What is inarguable is the tragedy of the Iraq war. That was such a monumental and squalid catastrophe, such an avoidable but appalling mistake, a "blunder" that cost 100,000s of lives and billions of pounds, for no gain whatsoever (and immense negative blowback) I find it very hard to believe no law exists whereby Blair cannot be prosecuted for his "error".
And if no law exists to prosecute him, then the law is an ass, and a law should be created so he can be prosecuted. This would not "destroy legal certainty" and "due process", it would be serving natural justice.
As it stands, the law is rendered laughable by his immunity.
The question that you are really asking is this: should conduct, which while lawful at the time but thereafter considered so deplorable that it should be punished as criminal, be amenable to criminal prosecution? Every person who is committed to the liberty of the subject will always answer in the negative. Equity without law, as Book II of Thomas More's Utopia ironically proves, is a species of tyranny. But consider how this principle, once conceded, would work in practice. It would enable an indictment to be preferred under the Terrorism Act 2000 against opponents of General Franco or members of the French Resistance.
In a rather odd mood. A long shot bet (33/1) came within a whisker of coming off, and didn't... ahead overall, though. Will try and get the post-race piece up tonight.
Why are we talking about a failed former PM of Luxembourg? I have the opinion that the role of the EU commission is obsolete and should be abolished, EU heads of state and governments are much more competent in dealing with the day to day issues, they should abolish that collection of failed politicians and give its power to the individual national governments.
How would that work? I'm currently translating proposed Danish regulations on energy tariffs, which are important for energy companies in Britain and elsewhere to know. When I've finished, the paper will go to the Commission, who will take a view on whether it meets the rules of the free internal market. Their opinion may be referred to the Council of Ministers, but more usually it'll be settled bilaterally between Denmark and the Commission.
If the Commission were abolished, who would practically do the job of taking this view - all 27 countries? Or would you abolish the internal market and let each country maniuplate the taxes and regulations to suit domestic suppliers?
I'm not convinced that most critics really know how the EU works before they criticise it.
I certainly don't know how it really works, although the way it is presented the Commission seems to have its own agenda that it pursues against the Parliament and the national governments at times, it sets the agenda for others, which seems odd for a bureaucratic machine to do so so openly. I understand the Parliament has more power than it used to, and the Council of Ministers makes decisions, but should it really matter who is Commission President? Shouldn't it just be about managing the paperwork of bureaucracy, not openly battling with national leaders?
Given that he specifically rejects that option ("confident of getting us to go the whole hog") in that link about his priorities, I'm not sure that interpretation reflects current reality. He may change his mind in the future (then again, so may anybody else) but right now it looks like he's offering a quid pro quo: "give me the job and I'll get you your opt outs"
If people came to the view that politicians ought to be criminally liable for the consequences of opening the borders e.g. over loading the health service, then even if it didn't apply backwards it would apply going forwards i.e. since 2007 - unless of course there was already some other law that covered it earlier than that.
'Overloading the health service' is not, and has never been a criminal offence. It is, if anything, a political failure by Her majesty's Government, and the remedy lies at the next general election to the House of Commons. It is something which is entirely different in principle to being directly mixed up in an unlawful death, to which the quite different principles set out in the 2007 Act apply.
Deaths caused by for example overloading the maternal hospitals when that overloading was deliberate policy (because they couldn't build more hospitals in advance because they didn't want people to know what they were doing) *ought* imo to count as corporate manslaughter.
I'm not saying it is covered by the corporate manslaughter act i'm saying it ought to be and if enough people come to that view than that would make for an interesting time.
To follow Sean T's reference to the Iraq clusterf**k. IIRC the MOD was prevented from ordering sufficient body armour prior to hostilities kicking off because Blair did not want to be seen as gung ho for war. The result was some of our people having to go in unprotected.
In 1649 we killed a king, and we were right to do so.
For the same reasons I believe we should prosecute most senior members of the Labour government 1997-2010, starting with Blair, because of Iraq.
Divine right = political immunity.
Things have changed since 1649, and the principles which then prevailed no longer have practical application. In any event, Charles I was convicted of treason, which was an offence against the law of England as it then stood. Suppose, however, that it is acceptable to amend retrospectively the criminal law to enable the indictment, conviction and sentence of divers ministers of the crown in the previous government. Why should it not also be acceptable to amend retrospectively the criminal law to make an activity criminal that was lawful and practised by many loyal and law abiding subjects? Individuals must be able to know what the law is, and what they must do to abide by it. Once you allow the criminal law to be amended retrospectively, you destroy legal certainty, due process and the rule of law.
Let's forget immigration - that is arguable.
What is inarguable is the tragedy of the Iraq war. That was such a monumental and squalid catastrophe, such an avoidable but appalling mistake, a "blunder" that cost 100,000s of lives and billions of pounds, for no gain whatsoever (and immense negative blowback) I find it very hard to believe no law exists whereby Blair cannot be prosecuted for his "error".
And if no law exists to prosecute him, then the law is an ass, and a law should be created so he can be prosecuted. This would not "destroy legal certainty" and "due process", it would be serving natural justice.
As it stands, the law is rendered laughable by his immunity.
Lets say there is a law, but there is evidence required that he knew. Everyone knows he did the crime but no one can prove it because witnesses are not talking or are dead. Even the inquiry has been buried so that no one will read the report. You need ironically a "smoking gun", something like this:
Mr. Pulpstar, was rather excited. Gutted the long shot didn't come off, but the race was absolutely fantastic. Also handy for my title bets (if Hamilton's long enough I might throw a slab of money onto him, so I'm green either way).
Both drivers are longer than evens on Betfair. I think that's bonkers, but if anyone's a big money punter who doesn't mind tying it up for a few months I'd advocate backing both with an equal result on whoever wins.
What is inarguable is the tragedy of the Iraq war. That was such a monumental and squalid catastrophe, such an avoidable but appalling mistake, a "blunder" that cost 100,000s of lives and billions of pounds, for no gain whatsoever (and immense negative blowback) I find it very hard to believe no law exists whereby Blair cannot be prosecuted for his "error".
And if no law exists to prosecute him, then the law is an ass, and a law should be created so he can be prosecuted. This would not "destroy legal certainty" and "due process", it would be serving natural justice.
As it stands, the law is rendered laughable by his immunity.
The question that you are really asking is this: should conduct, which while lawful at the time but thereafter considered so deplorable that it should be punished as criminal, be amenable to criminal prosecution? Every person who is committed to the liberty of the subject will always answer in the negative. Equity without law, as Book II of Thomas More's Utopia ironically proves, is a species of tyranny. But consider how this principle, once conceded, would work in practice. It would enable an indictment to be preferred under the Terrorism Act 2000 against opponents of General Franco or members of the French Resistance.
I think that the trial of Hugh De Spenser The Younger could be a useful precedent for the way we should deal with Tony Blair's conduct in office.
I've just learned (or maybe I had read it before and forgotten I had done so), that the EU is governed by 7 different institutions, though bugger me if I know the difference between the European Council and the Council of the European Union (one of which I know is the Council of Ministers), as well as over 40 Agencies.
Anyone have any figures for number of employees of the EU? I suspect if I google 'How many people work at the European Commission?' I will just get the old gag, 'About half of them'.
Why are we talking about a failed former PM of Luxembourg? I have the opinion that the role of the EU commission is obsolete and should be abolished, EU heads of state and governments are much more competent in dealing with the day to day issues, they should abolish that collection of failed politicians and give its power to the individual national governments.
How would that work? I'm currently translating proposed Danish regulations on energy tariffs, which are important for energy companies in Britain and elsewhere to know. When I've finished, the paper will go to the Commission, who will take a view on whether it meets the rules of the free internal market. Their opinion may be referred to the Council of Ministers, but more usually it'll be settled bilaterally between Denmark and the Commission.
If the Commission were abolished, who would practically do the job of taking this view - all 27 countries? Or would you abolish the internal market and let each country maniuplate the taxes and regulations to suit domestic suppliers?
I'm not convinced that most critics really know how the EU works before they criticise it.
You would instead give it to the british government who will then proceed to negotiate with the other 27 governments to see if it fits the rules. It's the same job just performed by other people, in this case government functionaries (foreign office probably) instead of useless commissioners.
Slightly interesting news, given we are discussing the EU:
Bulgaria is to halt work on its Russian-backed South Stream gas pipeline following criticism from the EU and US...Bulgaria has previously said it is being targeted by Brussels as a means of retaliating against Russia over the situation in Ukraine.
What is inarguable is the tragedy of the Iraq war. That was such a monumental and squalid catastrophe, such an avoidable but appalling mistake, a "blunder" that cost 100,000s of lives and billions of pounds, for no gain whatsoever (and immense negative blowback) I find it very hard to believe no law exists whereby Blair cannot be prosecuted for his "error".
And if no law exists to prosecute him, then the law is an ass, and a law should be created so he can be prosecuted. This would not "destroy legal certainty" and "due process", it would be serving natural justice.
As it stands, the law is rendered laughable by his immunity.
