on the terms of the separation, then the U.K. would leave the EU without a deal. Which would mean, among other things, trading on World Trade Organization rules.

Yet sharp-eyed observers will have noticed that the two-year deadline came and went (in March) and then again (in June) after extensions were requested and granted. And so Britain remains in the European Union. And it was here that Prime Minister May came across the most intransigent portion of the national knot.

For Parliament had always been of a different view than the people. Though the public had voted by a majority to leave, around two-thirds of members of Parliament had been in favor of Britain’s remaining in the EU. And so as the deadlines came and went, MPs came up with ever more objections to the deadlines that were hurtling towards them. Most popular among them was their decision that “no deal” Brexit would be a disaster and that the public had “never voted for ‘no deal.’” And while it is true that the public had not been asked any such specifics in the simple in-or-out question, it had voted “out,” and the potential consequences of this had been explained. Yet a Parliament that wanted “in” attempted to persuade itself and the public that the Brexit knot was just too complex for any mortal to undo. Meaning — reluctantly or otherwise — that it really made much better sense to remain “in.”

In some ways this constitutional mess is a legacy of a much older problem, a problem not wholly settled in the aftermath of the English Civil War. Where does power actually reside? In Parliament or the people? And if Parliament decides that the people have come up with the wrong answer, can Parliament ignore them?

These and many other questions have hovered over the U.K. for three years now. And the list of people whose names ought to live in British infamy has grown very long. There are those, for instance, who used to insist that if a British MP switched parties he should immediately put himself up for reelection so that the public could decide to vote him out or not. People such as Anna Soubry and Sarah Wollaston — the former of whom has been one of the most demented and rage-filled voices in recent years — used to be very much in favor of this system of accountability. But when they abandoned the Conservative party for a new pro-EU party (Change UK) earlier this year, neither put herself back before the public. Ms. Wollaston has refused to do this despite now having moved parties a second time in one year (this time to the now-pro-Remain Liberal Democrats). As a result, many thousands of British voters are now “represented” by MPs who are members of parties that didn’t even exist when they last had a chance to vote. [Our emphasis.]

There have also been the Tory grandees — Ken Clarke, Nicholas Soames, and others — who have been spending the last three years assiduously trying to keep Britain in the EU. A couple dozen of these were expelled from the party over the summer. But they remain in Parliament at present, loosed from any party or other loyalty. The average Conservative voter might have expected that these men would be willing (even reluctantly) to lead Britain out of the EU rather than risk Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party coming to power. But over the summer they demonstrated that they were perfectly happy to risk collapsing a Conservative government and allowing Corbyn into power rather than risk a no-deal Brexit.

Then there is the question of Her Majesty’s Opposition: the only force really able to keep the Conservative party in power. Jeremy Corbyn’s party has so many policies on Brexit that some serious effort is needed to keep them in one head, never mind on one page. Having initially accepted the result of the referendum, the parliamentary Labour party ended up turning on the whole thing. It claimed to be opposed only to “no deal” but in fact seemed intent on stopping any deal arrived at by a Conservative government.

To date the Labour party has been in favor of leaving, in favor of staying, in favor of a second referendum, and in favor of no more referendums. The party’s current policies include that it wants the prime minister to call an election, yet it keeps preventing any such election from being called. Nevertheless Labour claims that if an election were called and it were to get into power, it would immediately negotiate a much better deal with the EU than the Conservative government has been able to get. It would then come back to the country with that deal, initiate a second referendum, and, in that referendum, campaign against the deal that it had just negotiated. That this is a relatively straightforward policy compared with others that have been in the mix is a mark of the time.

For we are now in the middle of a great constitutional as well as political crisis. And while there was a time when the British boasted to their American friends that of course we do not have a constitution, it is likely that all such boasts will go underground for some generations to come. Today the British public might eye up any and all constitutions with a positively lascivious eye. There is not only the problem of Parliament against itself and Parliament against the people, but also the problem of judicial intrusion — a problem that countries with a constitution also have, but that in Britain is an evolving area of governance as well as law.

