You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Luxembourg’ tag.

As it is with President Trump, so it is with Prime Minister Johnson.

The more the Left in their various guises attack these men, the more popular they become in the eyes of the people.

If this is true about the US president, it seems to also be true about our Prime Minister. British voters are beginning to understand that the elites despise them:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Sunday, September 15, 2019, a Liberal Democrat prospective parliamentary candidate (PPC), Kirsten Johnson (no relation to Boris), seemed to smear Leave voters in her proposed constituency in Devon:

Well observed. Kirsten Johnson’s accent is indeed American; she was born in Virginia but has dual US/UK nationality. Her husband is English. It’s a shame she went on the offence against voters in her adopted country.

She gave an interview to the BBC Radio 4’s Ross Hawkins on The World This Weekend. Guido Fawkes has the excruciating soundbite.

The North Devon Gazette covered the story and local political reaction (emphases mine, outside of the Conservative MP’s name):

When asked about North Devon being an area that voted to leave the EU, she said: “Demographically it’s 98 per cent white. We don’t have a lot of ethnic minorities living in North Devon. People aren’t exposed to people from other countries.”

North Devon MP Peter Heaton-Jones has called on her to make ‘an immediate and unreserved apology to local people following her disgraceful comments’, saying they were ‘highly offensive’.

On the show, interviewer Ross Hawkins asked what the number of ethnic minority votes had to do with it and Dr Johnson said: “I didn’t mean to mean that it has anything to do with it at all – just saying that when I speak to people I am hearing comments to me….when it….it refers to race. You’ve got….you’ve got me in a corner here.”

Dr Johnson then referred to the rise of hate crimes and was asked if she linked leave voters to hate crime.

She responded: “No I do not link all leave voters to hate crime, not at all, I need to make that absolutely clear.”

The awkward radio segment continued and eventually concluded with Mr Hawkins saying: “There she trailed off, and I’m not sure I ever did really understand her point.”

In a statement, Mr Heaton-Jones called the remarks ‘appalling and unacceptable’.

Dawn Westcott, The Brexit Party’s PCC, who also appeared on the same programme, voiced her ‘sense of shock’ at Johnson’s remarks:

This is not the London bubble. This is the countryside and there’s a sense of shock that the Liberal Democrats are no longer representing the views of North Devon.

The Green Party PPC was equally offended. Their PPC, Robert Mack, said:

I can’t believe the disdain for North Devon residents from the Lib Dem PPC, Kirsten Johnson.

This statement clearly pits their party against the electorate here. We need to trust people to make decisions and this is why I back a people’s vote. We need to listen to people from all sides of the debate, without prejudice.

Mark Cann, chairman of the North Devon Labour Party, expressed it best:

These distasteful comments from Kirsten Johnson just go to show how little she understands the people of North Devon. Despite our differences on Brexit, no one should be branding those with a different view as racist or lacking an understanding of the issues. We should respect all views on Brexit no matter how we might differ in our opinions. That is why Labour is committed to a Peoples Vote and will respect its outcome.

Too right.

That said, I disagree with the call for a People’s Vote from the Greens and Labour. We had a people’s vote in 2016: the EU referendum.

In the end, Kirsten Johnson tweeted an apology the day after the interview:

Voters were unimpressed:

The timing of this episode was bad, as the Lib Dems party conference was going on in Bournemouth at the time:

You get the idea. I hope she loses bigly, as President Trump would say, when the general election comes around.

Now on to Boris.

Many of us appreciate the short videos that No. 10 issues two or three times a week. They keep up our morale.

Last week, Boris — which is how we referred to him as Mayor of London — gave us an optimistic update on his travels in the North of England as well as his meeting with Ireland’s Taoiseach — Prime Minister — Leo Varadkar. He then discussed his — our — enemies in Parliament, saying that it was inexplicable why they would not agree to a general election:

Some Remainer MPs know they would lose, especially when they campaigned to uphold the 2016 referendum result in 2017’s general election. Here are two polls from last weekend.

The first shows Conservatives and Labour neck and neck:

The second shows the Conservatives ahead by a comfortable margin:

On Monday, September 16, the PM went to Luxembourg to meet over lunch with Jean-Claude Juncker, outgoing President of the European Commission, and then on to a meeting with the tiny nation’s prime minister, Xavier Bettel.

This was the lunch menu. ‘Bio’ means ‘organic’ and chicken oysters refer to the oblong tender pieces just in front of the thigh, along the back of the chicken:

Downing Street released the following communique afterwards. From The Guardian:

The prime minister and President Juncker had a constructive meeting this lunchtime. The Brexit secretary [Stephen Barclay] and Michel Barnier [the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator] were also in attendance.

