He's back to start a war on brexit

starwarsnosebleed

Why try to fight what the majority wanted?
We're leaving the EU.
Now lets make the best of it, instead of impotently crying like little bitches.

Strangefan

This again yawntastic,  in regards to Blair I had a great time had loads of money, could buy a cheap house,  lots (and I mean lots)  of jobs around in my sector (public)  and yes he did cut benefits for single parents...... Which was great, when I was a Housing Officer, one scumbag asbo mother I had to work with  had 9 kids and was getting nearly 2k a month in benefits,  he did a good thing,  benefits are a safety net not a way of life. 

JezWynd

vale said:

the first is that he can really talk the talk. he's a smooth & persuasive talker & still very popular with a lot of the public. in spite of everything, he can still get through to the general public in that intimate one-to-one 'sincere' way only the most successful (good & bad) politicians can.

While your post is full of interesting and valid points that's one point where I can't agree. Blair is toxic in the public's eyes. I wouldn't say he couldn't ever come back given the right issue, but this isn't the one.

It's the endless dithering that's really harming the country. Cameron should have triggered Article 50 as soon as the referendum was done.

Brize

Cirrus said:

It's about having a problem with taking a result that had a very narrow majority and using it as a mandate to pursue a very hard-line policy which was not made explicit to the voting public at the time. 48% of the voters definitely didn't want what's happening now, and of the 52% who voted leave, I don't think it would be unfair to say a portion of them didn't think leaving the EU political organisation also meant automatically leaving the economic/ trading partnership too.

It was made very clear, by both sides, that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market and customs union.

For all the talk of dishonesty during the referendum campaign, this narrative that Leavers didn't know that a vote to leave the EU was a vote to leave the single market is bizarre and disingenuous.

Cirrus

starwarsnosebleed said:

Why try to fight what the majority wanted?

What did the majority want? To leave the EU, yes. I'm actually reconciled with that.

Where was the bit about leaving the single market, and being prepared to walk away with no replacement trade deal?

As for "crying like little bitches"

How about we have a constructive discussion, instead of pretending to be a playground bullies?

starwarsnosebleed

Strangefan said:

and yes he did cut benefits for single parents...... Which was great, when I was a Housing Officer, one scumbag asbo mother I had to work with  had 9 kids and was getting nearly 2k a month in benefits,  he did a good thing,  benefits are a safety net not a way of life. 

Having 9 kids is obviously a rare occurrence, and blatantly wasnt single for much of her life.

There are actually many single parents out there, men and women, who desperately need benefits to provide a life for their children.
Whilst there will be some who will take the piss out of the benefit system, you shouldnt tar them all with the same brush.

Some Muslims blow people up, lets hate them all shall we? ( i know, poor example right?)

Poor example from somebody (an ex- housing officer) i would expect to have a better attitude on the matter.

HAL9000

vale said:

it is certainly the job of the opposition to challenge it, & my disappointment with corbyn & labour on this is immense.

Unfortunately, the current leader of the opposition, can barely oppose his own thumbs let alone the Tories.

Bridgehouse

Fretwired said:

scrumhalf said:

Were the people who voted for him similarly misinformed?

No .. the Tories were awful and Blair was a breath of fresh air - I admit I voted for him. His problem was getting three terms and having no effective opposition and a huge majority in the Commons. He went stale just like Thatcher and overreached himself with Iraq - we should maybe have a two term rule like the USA.

We could only have two term rule if we separated voting for a PM and an MP to represent us in the HoC...

Garthy

vale said:

the very first & fundamental thing to be clear on with regard to brexit is that the leave majority was less than 4%.
which means that a swing of 2% (miniscule in terms of political swings) would make leave & remain 50/50.
basically (allowing for small change) half of those who voted wanted to stay & half wanted to remain.
if you are 52%/48% decided on something, you are basically undecided or confused.

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/0E22/production/_90081630_leaveresult.jpg
let's be really honest about that. talk of a collective & monolothic single-minded 'will of the people' is shite. it's a fantasy. leavers are in denial (lying to themselves & others) about that because it suits them, not because it is the case.

the biggest problem for democracy is that it's a fantasy the two major parties (& their filthy ukip appendage) are indugling rather than challenging.

it is certainly the job of the opposition to challenge it, & my disappointment with corbyn & labour on this is immense. but also the job of the government to accept & address it, since they are democratically obliged to serve the best interests of the entire country.
not just the 52% percent of the 70% of the 100% eleigible electorate who voted.