Many Americans may have done a double take in recent weeks as talk of the “supreme court” in London was relayed on the news. And many British people will have done the same thing. The supreme court indeed does not sound like a British thing. Because until 2005 it wasn’t a British thing. In one of the great ironies of recent British history, the supreme court in London was set up in order to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. This September the court ruled that Boris Johnson had acted illegally in proroguing (temporarily suspending) Parliament and that Parliament must re-sit. So a court set up to satisfy European rules played its own part in preventing the U.K. from leaving the jurisdiction of European rules.

Which brings me back to Alexander and his knot. For the plan of Boris Johnson is not just the bold one. It is the only answer that can stop the courts, MPs, and others from doing for the rest of our natural lives what they would very happily do. Which is to continue to stand before the 2016 result and insist either that it cannot be acted upon or that it should not be acted upon. The media version of this is to pretend that it is not clear what the British people meant when they voted to leave the EU. Somehow it would have been completely plain if we had asked to remain.

So Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson stands like his namesake in front of the knot: his sword ready. His sword is to use Parliament to leave the European Union on October 31 (the latest extension deadline) whether Parliament wants to or not, possibly even leaving in the middle of an election campaign. Parliament for its part is trying to force him to stay in power and oversee yet another extension of the departure date — thus forcing this prime minister too to let down the people and break his own promises.

At present MPs from his own party, MPs from the opposition parties, the supreme court, millionaire activists, and much of the media are using this device and every other to pull on his sword-arm and stop or blunt his swing. Maybe this will work, or maybe it will not. But it is a mark of the man that Johnson realizes the one essential thing in all this. Which is that the knot has been deliberately made too complex to untie. And that the only solution is to cut it.

How? Simply to leave. To leave the European Union, come what may. To accept that when the British people voted Leave they knew what they were doing and that in the end you either have a democracy or you don’t. The disgrace of an entire political class has been their effort to prevent this reality. The triumph or tragedy of Boris Johnson will lie in whether the swing he takes cuts him off from the position he has spent a lifetime hoping to hold, cleaves the British nation irreparably, or finally makes a clean cut from a political institution that the British people very plainly asked to be removed from.

Douglas Murray is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute.


Evil On Steroids

Using Puberty Blockers on Children ‘Is a Crime Against Humanity’

Camille Paglia Speaks Out

Robert Kraychik
Breitbart News

Using puberty-blocking drugs on pre-pubescent children in order to stultify their sexual development “is a crime against humanity,” said Camille Paglia, professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia. She offered her remarks on Tuesday’s edition of Dennis Prager’s eponymous radio show while discussing her latest book, Provocations: Collected Essays on Art, Feminism, Politics, Sex, and Education.

Paglia highlighted left-wing denial of the biological origins of sex, including left-wing framing of sex as an arbitrary and subjective social construct. “These ideas aren’t based on any actual study of biology,” she said. 

Paglia noted much of the news media’s ambivalence towards the aforementioned experimentation on children: 

I think that experiments of unproven drugs — drug protocols — on children is a crime against humanity, and it should not be tolerated. It amazes me there is hardly any media attention to this matter. I think the future will look back with surprise and shock at the ethical indifference of the major media right now in the United States to this going on. It is simply not right. These drugs have not been fully tested, and we’re using children as experiments? Boys forever are going to have, in adulthood, a child’s size penis? I cannot believe that this is happening without protest.

“Don’t imagine that the child knows his or her future identity at age three, or ten, for that matter,” added Paglia. “Flash-freezing a child’s development through the introduction of drugs — pre-puberty, on and so on — seems to me, should be recognizably, not just wrong, but horrific.”

