More people voted for Cameron in 2010 than Blair in 2001 and 2005.
If Cameron, who remained reasonably credible and popular, could not persuade the UK public last June, then it's hard to imagine that Blair would do better.
I think Blair would have got a more persuasive new deal offer out of the EU than Cameron did.
Like the CAP reform he got in return for a chunk of our rebate?
No, because I would expect him to realise the magnitude of the problem and raise his game accordingly, as Cameron didn't, because I think Blair believed in the EU and Cameron didn't believe in anything much.
More people voted for Cameron in 2010 than Blair in 2001 and 2005.
If Cameron, who remained reasonably credible and popular, could not persuade the UK public last June, then it's hard to imagine that Blair would do better.
I think Blair would have got a more persuasive new deal offer out of the EU than Cameron did.
Like the CAP reform he got in return for a chunk of our rebate?
No, because I would expect him to realise the magnitude of the problem and raise his game accordingly, as Cameron didn't, because I think Blair believed in the EU and Cameron didn't believe in anything much.
I doubt that Blair would have got much simply because the issue wasn't the failure to negotiate properly but that what - by then - Britain wanted and what the EU wanted were so far apart. Indeed, it's not clear that Cameron had any idea what he wanted other than something to sell to get him past and winning the referendum. And if Blair had offered a referendum I expect that he too would have gone for something he could sell.
That is absolutely not the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain within the EU. Nor is it the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain's relationship with the EU post-Brexit. This is all tactics. A strategy is needed.
I don't think Blair's past matters at the moment. We are surrounded by conmen liars and chancers to a level politics has never seen before. Certainly not in my lifetime. Trump Johnson Farage Nuttall Gove IDS etc. Anyone who saw the two mating slugs Netanyahu and Trump will know where we're heading.
Blair certainly isn't short of skeletons but for those of us who care about the way things are going any lifeline will do.
The people you mention may not be great, to put it mildly.
But I think that Blair did great damage to our system of government and to our trust in politicians. Pretty much everything he touched turned, in the end, to ashes. His failure to understand what the EU was about and his failure to carve out a sensible immigration policy ultimately led to Brexit.
People might well have been far more relaxed about FoM from the EU had it not come on top of a pretty much open borders policy to the rest of the world with a lamentable failure on the part of Blair to control it or to deal effectively with asylum claims, whether bogus or not, or to deport those with no right to be here.
And Blair - like many another pro-EU politician before him - never made the case for the EU. He assumed that it was a good and assumed that everyone else would agree with him. If you think something is worthwhile then you need to make the case for it continually not simply assume it.
What was the saying in The Leopard? "Everything must change so that nothing changes."
The pro-EU side have been complacent for years. In the end their complacency cost them.
Incidentally, if the people do change their mind about Brexit and a different decision is taken, fine. And it's also fine for politicians to respond to such a change and even to campaign for it. But what they can't really do is say that they should ignore a decision when there is no evidence of just such a change of mind just because they don't like it. They need to answer the question: "Why are you proposing to do this?" The answer: "I disagree with the answer given" is not, I think, good enough.
Agree with all of that Ms Cyclefree. – The final nail in Blair’s coffin regarding the EU imo, was his manifesto promise for a referendum on constitutional reform (Lisbon) He won an election, then did nothing for two years up until Brown’s ultimate betrayal. Shysters the lot of em.
That is absolutely not the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain within the EU. Nor is it the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain's relationship with the EU post-Brexit. This is all tactics. A strategy is needed.
If Blair had held a referendum it would have been on joining the Euro. He would have won and it would have provided a lasting settlement.
That is absolutely not the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain within the EU. Nor is it the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain's relationship with the EU post-Brexit. This is all tactics. A strategy is needed.
If Blair had held a referendum it would have been on joining the Euro. He would have won and it would have provided a lasting settlement.
I don't think there has ever been a poll in favour of joining the Euro.
I think of us as STAYERS and QUITTERS. I'm not a querulous quitter. I'm a steady stayer.
You're obviously not alone, Barnesian.
I find myself wondering what the point of any union or political marriage is where there is one pretty flaky partner who clearly isn't committed.
We've made it abundantly obvious to the EU that we aren't committed. If I were them, I would want an amicable divorce. I'd probably want to clear out anyone else harbouring the same reservations as well.
I wonder how many of them actually dread the thought of us wanting to change our minds?
The issue with the Iraq war was not whether it was legal or not. But whether it was wise.
It was not a wise thing to do.
Agreed but it would have happened without Blair .Bush was going in. The decision was wether we stood with them or not.
At least we thought that was the decision. With hindsight, perhaps the real decision was whether we stood with Europe or not.
We could perfectly well have stood with the Americans without necessarily going to war. Support and friendship does not mean you have to do exactly the same thing as your friend. And Bush offered Blair an out before the war.
Plus being a friend sometimes involves saying some hard truths, such as "what's your plan for after?".
Back in London for the weekend. Spotify put the Jupiter suite by Holst on just now. It makes any ordinary moment (even sitting on a train whilst having had a lot of booze on a flight) a lot more patriotic than one would normally expect.
Edit: also very happy with Vodafone. I did my contract just before I left for good and it came with 4GB of roaming data which I can use in Switzerland plus 20GB of data for the UK. No need to take out a personal contract in Switzerland now I think.
That is absolutely not the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain within the EU. Nor is it the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain's relationship with the EU post-Brexit. This is all tactics. A strategy is needed.
If Blair had held a referendum it would have been on joining the Euro. He would have won and it would have provided a lasting settlement.
That is absolutely not the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain within the EU. Nor is it the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain's relationship with the EU post-Brexit. This is all tactics. A strategy is needed.