so while i don't like blair & i thought new labour was a betrayal of labour core values -
in my opinion they let neo-liberalism run riot, fiddling around with with tax credits etc, instead of addressing the fundamentals that underpin inequality -
i am behind anyone calling the government & opposition to account for indulging this ongoing 'will of the people' lie.

politics is weird & sometime you end up in strange & even perverse alliances in order to get the best result, but i'm behind blair on this issue & in this campaign. freaky but so.
i would rather corbyn was doing it, but he isn't, so i am obliged to take what is on the table.

importantly, blair is not alone, this is not blair's campaign or blair's argument. it's a public campaign & public argument that has been going on since june. if you are a remainer & committed to blocking brexit you may well have already been campaigning & arguing ever since & should continue to do so, if you really have the courage of your convictions.

but, flawed as blair is, one can't deny he has two political strengths.

the first is that he can really talk the talk. he's a smooth & persuasive talker & still very popular with a lot of the public. in spite of everything, he can still get through to the general public in that intimate one-to-one 'sincere' way only the most successful (good & bad) politicians can.

& second is that many people associate better (pre-crash) times with him. that's a big factor on the subconscious-irrational instinct level. we saw how big a part nostalgia (remember albion etc!) played in the leave campaign. well nostalgia cuts both ways & blair presses that 'good times' button for many.
if you did well during blair & new labour's stay & have struggled since 2010 (the tory dark ages) than he speaks to you & for you in a way they don't & can't.

so interesting times. weird times.

Tony Blair preys on & manipulates the weak minded and politicly asinine.

This is from May 2002:

"Tony Blair told Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman he would be happy to be remembered as the man who told the British people they should join the single currency and that a political rejection of the euro would be "crazy".

"I certainly believe passionately that this country and its destiny lies in Europe.

"Should we stand apart from the alliance right on our doorstep as a country? It would be crazy to do that.

"It is an economic union. We shouldn't, for political reasons, stand aside. I don't believe that would be a fulfilment of our national interest. I believe it would be a betrayal of our national interest."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/16/euro.eu

Have you got any idea how utterly fucked this country would have been in 2008 had we been in the Eurozone?

olafgarten

Brize said:

Cirrus said:

It's about having a problem with taking a result that had a very narrow majority and using it as a mandate to pursue a very hard-line policy which was not made explicit to the voting public at the time. 48% of the voters definitely didn't want what's happening now, and of the 52% who voted leave, I don't think it would be unfair to say a portion of them didn't think leaving the EU political organisation also meant automatically leaving the economic/ trading partnership too.

It was made very clear, by both sides, that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market and customs union.

For all the talk of dishonesty during the referendum campaign, this narrative that Leavers didn't know that a vote to leave the EU was a vote to leave the single market is bizarre and disingenuous.

Exactly this, you are either in the EU or out, there was no question about doing a half arsed job of leaving. 

axisus

It looks to me like the titanic has hit the iceberg split in half and is sinking fast, and Tony Blair has shown up in a little rowing boat intent on sailing the ship back to harbour.

Cirrus

Brize said:

Cirrus said:

It's about having a problem with taking a result that had a very narrow majority and using it as a mandate to pursue a very hard-line policy which was not made explicit to the voting public at the time. 48% of the voters definitely didn't want what's happening now, and of the 52% who voted leave, I don't think it would be unfair to say a portion of them didn't think leaving the EU political organisation also meant automatically leaving the economic/ trading partnership too.

It was made very clear, by both sides, that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market and customs union.

For all the talk of dishonesty during the referendum campaign, this narrative that Leavers didn't know that a vote to leave the EU was a vote to leave the single market is bizarre and disingenuous.

I absolutely concede that it was made clear. That's not my point.

I'm saying, if 4% of leave voters didn't want to leave the single market... well, suddenly there isn't a majority mandate to do that any more. The government is claiming a mandate to do things where it isn't clear at all that they have one.

I'm saying that in the maelstrom last year of politicians wading in, offering different, contradictory visions for the future which often included the phrase "Retain access to the single market"... it's very unclear that there's a 52% mandate for the course we're now on.

The issue is, and I've tried to make this point a few times over the last months... is that you can't just generalise Leavers and Remainers. You replied to my post and started talking about a "narrative that leavers didn't..."

That's not my narrative. I'd never dream that I could assume en masse what 17 million+ people were motivated by, or what they knew or didn't know.

thomasw88

olafgarten said:

Brize said:

Cirrus said:

It's about having a problem with taking a result that had a very narrow majority and using it as a mandate to pursue a very hard-line policy which was not made explicit to the voting public at the time. 48% of the voters definitely didn't want what's happening now, and of the 52% who voted leave, I don't think it would be unfair to say a portion of them didn't think leaving the EU political organisation also meant automatically leaving the economic/ trading partnership too.