Paglia reflected on her own gender dysphoria, speculating on how her maturation may have unfolded differently had she been exposed to ubiquitous contemporary left-wing characterizations of sex as a purely social construct: 

If all of this was in the air when I was young, I would have become absolutely convinced that I was really a man, and I think I would have probably been vulnerable to that fantasy until my mid-twenties, probably. … And completing my massive 700-page book Sexual Personae, in a sense, exorcised that. … Right from the start, in 1990, I was describing that book as a transgender construction. It’s a voice. It’s an other self. I’ve never felt female, but I don’t feel male, either. … I would have been obsessed.  “I feel that — and I’ve said this publicly — prescribing puberty blockers to children is a violation of human rights.” 


the cycle of care and favor

belief bible book business

Photo by Pixabay on

Ephesians 6:23-24 (JDV)

Ephesians 6:23 Peace to the brothers and sisters, and care with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 6:24 Favor be with all who have an indestructible1 care for our Lord Jesus Christ.

the cycle of care and favor

Paul first pronounces a blessing of God’s care upon the recipients of his letter. Then, he asserts that God’s favor will rest on all those who manifest this care. He calls this care indestructible. What he describes is a cycle of care and favor. The care first comes from God as a result of prayer. Then, it flows back to God from the devotees. One of the results of this care for Christ is prayer for his church. This restarts the cycle.

Lord, we want to start the cycle in our own community, so we are asking you to bless our local church with an indestructible care for you.



Mockery Is The Appropriate Response

Silly Billies
Radiometric dating is all the rage these days.  Here is the University of Waikato’s take on this important tool used to establish precisely just how old rocks are:

Radiometric measurements of time

Since the early twentieth century scientists have found ways to accurately measure geological time. The discovery of radioactivity in uranium by the French physicist, Henri Becquerel, in 1896 paved the way of measuring absolute time. Shortly after Becquerel’s find, Marie Curie, a French chemist, isolated another highly radioactive element, radium. The realisation that radioactive materials emit rays indicated a constant change of those materials from one element to another.

The New Zealand physicist Ernest Rutherford, suggested in 1905 that the exact age of a rock could be measured by means of radioactivity. For the first time he was able to exactly measure the age of a uranium mineral. When Rutherford announced his findings it soon became clear that Earth is millions of years old.

We now have hard scientific data which enable us to measure with accuracy and precision the date of rocks.  Wowee. 

Not so fast.
  Sceptics have been spoiling the broth, so to speak.  Perfidious beyond measure, they have taken rocks whose date/age is known and submitted it for official radiometric measurement of how old those rocks “actually” were.  They have done so on a “blind test” basis.  That is, they have not disclosed the actual dates of the rocks.  They have merely said, “It’s over to you boys.  What do you think?  What does radiometric dating show the actual age of Rock X or Sample Y to be?”

Mount St Helens erupted in 1980.  Scientists know the actual date of the rock created  in the eruption.  We know it is only 39 years old, if measured from the initial eruption in 1980.  Dr Steven Austin “sent samples of the growing dome in the crater of Mount St Helens back to a secular laboratory for radiometric dating.  The lava dome started to form after the massive eruption in 1980.  He obtained dates ranging from 340,000 to 2.8 million years.  The lava had cooled only about 10 years before–the true data.” [Michael J. Oard, The Deep Time Deception: Examining the Case For Millions of Years (Powder Springs, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2019), p. 108.]  The clarity with which one claims that the earth is actually millions of years old is shown to be a nonsense.

It turns out that different methods of “dating” produce vastly different results.  But never mind.  It all goes to show that the earth is gazillion years old.  What’s a few billion years amongst friends, eh.  It’s “clear that the earth is millions of years old”–or, at least it is to the University of Waikato.

Dr Andrew Snelling ran a similar blind test on cooled lava from Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand. 

Snelling tested the cooling of modern (that is, witnessed) lava flows from Mount Ngauruhoe in northern New Zealand and received dates as high as 3.9 billion years old.  [Ibid., p. 108.]

Moreover, once again different methods of dating produced markedly different results.

One method dated the (lava) flow up to 3.5 million years old, another to 3.9 billion years old!  There is a vast difference between “millions” and  “billions”, and none of these samples should have yielded dates more than a few hundred years old.  [Ibid.]

What a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive.  Walter Scott.


Corrupted by Ineptitude–More Views on UK Policing Stupidity

“The Met Police Have Failed Us” 

Shut Them Down and Start Again

By Peter Hitchens
Mail On Sunday

Britain’s biggest police force is now institutionally unjust, and so is not fit for the task we have entrusted to it. The report by Sir Richard Henriques into its ‘VIP paedophiles’ investigation is one of the most devastating ever published about any official body.