If Blair had held a referendum it would have been on joining the Euro. He would have won and it would have provided a lasting settlement.
I don’t think even Tony Blair at his height, could have persuaded the UK to ditch the pound.
What the referendum has revealed is that certain people were right all along; There really was nothing between the three major parties 2010-2015.
The country may be divided now, but it always was... the phoney war between Orange bookers, Blairites and Cameroons provided a smokescreen that let them stay in power as long as they acted out their roles without the public noticing
Incidentally, if the people do change their mind about Brexit and a different decision is taken, fine. And it's also fine for politicians to respond to such a change and even to campaign for it. But what they can't really do is say that they should ignore a decision when there is no evidence of just such a change of mind just because they don't like it.
That is absolutely not the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain within the EU. Nor is it the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain's relationship with the EU post-Brexit. This is all tactics. A strategy is needed.
If Blair had held a referendum it would have been on joining the Euro. He would have won and it would have provided a lasting settlement.
That is absolutely not the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain within the EU. Nor is it the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain's relationship with the EU post-Brexit. This is all tactics. A strategy is needed.
If Blair had held a referendum it would have been on joining the Euro. He would have won and it would have provided a lasting settlement.
I don’t think even Tony Blair at his height, could have persuaded the UK to ditch the pound.
Even Dominic Cummings thought the sceptics would have lost if the decision were framed by Blair as being a proxy for in or out of the EU.
Blair is such an impressive speaker. He'd probably still be PM if he hadn't stood down in 2007.
Agreed . I still think he would have beat Cameron in 2020.,,After 9 ,11 I think he felt that as a Labour PM he had to stand with the USA .
Should have listened to his Uncle Harold!
Even most Labour PMs side with US Presidents, Attlee and Truman, Callaghan and Carter, Blair and Clinton and Bush, Brown and Obama. Wilson was an exception in failing to side with LBJ over Vietnam in the mid sixties but then so was Heath in not really being close to Nixon in the early seventies which was coincidentally the time leading up to which we were finally accepted in the EEC
I think of us as STAYERS and QUITTERS. I'm not a querulous quitter. I'm a steady stayer.
You're obviously not alone, Barnesian.
I find myself wondering what the point of any union or political marriage is where there is one pretty flaky partner who clearly isn't committed.
We've made it abundantly obvious to the EU that we aren't committed. If I were them, I would want an amicable divorce. I'd probably want to clear out anyone else harbouring the same reservations as well.
I wonder how many of them actually dread the thought of us wanting to change our minds?
I don't think Britain is flaky. It simply is not and never really has been committed to the full EU projet. And the EU has never really been willing to accommodate Britain's concerns.
With hindsight perhaps an associate membership might have been the answer. Ah well, too late now.
That is absolutely not the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain within the EU. Nor is it the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain's relationship with the EU post-Brexit. This is all tactics. A strategy is needed.
If Blair had held a referendum it would have been on joining the Euro. He would have won and it would have provided a lasting settlement.
That is absolutely not the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain within the EU. Nor is it the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain's relationship with the EU post-Brexit. This is all tactics. A strategy is needed.
If Blair had held a referendum it would have been on joining the Euro. He would have won and it would have provided a lasting settlement.
I don’t think even Tony Blair at his height, could have persuaded the UK to ditch the pound.
Even Dominic Cummings thought the sceptics would have lost if the decision were framed by Blair as being a proxy for in or out of the EU.
And smart guys like Cummings would have reframed it as "In the EU, still in control". Or something along those lines.
That is absolutely not the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain within the EU. Nor is it the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain's relationship with the EU post-Brexit. This is all tactics. A strategy is needed.
If Blair had held a referendum it would have been on joining the Euro. He would have won and it would have provided a lasting settlement.
I don’t think even Tony Blair at his height, could have persuaded the UK to ditch the pound.
Even Dominic Cummings thought the sceptics would have lost if the decision were framed by Blair as being a proxy for in or out of the EU.
You're obviously a foreigner. English speaker of Scotch/ Argentine descent in French Canada ?
The issue with the Iraq war was not whether it was legal or not. But whether it was wise.
It was not a wise thing to do.
Agreed but it would have happened without Blair .Bush was going in. The decision was wether we stood with them or not.
At least we thought that was the decision. With hindsight, perhaps the real decision was whether we stood with Europe or not.
Not totally other countries such as Spain decided to agree with Bush the EU did not speak with one voice.Many countries were involved suppprting the Usa
The issue with the Iraq war was not whether it was legal or not. But whether it was wise.
It was not a wise thing to do.
Agreed but it would have happened without Blair .Bush was going in. The decision was wether we stood with them or not.
At least we thought that was the decision. With hindsight, perhaps the real decision was whether we stood with Europe or not.
Not totally other countries such as Spain decided to agree with Bush the EU did not speak with one voice.Many countries were involved suppprting the Usa
I expect that New Zealand and Australia might still have a folk memory of Japan's expansion in WWII ?
That is absolutely not the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain within the EU. Nor is it the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain's relationship with the EU post-Brexit. This is all tactics. A strategy is needed.
If Blair had held a referendum it would have been on joining the Euro. He would have won and it would have provided a lasting settlement.
I don’t think even Tony Blair at his height, could have persuaded the UK to ditch the pound.
Even Dominic Cummings thought the sceptics would have lost if the decision were framed by Blair as being a proxy for in or out of the EU.
You're obviously a foreigner. English speaker of Scotch/ Argentine descent in French Canada ?
The issue with the Iraq war was not whether it was legal or not. But whether it was wise.
It was not a wise thing to do.
