Blair to go on 27th July

Blair to go on 27th July (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

meatcleaver -> Blair to go on 27th July (5/10/2007 4:28:58 AM)
Goodbye and good riddance! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6639945.stm To be fair he did OK until he gave Bush a fig leaf for the invasion of Iraq and then he lost it alltogether. IRAQ will be carved on his political grave.

LadyEllen -> RE: Blair to go on 27th July (5/10/2007 5:12:54 AM)
I think he's done a good job in the circumstances - apart from one crucial error which we all know. Look out for him in some nice UN job soon...... or maybe in the House of Lords he wanted to reform so badly E

caitlyn -> RE: Blair to go on 27th July (5/10/2007 5:31:26 AM)
Some people over here that actually make an attempt to follow such things, feel that Minister Blair used the promiss of British help in order to get President Bush to wait, while the United Nations did it's things. It all fell apart ... hard-liners in the U.S. Administration would have none of it, while the French and British were more interrested in political gain, than genuine opposition. To me, Minister Blair made a mistake to play it that way, but should get respect for actually honoring his promiss.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Blair to go on 27th July (5/10/2007 5:44:05 AM)
Blair IMO has a poor record but I dont include Iraq in that. Massive wasteful expenditure on Education and the Health service Lowering educational standards. Immigration a total catastrophe. Trade arrangements with Europe = OK. Political partnership NO NEIN NON and all other 20 odd EU language negatives. He did make the Labour Party electable so I suppose the hard line Lefties will never forgive him for that lol Forgot N Ireland. if the coalition holds then that is a major achievement. We shall see,

meatcleaver -> RE: Blair to go on 27th July (5/10/2007 5:46:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Some people over here that actually make an attempt to follow such things, feel that Minister Blair used the promiss of British help in order to get President Bush to wait, while the United Nations did it's things. It all fell apart ... hard-liners in the U.S. Administration would have none of it, while the French and British were more interrested in political gain, than genuine opposition. To me, Minister Blair made a mistake to play it that way, but should get respect for actually honoring his promiss. I'm not sure what political gain there was for Chirac to be against the Iraq war apart from domestic where the French public wouldn't have probably contenanced joining the war. He was probably saving Paris from riots but I think he genuinely felt it was a big mistake. Blair needed a second UN resolution to take the British public with him despite what he might have promised Bush in private and there are rumours galore about that but who knows what is true. He scuttled his credibility in the EU and his hope of lbeing a leading influence in Europe to join the war so I'm struggling to figure out where any political gain fitted in. If he wanted political gain, he would have simply done a Chirac and given a straight 'no' to joining the war. The only reason I can think he joined the war was because he actually believed in it.

meatcleaver -> RE: Blair to go on 27th July (5/10/2007 5:50:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Blair IMO has a poor record but I dont include Iraq in that. Massive wasteful expenditure on Education and the Health service Lowering educational standards. Immigration a total catastrophe. Trade arrangements with Europe = OK. Political partnership NO NEIN NON and all other 20 odd EU language negatives. He did make the Labour Party electable so I suppose the hard line Lefties will never forgive him for that lol LOL You must be out on your own in believing his Iraq policy was sound. As for his politics in Europe, what could he do, leave the EU?

caitlyn -> RE: Blair to go on 27th July (5/10/2007 5:53:33 AM)
It's possible, but having watched several of his interviews over the past years, I get the idea that he was pulled in a bit, and may actually be a leader that honors his commitments. Maybe the other EU countries don't understand that, because is has never actually happened before. [;)][;)]

meatcleaver -> RE: Blair to go on 27th July (5/10/2007 5:58:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn It's possible, but having watched several of his interviews over the past years, I get the idea that he was pulled in a bit, and may actually be a leader that honors his commitments. Maybe the other EU countries don't understand that, because is has never actually happened before. [;)][;)] After 9/11 the major European countries said they were behind Bush's war on terrorists, Iraq was not about any war on terrorist. The neocons had their eyes on Iraq before 9/11 and there was no terrorism coming out of Iraq, Iraq was successfully contained. In fact Saddam was an arch enemy of Islamic terrorists. Germany couldn't do anything anyway because of their constitution forced on them by the allies after WWII and which the German public are more than happy with and don't want to change.