The leaders took stock of the ongoing talks between the UK’s team and taskforce 50. The prime minister reconfirmed his commitment to the Good Friday/Belfast agreement and his determination to reach a deal with the backstop removed, that UK parliamentarians could support.

The prime minister also reiterated that he would not request an extension and would take the UK out of the EU on the 31st October.

The leaders agreed that the discussions needed to intensify and that meetings would soon take place on a daily basis. It was agreed that talks should also take place at a political level between Michel Barnier and the Brexit secretary, and conversations would also continue between President Juncker and the prime minister.

The European Commission’s statement read:

President Jean-Claude Juncker and Prime Minister Johnson had a working lunch today in Luxembourg. The aim of the meeting was to take stock of the ongoing technical talks between the EU and the UK and to discuss the next steps.

President Juncker recalled that it is the UK’s responsibility to come forward with legally operational solutions that are compatible with the withdrawal agreement. President Juncker underlined the commission’s continued willingness and openness to examine whether such proposals meet the objectives of the backstop. Such proposals have not yet been made.

The commission will remain available to work 24/7. The October European council will be an important milestone in the process. The EU27 remain united.

President Juncker was accompanied by the European commission’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier.

President Juncker will travel to Strasbourg later today and will address the plenary session of the European parliament on Wednesday morning.

However, the Financial Times reported that Juncker said Monday was the first time the Prime Minister appeared to understand the meaning of a single [EU] market. Really?

The managing director for Europe of the Eurasia Group says we should be on guard against statements coming from Brussels (Bxl) which contrast with those from European capitals, e.g. Berlin and Paris:

After lunch, a group of people began booing the Prime Minister:

Then there was the failed press conference with Luxembourg’s PM Xavier Bettel. Bettel spoke, but a rent-a-mob was there to harass our PM. Consequently, he refused to speak outdoors under those circumstances:

Interestingly, in the days before the Luxembourg meeting, No. 10 asked if any press conference could be held indoors, but Luxembourg officials said there was no room large enough. Seems hard to believe, as Luxembourg is a very important location for EU officials and meetings. Hmm.

Britain’s media — left and right — took a swipe at the PM for not appearing at the press conference. However, the British public viewed the situation differently:

That is true, as confirmed by a reporter for the Independent, not known to be a pro-Boris news outlet:

No. 10 made a short video of Boris’s private remarks in Luxembourg — for the British public, not protesters or the EU:

The Irish border ‘backstop’ is the big fly in the ointment between now and October 31. However, on last Thursday’s BBC Question Time, Dr Catherine Barnard, Professor of EU Law at Cambridge University, said that the backstop does not even come into effect until the transition period comes to a close in several months’ time — after we leave the EU. Therefore, surely, we have time to negotiate. No one wants the return of a hard border between the two countries, including Boris Johnson.

Boris Johnson is quickly becoming a people’s hero. I wish him the best of luck in the weeks ahead.

slipperyIn light of yesterday’s post on a European murdering his disabled daughter in France and Paralympians around the world comes the issue of legalised euthanasia for children.

The Netherlands, Luxembourg — and now Belgium — all allow young people to request euthanasia. In the first two countries, a child must have attained the age of 12 in order to do so.

In Belgium, no minimum age exists.

Naturally, proponents of this astounding legislation say it will be used only in the rarest of cases involving terminal illness.

That reminds me of the Roe v Wade debates when abortion supporters said the procedure would only be requested and used when the mother’s health was at risk. I recall discussing the issue with my fellow classmates in Catholic secondary school. I posited that it would eventually become a form of birth control. My classmates told me that I was being alarmist: ‘Don’t be ridiculous! Who would actively seek out an abortion?’

Hmm. Millions of women around the world, a number of them more than once. Tens of millions of foetuses who were divinely intended for this world and never saw it.

From abortion it was but a short step to euthanasia.

In 2005, Gallup’s poll on the subject found that a majority of Christians in the United States support euthanasia: 75% of Catholics, 70% of Protestants and 61% of Evangelicals. A majority of Catholics and Protestants also support physician-assisted suicide, PAS — 60% and 52%, respectively — although only 32% of Evangelicals do.

Now we have children who will be able to ask for the means to end their lives. It may start with the terminally ill but it will surely end up with unhappy youngsters of all kinds. No doubt, some of their parents and other family members will encourage them.

Els van Hoof, a Belgian senator, was one of a small number who voted against the bill. Christian News reports that she told the BBC (emphases mine):

In the beginning, they presented a law that included mentally ill children,” she noted. “During the debate, supporters of euthanasia talked about children with anorexia, children who are tired of life—so how far does it go?”

Paediatrician Dr. Gerlant van Berlaer disagrees:

” … there are children we try to treat but there is nothing we can do to make them better

We are not playing God—these are lives that will end anyway,” he argued. “Their natural end might be miserable or very painful or horrifying, and they might have seen a lot of friends in institutions or hospitals die of the same disease. And if they say, ‘I don’t want to die this way, I want to do it my way,’ and that is the only thing we can do for them as doctors, I think we should be able to do it.”