Agreed but it would have happened without Blair .Bush was going in. The decision was wether we stood with them or not.
At least we thought that was the decision. With hindsight, perhaps the real decision was whether we stood with Europe or not.
Not totally other countries such as Spain decided to agree with Bush the EU did not speak with one voice.Many countries were involved suppprting the Usa
I expect that New Zealand and Australia might still have a folk memory of Japan's expansion in WWII ?
I think of us as STAYERS and QUITTERS. I'm not a querulous quitter. I'm a steady stayer.
You're obviously not alone, Barnesian.
I find myself wondering what the point of any union or political marriage is where there is one pretty flaky partner who clearly isn't committed.
We've made it abundantly obvious to the EU that we aren't committed. If I were them, I would want an amicable divorce. I'd probably want to clear out anyone else harbouring the same reservations as well.
I wonder how many of them actually dread the thought of us wanting to change our minds?
I don't think Britain is flaky. It simply is not and never really has been committed to the full EU projet. And the EU has never really been willing to accommodate Britain's concerns.
With hindsight perhaps an associate membership might have been the answer. Ah well, too late now.
I think the flakiness would come from us changing our minds having already voted to Leave.
Who's then to say, to paraphrase Blair, that Remaining would be inevitable after we changed our mind? Why couldn't we change our minds again? A daft situation, but perfectly reasonable using his logic.
My instinct is that the vast majority of voters on both sides knew they were making a long term and far reaching decision, not one that would have a lifespan of a year or two, and many were thinking about five, ten, fifteen, twenty years ahead.
As per link text. I don't know what he thinks has changed; and for all the complaints that people are talking about him because they can't successfully attack his argument, I cannot for the life of me see what argument he has advanced today.
I think of us as STAYERS and QUITTERS. I'm not a querulous quitter. I'm a steady stayer.
You're obviously not alone, Barnesian.
I find myself wondering what the point of any union or political marriage is where there is one pretty flaky partner who clearly isn't committed.
We've made it abundantly obvious to the EU that we aren't committed. If I were them, I would want an amicable divorce. I'd probably want to clear out anyone else harbouring the same reservations as well.
I wonder how many of them actually dread the thought of us wanting to change our minds?
I don't think Britain is flaky. It simply is not and never really has been committed to the full EU projet. And the EU has never really been willing to accommodate Britain's concerns.
With hindsight perhaps an associate membership might have been the answer. Ah well, too late now.
I think the flakiness would come from us changing our minds having already voted to Leave.
Who's then to say, to paraphrase Blair, that Remaining would be inevitable after we changed our mind? Why couldn't we change our minds again? A daft situation, but perfectly reasonable using his logic.
My instinct is that the vast majority of voters on both sides knew they were making a long term and far reaching decision, not one that would have a lifetime of a year or two, and many were thinking about five, ten, fifteen, twenty years ahead.
Probably because the man who called it said this
"I am absolutely clear a referendum is a referendum, it's a once in a generation, once in a lifetime opportunity and the result determines the outcome ... You can't have neverendums, you have referendums."
The issue with the Iraq war was not whether it was legal or not. But whether it was wise.
It was not a wise thing to do.
Agreed but it would have happened without Blair .Bush was going in. The decision was wether we stood with them or not.
At least we thought that was the decision. With hindsight, perhaps the real decision was whether we stood with Europe or not.
Not totally other countries such as Spain decided to agree with Bush the EU did not speak with one voice.Many countries were involved suppprting the Usa
I expect that New Zealand and Australia might still have a folk memory of Japan's expansion in WWII ?
New Zealand kept out of Iraq unlike Australia
I suppose, to oversimplify, the middle east troubles centre around oil. There's lots of that elsewhere these days. I wonder what does NZ does for energy. Time to go off & do a little research.
That is absolutely not the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain within the EU. Nor is it the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain's relationship with the EU post-Brexit. This is all tactics. A strategy is needed.
If Blair had held a referendum it would have been on joining the Euro. He would have won and it would have provided a lasting settlement.
oh dear
Indeed. I officially declare that statement to be Peak Remainer.
That is absolutely not the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain within the EU. Nor is it the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain's relationship with the EU post-Brexit. This is all tactics. A strategy is needed.
If Blair had held a referendum it would have been on joining the Euro. He would have won and it would have provided a lasting settlement.
On topic, am I missing something with the first result in Bollington? Presumably the Bollington First party last time was on 37% and the Conservatives were on 31% to judge from the published swings. How, then, was it a Conservative seat?
On topic, am I missing something with the first result in Bollington? Presumably the Bollington First party last time was on 37% and the Conservatives were on 31% to judge from the published swings. How, then, was it a Conservative seat?
The issue with the Iraq war was not whether it was legal or not. But whether it was wise.
It was not a wise thing to do.
Agreed but it would have happened without Blair .Bush was going in. The decision was wether we stood with them or not.
At least we thought that was the decision. With hindsight, perhaps the real decision was whether we stood with Europe or not.
Not totally other countries such as Spain decided to agree with Bush the EU did not speak with one voice.Many countries were involved suppprting the Usa
I expect that New Zealand and Australia might still have a folk memory of Japan's expansion in WWII ?
New Zealand kept out of Iraq unlike Australia
I suppose, to oversimplify, the middle east troubles centre around oil. There's lots of that elsewhere these days. I wonder what does NZ does for energy. Time to go off & do a little research.
On topic, am I missing something with the first result in Bollington? Presumably the Bollington First party last time was on 37% and the Conservatives were on 31% to judge from the published swings. How, then, was it a Conservative seat?
I think of us as STAYERS and QUITTERS. I'm not a querulous quitter. I'm a steady stayer.