It was made very clear, by both sides, that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market and customs union.

For all the talk of dishonesty during the referendum campaign, this narrative that Leavers didn't know that a vote to leave the EU was a vote to leave the single market is bizarre and disingenuous.

Exactly this, you are either in the EU or out, there was no question about doing a half arsed job of leaving. 

What a load of cobblers you're speaking.

During the campaign, plenty of brexitters were not ruling out staying in the EU single market after a leave vote, and it was never a CLEAR policy that that would be the aim.   

Brize

@thomasw88 said:

During the campaign, plenty of brexitters were not ruling out staying in the EU single market after a leave vote, and it was never a CLEAR policy that that would be the aim.

 

Reverend

Brize said:

Cirrus said:

It's about having a problem with taking a result that had a very narrow majority and using it as a mandate to pursue a very hard-line policy which was not made explicit to the voting public at the time. 48% of the voters definitely didn't want what's happening now, and of the 52% who voted leave, I don't think it would be unfair to say a portion of them didn't think leaving the EU political organisation also meant automatically leaving the economic/ trading partnership too.

It was made very clear, by both sides, that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market and customs union.

For all the talk of dishonesty during the referendum campaign, this narrative that Leavers didn't know that a vote to leave the EU was a vote to leave the single market is bizarre and disingenuous.

It was also made very clear by one side that voting leave would mean an extra £350 million a week for the NHS. 

Brize

Reverend said:

It was also made very clear by one side that voting leave would mean an extra £350 million a week for the NHS. 

And by the other side that there would be an immediate emergency budget in the event of a Leave vote. Your point being?

Garthy

Reverend said:

Brize said:

Cirrus said:

It's about having a problem with taking a result that had a very narrow majority and using it as a mandate to pursue a very hard-line policy which was not made explicit to the voting public at the time. 48% of the voters definitely didn't want what's happening now, and of the 52% who voted leave, I don't think it would be unfair to say a portion of them didn't think leaving the EU political organisation also meant automatically leaving the economic/ trading partnership too.

It was made very clear, by both sides, that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market and customs union.

For all the talk of dishonesty during the referendum campaign, this narrative that Leavers didn't know that a vote to leave the EU was a vote to leave the single market is bizarre and disingenuous.

It was also made very clear by one side that voting leave would mean an extra £350 million a week for the NHS. 

And the other side said the lights would be switched off if we voted out.

thomasw88

Brize said:

@thomasw88 said:

During the campaign, plenty of brexitters were not ruling out staying in the EU single market after a leave vote, and it was never a CLEAR policy that that would be the aim.

 

RevereBrize said:

@thomasw88 said:

During the campaign, plenty of brexitters were not ruling out staying in the EU single market after a leave vote, and it was never a CLEAR policy that that would be the aim.

 

 NHS. 




great, but here are also loads of campaigners who were less 'clear' about that.

   It was never part of the leave campaign that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market.
 

thomasw88

Garthy said:

Reverend said:

Brize said:

Cirrus said:

It's about having a problem with taking a result that had a very narrow majority and using it as a mandate to pursue a very hard-line policy which was not made explicit to the voting public at the time. 48% of the voters definitely didn't want what's happening now, and of the 52% who voted leave, I don't think it would be unfair to say a portion of them didn't think leaving the EU political organisation also meant automatically leaving the economic/ trading partnership too.

It was made very clear, by both sides, that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market and customs union.

For all the talk of dishonesty during the referendum campaign, this narrative that Leavers didn't know that a vote to leave the EU was a vote to leave the single market is bizarre and disingenuous.

It was also made very clear by one side that voting leave would mean an extra £350 million a week for the NHS. 

And the other side said the lights would be switched off if we voted out.

and how do you know they won't be.. we haven't actually left yet.

Snap

I like Tony Blair. He's the last political heavyweight we've had, the rest have been anodyne lightweights.

With Iraq, I do think he acted genuinely in that he was convinced that going to war was the right thing to do. The war over shadowed everything else he achieved in government, and what he did for the Labour party. Labour has been on a downward tailspin since he packed in.

Love him or loathe him, Blair is good for politics. He's got clout, and people listen when he says something: just look at the reaction he's caused today. He is a "proper" poltician: he has gravitas, he talks sensibly and he is balanced and persuasive in his argument. He was the first politician who persuaded me to vote Labour, in 1997. I can't see myself even considering voting Labour again, not in the current state of the party.

I'd have him go further, and start a new political party. There are rumours that he is planning this. Who knows?