Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A BILL ENACTING Britain’s decision to leave the European Union has become law after months of debate, the House of Commons speaker announced this afternoon, to cheers from eurosceptic lawmakers.
Speaker John Bercow said the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, which repeals the 1972 European Communities Act through which Britain became a member of the bloc, had received royal assent from Queen Elizabeth II.
The bill transfers decades of European law onto British statute books, and also enshrines Brexit day in British law as 29 March 2019 at 11pm – midnight Brussels time.
Prime Minister Theresa May said the approval was a “historic moment for our country, and a significant step towards delivering on the will of the British people”.
The bill has undergone more than 250 hours of acrimonious debate in the Houses of Parliament since it was introduced in July 2017.
Eurosceptics celebrated the passing of the bill through parliament last week as proof that, despite continuing uncertainty in the negotiations with Brussels, Brexit was happening.
‘Stronger negotiating hand’
“Lest anyone is in any doubt, the chances of Britain not leaving the EU are now zero,” International Trade Minister Liam Fox said.
Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, a staunch Brexit supporter, said: “The legal position is now so much stronger for a clean Brexit.”
“Crucially this makes the prime minister’s negotiating hand much stronger.”
Another eurosceptic Conservative MP, Dominic Raab, said May would go to an EU summit later this week “with the wind in her sails”.
The government had a tough time getting the bill through parliament and was forced to concede some power to lawmakers over the final Brexit deal agreed with Brussels.
Further battles are expected in the House of Commons in the coming weeks, when MPs debate two bills on trade – with pro-Europeans seeking to force the government to keep close ties with the bloc.
May has yet to set out her plans for customs arrangements after Brexit, which have become a major stumbling block in talks with Brussels.
She will gather her top ministers after the EU summit, which starts on Thursday, to thrash out their differences with the aim of publishing a Brexit blueprint shortly after.
Well done benny, but are these priests in prison like they should be? I doubt it.
Here here. It’s a step in the right direction, however prosecutions would mean so much more.
Wow Ben your my hero.
Rodrigo
Again scraping the barrel with such a bike suggestion.
……vile suggestion!
Derek, the church cannot put priests into prison. That’s up to the police to the judicial system.
The church can only defrock them and turn over evidence to the police.
This about sums it up for me .. http://t.co/MaiVFABaua
@ Rodgers keep taking your meds weirdo.
I ask anyone out there just on question
If 400 postmen got their uniforms taken off them for raping our kids ,,,,,, would that be satisfactory punishment?
And postman was used as a random example
Pat I would deem that the perfect response from the post office! Then I would expect the police in the individual states to pursue these people and charge them for their crimes!
People whinge about the church having too much power yet this thread seems to promote idea of the Pope having legal rights to prosecute these ex priests!
Not prosecute but at least report to the police
Ah no not Postman Pat and his cat …. Surely you don’t suggest he is guilty of child abuse ?
Those child molesters were never true Catholic Priests, they were infiltrators who lied about their vocation .
@John Bawn – don’t be an apologist. The Vatican is as corrupt and twisted an organisation as you could hope to find. It’s evident from their leniency alone. Even if there wasn’t pedophilia involved, they’d still be utterly corrupt.
Ted, you are exactly right.
Defrocked them……………..
He should have tarred and feathered them .
shot them and then hung drawn and quartered them.
I wouldn’t waste the bullets
Matthew 18:6
But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
For once, some thing from the Bible I can agree with.
Remember that applies to all sin
I got another truth from the bible
Q. Why did popoye hit Moses?
A. Cause me went to Mount Olive
Pat, that was Brutus.
Its odd for rodrigo to get lots of red thumbs but the voice lots of green when they are ostensibly saying the same thing!
And we still have the 97% of child abusers in the community , fathers, uncles, family friends etc . Disgusting and all as the priest story is the bigger story is still out there. The Church story is unfortunately cloaking this horrible fact.
True to a point, but the church had a worldwide policy of covering up, moving offenders and not reporting offenders to the local authorities.
Now how many of those 400 cases were referred to police?
At least he did more than the phoney soon to be “saint” John Paul II
Mind you now that I think of it Benedict was the architect of the John Paul 2 policy of see no evil and if you do see it, bury it
In keeping with ‘The Holy See’s in-house procedures’. And therein lies the problem.