You're obviously not alone, Barnesian.
I find myself wondering what the point of any union or political marriage is where there is one pretty flaky partner who clearly isn't committed.
We've made it abundantly obvious to the EU that we aren't committed. If I were them, I would want an amicable divorce. I'd probably want to clear out anyone else harbouring the same reservations as well.
I wonder how many of them actually dread the thought of us wanting to change our minds?
I don't think Britain is flaky. It simply is not and never really has been committed to the full EU projet. And the EU has never really been willing to accommodate Britain's concerns.
With hindsight perhaps an associate membership might have been the answer. Ah well, too late now.
I think the flakiness would come from us changing our minds having already voted to Leave.
Who's then to say, to paraphrase Blair, that Remaining would be inevitable after we changed our mind? Why couldn't we change our minds again? A daft situation, but perfectly reasonable using his logic.
My instinct is that the vast majority of voters on both sides knew they were making a long term and far reaching decision, not one that would have a lifetime of a year or two, and many were thinking about five, ten, fifteen, twenty years ahead.
Probably because the man who called it said this
"I am absolutely clear a referendum is a referendum, it's a once in a generation, once in a lifetime opportunity and the result determines the outcome ... You can't have neverendums, you have referendums."
Mind you, that's when he thought he was winning
I think he was right on that.
Perhaps there is an argument for a Fixed Term Referendum Act? One that gives the decisions a fixed lifespan. Twenty five years maybe?
I think of us as STAYERS and QUITTERS. I'm not a querulous quitter. I'm a steady stayer.
You're obviously not alone, Barnesian.
I find myself wondering what the point of any union or political marriage is where there is one pretty flaky partner who clearly isn't committed.
We've made it abundantly obvious to the EU that we aren't committed. If I were them, I would want an amicable divorce. I'd probably want to clear out anyone else harbouring the same reservations as well.
I wonder how many of them actually dread the thought of us wanting to change our minds?
I don't think Britain is flaky. It simply is not and never really has been committed to the full EU projet. And the EU has never really been willing to accommodate Britain's concerns.
With hindsight perhaps an associate membership might have been the answer. Ah well, too late now.
I think the flakiness would come from us changing our minds having already voted to Leave.
Who's then to say, to paraphrase Blair, that Remaining would be inevitable after we changed our mind? Why couldn't we change our minds again? A daft situation, but perfectly reasonable using his logic.
My instinct is that the vast majority of voters on both sides knew they were making a long term and far reaching decision, not one that would have a lifetime of a year or two, and many were thinking about five, ten, fifteen, twenty years ahead.
Probably because the man who called it said this
"I am absolutely clear a referendum is a referendum, it's a once in a generation, once in a lifetime opportunity and the result determines the outcome ... You can't have neverendums, you have referendums."
Mind you, that's when he thought he was winning
I think he was right on that.
Perhaps there is an argument for a Fixed Term Referendum Act? One that gives the decisions a fixed lifespan. Twenty five years maybe?
I think of us as STAYERS and QUITTERS. I'm not a querulous quitter. I'm a steady stayer.
You're obviously not alone, Barnesian.
I find myself wondering what the point of any union or political marriage is where there is one pretty flaky partner who clearly isn't committed.
We've made it abundantly obvious to the EU that we aren't committed. If I were them, I would want an amicable divorce. I'd probably want to clear out anyone else harbouring the same reservations as well.
I wonder how many of them actually dread the thought of us wanting to change our minds?
I don't think Britain is flaky. It simply is not and never really has been committed to the full EU projet. And the EU has never really been willing to accommodate Britain's concerns.
With hindsight perhaps an associate membership might have been the answer. Ah well, too late now.
I think the flakiness would come from us changing our minds having already voted to Leave.
Who's then to say, to paraphrase Blair, that Remaining would be inevitable after we changed our mind? Why couldn't we change our minds again? A daft situation, but perfectly reasonable using his logic.
My instinct is that the vast majority of voters on both sides knew they were making a long term and far reaching decision, not one that would have a lifetime of a year or two, and many were thinking about five, ten, fifteen, twenty years ahead.
Probably because the man who called it said this
"I am absolutely clear a referendum is a referendum, it's a once in a generation, once in a lifetime opportunity and the result determines the outcome ... You can't have neverendums, you have referendums."
Mind you, that's when he thought he was winning
I think he was right on that.
Perhaps there is an argument for a Fixed Term Referendum Act? One that gives the decisions a fixed lifespan. Twenty five years maybe?
But surely a simple majority in parliament could repeal it?
Let us imagine that the Scots - for whatever reason - were suddenly 99.9% in favour of independence, and the SNP was often winning 100% of the votes in elections in Scotland. Are you seriously saying that, because five years ago a referendum was lost, that the people of Scotland could be denied a vote?
If a clear majority of people NOW want something, as expressed through how they elect their representatives, then they should not and cannot be bound by how a different bunch of people voted a decade ago.
What the referendum has revealed is that certain people were right all along; There really was nothing between the three major parties 2010-2015.
The country may be divided now, but it always was... the phoney war between Orange bookers, Blairites and Cameroons provided a smokescreen that let them stay in power as long as they acted out their roles without the public noticing
An exceptionally clever post...I don't agree with it, but I get your insight.....
I see that pb's Leavers are having a night off from arguing that the decision whether to leave the EU shouldn't be influenced by the people making the argument.
There is no decision to be made. We decided. We're out. It's done.
Go away and think of something new to whinge about.
The whinging tonight has all been by bedwetting Leavers complaining that a former Prime Minister has views. They daren't engage with his arguments so they froth about his past.
Much like, in a small way, the response to my article this morning by the more feeble-minded and incontinent posters.