We all die. The point is dying when the Lord decides it, not us. So, contrary to what van Berlaer says, we are playing God by determining not His timescale but our own — for our comfort and convenience.

Thirty-eight Belgian paediatricians issued a statement countering this perspective, noting:

Even the most complex medical cases can be solved in the current legal framework, with the means and expertise at our disposal,” the translated statement says. “For whom is this legislation therefore designed?”

Children in Belgium are not suffering,” it continues. “The palliative care teams for children are perfectly capable of achieving pain relief, both in hospitals and at home.”

The law passed the lower house in late February 2014. Christian News tells us that most Belgians oppose it. Catholic Archbishop André-Joseph Léonard observed:

The law says adolescents cannot make important decisions on economic or emotional issues, but suddenly they’ve become able to decide that someone should make them die

This ties in tangentially with America’s Cass Sunstein — an early Obama adviser and a father himself — who advocates animal rights over those of humans. This World Net Daily article tells us that he agrees with Jeremy Bentham, one of the stars of Britain’s Enlightenment of the 18th century. Bentham once wrote:

A full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old.

Similarly, another of Obama’s early ‘point people’, John Holdren, said that he would favour seizing babies from unwed mothers who refused to have abortions. A chilling thought. In the 1970s, he co-authored a book with Paul and Anne Ehrlich on population control and other aspects of ecoscience. Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment still appears on course syllabi on some college campuses. The three authors propose forced marriage or compulsory adoption as well as mandatory sterilisation. They justify it this way:

Policies that may seem totally unacceptable today to the majority of people at large or to their national leaders may be seen as very much the lesser of evils only a few years from now.

That is, sadly, all too true.

Back now to children’s euthanasia. Many of you probably read about this story when it was being debated at the end of last year and early this year. Of its passage into law, business magazine magnate and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes warns:

As euthanasia becomes more accepted—and we become more numb to the horror of murdering people like this—we’ll descend to the next abomination: pressuring the sick to discontinue treatment for a likely fatal illness in the name of ‘saving scarce resources’ for people who have more years ahead of them.

Indeed, we have only to go to the Wikipedia entry for Voluntary Euthanasia to read the rationale, which anyone in the Benelux countries might now hear and adults in many other nations may be given:

Not only will PAS and euthanasia help with psychological suffering and give autonomy to the patient, PAS can help reduce health care costs and free up doctors and nurses. By keeping a terminally-ill patient alive, the patient must pay for any medical necessary procedures. These procedures can include x-rays, prescribed drugs, or any lab tests that needs to be performed. All of these procedures can run up a medical costs. Since the bills will continue to come for the patient, they will lose more of the money they would want to leave behind for their family. If the patient wants to end the suffering, the reason for racking up the bills and keeping the patient alive are lacking (13). Also, the costly treatment to keep the terminally-ill patient alive from medical funding cannot be used for other types of care, like prenatal, where it would save lives and improve long-term quality of life.[37] Along with reduced health care costs, more doctors and nurses could be freed up. A shortage of medical staff is a critical problem hospitals face and studies have found that understaffed hospitals make many mistakes and provide less quality care. Attending to terminally-ill patients, who would rather die, is not the best use of the medical staff. If PAS and euthanasia were legalized, more staff would have time to care for others and there would be an increase in the quality of care administered.[36]

Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia can lower health care costs, free up doctors and nurses, and give back the right to the patient to practice autonomy. By keeping PAS and euthanasia illegal, each terminally-ill patient is being discriminated against because they are not able put this option into action. Those patients because of their disability do not have the same right as any other person in the United States.[37]

To be fair, the article does explore the opposing right-to-life argument.

However, let’s look at how these arguments could make villains out of religious people — Christians or others — who wish for their relative to die in hospital without assisted or self-imposed suicide.

When families keep the terminally ill in hospital, doctors and nurses could well look upon these people as robbing others of good health. Family requests might end up being ignored. Relatives might be shunned. They might be expected to perform nursing and hospital orderly duties themselves.

The patient will be viewed as a ‘bed-blocker’, a term used of the elderly in Britain’s NHS in the early 1990s. Since then, a number of NHS doctors have written on elderly patients’ admittance forms to casualty the letters DNR: Do Not Resuscitate.

It is ironic that, given our greater overall life expectancy and medical advances, that more of us — children included — will be destined for the scrapheap because we are mere inconveniences to our families or physicians.

God? Who needs Him, eh? We can now take care of all our life and death issues ourselves.

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,518 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

May 2021
S M T W T F S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

http://martinscriblerus.com/

Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,648,188 hits