The question that you are really asking is this: should conduct, which while lawful at the time but thereafter considered so deplorable that it should be punished as criminal, be amenable to criminal prosecution? Every person who is committed to the liberty of the subject will always answer in the negative. Equity without law, as Book II of Thomas More's Utopia ironically proves, is a species of tyranny. But consider how this principle, once conceded, would work in practice. It would enable an indictment to be preferred under the Terrorism Act 2000 against opponents of General Franco or members of the French Resistance.
No. Let a jury decide if Blair committed such a stupid self-serving egregious error in Iraq he deserves punishment, rather than £20m a year.
Let the people see the evidence, and conclude if he is guilty of criminal negligence. That is English justice.
A jury.
A jury? You mean let the people decide?
In 2005 (after the invasion and the revelation of various documents) the people decided to put Mr Blair back in number 10 again.
Why are we talking about a failed former PM of Luxembourg? I have the opinion that the role of the EU commission is obsolete and should be abolished, EU heads of state and governments are much more competent in dealing with the day to day issues, they should abolish that collection of failed politicians and give its power to the individual national governments.
How would that work? I'm currently translating proposed Danish regulations on energy tariffs, which are important for energy companies in Britain and elsewhere to know. When I've finished, the paper will go to the Commission, who will take a view on whether it meets the rules of the free internal market. Their opinion may be referred to the Council of Ministers, but more usually it'll be settled bilaterally between Denmark and the Commission.
If the Commission were abolished, who would practically do the job of taking this view - all 27 countries? Or would you abolish the internal market and let each country maniuplate the taxes and regulations to suit domestic suppliers?
I'm not convinced that most critics really know how the EU works before they criticise it.
Two comments below (SeanT, kle4) make the really valid point about us not really understanding how it works.
Your "I'm currently translating proposed Danish regulations on energy tariffs" doesn't fill me with confidence. If they're good then just tell us, and if they're bad don't bother.
No. Let a jury decide if Blair committed such a stupid self-serving egregious error in Iraq he deserves punishment, rather than £20m a year.
Let the people see the evidence, and conclude if he is guilty of criminal negligence. That is English justice.
A jury.
You are avoiding the point. There is no such offence as criminal negligence. Any indictment charging "criminal negligence" would be quashed by the court on the ground that it disclosed no offence against the law of England and Wales. Under our system, juries are directed as to the law by the judge. In this case, there would be no law on which the judge might direct the jury, for you advocate an extra-legal procedure.
I think that the trial of Hugh De Spenser The Younger could be a useful precedent for the way we should deal with Tony Blair's conduct in office.
The relatives of Gérard d'Athée in 1215 and the Lusignans in 1258-1259 were pursued under similar principles. Indeed, the purge of Henry VII's chief ministers, Richard Empson and Edmund Dudley, who were accused of treachery on Henry VIII's accession, can be seen in the same light. Purging former ministers encourages contemporary ministers to be tyrannical in order to avoid being purged once they have lost office. That was surely the lesson of medieval England and Stalinist Russia.
If people came to the view that politicians ought to be criminally liable for the consequences of opening the borders e.g. over loading the health service, then even if it didn't apply backwards it would apply going forwards i.e. since 2007 - unless of course there was already some other law that covered it earlier than that.
'Overloading the health service' is not, and has never been a criminal offence. It is, if anything, a political failure by Her majesty's Government, and the remedy lies at the next general election to the House of Commons. It is something which is entirely different in principle to being directly mixed up in an unlawful death, to which the quite different principles set out in the 2007 Act apply.
Deaths caused by for example overloading the maternal hospitals when that overloading was deliberate policy (because they couldn't build more hospitals in advance because they didn't want people to know what they were doing) *ought* imo to count as corporate manslaughter.
I'm not saying it is covered by the corporate manslaughter act i'm saying it ought to be and if enough people come to that view than that would make for an interesting time.
To follow Sean T's reference to the Iraq clusterf**k. IIRC the MOD was prevented from ordering sufficient body armour prior to hostilities kicking off because Blair did not want to be seen as gung ho for war. The result was some of our people having to go in unprotected.
Apparently the same with the NBC kit for the tanks.
Two comments below (SeanT, kle4) make the really valid point about us not really understanding how it works.
Your "I'm currently translating proposed Danish regulations on energy tariffs" doesn't fill me with confidence. If they're good then just tell us, and if they're bad don't bother.
I think they're fine, mate. You happy to take my judgment on it, even though I'm just a translator and not an expert on fair energy markets?
You would instead give it to the british government who will then proceed to negotiate with the other 27 governments to see if it fits the rules. It's the same job just performed by other people, in this case government functionaries (foreign office probably) instead of useless commissioners.
The bureaucracy you're suggesting would be HORRENDOUS. Every country produces hundreds of these things. Most of them are completely uncontroversial - it's merely useful for industry to know what the rules are in each country and that someone is keeping an eye out that they're reasonable. Your proposal would require Britain AND EVERY OTHER GOVERNMENT to employ civil servants to eamaine 28*hundreds of documents, normally all coming to the same conclusion. It's be as if there wasn't one Food Standards Agency but 28 of them all examining Tesco's discount salmon.
Slightly interesting news, given we are discussing the EU:
Bulgaria is to halt work on its Russian-backed South Stream gas pipeline following criticism from the EU and US...Bulgaria has previously said it is being targeted by Brussels as a means of retaliating against Russia over the situation in Ukraine.
I'm not suprised, Bulgaria really wants the pipeline for economic reasons but the president of the commision is a Bush W. appointee so he usually follows the american line when he can, plus he had his own pet project the Nabucco pipeline which was antagonistic to South Stream. It's ironic that the EU commision can overide a country's economic or foreign policy on an environmental pretext, they tried to do the same with Nord Stream but Germany is too powerfull for Barroso to mess with.
I think that the trial of Hugh De Spenser The Younger could be a useful precedent for the way we should deal with Tony Blair's conduct in office.
The relatives of Gérard d'Athée in 1215 and the Lusignans in 1258-1259 were pursued under similar principles. Indeed, the purge of Henry VII's chief ministers, Richard Empson and Edmund Dudley, who were accused of treachery on Henry VIII's accession, can be seen in the same light. Purging former ministers encourages contemporary ministers to be tyrannical in order to avoid being purged once they have lost office. That was surely the lesson of medieval England and Stalinist Russia.
Quite. One of the major problems in the world in 'sort of' democracies is the pursuit of the previous people in power, so you are repressive and ballot stuff and all the rest or the same will happen to you, and who knows what started it, as each side ends up with plenty of things deserving of being pursued before too long.
No one f*cking knows how the EU works. Do you? How many presidents are there? What is a Corepor? What the hell is subsidiarity, in reality? How do you repeal an EU law? Who makes EU laws and where and when, do they emerge from some parallel universe?
THIS is the horror of the EU. It's like a government designed by Niels Bohr and Rene Descartes in a particularly intellectual mood. It is impenetrable to even the politically minded and astute, let alone the average IQ-100 voter. And all of it happens in 31 languages. Great. And in two parliaments, and with about seventy eight supreme courts, staffed by Azerbaijanis.
It is a gruesome freakshow of a non-democracy. You cannot honestly deny this. The disconnect between the European people and their supposed "government" is ghastly and unbridgeable.
And I say this as someone who could be persuaded of the European ideal. But what we have is so desperately unideal it is not worth preserving.
"How many presidents are there?"
lolz, the EU would make a good backdrop for a mashup of Flashman and Tom Sharpe.
"How I came to be the EU's Third Under-President for Tuesdays (non leap year)" by Wolfgang Amadeus Flashman IV.
No. Let a jury decide if Blair committed such a stupid self-serving egregious error in Iraq he deserves punishment, rather than £20m a year.
Let the people see the evidence, and conclude if he is guilty of criminal negligence. That is English justice.
A jury.
You are avoiding the point. There is no such offence as criminal negligence. Any indictment charging "criminal negligence" would be quashed by the court on the ground that it disclosed no offence against the law of England and Wales. Under our system, juries are directed as to the law by the judge. In this case, there would be no law on which the judge might direct the jury, for you advocate an extra-legal procedure.
There's no halfway house here legally is there? If Blair knowingly misrepresented the case and if people died as a result of that action, then it's murder/manslaughter. This surely is the law. However I'm not happy that it should be so. The PM should be allowed to reach a reasonable (or at least not wholly unreasonable) view. I think Blair did that (just).
No one f*cking knows how the EU works. Do you? How many presidents are there? What is a Corepor? What the hell is subsidiarity, in reality? How do you repeal an EU law? Who makes EU laws and where and when, do they emerge from some parallel universe?
THIS is the horror of the EU. It's like a government designed by Niels Bohr and Rene Descartes in a particularly intellectual mood. It is impenetrable to even the politically minded and astute, let alone the average IQ-100 voter. And all of it happens in 31 languages. Great. And in two parliaments, and with about seventy eight supreme courts, staffed by Azerbaijanis.
It is a gruesome freakshow of a non-democracy. You cannot honestly deny this. The disconnect between the European people and their supposed "government" is ghastly and unbridgeable.
And I say this as someone who could be persuaded of the European ideal. But what we have is so desperately unideal it is not worth preserving.