There is no decision to be made. We decided. We're out. It's done.
Go away and think of something new to whinge about.
Since when did questioning the government become inappropriate? At what point, and by whom, was it decreed that dissent is unconscionable? Brexit means Brexit, so pipe down at the back there. Don’t you realise you lost? So shut-up, you, you, you Remoaner you.
When Blair observes that ‘the ideologues are the ones driving this bus’ he is, again, correct.
I see that pb's Leavers are having a night off from arguing that the decision whether to leave the EU shouldn't be influenced by the people making the argument.
There is no decision to be made. We decided. We're out. It's done.
Go away and think of something new to whinge about.
The whinging tonight has all been by bedwetting Leavers complaining that a former Prime Minister has views. They daren't engage with his arguments so they froth about his past.
Much like, in a small way, the response to my article this morning by the more feeble-minded and incontinent posters.
What arguments? These ones? Blair:-
1. The people were asked a question. 2. Both sides had a crack at explaining their position. 3. Leave won. 4. It's not fair. 5. You bad people need to Stop Being Stupid and change your minds.
There is no decision to be made. We decided. We're out. It's done.
Go away and think of something new to whinge about.
Since when did questioning the government become inappropriate? At what point, and by whom, was it decreed that dissent is unconscionable? Brexit means Brexit, so pipe down at the back there. Don’t you realise you lost? So shut-up, you, you, you Remoaner you.
When Blair observes that ‘the ideologues are the ones driving this bus’ he is, again, correct.
There is no decision to be made. We decided. We're out. It's done.
Go away and think of something new to whinge about.
Since when did questioning the government become inappropriate? At what point, and by whom, was it decreed that dissent is unconscionable? Brexit means Brexit, so pipe down at the back there. Don’t you realise you lost? So shut-up, you, you, you Remoaner you.
When Blair observes that ‘the ideologues are the ones driving this bus’ he is, again, correct.
OMG The last throw of the dice for the remainers is the Lords next week. If democracy holds and there's no amendments then article 50 gets triggered. End of!
I see that pb's Leavers are having a night off from arguing that the decision whether to leave the EU shouldn't be influenced by the people making the argument.
There is no decision to be made. We decided. We're out. It's done.
Go away and think of something new to whinge about.
The whinging tonight has all been by bedwetting Leavers complaining that a former Prime Minister has views. They daren't engage with his arguments so they froth about his past.
Much like, in a small way, the response to my article this morning by the more feeble-minded and incontinent posters.
Alistair...I don't know why you even bother getting into a dialogue with the likes of the very clearly inadequate seant. You wrote a very good article this morning, all he can write is shit, crass, inane or stupid shit.
In the long run we will win...it might take some time...but bigotry, small mindedness, blind ideology and nastiness just aren't compatible with human evolution...
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more.
Under all scenarios the economy shrinks, the value of the pound falls, inflation rises, unemployment rises, wages are hit, and as a result - government borrowing goes up. '
There is no decision to be made. We decided. We're out. It's done.
Go away and think of something new to whinge about.
Since when did questioning the government become inappropriate? At what point, and by whom, was it decreed that dissent is unconscionable? Brexit means Brexit, so pipe down at the back there. Don’t you realise you lost? So shut-up, you, you, you Remoaner you.
When Blair observes that ‘the ideologues are the ones driving this bus’ he is, again, correct.
Wasn't it Obama who said "We won, you lost: get over it"?
Barack Obama in 2010 to the Republican congressional leadership -specifically Eric Cantor the House Republican Whip over enacting Obamacare AKA the Affordable Care Act.
Obama: - "elections have consequences" and "I won."
I see that pb's Leavers are having a night off from arguing that the decision whether to leave the EU shouldn't be influenced by the people making the argument.
There is no decision to be made. We decided. We're out. It's done.
Go away and think of something new to whinge about.
The whinging tonight has all been by bedwetting Leavers complaining that a former Prime Minister has views. They daren't engage with his arguments so they froth about his past.
Much like, in a small way, the response to my article this morning by the more feeble-minded and incontinent posters.
Alistair...I don't know why you even bother getting into a dialogue with the likes of the very clearly inadequate seant. You wrote a very good article this morning, all he can write is shit, crass, inane or stupid shit.
In the long run we will win...it might take some time...but bigotry, small mindedness, blind ideology and nastiness just aren't compatible with human evolution...
Tyson you have already lost. You are just too dumb to realise it.
OMG The last throw of the dice for the remainers is the Lords next week. If democracy holds and there's no amendments then article 50 gets triggered. End of!
@iainmartin1: Tony Blair warns article 50 could be launched within 45 minutes. (thank you for that various people on twitter)
There was an IFOP poll out today with Fillon and Macron also tied for second.
It looks to be very close as to which of them makes the runoff
Do you trust polls anymore?
Certainly not entirely in terms of populist anti immigration campaigns, if so and Le Pen really does take a 7% lead into round 2 a Le Pen presidency is by no means impossible even if still unlikely
I see that pb's Leavers are having a night off from arguing that the decision whether to leave the EU shouldn't be influenced by the people making the argument.
There is no decision to be made. We decided. We're out. It's done.
Go away and think of something new to whinge about.
The whinging tonight has all been by bedwetting Leavers complaining that a former Prime Minister has views. They daren't engage with his arguments so they froth about his past.
Much like, in a small way, the response to my article this morning by the more feeble-minded and incontinent posters.
"bedwetting" seems a bit below your normal high standards.
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more.
Under all scenarios the economy shrinks, the value of the pound falls, inflation rises, unemployment rises, wages are hit, and as a result - government borrowing goes up. '
Here's a thing re Blair and Brexit. He might be right in one way.