sambamanslilgirl -> RE: Blair to go on 27th July (5/10/2007 6:01:29 AM)
the news stations here are reporting 27th June as he last day in office.

meatcleaver -> RE: Blair to go on 27th July (5/10/2007 7:16:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sambamanslilgirl the news stations here are reporting 27th June as he last day in office. Yep. I made an era, I hope that doesn't prompt him to stay an extra month![sm=hair.gif]

seeksfemslave -> RE: Blair to go on 27th July (5/10/2007 7:25:18 AM)
The dreaded media's wilfull refusal to accurately appraise what is going on in Iraq has caused major probs for Blair. All the atrocities Muslum/Muslim are reported as part of the War whereas clearly this is the 2nd phase. The first phase ie the invasion was a success. With regard to the EU, yes pull out or definately step back. We have massive balance of payments deficit, are one of the major finacial contributors and suffer irritating political interference. Especially for example the Human Rights Act.

meatcleaver -> RE: Blair to go on 27th July (5/10/2007 7:35:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave With regard to the EU, yes pull out or definately step back. We have massive balance of payments deficit, are one of the major finacial contributors and suffer irritating political interference. Especially for example the Human Rights Act. Er...didn't Blair introduce the Human Rights act into British law? The fact Britain has a massive balance of payments deficit with Europe says a lot about the British economy and nothing about Europe other than they make products Britons want to buy.[8\|] I don't know what I'm worried about, I don't live there. I had the chance to vote for Blair in '97 but didn't because I thought I could see through him and did, he turned out to be exactly what I thought he was....dangerous because of his vacuity. I see his ID card plan is still going to go ahead with an ever increasing cost to everyone.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Blair to go on 27th July (5/10/2007 9:57:52 AM)
A form of human rights act goes right back to the 50's. The one we have now goes much further in what is forbidden and required as I understand it. Haven't got any details but some of the decisons the courts have made due to the HR act make me mad. Maybe thats why I cant think of one as I type this lol Yes Blair was PM when the act was beefed up and I think he is an enthusiastic European, I said I thought he had a poor record lol.

LadyEllen -> RE: Blair to go on 27th July (5/10/2007 11:21:57 AM)
The Human Rights legislation was EU legislation which had to be ratified by the UK as I thought. Its a welcome and valued piece of legislation in my opinion, though I think it needs serious reforms in several areas relating to the rights of those who feel that they may breach others' rights at will. Dont respect others' rights? Then you dont get any yourself! I'd agree with Seeks also that there have been a few rulings based on the Act that have been baffling in anything but law. On the EU, lets be clear; we cant leave now. It would be an absolute disaster to do so, however appealing it sometimes appears to be to withdraw. Our only option really is to engage closely and become the leaders in the EU - taking over from the French/German axis - by allying with the newer members who generally it seems, want the same sort of approach as us. But its not all bad - yesterday it was announced that we were to be permitted to keep lbs and oz, feet and inches and miles! On Iraq - the initial war was a great success, but the problem Blair has had with the media since I believe, is in no small way due to the misleading way in which the country was brought into that war and the way in which the media feel they were misused in disseminating propaganda in support of it - not to mention the way those who dissented were treated. Consder the way events are portrayed now as revenge for all of this. Ultimately though, Iraq is a strategic blunder of monumental scale which will haunt us and our children for a long time and may yet totally undermine our western civilisation - and for going along with it, Blair's legacy has to be seen as totally tainted by it. E

seeksfemslave -> RE: Blair to go on 27th July (5/10/2007 11:38:25 AM)
I can say with absolute certainty that Muslim opposition to Western values, pre dates even the 1st Iraq invasion. I worked amongst what I would call moderate Muslims, and their views amazed me. Even about social freedoms and especially about the freedom woman have here. A well worn point but I can assure you it is not only mad Mullahs who think that way. Islamic aggrandisement MUST be met, head on. oh er missis lol

meatcleaver -> RE: Blair to go on 27th July (5/10/2007 12:30:29 PM)
The European Convention of Human Rights was drafted by the Council of Europe which has nothing to do with the EU other than all EU countries are members of the Coucil of Europe. The ECHR was drafted in 1950, six years before the European Coal and Steel Community, the fledgling EU, was formed. The Council of Europe has 47 member states, not the 27 that makes up the EU. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe

seeksfemslave -> RE: Blair to go on 27th July (5/10/2007 3:25:47 PM)
The original Human Rights convention. was. It was "beefed up" not that long ago. Cherie Blair wrote an article saying how wonderful it was and then went on to draw massive fees as a lawyer bringing cases under the new laws. An example: Sikh terrorists cannot be extradited to India because of fears that they might be tortured or even executed. So the Brit taxpayer has to support them. That was true of that "gentleman" Dr Hook that I think Egypt or somewhere wanted to get their hands on ! Two terrorists have not been extradited to Libya within the last month or so for the same reason ! A major clause in the new legislation is that asylum seekers MUST be get sanctuary in the nearest safe haven if their well being is deemed to be at risk. The UK is never the nearest safe haven but they still pour in in there 10's of thousands and are given sanctuarry and state benefite.

meatcleaver -> RE: Blair to go on 27th July (5/10/2007 4:29:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave The original Human Rights convention. was. It was "beefed up" not that long ago. Cherie Blair wrote an article saying how wonderful it was and then went on to draw massive fees as a lawyer bringing cases under the new laws. An example: Sikh terrorists cannot be extradited to India because of fears that they might be tortured or even executed. So the Brit taxpayer has to support them. That was true of that "gentleman" Dr Hook that I think Egypt or somewhere wanted to get their hands on ! Two terrorists have not been extradited to Libya within the last month or so for the same reason ! A major clause in the new legislation is that asylum seekers MUST be get sanctuary in the nearest safe haven if their well being is deemed to be at risk. The UK is never the nearest safe haven but they still pour in in there 10's of thousands and are given sanctuarry and state benefite. Seeks. This is a British typical interpretation, blaming continental Europeans for a purely British problem. It is British courts that interpret the law that prevents the British government from expelling accused terrorists, other European countries have no problem expelling people they consider a danger to their state. If an accused doesn't like the ruling of the British court they can then appeal to the European court which issues a verdict which can only put moral pressure on the British government. I can only assume it is the lack of quality of the media in Britain or its rabid prejudice against all things European that is the reason why Europe is always blamed for purely British made issues. One sees exactly the same problem in Britain about the European Union as though Britain has no input to the decisions of the EU. Britain can veto every decision the EU makes on the grounds of national interest. However British politicians make agreements in Europe and then go back to Britain and say they don't like the decision that has been forced on them by the EU. The fault is with Britain, not with continental Europeans. This is the reason why Britain manages to piss many Europeans off, their politicians enter freely into decisions and then refuse to face down American owned media, prefering to blame Europe instead of telling the public they are being sold lies in their press. Europeans appreciate the problem of British politicians, that they have to sell Europe through a predominantly own American press that is hostile to all things European but they end up throwing their hands in frustration. Chirac once made a snide comment about Blair having to go back to Britain to suck up to an American press, snide as the remark was, he was right.

Real0ne -> RE: Blair to go on 27th July (5/10/2007 7:45:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Look out for him in some nice UN job soon...... o E bingo! with al gore soon to follow! LOL

NorthernGent -> RE: Blair to go on 27th July (5/11/2007 12:12:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Goodbye and good riddance! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6639945.stm To be fair he did OK until he gave Bush a fig leaf for the invasion of Iraq and then he lost it alltogether. IRAQ will be carved on his political grave. Blair was actually the member of parliament for the village I was born and raised in, and gave his fairwell speech in the village yesterday - which is pretty fuckin' irrelevant to what I'm about to post, but something new every day etc. Anyway, during the speech he said "Whatever you think of me, you must know I always tried to do what is right" (Iraq in mind). I for one believe that. I think Blair was working for what he perceived to be the common good. The problem is that he was so self-righteous with his ideas that he thought he could lie to Parliament and invade countries for his version of the common good. Pol Pot thought he was doing what was right, as did Jack The Ripper. Blair will go down as a first class orator, and a man with a vision amounting to political deregulation at home, but big on political interventionism abroad, which is completely and utterly arse over tit. I've said before that he had admirers abroad for his zest and vision, and the contintental Europeans are looking to his lead. Ultimately though, his vision needed laser treatment. If it's any consolation to him, he isn't even on the map when it comes to the antipathy directed at thatcher.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625