Benny defrocked hundreds of priests?……….*joke overload*
He could defrock himself and a lot of cardinals for covering up. Too little too late.
Frankly this defrocking is meaningless and is just for public show. Those 400 men should be in prison if they abused children. Were their cases turned over to authorities in each country to be dealt with by police? Were Bishops who colluded in the abuse by moving these predators around defrocked and held to account by police? Where is the justice for their victims? Until we get that information I am not clapping anyone on the back for finally doing the right thing.
and he also stood down. Coincidence?
There was a HBO documentary done called mea maxima culpa which actually showed him as one of the main ones covering up so many major child abuse cases.He actually changed things around so the abuse cases would be sent directly to him before he became pope and he totally covered them all up and did nothing for the victims and the priests were able to reoffend time and time again so no I have absolutely no respect for him,so he defrocked some,big deal no charges were made against them and they were able to get on with their lives after destroying so many innocent lives,whole thing makes me sick.Total corruption and abuse of power to those most vulnerable.
I always believed Benedict visually looked evil. I could never in any way relate or identify with the guy. I didn’t sense a man of god or of spirituality. The opposite in fact.
The fear with Francis is that he’ll do the opposite and sugar coat everything.
There is an author that writes on the Journal specifically about clerical abuse. He always writes superb fact based articles. I’d be interested in hearing his take on this.
I don’t see what his looks have to do with him being evil or not. A person cannot help how they look.
Well his papal red shoes didn’t make him look like Dorothy.
He always reminded me of Darth Sidious!
@Drew – a comment as low as yours gives good insight into your thought process and how shallow you are.
You mean appearance doesn’t matter to the Church Ross? Lol!
I was wondering why all the pictures people have of the saints around there houses, and my own mothers padre pio pics and souvenirs looked like Catholic ‘artists impressions’.
I was wondering why Jesus looked as if he was born is Scotland rather than Bethlehem.
Never fear though. Even photoshopping couldn’t make Benedict look saintly.
@Drew – appearance matters to everyone. But he cannot help how he looks.
You are trying to instill in people’s minds that the pope emeritus was evil just because of how he physically appears.
No I wasn’t. It would be obvious to anyone that I was expressing my own personal opinion, but not to you. You saw it as an attack.
I’m not trying to instill anything in anyones mind – I leave that up to your Church. I was speaking honestly about my impressions of the guy visually. He is after all, an actor, and his image has been and continues to be finely controlled by the Church. He’s a brand. Get over it.
There is nothing wrong with my original post in any way shape or form. The key lies in your defensiveness.
So you believe there is nothing wrong with you judging another person to be evil based on his looks?
You also make an assumption as to my religious beliefs with no basis whatsoever.
“So you believe there is nothing wrong with you judging another person to be evil based on his looks?”
Benedict made a career out of judging people on their sexuality.
I’m holding him to his own standards. What’s wrong with that?
@Ross
“So you believe there is nothing wrong with you judging another person to be evil based on his looks?”
Bingo.
As you said, you can do little about your looks. Nor can you do anything about your sexuality.
And looks and sexuality is only a small part of the jigsaw where the Church is concerned.
@ Drew – We’ll try again – you are making a judgement on a man based on how he looks. You accuse him of being evil.
You then make judgements and assumptions on me based on no evidence whatsoever.
You are not holding him to his own standards at all. You are merely trying to get a rise from people and a cheap shot on a religious leader.
So by your twisted logic as it is okay for you to call people evil based on how they look, is it okay to call someone evil based on sexuality?
If you answer anything but yes then your argument collapses.
If you answer yes you are giving a carte blanche to brand and label people as evil.
Nope. Wrong again. reread the post. I made no accusation of the man being evil. None. I did not say he was evil. How you read it is your problem. You need to try again.
I’m not trying to get a rise. You are either intentionally misinterpreting what I said, or you missed what I said in the first place.
@ Drew – you said very clearly you didn’t sense him to be a man of God, the opposite in fact. The opposite is the Devil, the Devil is evil therefore you clearly state that he is evil.
Please reread your post.
I said ”I” ”ME” – oh FFS.
@ Drew – thank you for finally admitting I was right. Cheers.
Ross. You are defending the most judgmental figurehead (as pope) in history, and his influence and the influence of the Church he led, by my lowly comments on an internet website.