I've been watching interviews with Macron and Merkel and Schulz etc, and a lot of them are still saying IF Brexit happens. Not "when". They still say IF.
Much of this is just European incredulity that we would do anything so drastic (or stupid, as they see it).
But I also wonder if in say, early 2019, as Real Hard Brexit looms, along with the loss of the UK and its contributions, financial and otherwise, the EU might come up with a deal to make us rethink a the last moment. That's certainly the impression I get from someone like Macron.
It would have to be quite a striking offer. A temporary end to Free Movement plus something else.
But for the first time today I saw a way Brexit might still be thwarted. The EU does fudgy deals, after all. It's one of the few things it is good at.
Hmm.
The most the EU would grant is a temporary brake on free movement, they would not end it
I see that pb's Leavers are having a night off from arguing that the decision whether to leave the EU shouldn't be influenced by the people making the argument.
There is no decision to be made. We decided. We're out. It's done.
Go away and think of something new to whinge about.
The whinging tonight has all been by bedwetting Leavers complaining that a former Prime Minister has views. They daren't engage with his arguments so they froth about his past.
Much like, in a small way, the response to my article this morning by the more feeble-minded and incontinent posters.
Alistair...I don't know why you even bother getting into a dialogue with the likes of the very clearly inadequate seant. You wrote a very good article this morning, all he can write is shit, crass, inane or stupid shit.
In the long run we will win...it might take some time...but bigotry, small mindedness, blind ideology and nastiness just aren't compatible with human evolution...
Gosh 'you'll win in the end'. And how do you define that? As soon as article 50 is triggered 'winning' means reapplying for membership with Schengen, free movement, and the Euro
There is no decision to be made. We decided. We're out. It's done.
Go away and think of something new to whinge about.
Since when did questioning the government become inappropriate? At what point, and by whom, was it decreed that dissent is unconscionable? Brexit means Brexit, so pipe down at the back there. Don’t you realise you lost? So shut-up, you, you, you Remoaner you.
When Blair observes that ‘the ideologues are the ones driving this bus’ he is, again, correct.
I see that pb's Leavers are having a night off from arguing that the decision whether to leave the EU shouldn't be influenced by the people making the argument.
There is no decision to be made. We decided. We're out. It's done.
Go away and think of something new to whinge about.
The whinging tonight has all been by bedwetting Leavers complaining that a former Prime Minister has views. They daren't engage with his arguments so they froth about his past.
Much like, in a small way, the response to my article this morning by the more feeble-minded and incontinent posters.
bigotry, small mindedness, blind ideology and nastiness just aren't compatible with human evolution...
I see that pb's Leavers are having a night off from arguing that the decision whether to leave the EU shouldn't be influenced by the people making the argument.
There is no decision to be made. We decided. We're out. It's done.
Go away and think of something new to whinge about.
The whinging tonight has all been by bedwetting Leavers complaining that a former Prime Minister has views. They daren't engage with his arguments so they froth about his past.
Much like, in a small way, the response to my article this morning by the more feeble-minded and incontinent posters.
Would you like to put some names to the description 'more feeble minded and incontinent posters' ?
When we vote for the Commons, we know that it's for five years and we have to live with it.
Why not do something similar with referendums? It's the same basic principle as the FTPA.
The subjects have longer term consequences so we accept that we live with it for a longer period. It should transcend party politics.
We have now had three referendums in the last five years. On each occasion the voters have been told it's a generational vote. Then, lo and behold, the losing side spends it's time saying it isn't. That's destabilising and disruptive.
The reality of Scotland, rather than your scenario, is perpetual calls for another referendum with little real sign that there is any great zest for it.
We have a situation now where some want referendums banned because they don't like the outcomes and then a situation where people want them constantly re-run, usually because they lost.
The answer has to be somewhere in the middle with due consideration given to the significance of the topic.
People must be allowed a say, but it's hugely disruptive to go back to the same subjects too frequently, especially where the subject is a very deep one like membership of the UK or the EU.
It's just a thought.
I don't see any great feeling within the UK or Scotland for quick re-runs of referendums.
Here's a thing re Blair and Brexit. He might be right in one way.
I've been watching interviews with Macron and Merkel and Schulz etc, and a lot of them are still saying IF Brexit happens. Not "when". They still say IF.
Much of this is just European incredulity that we would do anything so drastic (or stupid, as they see it).
But I also wonder if in say, early 2019, as Real Hard Brexit looms, along with the loss of the UK and its contributions, financial and otherwise, the EU might come up with a deal to make us rethink a the last moment. That's certainly the impression I get from someone like Macron.
It would have to be quite a striking offer. A temporary end to Free Movement plus something else.
But for the first time today I saw a way Brexit might still be thwarted. The EU does fudgy deals, after all. It's one of the few things it is good at.
Hmm.
Its a possibility but the longer the wait the more the EU would have to give.
I wonder if the EU had believed the line Cameron and Osborne had spouted about the UK immediately falling apart upon a Leave vote and that they would then have been able to negotiate from a stronger position.
There was an IFOP poll out today with Fillon and Macron also tied for second.
Macron is now going backwards and the Fillon support he has left is holding firm. Fillon said this morning that he was reneging on a promise to quit if he was indicted and will stay in the race no matter what, so looks like he is going to stay the course.
Expect Fillon to play the victim card from now on. Really can't see why Macron is such a hot favourite still, with his support evaporating despite Fillon's problems. Also less than 50% of those polled who say they will vote for Macron say they might change their mind.
I would have Macron, Fillon and Le Pen all priced around the same.
When we vote for the Commons, we know that it's for five years and we have to live with it.