If any other organisation was involved, we would disband it and start again, as I increasingly believe we should do with the police. This horrible mess is closely linked to their failure to control or deal with the crimes they increasingly regard as petty, of theft and disorder. The same sort of mind that ignores these things is all-too-readily convinced by mad claims that the country is beset with high-level paedophile plots.

The Met’s Commissioner, Dame Cressida Dick, did not respond to the report in person, but instead sent her deputy, Sir Stephen House, out on to the doorstep. He gave a sort of railway apology, pungent with insincerity. He was ‘deeply sorry’ for mistakes that ‘were made’ – not mistakes that he had made or the force had made. They had ‘been made’ passively by somebody or other, not named.

The force, he explained, did not agree with everything Sir Richard Henriques had said. I’ll bet it doesn’t. People who have been caught bang to rights tend not to agree. And why should they? The officers involved have escaped any serious action against them despite withering criticism.

The force may have had to fork out a bit of public money in compensation to the innocent men whose reputations it casually besmirched and whose private lives it publicly trampled on. But no deterrent or exemplary punishment has been exacted and, in my view, nobody will change his or her ways. As usual in her magically propelled career, Dame Cressida, Madam Teflon, is wholly unaffected despite her personal involvement at the start of the whole thing.

Nor could her underling, Sir Stephen, stop making the same basic, wilful mistake that led to all the other miseries and stupidities that ended with his officers bursting into the home of a wholly innocent war hero in his 90s. Before he vanished back into the warmth of New Scotland Yard, he repeatedly used the word ‘victim’ to describe sex abuse complainants.

The Henriques report hammers home the point that those who allege they have been sexually abused just must not be called ‘victims’ until their alleged assailants have been convicted. The use of the word ‘victim’ prejudices the whole procedure from the start. It lay behind all the cruel mistakes of this investigation. Some complaints are false and so those complainants are not ‘victims’.

But when I asked the Yard why the Deputy Commissioner had referred to ‘victims’ in defiance of the report, it responded with a flat refusal to pay any attention. It said the Henriques recommendation that they should stop talking about ‘victims’ before trial ‘was not accepted by the Metropolitan Police Service as this is a commonly accepted term across a wide range of guidance, policy and legislation.

‘This issue has been widely debated and differing views exist. The use of the word victim is not intrinsically linked to the issue of belief. The Met police continues to support the use of the term “victim”. This does not confer any judgment on the allegations they make which will always be investigated impartially and with an open mind.’

Which is pure garbage from start to finish. The word is plainly prejudicial. It is a direct attack on the presumption of innocence, which is all that stands between us and tyranny. Investigated and excoriated by a senior judge of huge experience, the force refuses to punish anybody, claims that plainly wrong actions were fine and continues to defy the most basic rules of justice. I wish I thought this would finish it. But it will not.


information and encouragement

Jefferson Vann -201711

Ephesians 6:21-22 (JDV)

Ephesians 6:21 Tychicus, our dearly cared about brother and faithful assistant in the Lord, will tell you all the news about me so that you may be informed.

Ephesians 6:22 I am sending him to you for this very reason, to let you know how we are and to encourage your hearts.

information and encouragement

Paul needed the assistance of Tychicus. He was imprisoned and needed the help of this faithful brother. But he sent him with his letter because it was important to him that the churches who would receive this letter have information about his team and be encouraged by it.

When my wife and I were missionaries, we wrote regular newsletters to our supporters. But we also took furloughs every few years to go back and report in person to those churches. Since Paul could not do that, he sent his assistant (διάκονος) instead. Those who are praying for us need information about us.

Lord, help us to pray intelligently and accurately for our missionaries.


Disgraceful Chapter in the History of UK Policing

Police Were Blind, Deaf, Dumb And Prejudiced!

Here is a story which (to our knowledge) got zero coverage in New Zealand.  Why should it?  We Downunder are far too sophisticated and smart to get taken in the way the Met in London was duped.