You need to look in the mirror. All I did was use the same tactics he employs, yet you think I’m the accuser. j’accuse.
You might want to re-examine that last part of your post and maybe have the dictionary entry for irony beside you.
Where’s my Atheist infallibility when I need it?
Do you know what infallibility means?
Yes.
“You also make an assumption as to my religious beliefs with no basis whatsoever”
You are a staunchly Catholic young fella, with a staunchly Catholic upbringing to boot, that has for the first time discovered recently, it ain’t that simple.
But that’s just my sense and opinion, and I’m only guessing.
Sense and opinion – further confirmation that your statements are not based on any evidence.
Your condescending tone is also highly insulting but I’m sure that is intended.
No condescension Ross. How could I condescend in the face of a resurrection? And as well all know there’s loads of scientific ‘evidence’ for that.
No. No insult meant. All I’m trying to do is make an observation without you thinking I was attacking your religion. But you can’t see that.
You believe what you like. As do I. I trust my own intuition. I trust me. Myself.
If you deny you’re Catholic, and a believer, I won’t believe you. Am I wrong Ross?
But he did look very like Nosferatu the Vampire
Ross. Intentionally avoiding the question, is not an answer.
Nor am I looking to snare you.
Stop feeding the troll Ross. Drew Clarke is obviously a wind up merchant.
Drew never stated that the pope was evil because he looked evil. He simply said he looked evil – that is all he said with regards to looks.
He doesn’t seem like a troll. He’s just being defensive in an ineffective way.
@ Joe – I’m well aware Drew is a troll. That’s why I pursued the matter and got him to contradict himself.
A nun who gave birth to a baby boy in the central Italian city of Rieti, said she had no idea she was pregnant, local media report.
Virgin births are not rare in her line of business,so what’s your point?
Was her name Mary
That’s virgin on the ridiculous
She should have tried Immaculate Contraception.
It’s just a few bad apples …. You can’t paint them all with the same brush now ! Sorry he let 400 go in 2 years… 400 …,That’s an epidemic … That entire organization is toxic.
I wouldn’t let my child spend 1 single second near any of those deviants who are doing “gods work”.
I hate priests
And those who care are…?
Priests.
It’s not a quiz.
Disgusting to think how many of these perverts there are and how many continue to be protected after attempting to destroy the lives of innocent children.
He defrocked 400 priest and 500 altar boys.
Defrocked? They should be jailed for life without a chance to see daylight! Death would be too easy a faith for such monstrous pathetic human beings.
Why would anyone believe this report from the Vatican? More PR spin than truth
I believe in religious freedom. Provided it’s my religion.
Where’s all the dumb ass church supporters who tried to claim the pope knew nothing about the abuse . I’d say the vast majority of those defrocked criminals have never been prosecuted nor the evidence against them given to the authorities in the jurisdictions where
They committed their crimes. They probably still get a nice pension from the Vatican.
Cannon “law” – meh. As Michael McDowell said, they are about as relevant to a legal issue as the rules of a golf club are
“Canon law” is simply the internal rules and regulations of a church. It has no authority beyond the members of that particular church and in every country, including Ireland, is subordinate and subject to the civil, criminal and common law of the land as legislated for by government and interpreted, developed and implemented by the judiciary and other authorities such as the police and the prosecuting authorities. If members of a religious organisation break the laws of the land and thus us discovered by that religious organisation, then the religious organisation should have a legal obligation to infirm the relevant civil authorities. It is true however that child sex abuse and exploitation is nit limited to members of religious organisations. It is widespread worldwide in many religions and in society and the vast majority of the perpetrators are not members of religious organisations. However, religious organisations and leaders have a record of protecting and even tolerating their members who have abused and exploited children and other vulnerable people and if they have, they must be held to account by the civil authorities, irrespective of who the perpetrators and their protectors may be.
I would have preferred it if he hung them
The antichrist makes some of his minions take one for the team!! To remain in power, sacrifices must be made!! Evil nazi sc*m!
Looney is right
Former Pope? When did he retire?
Technically he’s not a former pope he’s a pope emeritus.
defrock them wow just give them prison sentences …. wtf
Anything less than prosecution is covering up.
cant beat a bit of defrocking
400?! If that’s not sign enough that change is required in the way the priesthood is run, then I don’t know what
have your say