Except that's not true.
Were it not for the terminally incompetent Corbyn, there would be every chance of an election in the next 2 years
There is no chance of May calling an election until the end of 2019 once May invokes Article 50 next month, the negotiations will be too time consuming
There is no chance of May calling an election until the end of 2019 once May invokes Article 50 next month, the negotiations will be too time consuming
That's why I said Corbyn.
if we had a functional opposition, there would be more chance of an election
I (in)frequent these parts mainly to make up for a protected and focussed childhood & to learn about the real world. I find articles by Mr.Meeks and others help do the trick. Keep 'em coming please.
Interesting that George Osborne is now on the Black Rock payroll.
This is what Black Rock predicted about the UK economy on 14th July:
' Britain will be plunged into a recession this year and be plagued with lower economic growth for another five years because of the shock decision for the UK to leave the EU, BlackRock analysts have said.
BlackRock is the largest asset manager in the world with $4.6 trillion under management as of 2015. Richard Turnill, chief investment strategist, has said that firm's "base case" is recession, meaning at a minimum, it expects the UK GDP to fall for two successive quarters in a row. '
OMG The last throw of the dice for the remainers is the Lords next week. If democracy holds and there's no amendments then article 50 gets triggered. End of!
Not next week.
Next week is 2nd reading - no amendments possible - just two days of debate.
Committee stage is 27 Feb and 1 March - that's when amendments get debated.
But often amendments just get debated and withdrawn at Committee - the real event will be Report Stage on 7 March - that's when amendments will get voted on for sure. If any pass it's then back to the Commons.
OMG The last throw of the dice for the remainers is the Lords next week. If democracy holds and there's no amendments then article 50 gets triggered. End of!
Not next week.
Next week is 2nd reading - no amendments possible - just two days of debate.
Committee stage is 27 Feb and 1 March - that's when amendments get debated.
But often amendnents just get debated and withdrawn at Committee - the real event will be Report Stage on 7 March - that's when amendments will get voted on for sure. If any pass it's then back to the Commons.
There was an IFOP poll out today with Fillon and Macron also tied for second.
Macron is now going backwards and the Fillon support he has left is holding firm. Fillon said this morning that he was reneging on a promise to quit if he was indicted and will stay in the race no matter what, so looks like he is going to stay the course.
Expect Fillon to play the victim card from now on. Really can't see why Macron is such a hot favourite still, with his support evaporating despite Fillon's problems. Also less than 50% of those polled who say they will vote for Macron say they might change their mind.
I would have Macron, Fillon and Le Pen all priced around the same.
Macron seems to be following the Cleggmania pattern.
A pretty boy who attracts support on the basis of who he isn't.
I see that pb's Leavers are having a night off from arguing that the decision whether to leave the EU shouldn't be influenced by the people making the argument.
There is no decision to be made. We decided. We're out. It's done.
Go away and think of something new to whinge about.
The whinging tonight has all been by bedwetting Leavers complaining that a former Prime Minister has views. They daren't engage with his arguments so they froth about his past.
Much like, in a small way, the response to my article this morning by the more feeble-minded and incontinent posters.
Would you like to put some names to the description 'more feeble minded and incontinent posters' ?
And another thing: no one is "complaining that a former Prime Minister has views" - everyone, except poss the Queen and the PoW, has the right to hold views and express them; it is just that the views of this particular XPM prove him to be a swivel-eyed wazzock.
I see that pb's Leavers are having a night off from arguing that the decision whether to leave the EU shouldn't be influenced by the people making the argument.
There is no decision to be made. We decided. We're out. It's done.
Go away and think of something new to whinge about.
The whinging tonight has all been by bedwetting Leavers complaining that a former Prime Minister has views. They daren't engage with his arguments so they froth about his past.
Much like, in a small way, the response to my article this morning by the more feeble-minded and incontinent posters.
Alistair...I don't know why you even bother getting into a dialogue with the likes of the very clearly inadequate seant. You wrote a very good article this morning, all he can write is shit, crass, inane or stupid shit.
In the long run we will win...it might take some time...but bigotry, small mindedness, blind ideology and nastiness just aren't compatible with human evolution...
I'm sure some Neanderthals told each other likewise about those nasty Homo Sapiens.
Interesting that George Osborne is now on the Black Rock payroll.
This is what Black Rock predicted about the UK economy on 14th July:
' Britain will be plunged into a recession this year and be plagued with lower economic growth for another five years because of the shock decision for the UK to leave the EU, BlackRock analysts have said.
BlackRock is the largest asset manager in the world with $4.6 trillion under management as of 2015. Richard Turnill, chief investment strategist, has said that firm's "base case" is recession, meaning at a minimum, it expects the UK GDP to fall for two successive quarters in a row. '
Comments
It was not a wise thing to do.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10999/boris_johnson/uxbridge_and_south_ruislip/divisions?policy=1049
Still, never mind eh?
That is absolutely not the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain within the EU. Nor is it the way to get a lasting settlement for Britain's relationship with the EU post-Brexit. This is all tactics. A strategy is needed.
....... "tumbleweed....."..........
I find myself wondering what the point of any union or political marriage is where there is one pretty flaky partner who clearly isn't committed.
We've made it abundantly obvious to the EU that we aren't committed. If I were them, I would want an amicable divorce. I'd probably want to clear out anyone else harbouring the same reservations as well.
I wonder how many of them actually dread the thought of us wanting to change our minds?
http://tinyurl.com/zvyat7n
Plus being a friend sometimes involves saying some hard truths, such as "what's your plan for after?".