Yes, I know most of that, it's not even especially complicated, and it works efficiently for small matter and slowly for big matters, which is perhaps not such a bad thing. People can't be bothered to follow the details, but then nor they can in Britain - how many people can tell you the difference between primary and secondary legislation, or positive or negative affirmation, or exactly when the Parliament Act can kick in, or the difference between the Committee Stages and Report Stage and why some amendments are done in one and some in the other, or what Black Rod is really for?
Can you? But it doesn't matter. You can form a perfectly valid, if tragically demented, view on all major issues without needing to know any of these details.
The bureaucracy you're suggesting would be HORRENDOUS. Every country produces hundreds of these things. Most of them are completely uncontroversial - it's merely useful for industry to know what the rules are in each country and that someone is keeping an eye out that they're reasonable. Your proposal would require Britain AND EVERY OTHER GOVERNMENT to employ civil servants to eamaine 28*hundreds of documents, normally all coming to the same conclusion. It's be as if there wasn't one Food Standards Agency but 28 of them all examining Tesco's discount salmon.
Look who is talking about the horrendous British Bureaucracy and the paradise that is the EU Bureaucracy, if we abolish the position of Brussels bureaucrats and replace them with British bureaucrats we will save some money plus greater employment opportunities and a reduced unemployment rate for member states (excluding Belgium).
Why are we talking about a failed former PM of Luxembourg? I have the opinion that the role of the EU commission is obsolete and should be abolished, EU heads of state and governments are much more competent in dealing with the day to day issues, they should abolish that collection of failed politicians and give its power to the individual national governments.
How would that work? I'm currently translating proposed Danish regulations on energy tariffs, which are important for energy companies in Britain and elsewhere to know. When I've finished, the paper will go to the Commission, who will take a view on whether it meets the rules of the free internal market. Their opinion may be referred to the Council of Ministers, but more usually it'll be settled bilaterally between Denmark and the Commission.
If the Commission were abolished, who would practically do the job of taking this view - all 27 countries? Or would you abolish the internal market and let each country maniuplate the taxes and regulations to suit domestic suppliers?
I'm not convinced that most critics really know how the EU works before they criticise it.
You would instead give it to the british government who will then proceed to negotiate with the other 27 governments to see if it fits the rules. It's the same job just performed by other people, in this case government functionaries (foreign office probably) instead of useless commissioners.
So you want people from 28 governments to get together to sort things out. They're busy people, so they'll appoint delegates to handle the bumpf work. Since there are 27+26+25+24+...=lots of combinations of conversations and that'll take forever, they'll need somewhere central with good transport links. It'll have to close enough to Germany to be commutable from Berlin, and you have to consider Scandinavia (who'll commute via Denmark), Spain, France and Italy, so you're looking at somewhere like...hmm, Strasbourg, Brussels or the Hague. The Hague's pretty crowded these days and Brussels's got the hotels and conference centres, so they'll go there. They'll also need translators (how's your Finnish?), secretarial staff, and expenses...
...but you already know where I'm going with this...
You would instead give it to the british government who will then proceed to negotiate with the other 27 governments to see if it fits the rules. It's the same job just performed by other people, in this case government functionaries (foreign office probably) instead of useless commissioners.
The bureaucracy you're suggesting would be HORRENDOUS. Every country produces hundreds of these things. Most of them are completely uncontroversial - it's merely useful for industry to know what the rules are in each country and that someone is keeping an eye out that they're reasonable. Your proposal would require Britain AND EVERY OTHER GOVERNMENT to employ civil servants to eamaine 28*hundreds of documents, normally all coming to the same conclusion. It's be as if there wasn't one Food Standards Agency but 28 of them all examining Tesco's discount salmon.
I'm sure there are sound reasons for them and so I am being silly, but when you given an example of its work all laid out and how complex and time consuming it all is, my instinctive reaction is why does all that need to be done at all?
It's all very well for the EU leaders and dreamers to get upset that despite what I'm sure are some wonderful leaflets and a website or two to inform us, most people don't really understand how things work (and I acknowledge this is probably moreso the case here than in other places), but if after all this time people have not accepted why the EU needs to involve itself in all these things, that is to say why it is a benefit for them to be involved, they have no-one to blame but themselves.
Only the business and political elites end up understanding why it is to our benefit (assuming for sake of argument that it is), hence the disconnect with the public, who see a lot of confusing and complicated bureaucracy and ask 'why is that necessary?' and the EU just says (because, as is abundantly clear, people like me just won't understand it even if explained) 'It just is, now stop asking and do it'.
Can it really be worth it? And it people just cannot be made to understand why it is in their benefit, perhaps it should not happen even if it harms them - people eventually have to face up to the consequences of their decisions, including the decision to remain ignorant of such things.
If the only way I am to learn why all this bureaucracy is worthwhile is to have it not happen, then perhaps that is necessary, otherwise ignorant bitterness will persist and that is damaging in the long run.
Given that he specifically rejects that option ("confident of getting us to go the whole hog") in that link about his priorities, I'm not sure that interpretation reflects current reality. He may change his mind in the future (then again, so may anybody else) but right now it looks like he's offering a quid pro quo: "give me the job and I'll get you your opt outs"
Abolishing the EU Commission is turning into a brilliant idea, not only national governments have more power, there will be less bureaucracy since already established foreign ministries can take the work and more money since the EU bureaucratic structure costs so much more than national bureaucratic structures.
Why need a commissioner since a foreign minister or his functionaries can do the same job and for less?
but 28 of them all examining Tesco's discount salmon.
There would only be one wouldn't there? Tesco aren't a force beyond the UK to the same extent.
So this'd be one document, without the need to worry about the big EU area, and without the need for it to be translated.
Just for the hell of it have a dig and work out what an EU document concerning "Tesco and Salmon" costs, versus say a UK document concerning a similar thing. Unfortunately I can't suggest a subject because the EU is everywhere - but I'm sure there must be one.
Before you do any of that though you should think what a document about "Tesco and Salmon" should cost.
In 1649 we killed a king, and we were right to do so.
For the same reasons I believe we should prosecute most senior members of the Labour government 1997-2010, starting with Blair, because of Iraq.
Divine right = political immunity.
Things have changed since 1649, and the principles which then prevailed no longer have practical application. In any event, Charles I was convicted of treason, which was an offence against the law of England as it then stood. Suppose, however, that it is acceptable to amend retrospectively the criminal law to enable the indictment, conviction and sentence of divers ministers of the crown in the previous government. Why should it not also be acceptable to amend retrospectively the criminal law to make an activity criminal that was lawful and practised by many loyal and law abiding subjects? Individuals must be able to know what the law is, and what they must do to abide by it. Once you allow the criminal law to be amended retrospectively, you destroy legal certainty, due process and the rule of law.
Let's forget immigration - that is arguable.
What is inarguable is the tragedy of the Iraq war. That was such a monumental and squalid catastrophe, such an avoidable but appalling mistake, a "blunder" that cost 100,000s of lives and billions of pounds, for no gain whatsoever (and immense negative blowback) I find it very hard to believe no law exists whereby Blair cannot be prosecuted for his "error".
And if no law exists to prosecute him, then the law is an ass, and a law should be created so he can be prosecuted. This would not "destroy legal certainty" and "due process", it would be serving natural justice.
As it stands, the law is rendered laughable by his immunity.
The biggest joke is that he can then be made a Middle East peace envoy.
No. Let a jury decide if Blair committed such a stupid self-serving egregious error in Iraq he deserves punishment, rather than £20m a year.
Let the people see the evidence, and conclude if he is guilty of criminal negligence. That is English justice.
A jury.
You are avoiding the point. There is no such offence as criminal negligence. Any indictment charging "criminal negligence" would be quashed by the court on the ground that it disclosed no offence against the law of England and Wales. Under our system, juries are directed as to the law by the judge. In this case, there would be no law on which the judge might direct the jury, for you advocate an extra-legal procedure.
So write the damn law. If Blair cannot be charged and tried for Whatever He Did in Iraq then the law is wrong, and needs to be changed. Some political errors are so gross, malign and catastrophic they cannot be defended by any amount of sophistry.
If the jury acquits him, so be it. But we need a reckoning.
So write the damn law. If Blair cannot be charged and tried for Whatever He Did in Iraq then the law is wrong, and needs to be changed. Some political errors are so gross, malign and catastrophic they cannot be defended by any amount of sophistry.
If the jury acquits him, so be it. But we need a reckoning.
Let us again consider how this principle would work. Many feminists considered that the Sexual Offences Act 1956 was insufficient. They mounted a successful campaign against the legislation, and the result was the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Should a person who, in 1985, committed an indecent assault for the purposes of the Act of 1956 be liable to be proceeded against and punished for an offence of rape under the 2003 Act? Patently not, no matter how unjust it may today seem. If the law is deficient or sophistical (as it often is), then it should be changed. There is no justification, however, for that change to have retrospective effect.
No. Let a jury decide if Blair committed such a stupid self-serving egregious error in Iraq he deserves punishment, rather than £20m a year.
Let the people see the evidence, and conclude if he is guilty of criminal negligence. That is English justice.