The HuffPost ran the numbers on what went down:

UK Pedophile Sentenced To 18 Years 

Made Up VIP Pedophile Ring Abuse Story

Ex–child advocate Carl Beech said he’d been abused by a murderous pedophile ring, but it turned out he was the pedophile.

By Chris York

A former UK child advocate who lied about being abused by a murderous VIP Westminster pedophile ring has been sentenced to 18 years in jail.  Carl Beech, 51, was convicted of perverting the course of justice and fraud on Monday, over the lies which ruined the reputations of a number of political figures.

He repeatedly told officers he had been abused in the 1970s and 1980s by a string of high-profile figures from the worlds of politics, the military and security services.  His claims about being sexually abused as a boy and witnessing three child murders at the hands of the group led the Metropolitan Police to raid the homes of 91-year-old Normandy veteran Field Marshall Lord Bramall, the late Lord Brittan and former Tory MP Harvey Proctor.

The force has come under widespread criticism for the investigation, which closed in 2016 without making a single arrest and was described by Proctor as a “truly disgraceful chapter in the history of British policing”.

Among Beech’s allegations were claims that his stepfather, an Army major, raped him and passed him on to generals to be tortured and sadistically abused at military bases by other establishment figures.  Lord Bramall said the impact of Beech’s “monstrous allegations” were worse than any of the injuries he had received in the Army.  He said: “I thought I could be hurt no more. I was never as badly wounded in all my time in the military as I was by the allegations made by ‘Nick’.”

Lord Bramall described the horror of having his house searched by 20 police officers as his seriously-ill wife lay in bed, adding she died without seeing his name cleared.

Beech was also convicted of voyeurism and possession of indecent images of children.

During sentencing at Newcastle Crown Court, prosecutor Tony Badenoch QC said images of a pre-pubescent boy ― referred to as Child E ― were found on a secret app, disguised as a calculator, on Beech’s iPad.  He said these pictures and videos were shot by the defendant in his bathroom without the boy knowing.

The prosecutor told the judge: “Carl Beech, whilst he was committing these offenses, was in almost daily contact with senior police officers investigating his invented claims of pedophile activity by others.”  Badenoch told the court Beech’s conduct involved “the cynical manipulation of the criminal justice system on an unprecedented scale”.

He added that this was “sophisticated and well-planned criminal behavior”.   Badenoch said the allegations made by Beech “could scarcely have been more serious”.  He said: “The defendant was motivated by entirely selfish purposes.  The defendant derived sexual pleasure from graphically describing the violent sexual abuse of young boys. He enjoyed the attention and celebrity.” . . . .

The jury were unconvinced by his claims that Army generals, at the height of the IRA terror threat, could sneak off unguarded to join horrific child abuse sessions.

The Met Police’s £2 million ($2.5 million) Operation Midland into the lurid allegations by the man they named only as “Nick” ended without making a single arrest.

Sir Edward Heath’s godson Lincoln Seligman said in a statement read to the court that the jury’s verdicts had confirmed that the late former prime minister “was always as he remains, wholly and categorically innocent of these depraved and wicked accusations”.  Seligman condemned the Metropolitan Police, Wiltshire Police and politicians “who should be ashamed of themselves” for giving credence to Beech’s accusations.

He said: “It is unlikely this damage will ever be undone.”   Collingwood Thompson, defending, said in mitigation that there was an “unfortunate combination” of his client making his allegations at a time that police started a policy that “complainants should be believed”.  Thompson said: “Although the flames were started by Beech, they were fanned by the policy that was adopted.”  [Emphasis, ours]

His lies were at one stage wrongly described as “credible and true” by a senior detective.

Metropolitan Police Deputy Commissioner Sir Stephen House said that officers in the case had worked in good faith, and that an “internal debrief” would take place following Beech’s conviction to identify whether lessons could be learned.  [Emphasis, ours]


would you pray for me?

Jefferson Vann -201711

Ephesians 6:19-20 (JDV)

Ephesians 6:19 Pray also in behalf of me, that the message may be given to me when I open my mouth to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel.

Ephesians 6:20 In behalf of which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I might be bold enough to speak about it as I should.

would you pray for me?

