Last Gasp of the Remoaners

14 Replies to “Last Gasp of the Remoaners”

1. In one of my previous jobs, the company was run by a Dutch immigrant. There was a saying among the staff about his attitude “If you’re not Dutch, you’re not much!” The staff attrition rate was HUGE – most people lasted 3 months (employers always forget that the 3 month grace period is not only for the owner to decide if he wants to keep the new staff member, but if the new staff member also wants to stay).
   I always find it interesting that many of the world’s previous wars were started by countries in Europe. And don’t forget we had to save the sorry asses of Holland, France, Italy, Greece at the end of WWII. And now they are trying to dictate to the UK and to North America.

   1. My antipathy towards Europe (including the UK) is based on your observation about the wars they have started and how we have been sucked into their problems. Reading Pierre Burton’s Vimy and “1914” are enough to make one’s blood boil. I was recently in Holland and Normandy and visited the Canadian cemeteries there. It filled me with rage.

      Canada and the Euros consistently screw the Americans by shorting their military spending. Off loading their sovereign responsibility. Trump has called them out and challenged them to assume more ME military duties. Again long overdue.

   2. “You can always tell a Dutchman, you just can’t tell him much..”
      “Wooden shoes, wooden head, wouldn’t listen..”

      1. Heard that before an guess what sometimes generalities, wrong word, but, are truth.

         1. Stereotypes have to come from somewhere!

            My grandfather was a pioneer in the early 1900’s in Alberta, there were many different ethnic groups in the early days and they all made fun of each other, the Irish made fun of the Poles and the Hungarians made fun of the Yugoslavs ( or Austrian Hungarians if early enough) but guess what, come harvest time or if there was a barn raising or someone needed help, they were all there for each other, without even asking! Then, back to making fun again!

2. Remainers will NEVER accept defeat; it is that simple.

   Number one; this is religion here. You are not discussing policy, science, opinion. THIS IS RELIGIOUS BELIEF.
   Number two; these are zealots. People who are willing to put on a suicide vest. You really think “reason” applies?
   Number three; when was the last time you convinced a Christian that God did not actually exist?

   In the pages of the Guardian, they may still be blaming Churchill, or Cromwell for all I know.

   1. AKA for “The Guardian” – “The Puckering Post”

3. The English have a proud history of choosing their own way in how their country is governed. The split from Rome for example wasn’t just about the issue of who Henry VIII wanted to marry.

   1. Yes, it was. The Anglican church was founded on Henry’s lust for Anne.
      If the Pope had found Henry’s marriage to Catherine illegitimate and annulled it, Henry would still have been Catholic. After all, the Anglicans are still proud of the title “Defender of the Faith”, bestowed by a Pope. And who knows, Spain might not be Catholic then.
      The English might be proud of having a history of choosing their own way of governance, but they also have a history of choosing the way of governance for a host of other people. It is just now the shoe is on the other foot, and of their own choosing no less, not by military conquest. I have to say that at least, AFAIK, the English really did believe in “the white man’s burden” in a paternal sort of way, and have done better for many people than the native rulers. (Except for their brutal rule of Ireland, for whom they don’t feel a “white man’s burden”.) But sometimes by not really understanding the local situation, they have actually done much more harm. The partitioning of the India subcontinent and Transjordan comes to mind.

      1. henry 8 was a despicable, tyrannical BASTARD.
         but, BUT he redeemed himself. he sired Liz the first.
         lOOkit what SHE did for Britain.

      2. Henry VIII did not found the Church of England nor was he refused a divorce from Katherine of Aragon.
         K of A of the Spanish Royal Family had been married to Henry’s older brother Arthur who died when Henry was 11. It was against church law for a man to marry his brother’s wife but Pope Julius was prevailed upon to give special permission for Henry age 18 to marry Katherine age 24 for the sake of an alliance with Spain. It was an unhappy marriage.
         The Archbishop of York, Wolsley, suggested that Henry ask the new Pope Clement VII to annul the marriage and declare that it was never a legal marriage. Clement VII who being held prisoner by the Holy Roman Emperor could do nothing and for 2 years the papal courts considered the case. It was not just Henry who considered the marriage illegal.
         Henry used the Statutes of Praeminure limiting the power of the Pope in England to declare himself ‘The Supreme Head of the Church as far as the law of Christ Allows’.
         Cranmer was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury who immediately annulled the marriage of Henry and Katherine. The ‘English’ church remained much the same as before but a great principal of royal supremacy was established, that being even the church is subject to the laws of the land and there can only be one law in a country and everyone has to live under it.
         The Church was the same but thereafter no taxes would leave England for Rome, no laws originating in Rome would be binding on the English Church and no lawsuits brought in England could be appealed to Rome.

         1. Except for missing a couple of points, you made my case in much more detail. Yes, he declared himself supreme head of the Church of England, and therefore could appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury. Ipso facto, he founded the Church of England.
            The reason the special permission was given was Arthur and Catherine’s marriage was never consummated.
            The reason Henry asked for the special permission was because he was madly in love with his sister in law.
            The reason Henry asked for annulment of his marriage was because he was madly in love with Anne Boleyn.
            The reason Henry had Ann Boleyn beheaded was because he was madly in love with Jane Seymour.
            I guess the expiration date of his passions is something less than “a thousand days.” That was just how long before he could execute Anne Boleyn.

            1. What exactly did Henry do to form something ‘new’?
               After his use of existing statutes the catholic nature of worship remained the same; communion, transubstantiation, clerical celibacy, vows of chastity, private confessions, and Latin services.
               Henry claimed no special spiritual power for himself. Cranmer annulled the marriage.
               Henry did not challenge the Pope’s role as spiritual leader or Bishop of Rome; he was merely confirming that the Pope would no longer exercise his temporal powers over the English as expressed in laws of taxation or take any orders or decisions from him.
               “The Roman Pontiff has no greater jurisdiction bestowed on him by God in Holy Scriptures than any other Bishop”

4. Not totally. Henry’s beef with the Pope was that His Holiness wouldn’t give Henry the same deal he was giving to other monarchs which similar marital woes. Katharine of Aragon had very influential Spanish kin so Henry was SOL. Other monarchs got their annulments with no problem.