A jury.
You are avoiding the point. There is no such offence as criminal negligence. Any indictment charging "criminal negligence" would be quashed by the court on the ground that it disclosed no offence against the law of England and Wales. Under our system, juries are directed as to the law by the judge. In this case, there would be no law on which the judge might direct the jury, for you advocate an extra-legal procedure.
So write the damn law. If Blair cannot be charged and tried for Whatever He Did in Iraq then the law is wrong, and needs to be changed. Some political errors are so gross, malign and catastrophic they cannot be defended by any amount of sophistry.
If the jury acquits him, so be it. But we need a reckoning.
No. Let a jury decide if Blair committed such a stupid self-serving egregious error in Iraq he deserves punishment, rather than £20m a year.
Let the people see the evidence, and conclude if he is guilty of criminal negligence. That is English justice.
A jury.
You are avoiding the point. There is no such offence as criminal negligence. Any indictment charging "criminal negligence" would be quashed by the court on the ground that it disclosed no offence against the law of England and Wales. Under our system, juries are directed as to the law by the judge. In this case, there would be no law on which the judge might direct the jury, for you advocate an extra-legal procedure.
So write the damn law. If Blair cannot be charged and tried for Whatever He Did in Iraq then the law is wrong, and needs to be changed. Some political errors are so gross, malign and catastrophic they cannot be defended by any amount of sophistry.
If the jury acquits him, so be it. But we need a reckoning.
I broadly agree, although has there ever been any retrospective legislation passed in this country I wonder?
No. Let a jury decide if Blair committed such a stupid self-serving egregious error in Iraq he deserves punishment, rather than £20m a year.
Let the people see the evidence, and conclude if he is guilty of criminal negligence. That is English justice.
A jury.
You are avoiding the point. There is no such offence as criminal negligence. Any indictment charging "criminal negligence" would be quashed by the court on the ground that it disclosed no offence against the law of England and Wales. Under our system, juries are directed as to the law by the judge. In this case, there would be no law on which the judge might direct the jury, for you advocate an extra-legal procedure.
So write the damn law. If Blair cannot be charged and tried for Whatever He Did in Iraq then the law is wrong, and needs to be changed. Some political errors are so gross, malign and catastrophic they cannot be defended by any amount of sophistry.
If the jury acquits him, so be it. But we need a reckoning.
Blair could and should have been impeached: that was the proper process. It was tried in a half-hearted manner and those who did got laughed at. But if a PM misleading parliament - either deliberately or because he turned a blind eye to information he should have known, on the case for going to war - isn't an impeachable offence, it's difficult to say what is.
By your argument Hitler might not have been tried in Nuremburg, if he had survived, because what he did was legal according to German law at the time.
I rather think Churchill was right about how the Nazi leadership ought to have been dealt with, viz. under the laws of war. Nuremberg was a form of victors' justice, and plainly contrary to the principle that there should be no crime or punishment without law. Bear in mind that it was Stalin, with his experience of Vyshinsky's antics in the 1930s, duly repeated at Nuremberg, who was most in favour of trials. The Soviets even tried to indict the Nazis for Katyn at the said show trials.
If people came to the view that politicians ought to be criminally liable for the consequences of opening the borders e.g. over loading the health service, then even if it didn't apply backwards it would apply going forwards i.e. since 2007 - unless of course there was already some other law that covered it earlier than that.
'Overloading the health service' is not, and has never been a criminal offence. It is, if anything, a political failure by Her majesty's Government, and the remedy lies at the next general election to the House of Commons. It is something which is entirely different in principle to being directly mixed up in an unlawful death, to which the quite different principles set out in the 2007 Act apply.
Deaths caused by for example overloading the maternal hospitals when that overloading was deliberate policy (because they couldn't build more hospitals in advance because they didn't want people to know what they were doing) *ought* imo to count as corporate manslaughter.
I'm not saying it is covered by the corporate manslaughter act i'm saying it ought to be and if enough people come to that view than that would make for an interesting time.
To follow Sean T's reference to the Iraq clusterf**k. IIRC the MOD was prevented from ordering sufficient body armour prior to hostilities kicking off because Blair did not want to be seen as gung ho for war. The result was some of our people having to go in unprotected.
Worse than that, they did not even have adequate pain relief.
No. Let a jury decide if Blair committed such a stupid self-serving egregious error in Iraq he deserves punishment, rather than £20m a year.
Let the people see the evidence, and conclude if he is guilty of criminal negligence. That is English justice.
A jury.
You are avoiding the point. There is no such offence as criminal negligence. Any indictment charging "criminal negligence" would be quashed by the court on the ground that it disclosed no offence against the law of England and Wales. Under our system, juries are directed as to the law by the judge. In this case, there would be no law on which the judge might direct the jury, for you advocate an extra-legal procedure.
So write the damn law. If Blair cannot be charged and tried for Whatever He Did in Iraq then the law is wrong, and needs to be changed. Some political errors are so gross, malign and catastrophic they cannot be defended by any amount of sophistry.
If the jury acquits him, so be it. But we need a reckoning.
Blair could and should have been impeached: that was the proper process. It was tried in a half-hearted manner and those who did got laughed at. But if a PM misleading parliament - either deliberately or because he turned a blind eye to information he should have known, on the case for going to war - isn't an impeachable offence, it's difficult to say what is.
In politics it's impeachable only if there is a majority, since the Conservatives fully supported Blair on Iraq, Blair couldn't be removed because of it even if the majority of the Labour party was against.
All this legal discussion has opened my apetite for legal comedy drama and trash like The Verdict on BBC2 starring Jeffrey Archer and Michael Portillo.
I think the change in the law to permit double jepardy was applied to past cases not just future ones. All with good intent, but a dangerous precedent.
No. Let a jury decide if Blair committed such a stupid self-serving egregious error in Iraq he deserves punishment, rather than £20m a year.
Let the people see the evidence, and conclude if he is guilty of criminal negligence. That is English justice.
A jury.
You are avoiding the point. There is no such offence as criminal negligence. Any indictment charging "criminal negligence" would be quashed by the court on the ground that it disclosed no offence against the law of England and Wales. Under our system, juries are directed as to the law by the judge. In this case, there would be no law on which the judge might direct the jury, for you advocate an extra-legal procedure.
So write the damn law. If Blair cannot be charged and tried for Whatever He Did in Iraq then the law is wrong, and needs to be changed. Some political errors are so gross, malign and catastrophic they cannot be defended by any amount of sophistry.
If the jury acquits him, so be it. But we need a reckoning.
I broadly agree, although has there ever been any retrospective legislation passed in this country I wonder?
No. Let a jury decide if Blair committed such a stupid self-serving egregious error in Iraq he deserves punishment, rather than £20m a year.
Let the people see the evidence, and conclude if he is guilty of criminal negligence. That is English justice.
A jury.
You are avoiding the point. There is no such offence as criminal negligence. Any indictment charging "criminal negligence" would be quashed by the court on the ground that it disclosed no offence against the law of England and Wales. Under our system, juries are directed as to the law by the judge. In this case, there would be no law on which the judge might direct the jury, for you advocate an extra-legal procedure.
So write the damn law. If Blair cannot be charged and tried for Whatever He Did in Iraq then the law is wrong, and needs to be changed. Some political errors are so gross, malign and catastrophic they cannot be defended by any amount of sophistry.
If the jury acquits him, so be it. But we need a reckoning.
I broadly agree, although has there ever been any retrospective legislation passed in this country I wonder?
The usual example in constitutional law is the War Damages Act 1965 which reversed a decision of the House of Lords that the Government had to pay compensation to Burmah Oil for the destruction of their oil fields to stop them falling into Japanese hands in WW2.
More common examples have been the retrospective closing of loopholes in tax legislation.
There is an argument now that such legislation is contrary to the Human Rights Act.
Bear in mind that it was Stalin, with his experience of Vyshinsky's antics in the 1930s, duly repeated at Nuremberg, who was most in favour of trials.
I'd be quite curious to read any background on this. Stalin surely wanted them out of the way - mostly for the atrocities they'd committed, but partly because they were the witnesses to his earlier duplicity. I'm quite surprised therefore that you say he was most in favour of trials (rather than just executions). However you undoubtedly have good reason to say what you do, and if this happens to be based in part on something you've read then I'd be keen to learn of the source.
I think the change in the law to permit double jepardy was applied to past cases not just future ones. All with good intent, but a dangerous precedent.
Indeed, but there is a crucial difference. An acquitted person can only be convicted under the provisions of Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 when that the alleged acts or omissions constituted a criminal offence at the time that they were committed. It is still deplorable legislation and should be repealed.
We are talking about all this legal hypothetical situation with Blair that we forgot that the can of worms is still open. The Taliban are attacking Karachi International Airport as we debate.
I'd be quite curious to read any background on this. Stalin surely wanted them out of the way - mostly for the atrocities they'd committed, but partly because they were the witnesses to his earlier duplicity. I'm quite surprised therefore that you say he was most in favour of trials (rather than just executions). However you undoubtedly have good reason to say what you do, and if this happens to be based in part on something you've read then I'd be keen to learn of the source.