Paul asked his readers to pray for him.

Oh, wait… shouldn’t I be doing that? I don’t think I’ve ever done that. Can I ask you to pray for me?

Let’s see.. what should I ask you to pray for. There’s health, and a job so I can pay bills, and a church or school where I can serve. Oh, and one more thing:

that the message may be given to me when I open my mouth to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel.”

Most definitely.

Thank you!


Brexit Now Becomes More and More Likely

Merkel Says Deal ‘Overwhelmingly Unlikely’

A Brexiteer Says EU ‘Setting up Narrative You Can’t Leave’

Victoria Friedman
Breitbart London

A Downing Street source has revealed that German Chancellor Angela Merkel told Prime Minister Boris Johnson that a new exit treaty is “overwhelmingly unlikely”.  The source told media that negotiations over a new Brexit deal — which eliminates the Irish backstop — “are close to breaking down” following a 30-minute phone call between the two leaders on Tuesday morning.

“The call with Merkel showed the EU has adopted a new position,” the source said, saying the conversation “means a deal is essentially impossible not just now but ever”.  The source said: “She made clear a deal is overwhelmingly unlikely and she thinks the EU has a veto on us leaving the Customs Union.  Merkel said that if Germany wanted to leave the EU they could do it no problem, but the UK cannot leave without leaving Northern Ireland behind in a customs union and in full alignment forever.

“She said that Ireland is the government’s special problem and Ireland must at least have a veto on Northern Ireland leaving.
  Merkel said that the prime minister should tell Northern Ireland that it must stay in full alignment forever, but that even this would not eliminate customs issues.”  The German government’s spokesman confirmed the call took place but declined to confirm what was discussed.

Some EU sources have said that they do not ‘recognise’ the language reportedly used in the conversation. However, the report struck a nerve with the outgoing European Council President Donald Tusk who flashed some recognisably undiplomatic language when he accused the prime minister of trying to win “some stupid blame game”.

A Number 10 source has said that even if there is a delay or a general election, there will be a no-deal, clean-break Brexit.  The report comes after a Number 10 source told The Spectator: “Those who think Merkel will help us are deluded.”

Steve Baker, chairman of the Conservative Party’s European Research Group (ERG), told Sky News: “The problem that we face here is that the EU is trying to exercise a veto on whether part of our country can leave the Customs Union.  “They’ve effectively set up a narrative that you can’t leave the European Union. That’s a stark warning to all of us who wish to live in a democracy.”

Mr Baker also condemned the bloc for “treat[ing] Northern Ireland like an enclave which can be left behind” which he said was “an ultimate red line for the prime minister” and “certainly a red line for the DUP”.

Arlene Foster, leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, said Mr Johnson’s proposals had “flushed out Dublin’s real intention to trap Northern Ireland in the EU Customs Union forever.  We will not accept any such ultimatum or outcome,” she added.

A Number 10 source revealed to The Spectator this morning that the government stands by delivering a no-deal Brexit, whether by October 31st or after a forced extension, the figure saying: “The negotiations will probably end this week.”


all about warfare

police army commando special task force

Photo by Somchai Kongkamsri on

Ephesians 6:16-18 (JDV)

Ephesians 6:16 In every situation taking up the shield of the faith with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.

Ephesians 6:17 Take the helmet of the salvation and the sword of the Breath – which is the statement of God –

Ephesians 6:18 praying during all seasons in the Breath with every prayer and request, and staying alert with every perseverance and request concerning all the devotees.

all about warfare

It is impossible to cover this amazing text briefly. There is just too much here. I want to highlight the five times Paul uses the word πᾶς (each, every, all).

  • every situation – spiritual warfare is fought one battle at a time.

  • all the flaming arrows – they may come in bunches, but the faith can extinguish them all.

  • all seasons – there is no vacation time for the prayer warrior.

  • every prayer and request – each prayer requires alertness and watchfulness.

  • all the devotees – the objective of warfare is not simply self-protection – it is protection and victory for your whole army.

Lord, open our eyes to the reality of the war going on around us, and make us capable soldiers.