Edit: also very happy with Vodafone. I did my contract just before I left for good and it came with 4GB of roaming data which I can use in Switzerland plus 20GB of data for the UK. No need to take out a personal contract in Switzerland now I think.
The country may be divided now, but it always was... the phoney war between Orange bookers, Blairites and Cameroons provided a smokescreen that let them stay in power as long as they acted out their roles without the public noticing
With hindsight perhaps an associate membership might have been the answer. Ah well, too late now.
Just for you Scott
https://order-order.com/2017/02/17/68-want-government-get-brexit/
68% of voters want the government to “get on with implementing the result of the referendum”, compared to just 15% who disagree
Who's then to say, to paraphrase Blair, that Remaining would be inevitable after we changed our mind? Why couldn't we change our minds again? A daft situation, but perfectly reasonable using his logic.
My instinct is that the vast majority of voters on both sides knew they were making a long term and far reaching decision, not one that would have a lifespan of a year or two, and many were thinking about five, ten, fifteen, twenty years ahead.
As per link text. I don't know what he thinks has changed; and for all the complaints that people are talking about him because they can't successfully attack his argument, I cannot for the life of me see what argument he has advanced today.
"I am absolutely clear a referendum is a referendum, it's a once in a generation, once in a lifetime opportunity and the result determines the outcome ... You can't have neverendums, you have referendums."
Mind you, that's when he thought he was winning
There's lots of that elsewhere these days.
I wonder what does NZ does for energy.
Time to go off & do a little research.
Well that's where I am, with Blair on one side and Corbyn on the other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_New_Zealand
Perhaps there is an argument for a Fixed Term Referendum Act? One that gives the decisions a fixed lifespan. Twenty five years maybe?
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/832693801869307904
The
dark ispeople are rising.Let us imagine that the Scots - for whatever reason - were suddenly 99.9% in favour of independence, and the SNP was often winning 100% of the votes in elections in Scotland. Are you seriously saying that, because five years ago a referendum was lost, that the people of Scotland could be denied a vote?
If a clear majority of people NOW want something, as expressed through how they elect their representatives, then they should not and cannot be bound by how a different bunch of people voted a decade ago.
Much like, in a small way, the response to my article this morning by the more feeble-minded and incontinent posters.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/17/european-leaders-resist-trumps-ultimatum-increase-defence-spending/
When Blair observes that ‘the ideologues are the ones driving this bus’ he is, again, correct.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/tony-blair-right-brexit/
What arguments? These ones? Blair:-
1. The people were asked a question.
2. Both sides had a crack at explaining their position.
3. Leave won.
4. It's not fair.
5. You bad people need to Stop Being Stupid and change your minds.
What do you mean "again"? When was the 1st time?
In the long run we will win...it might take some time...but bigotry, small mindedness, blind ideology and nastiness just aren't compatible with human evolution...
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more.
Under all scenarios the economy shrinks, the value of the pound falls, inflation rises, unemployment rises, wages are hit, and as a result - government borrowing goes up. '
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/22/david-cameron-and-george-osborne-brexit-would-put-our-economy-in/
Obama: - "elections have consequences" and "I won."
Remain:
Back of the Queue
Punishment Budget
World War 3
(etc)
What argument has Blair advanced today?
When we vote for the Commons, we know that it's for five years and we have to live with it.
Why not do something similar with referendums? It's the same basic principle as the FTPA.
The subjects have longer term consequences so we accept that we live with it for a longer period. It should transcend party politics.
We have now had three referendums in the last five years. On each occasion the voters have been told it's a generational vote. Then, lo and behold, the losing side spends it's time saying it isn't. That's destabilising and disruptive.
The reality of Scotland, rather than your scenario, is perpetual calls for another referendum with little real sign that there is any great zest for it.
We have a situation now where some want referendums banned because they don't like the outcomes and then a situation where people want them constantly re-run, usually because they lost.
The answer has to be somewhere in the middle with due consideration given to the significance of the topic.
People must be allowed a say, but it's hugely disruptive to go back to the same subjects too frequently, especially where the subject is a very deep one like membership of the UK or the EU.
It's just a thought.
I don't see any great feeling within the UK or Scotland for quick re-runs of referendums.
I wonder if the EU had believed the line Cameron and Osborne had spouted about the UK immediately falling apart upon a Leave vote and that they would then have been able to negotiate from a stronger position.
Were it not for the terminally incompetent Corbyn, there would be every chance of an election in the next 2 years
Expect Fillon to play the victim card from now on. Really can't see why Macron is such a hot favourite still, with his support evaporating despite Fillon's problems. Also less than 50% of those polled who say they will vote for Macron say they might change their mind.
I would have Macron, Fillon and Le Pen all priced around the same.
if we had a functional opposition, there would be more chance of an election
I find articles by Mr.Meeks and others help do the trick.
Keep 'em coming please.
This is what Black Rock predicted about the UK economy on 14th July:
' Britain will be plunged into a recession this year and be plagued with lower economic growth for another five years because of the shock decision for the UK to leave the EU, BlackRock analysts have said.
BlackRock is the largest asset manager in the world with $4.6 trillion under management as of 2015. Richard Turnill, chief investment strategist, has said that firm's "base case" is recession, meaning at a minimum, it expects the UK GDP to fall for two successive quarters in a row. '
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-will-plunge-the-uk-into-a-recession-in-the-next-year-blackrock-says-a7134616.html
Next week is 2nd reading - no amendments possible - just two days of debate.
Committee stage is 27 Feb and 1 March - that's when amendments get debated.
But often amendments just get debated and withdrawn at Committee - the real event will be Report Stage on 7 March - that's when amendments will get voted on for sure. If any pass it's then back to the Commons.
A pretty boy who attracts support on the basis of who he isn't.