The British government opposed the establishment of the Nuremberg war crimes tribunals at the end of the second world war because it wanted selected Nazi leaders to be summarily executed and others to be imprisoned without trial, according to a contemporary account that is declassified on Friday.
Winston Churchill made the proposal at the "Big Three" conference at Yalta in February 1945, according to the account, but was overruled by Franklin D Roosevelt, who believed the US public would demand proper trials, and Joseph Stalin, who argued that public trials possessed excellent propaganda value.
The British eventually agreed to the war crimes trials despite the misgivings of some senior government officials who believed the decision to prosecute the surviving Nazi leadership for waging a war of aggression would set a dangerous precedent. They also feared the prosecutions would be on a par with the high-profile show trials in Stalin's Russia.
It occurs to me that Britain's much more open Euroscepticism (conparitively speaking) really is quite useful for pretty much all sides in Euro politicking. For us, we obviously focus on when we are the most obviously objecting to some new EU mess and get to be the mostly lone voice standing up for Britain and/or freedom, for the EU Bureaucracy and its unelected and elected cheerleaders they get to pretend that because we are the most vocal in opposition we are the only real opposition and so we should be ignored or treated as a special case which they don't need to apply principles to anyone else asking for things, and for those who might be somewhat in opposition but not willing or not able to go as far as we are, or not not powerful enough to ask for it, they can point to us and be all,'Well, I wouldn't go as far as them, but there is a problem here which needs addressing, meet us halfway'.
All playing their parts no doubt. Who knows how diplomats actually resolve things beyond the bits we see.
The usual example in constitutional law is the War Damages Act 1965 which reversed a decision of the House of Lords that the Government had to pay compensation to Burmah Oil for the destruction of their oil fields to stop them falling into Japanese hands in WW2.
More common examples have been the retrospective closing of loopholes in tax legislation.
There is an argument now that such legislation is contrary to the Human Rights Act.
It is an entirely different matter to create a retroactive criminal liability. The only example that can be cited is the War Crimes Act 1991, the only legislation passed under the Parliament Act 1911 during a Conservative administration.
I'd be quite curious to read any background on this. Stalin surely wanted them out of the way - mostly for the atrocities they'd committed, but partly because they were the witnesses to his earlier duplicity. I'm quite surprised therefore that you say he was most in favour of trials (rather than just executions). However you undoubtedly have good reason to say what you do, and if this happens to be based in part on something you've read then I'd be keen to learn of the source.
The British government opposed the establishment of the Nuremberg war crimes tribunals at the end of the second world war because it wanted selected Nazi leaders to be summarily executed and others to be imprisoned without trial, according to a contemporary account that is declassified on Friday.
Winston Churchill made the proposal at the "Big Three" conference at Yalta in February 1945, according to the account, but was overruled by Franklin D Roosevelt, who believed the US public would demand proper trials, and Joseph Stalin, who argued that public trials possessed excellent propaganda value.
The British eventually agreed to the war crimes trials despite the misgivings of some senior government officials who believed the decision to prosecute the surviving Nazi leadership for waging a war of aggression would set a dangerous precedent. They also feared the prosecutions would be on a par with the high-profile show trials in Stalin's Russia.
Interesting. The USA beholden to idealism, the USSR manipulative, and the UK aiming for cold pragmatism.
Monday's Times front page - "Gove told to launch 'dawn raids' on schools" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers pic.twitter.com/2VB9Fbl73U
Got to be careful here,overreaction could cause trouble.
Surreal.
Meanwhile kids are trying to get into school to take their GCSEs through a barrage of press after seeing everything about them trashed by the govt and the media.
Interesting. The USA beholden to idealism, the USSR manipulative, and the UK aiming for cold pragmatism.
Not at all. It was the Chief Justice of the United States, Harlan Fiske Stone, who observed that the Nuremberg trials, and Robert Jackson's participation in them, were contrary to the principles of the Bill of Rights.
I'd be quite curious to read any background on this. Stalin surely wanted them out of the way - mostly for the atrocities they'd committed, but partly because they were the witnesses to his earlier duplicity. I'm quite surprised therefore that you say he was most in favour of trials (rather than just executions). However you undoubtedly have good reason to say what you do, and if this happens to be based in part on something you've read then I'd be keen to learn of the source.
The British government opposed the establishment of the Nuremberg war crimes tribunals at the end of the second world war because it wanted selected Nazi leaders to be summarily executed and others to be imprisoned without trial, according to a contemporary account that is declassified on Friday.
Winston Churchill made the proposal at the "Big Three" conference at Yalta in February 1945, according to the account, but was overruled by Franklin D Roosevelt, who believed the US public would demand proper trials, and Joseph Stalin, who argued that public trials possessed excellent propaganda value.
The British eventually agreed to the war crimes trials despite the misgivings of some senior government officials who believed the decision to prosecute the surviving Nazi leadership for waging a war of aggression would set a dangerous precedent. They also feared the prosecutions would be on a par with the high-profile show trials in Stalin's Russia.
Churchill's Yalta proposal seems to me appropriate for the New Labour hierarchy.
"Joseph Stalin, who argued that public trials possessed excellent propaganda value" seems right, and particularly in the light of the pre-war trials in Russia. I'd forgotten just how popular Stalin probably was at that point. He had the luxury of time.
I'd be quite curious to read any background on this. Stalin surely wanted them out of the way - mostly for the atrocities they'd committed, but partly because they were the witnesses to his earlier duplicity. I'm quite surprised therefore that you say he was most in favour of trials (rather than just executions). However you undoubtedly have good reason to say what you do, and if this happens to be based in part on something you've read then I'd be keen to learn of the source.
The British government opposed the establishment of the Nuremberg war crimes tribunals at the end of the second world war because it wanted selected Nazi leaders to be summarily executed and others to be imprisoned without trial, according to a contemporary account that is declassified on Friday.
Winston Churchill made the proposal at the "Big Three" conference at Yalta in February 1945, according to the account, but was overruled by Franklin D Roosevelt, who believed the US public would demand proper trials, and Joseph Stalin, who argued that public trials possessed excellent propaganda value.
The British eventually agreed to the war crimes trials despite the misgivings of some senior government officials who believed the decision to prosecute the surviving Nazi leadership for waging a war of aggression would set a dangerous precedent. They also feared the prosecutions would be on a par with the high-profile show trials in Stalin's Russia.
Interesting. The USA beholden to idealism, the USSR manipulative, and the UK aiming for cold pragmatism.
That such a story appears in the Guardian doesn't make it true. I fact if you look at released papers Stalin wanted to carry out a massacre (Katyn style) of captured German officers and the German Intelligentsia. Churchill was violently opposed. to any such idea and Roosevelt sat there saying nothing.
In 1649 we killed a king, and we were right to do so.
For the same reasons I believe we should prosecute most senior members of the Labour government 1997-2010, starting with Blair, because of Iraq.
Divine right = political immunity.
Things have changed since 1649, and the principles which then prevailed no longer have practical application. In any event, Charles I was convicted of treason, which was an offence against the law of England as it then stood. Suppose, however, that it is acceptable to amend retrospectively the criminal law to enable the indictment, conviction and sentence of divers ministers of the crown in the previous government. Why should it not also be acceptable to amend retrospectively the criminal law to make an activity criminal that was lawful and practised by many loyal and law abiding subjects? Individuals must be able to know what the law is, and what they must do to abide by it. Once you allow the criminal law to be amended retrospectively, you destroy legal certainty, due process and the rule of law.
Let's forget immigration - that is arguable.
What is inarguable is the tragedy of the Iraq war. That was such a monumental and squalid catastrophe, such an avoidable but appalling mistake, a "blunder" that cost 100,000s of lives and billions of pounds, for no gain whatsoever (and immense negative blowback) I find it very hard to believe no law exists whereby Blair cannot be prosecuted for his "error".
And if no law exists to prosecute him, then the law is an ass, and a law should be created so he can be prosecuted. This would not "destroy legal certainty" and "due process", it would be serving natural justice.
As it stands, the law is rendered laughable by his immunity.
I voted for Blair in 97 & 01... he took us to an illegal war that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and destroyed the lives of millions more, then flooded the country with 100 times more Eastern European immigrants than he said would come
And I am supposed to be put off UKIP by a poster campaign and a councillors stupid facebook post?
Interesting. The USA beholden to idealism, the USSR manipulative, and the UK aiming for cold pragmatism.
Not at all. It was the Chief Justice of the United States, Harlan Fiske Stone, who observed that the Nuremberg trials, and Robert Jackson's participation in them, were contrary to the principles of the Bill of Rights.
The USA decision maker felt necessary to give the impression of 'proper' trials because of the idealistic belief in such things he felt the US public had, regardless of whether or not the actual legalities of their nation said such a thing was necessary then.
The usual example in constitutional law is the War Damages Act 1965 which reversed a decision of the House of Lords that the Government had to pay compensation to Burmah Oil for the destruction of their oil fields to stop them falling into Japanese hands in WW2.
More common examples have been the retrospective closing of loopholes in tax legislation.
There is an argument now that such legislation is contrary to the Human Rights Act.
It is an entirely different matter to create a retroactive criminal liability. The only example that can be cited is the War Crimes Act 1991, the only legislation passed under the Parliament Act 1911 during a Conservative administration.
In Scotland the High Court claimed the right to declare certain acts criminal until relatively recently. One example was a prosecution of a shopkeeper who sold bags and glue together to children. There is a general view that the exercise of such a power now is inconsistent with Article 7 of the ECHR.
I'd be quite curious to read any background on this. Stalin surely wanted them out of the way - mostly for the atrocities they'd committed, but partly because they were the witnesses to his earlier duplicity. I'm quite surprised therefore that you say he was most in favour of trials (rather than just executions). However you undoubtedly have good reason to say what you do, and if this happens to be based in part on something you've read then I'd be keen to learn of the source.
The British government opposed the establishment of the Nuremberg war crimes tribunals at the end of the second world war because it wanted selected Nazi leaders to be summarily executed and others to be imprisoned without trial, according to a contemporary account that is declassified on Friday.
Winston Churchill made the proposal at the "Big Three" conference at Yalta in February 1945, according to the account, but was overruled by Franklin D Roosevelt, who believed the US public would demand proper trials, and Joseph Stalin, who argued that public trials possessed excellent propaganda value.
The British eventually agreed to the war crimes trials despite the misgivings of some senior government officials who believed the decision to prosecute the surviving Nazi leadership for waging a war of aggression would set a dangerous precedent. They also feared the prosecutions would be on a par with the high-profile show trials in Stalin's Russia.
Churchill's Yalta proposal seems to me appropriate for the New Labour hierarchy.
Stalin's proposal at Yalta was that 50,000 German officers should be shot indiscriminately. I don't think trials was his first priority but he was talked around, mainly by FDR. With 25m dead Russians his views were perhaps understandable.
It may do. But hospitals for 300,000 are already serving 800,000. What's the solution?
.
"... you have no idea how to do it. "
Please, Sir, I do, Sir. But you don't like my idea, possibly because though it is too redistrubutionist and progressive.
Still waiting for your ideas on how to stop the problem getting worse and how to fix th problem that already exists.
We either need more infrastructure spending or we need the current size of the population to be reduced. If you accept that the latter proposition is only achievable through forced repatriation and you do not like that idea, which I do not, then it is all about working out how to pay for the additional and unavoidable spending. I would certainly favour tax rises for people with my level of income; I am less keen on them for people who are only earning £35,000. And I am opposed to a 95% rate of tax for anyone.
"We either need more infrastructure spending or we need the current size of the population to be reduced."
Again you're wrongly defining it as a fixed problem when it's a problem over time.
When the problem is correctly defined as a problem over time then your solution requires building *more* extra capacity per year than extra people per year.
Which currently is impossible hence why you don't want to admit it's not a fixed problem.
There is currently a hospital having to look after a population of 800,000 when it was built for 300,000. That is why people are being turned away. Thus, the area it serves needs extra capacity now. Until that is supplied to the extent necessary - and that extent will depend on how the population grows, obviously - the capacity problem will worsen.
I am sorry if I misled, but the main reason that Queens hospital is turning people away is the govt have closed King George maternity ward in Ilford, so Romfords hospital has to deal with double the patients.. the A&E is closing at KG as well soon and the one at Queens is already in special measures
There has been a lot of immigration in that part of East London though, which couldnt have helped. Anecdotally, a friends wife gave birth there recently and was the only English women (inc the Nurses to be fair)
In Scotland the High Court claimed the right to declare certain acts criminal until relatively recently. One example was a prosecution of a shopkeeper who sold bags and glue together to children. There is a general view that the exercise of such a power now is inconsistent with Article 7 of the ECHR.
Indeed, although the English courts gave up the power to create new common law offences long before the incorporation of the Convention into domestic law. The view of Viscount Simonds in Shaw v Director of Public Prosecutions [1962] AC 220, p. 268 that 'there is in that court [the Court of Queen's Bench] a residual power, where no statute has yet intervened to supersede the common law, to superintend those offences which are prejudicial to the public welfare' is vitiated. Principally because the noble lord went on to say:
Let it be supposed that at some future, perhaps, early, date homosexual practices between adult consenting males are no longer a crime. Would it not be an offence if even without obscenity, such practices were publicly advocated and encouraged by pamphlet and advertisement? Or must we wait until Parliament finds time to deal with such conduct? I say, my Lords, that if the common law is powerless in such an event, then we should no longer do her reverence. But I say that her hand is still powerful and that it is for Her Majesty's judges to play the part which Lord Mansfield pointed out to them.
He said: "I happened to be with him at Chartwell when the results of the Nuremberg Trials of the Nazi war criminals were published 'it shows' he remarked, 'that if you get into a war, it is supremely important to win it. You and I would be in a pretty pickle if we had lost.'"
I voted for Blair in 97 & 01... he took us to an illegal war that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and destroyed the lives of millions more, then flooded the country with 100 times more Eastern European immigrants than he said would come
And I am supposed to be put off UKIP by a poster campaign and a councillors stupid facebook post?
You might think twice about voting at all with that record!
(A joke if you'll forgive me)
For what it's worth I didn't vote for Blair, but I don't believe for one moment that he didn't think that what he was doing was justified and for the best. I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe that now, and he shares that conclusion with the rest of us. (He does look rather haunted)
The great thing about UKIP voters today is that they are inevitably thinking about politics - we know they didn't all vote that way in the past overall. Perhaps if I think more I'll change away from my Tory views, or if you do you'll migrate once again. I almost wish there was a box saying "Tory, and yes I've really thought about it" as an option!
Meanwhile in other news Boris Johnson not to be outdone by Gove and May raining all over Dave's post queen speech Newark parade chips in by highlighting how futile Dave's latest EU stunt is.
Junking Juncker’s pointless. It doesn’t matter who gets the job Whoever ends up as Commission president will have one aim: ever closer union in Europe
I voted for Blair in 97 & 01... he took us to an illegal war that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and destroyed the lives of millions more, then flooded the country with 100 times more Eastern European immigrants than he said would come
And I am supposed to be put off UKIP by a poster campaign and a councillors stupid facebook post?
You might think twice about voting at all with that record!
(A joke if you'll forgive me)
For what it's worth I didn't vote for Blair, but I don't believe for one moment that he didn't think that what he was doing was justified and for the best. I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe that now, and he shares that conclusion with the rest of us. (He does look rather haunted)
The great thing about UKIP voters today is that they are inevitably thinking about politics - we know they didn't all vote that way in the past overall. Perhaps if I think more I'll change away from my Tory views, or if you do you'll migrate once again. I almost wish there was a box saying "Tory, and yes I've really thought about it" as an option!
I also voted for GB in 10! Forgot in 05...
Yes thats what makes me laugh when I hear that UKIP voters are protesting/dont know anything about them and their policies etc.. I only started voting UKIP after studying politics and philosophy as a mature student, then realising that I didnt agree with the modern Labour party at all! It was when I voted for them that I wasnt thinking
If Ed had stuck with the early Blue Labour thing I would probably have stuck with him, but he got rid of Glasman and is so pro EU that I couldnt go back
I think the answer to that question is that Cameron, Hague and Osborne all believe that the EU needs reform not just to satisfy Britain's national interest but to secure the future for EU itself and its member countries.
Juncker is pursuing the exception for Britain line which would isolate the UK and diminish its influence. It is an extension of the Barroso's proposal of a special deal for Britain but not for anyone else.
The Cameron/Hague/Osborne goal is not therefore so much to repatriate powers to the UK but to restructure the entire basis upon which the EU will develop.
So 'a new face, break with the past, open to new ideas man or woman' is the person they are looking for.
That's a very interesting answer. Maybe it goes to the heart of the question: does the EU divide into the Eurozone and the Rest (which I've always regarded as the most likely outcome), or does it become a thoroughly reformed whole?
The first might be characterised as 'More Europe except for the UK and maybe a few other recalcitrants', the latter as 'Less Europe'.
The problem with the latter is that, even if you leave aside the EU Elite's ultimate ideological goal of ever-close union, there is still the very practical question on what you actually do about monetary union. Basically the Eurozone without 'More Europe' doesn't actually work in practice. This is a bit of a major flaw.
He said: "I happened to be with him at Chartwell when the results of the Nuremberg Trials of the Nazi war criminals were published 'it shows' he remarked, 'that if you get into a war, it is supremely important to win it. You and I would be in a pretty pickle if we had lost.'"
And this was I feel why Churchill wanted a swift resolution to the issue of war crimes.
Life_in_a _market_town's quote surprised me a little in that I had imagined that it was merely the US that wanted trials, however having read the quote and thought about it a little it makes sense.
I'm not sure what light that throws upon us as a nation. Consider too the policy of staying at war with Napoleon (no source, but I believe it's true) simply to avoid the risk of republicanism spreading. Still, we can reassure ourselves that our tank regiments on the Scottish borders will win the day in their just war against the usurpers in October!
I'd be quite curious to read any background on this. Stalin surely wanted them out of the way - mostly for the atrocities they'd committed, but partly because they were the witnesses to his earlier duplicity. I'm quite surprised therefore that you say he was most in favour of trials (rather than just executions). However you undoubtedly have good reason to say what you do, and if this happens to be based in part on something you've read then I'd be keen to learn of the source.
The British government opposed the establishment of the Nuremberg war crimes tribunals at the end of the second world war because it wanted selected Nazi leaders to be summarily executed and others to be imprisoned without trial, according to a contemporary account that is declassified on Friday.
Winston Churchill made the proposal at the "Big Three" conference at Yalta in February 1945, according to the account, but was overruled by Franklin D Roosevelt, who believed the US public would demand proper trials, and Joseph Stalin, who argued that public trials possessed excellent propaganda value.
The British eventually agreed to the war crimes trials despite the misgivings of some senior government officials who believed the decision to prosecute the surviving Nazi leadership for waging a war of aggression would set a dangerous precedent. They also feared the prosecutions would be on a par with the high-profile show trials in Stalin's Russia.
Churchill's Yalta proposal seems to me appropriate for the New Labour hierarchy.
Stalin's proposal at Yalta was that 50,000 German officers should be shot indiscriminately. I don't think trials was his first priority but he was talked around, mainly by FDR. With 25m dead Russians his views were perhaps understandable.
Yes Stalin that noted humanitarian and lion of the left must have felt those 25 million deaths acutely.
I'd be quite curious to read any background on this. Stalin surely wanted them out of the way - mostly for the atrocities they'd committed, but partly because they were the witnesses to his earlier duplicity. I'm quite surprised therefore that you say he was most in favour of trials (rather than just executions). However you undoubtedly have good reason to say what you do, and if this happens to be based in part on something you've read then I'd be keen to learn of the source.
The British government opposed the establishment of the Nuremberg war crimes tribunals at the end of the second world war because it wanted selected Nazi leaders to be summarily executed and others to be imprisoned without trial, according to a contemporary account that is declassified on Friday.
Winston Churchill made the proposal at the "Big Three" conference at Yalta in February 1945, according to the account, but was overruled by Franklin D Roosevelt, who believed the US public would demand proper trials, and Joseph Stalin, who argued that public trials possessed excellent propaganda value.
The British eventually agreed to the war crimes trials despite the misgivings of some senior government officials who believed the decision to prosecute the surviving Nazi leadership for waging a war of aggression would set a dangerous precedent. They also feared the prosecutions would be on a par with the high-profile show trials in Stalin's Russia.
Churchill's Yalta proposal seems to me appropriate for the New Labour hierarchy.
Stalin's proposal at Yalta was that 50,000 German officers should be shot indiscriminately. I don't think trials was his first priority but he was talked around, mainly by FDR. With 25m dead Russians his views were perhaps understandable.
Yes Stalin that noted humanitarian and lion of the left must have felt those 25 million deaths acutely. Of course. That was 25 million people who could have served his aims, who were his to kill as he chose, not Hitler's.
Keep an eye on Sajid Javid is my tip. If the Tories do win in 2105, as majority, minority or coalition, he is bound to get a more senior Cabinet role (I wouldn't even rule out Home Secretary replacing Mrs May!).
And should Osborne not contest the Cameron succession in 2017/8, I reckon he would stand an excellent chance with the electorate of party members.
Edit: And I wouldn't rule him out as the new broom either in the event of defeat.
I think a Sheffield Rally would be even more embarrassing with Ed
Of course he'd never do it, but I'd have tears of laughter in prospect of Ed doing a "we're al'right" type thing. I doubt I'd actually survive the reality!
If at that very moment Ed Balls was to turn up in a duffle-coat then I suspect that Labour would be sure of victory for a generation - all the Tory's having literally died laughing.
I may recommend a baseball cap to Dave, and the royal 'we' to GO on that basis!
Miss Fuller started working for Ukip in 2004 and says she became like a mother to Mr Farage, 50, reminding him to drink enough water with his breakfast kippers.
In March, she was named as his former mistress in the European Parliament by Nikki Sinclaire, a disgruntled former Ukip MEP. Mr Farage has denied the claims and challenged her to repeat them without the legal protection afforded by parliamentary privilege.
Miss Fuller started working for Ukip in 2004 and says she became like a mother to Mr Farage, 50, reminding him to drink enough water with his breakfast kippers..
Something a bit fishy about that. Surely when Nige is breakfasting with his Kipper friends he has a pint?
Agree with SeanT - if we there are no consequences for leaders like Blair who commit the most cardinal of sins in our name, then are we any better than the tin-pot banana republics that we so look down upon...
As a typical Tory, you are obviously pleased with the outcome. Cunningham forced to resign a nd meanwhile the Ministers carry on as nothing has happened.
One actually told the Times journalists the story [ it can't even be described as leaking ] and the other ordered her assistant to publish a letter to another minister on the Home Office website.
Agree with SeanT - if we there are no consequences for leaders like Blair who commit the most cardinal of sins in our name, then are we any better than the tin-pot banana republics that we so look down upon...
Miss Fuller started working for Ukip in 2004 and says she became like a mother to Mr Farage, 50, reminding him to drink enough water with his breakfast kippers..
Something a bit fishy about that. Surely when Nige is breakfasting with his Kipper friends he has a pint?
I think we are only getting the bones of the story.
ToryJim Omnium I think Miliband would have so boored the audience with his social democratic north London gobbyldegook I think the audience would have died of boredom anyway
Miss Fuller started working for Ukip in 2004 and says she became like a mother to Mr Farage, 50, reminding him to drink enough water with his breakfast kippers.
In March, she was named as his former mistress in the European Parliament by Nikki Sinclaire, a disgruntled former Ukip MEP. Mr Farage has denied the claims and challenged her to repeat them without the legal protection afforded by parliamentary privilege.
Profound comment tonight @edballsmp 'Watching Sound of Music, kids just fell in Lake, about to sing to and with the Captain.. always the tear-jerking moment - Top Cinema'
Miss Fuller started working for Ukip in 2004 and says she became like a mother to Mr Farage, 50, reminding him to drink enough water with his breakfast kippers..
Something a bit fishy about that. Surely when Nige is breakfasting with his Kipper friends he has a pint?
I think we are only getting the bones of the story.
Comments
IIRC the MOD was prevented from ordering sufficient body armour prior to hostilities kicking off because Blair did not want to be seen as gung ho for war. The result was some of our people having to go in unprotected.
Everyone knows he did the crime but no one can prove it because witnesses are not talking or are dead.
Even the inquiry has been buried so that no one will read the report.
You need ironically a "smoking gun", something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0m_479OHW4
Both drivers are longer than evens on Betfair. I think that's bonkers, but if anyone's a big money punter who doesn't mind tying it up for a few months I'd advocate backing both with an equal result on whoever wins.
Anyone have any figures for number of employees of the EU? I suspect if I google 'How many people work at the European Commission?' I will just get the old gag, 'About half of them'.
It's the same job just performed by other people, in this case government functionaries (foreign office probably) instead of useless commissioners.
Bulgaria is to halt work on its Russian-backed South Stream gas pipeline following criticism from the EU and US...Bulgaria has previously said it is being targeted by Brussels as a means of retaliating against Russia over the situation in Ukraine.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27755032
In 2005 (after the invasion and the revelation of various documents) the people decided to put Mr Blair back in number 10 again.
Two comments below (SeanT, kle4) make the really valid point about us not really understanding how it works.
Your "I'm currently translating proposed Danish regulations on energy tariffs" doesn't fill me with confidence. If they're good then just tell us, and if they're bad don't bother.
Two comments below (SeanT, kle4) make the really valid point about us not really understanding how it works.
Your "I'm currently translating proposed Danish regulations on energy tariffs" doesn't fill me with confidence. If they're good then just tell us, and if they're bad don't bother.
I think they're fine, mate. You happy to take my judgment on it, even though I'm just a translator and not an expert on fair energy markets? The bureaucracy you're suggesting would be HORRENDOUS. Every country produces hundreds of these things. Most of them are completely uncontroversial - it's merely useful for industry to know what the rules are in each country and that someone is keeping an eye out that they're reasonable. Your proposal would require Britain AND EVERY OTHER GOVERNMENT to employ civil servants to eamaine 28*hundreds of documents, normally all coming to the same conclusion. It's be as if there wasn't one Food Standards Agency but 28 of them all examining Tesco's discount salmon.
It's ironic that the EU commision can overide a country's economic or foreign policy on an environmental pretext, they tried to do the same with Nord Stream but Germany is too powerfull for Barroso to mess with.
lolz, the EU would make a good backdrop for a mashup of Flashman and Tom Sharpe.
"How I came to be the EU's Third Under-President for Tuesdays (non leap year)" by Wolfgang Amadeus Flashman IV.
There's no halfway house here legally is there? If Blair knowingly misrepresented the case and if people died as a result of that action, then it's murder/manslaughter. This surely is the law. However I'm not happy that it should be so. The PM should be allowed to reach a reasonable (or at least not wholly unreasonable) view. I think Blair did that (just).
@pkedrosky: This slide should be the fourth law of thermodynamics http://t.co/f27oJVkNqV /@theagilepirate via @wilbanks
Can you? But it doesn't matter. You can form a perfectly valid, if tragically demented, view on all major issues without needing to know any of these details.
...but you already know where I'm going with this...
You would instead give it to the british government who will then proceed to negotiate with the other 27 governments to see if it fits the rules.
It's the same job just performed by other people, in this case government functionaries (foreign office probably) instead of useless commissioners.
The bureaucracy you're suggesting would be HORRENDOUS. Every country produces hundreds of these things. Most of them are completely uncontroversial - it's merely useful for industry to know what the rules are in each country and that someone is keeping an eye out that they're reasonable. Your proposal would require Britain AND EVERY OTHER GOVERNMENT to employ civil servants to eamaine 28*hundreds of documents, normally all coming to the same conclusion. It's be as if there wasn't one Food Standards Agency but 28 of them all examining Tesco's discount salmon.
I'm sure there are sound reasons for them and so I am being silly, but when you given an example of its work all laid out and how complex and time consuming it all is, my instinctive reaction is why does all that need to be done at all?
It's all very well for the EU leaders and dreamers to get upset that despite what I'm sure are some wonderful leaflets and a website or two to inform us, most people don't really understand how things work (and I acknowledge this is probably moreso the case here than in other places), but if after all this time people have not accepted why the EU needs to involve itself in all these things, that is to say why it is a benefit for them to be involved, they have no-one to blame but themselves.
Only the business and political elites end up understanding why it is to our benefit (assuming for sake of argument that it is), hence the disconnect with the public, who see a lot of confusing and complicated bureaucracy and ask 'why is that necessary?' and the EU just says (because, as is abundantly clear, people like me just won't understand it even if explained) 'It just is, now stop asking and do it'.
Can it really be worth it? And it people just cannot be made to understand why it is in their benefit, perhaps it should not happen even if it harms them - people eventually have to face up to the consequences of their decisions, including the decision to remain ignorant of such things.
If the only way I am to learn why all this bureaucracy is worthwhile is to have it not happen, then perhaps that is necessary, otherwise ignorant bitterness will persist and that is damaging in the long run.
Why need a commissioner since a foreign minister or his functionaries can do the same job and for less?
So this'd be one document, without the need to worry about the big EU area, and without the need for it to be translated.
Just for the hell of it have a dig and work out what an EU document concerning "Tesco and Salmon" costs, versus say a UK document concerning a similar thing. Unfortunately I can't suggest a subject because the EU is everywhere - but I'm sure there must be one.
Before you do any of that though you should think what a document about "Tesco and Salmon" should cost.
Please let me know if the following isn't true;
EU>UK>>Proper price
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/canada-post-race-analysis.html
Edited extra bit: really rather tired after watching that very exciting race. Not quite as green as it could've been but still a rather nice result.
George Eaton @georgeeaton
Gove has "fought on too many fronts" and should stand down as education secretary, says @TimMontgomerie http://thetim.es/1kJgUhS
WTF???? You just could not make that up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc3ncKCtvjA
Much as I dislike Tony Blair, this is not the way to deal with him.
Tim Montgomerie: Oh, that not-so-famous-droner-on about this and that. Legendarily ignored all the time.
He's much akin to Polly Toynbee.
Social media has become what it always promised to be - the lowest common denominator.
That whole episode makes me so angry.
All this legal discussion has opened my apetite for legal comedy drama and trash like The Verdict on BBC2 starring Jeffrey Archer and Michael Portillo.
http://vimeo.com/19381643
http://t.co/OMBBVL6wwZ
More common examples have been the retrospective closing of loopholes in tax legislation.
There is an argument now that such legislation is contrary to the Human Rights Act.
@seant Delighted to hear that life is treating you so well on the romantic front.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/10884995/Nigel-Farages-mistress-thrown-out-of-party-by-his-wife.html
The Taliban are attacking Karachi International Airport as we debate.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27757264
Nick Sutton ✔ @suttonnick
Monday's Times front page - "Gove told to launch 'dawn raids' on schools" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers pic.twitter.com/2VB9Fbl73U
Got to be careful here,overreaction could cause trouble.
All playing their parts no doubt. Who knows how diplomats actually resolve things beyond the bits we see.
Meanwhile kids are trying to get into school to take their GCSEs through a barrage of press after seeing everything about them trashed by the govt and the media.
Churchill's Yalta proposal seems to me appropriate for the New Labour hierarchy.
"Joseph Stalin, who argued that public trials possessed excellent propaganda value" seems right, and particularly in the light of the pre-war trials in Russia. I'd forgotten just how popular Stalin probably was at that point. He had the luxury of time.
That such a story appears in the Guardian doesn't make it true. I fact if you look at released papers Stalin wanted to carry out a massacre (Katyn style) of captured German officers and the German Intelligentsia. Churchill was violently opposed. to any such idea and Roosevelt sat there saying nothing.
And I am supposed to be put off UKIP by a poster campaign and a councillors stupid facebook post?
Stalin's proposal at Yalta was that 50,000 German officers should be shot indiscriminately. I don't think trials was his first priority but he was talked around, mainly by FDR. With 25m dead Russians his views were perhaps understandable.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25422057
There has been a lot of immigration in that part of East London though, which couldnt have helped. Anecdotally, a friends wife gave birth there recently and was the only English women (inc the Nurses to be fair)
But the extra 450k arent all immigrants!
He said: "I happened to be with him at Chartwell when the results of the Nuremberg Trials of the Nazi war criminals were published 'it shows' he remarked, 'that if you get into a war, it is supremely important to win it. You and I would be in a pretty pickle if we had lost.'"
(A joke if you'll forgive me)
For what it's worth I didn't vote for Blair, but I don't believe for one moment that he didn't think that what he was doing was justified and for the best. I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe that now, and he shares that conclusion with the rest of us. (He does look rather haunted)
The great thing about UKIP voters today is that they are inevitably thinking about politics - we know they didn't all vote that way in the past overall. Perhaps if I think more I'll change away from my Tory views, or if you do you'll migrate once again. I almost wish there was a box saying "Tory, and yes I've really thought about it" as an option!
Junking Juncker’s pointless. It doesn’t matter who gets the job
Whoever ends up as Commission president will have one aim: ever closer union in Europe
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10885373/Junking-Junckers-pointless.-It-doesnt-matter-who-gets-the-job.html
Yes thats what makes me laugh when I hear that UKIP voters are protesting/dont know anything about them and their policies etc.. I only started voting UKIP after studying politics and philosophy as a mature student, then realising that I didnt agree with the modern Labour party at all! It was when I voted for them that I wasnt thinking
If Ed had stuck with the early Blue Labour thing I would probably have stuck with him, but he got rid of Glasman and is so pro EU that I couldnt go back
The first might be characterised as 'More Europe except for the UK and maybe a few other recalcitrants', the latter as 'Less Europe'.
The problem with the latter is that, even if you leave aside the EU Elite's ultimate ideological goal of ever-close union, there is still the very practical question on what you actually do about monetary union. Basically the Eurozone without 'More Europe' doesn't actually work in practice. This is a bit of a major flaw.
Life_in_a _market_town's quote surprised me a little in that I had imagined that it was merely the US that wanted trials, however having read the quote and thought about it a little it makes sense.
I'm not sure what light that throws upon us as a nation. Consider too the policy of staying at war with Napoleon (no source, but I believe it's true) simply to avoid the risk of republicanism spreading. Still, we can reassure ourselves that our tank regiments on the Scottish borders will win the day in their just war against the usurpers in October!
Yes Stalin that noted humanitarian and lion of the left must have felt those 25 million deaths acutely.
Of course. That was 25 million people who could have served his aims, who were his to kill as he chose, not Hitler's.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/does-the-result-in-newark-confirm-ed-miliband-as-a-neil-kinnock-9506732.html
Also, had an entertaining evening of comedy with Russell Kane tonight
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10832062/Splits-at-top-of-Labour-as-Ed-Balls-disowns-vegetables-poster.html
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/480996/EXCLUSIVE-Labour-under-fire-over-alleged-Birmingham-school-Islamic-coup
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2642197/Gove-knew-Muslim-schools-plot-four-years-ago-Education-Secretary-accused-sitting-warnings-Islamists-trying-Birmingham-schools.html
If at that very moment Ed Balls was to turn up in a duffle-coat then I suspect that Labour would be sure of victory for a generation - all the Tory's having literally died laughing.
I may recommend a baseball cap to Dave, and the royal 'we' to GO on that basis!
In March, she was named as his former mistress in the European Parliament by Nikki Sinclaire, a disgruntled former Ukip MEP. Mr Farage has denied the claims and challenged her to repeat them without the legal protection afforded by parliamentary privilege.
Mother f*cker!
[allegedly]
One actually told the Times journalists the story [ it can't even be described as leaking ] and the other ordered her assistant to publish a letter to another minister on the Home Office website.
It's the plebs who carry the can.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nick-clegg-is-dead-in-the-water-and-should-be-sacked-says-senior-lib-dem-peer-lord-smith-9509789.html
twitter.com/richardbranson/status/475761788940976129/photo/1
"Motherf*cker? Moi?"