You can't keep rejecting a vote until you get the result you want. Whether it be a Scottish referendum, Brexit, Trump, Labour Party leadership. You have democratic rules in place and you live by them.
Would you need a general election each time a manifesto promise was broken?
Does that mean that, subsequent to a referendum, no dissenting voice should ever be heard?
I get the impression that both left or right folk on here have one thing in common; "His Tonyship" is not best liked! I am not interested in anything he has to offer and I was a Remainer but have accepted democracy.
I believe that TB promised a referendum in one of his early party manifestos, and wanted to join the euro, which Brown opposed, but he did not have the guts to sack Brown.
It's nice to see everyone so united on here for a change
I think, he just wanted to get himself back on TV. He's seen Trump getting all the limelight and decided he wants a piece of the action. I've not read what he's said as I'm not sure it will add anything of value to the process one way or another.
His eight years as a successful Middle Eastern Envoy, surely has to make people sit up and listen to him.
The withdrawal of the Zionists from the new Developments in Jerusalem allowing both Hezbollah and Hamas to move in harmoniously has been a wonder to behold and a sign of TB's ability to hold core negotiations with all parties involved to achieve the desired outcome that everyone is comfortable with.
His eight years as a successful Middle Eastern Envoy, surely has to make people sit up and listen to him.
The withdrawal of the Zionists from the new Developments in Jerusalem allowing both Hezbollah and Hamas to move in harmoniously has been a wonder to behold and a sign of TB's ability to hold core negotiations with all parties involved to achieve the desired outcome that everyone is comfortable with.
I'm fully behind Tony on this one.
Be interesting to get Donald Fart's sorry Trump's view on this.
Even as a remain voter I don't want another referendum, they're horrendous and completely polarise a country. After the Scottish referendum and the EU referendum last year I hope we never have another one in our country ever again.
Even as a remain voter I don't want another referendum, they're horrendous and completely polarise a country. After the Scottish referendum and the EU referendum last year I hope we never have another one in our country ever again.
Delivered regularly to a site two doors down from his london home in Connaught square a while back, two armed guards permanently outside and one patrolling around the back. Oddly, his neighbour is Claudia winkelman, the BBC must pay well.
Will Blair lose a gold plated pension, if we leave the EU. The man should be tried for war crimes. Did he not lie about Iraq have weapons of mass destruction/
Creamed himself over dodgy CIA and intelligence reports, all juiced up by his pal Bush, whether you can call that lying I'm not sure, naive, stupid and down right fawning, probably. Despise him and his loathsome wife.
You can't keep rejecting a vote until you get the result you want. Whether it be a Scottish referendum, Brexit, Trump, Labour Party leadership. You have democratic rules in place and you live by them.
Would you need a general election each time a manifesto promise was broken?
Does that mean that, subsequent to a referendum, no dissenting voice should ever be heard?
Not at all. What shouldn't be heard is a call to rise up and try to overturn democracy.
There was a big run up to the referendum where both sides put their case and the country voted. Perhaps if both sides had concentrated on the benefits of each of their positions rather than scaremongering about the other sides position the result may have been different but it is churlish and wrong to suggest the nation was not aware of what they were voting for.
Delivered regularly to a site two doors down from his london home in Connaught square a while back, two armed guards permanently outside and one patrolling around the back. Oddly, his neighbour is Claudia winkelman, the BBC must pay well.
Let's get the facts right........they are only there when they know you will be delivering!
Delivered regularly to a site two doors down from his london home in Connaught square a while back, two armed guards permanently outside and one patrolling around the back. Oddly, his neighbour is Claudia winkelman, the BBC must pay well.
She comes from quite a wealthy background, the BBC salary is probably just the cherry on the top
Delivered regularly to a site two doors down from his london home in Connaught square a while back, two armed guards permanently outside and one patrolling around the back. Oddly, his neighbour is Claudia winkelman, the BBC must pay well.
She comes from quite a wealthy background, the BBC salary is probably just the cherry on the top
Yes, her forefather was the first ever wet fish stall holder and the nickname stuck. Rumour has it, she gets a quid for every pint (or 0.47 litres in new money) of shell fish sold and you get a fishy wiff if you're ever caught down wind of her
You can't keep rejecting a vote until you get the result you want. Whether it be a Scottish referendum, Brexit, Trump, Labour Party leadership. You have democratic rules in place and you live by them.
Would you need a general election each time a manifesto promise was broken?
Does that mean that, subsequent to a referendum, no dissenting voice should ever be heard?
Not at all. What shouldn't be heard is a call to rise up and try to overturn democracy.
There was a big run up to the referendum where both sides put their case and the country voted. Perhaps if both sides had concentrated on the benefits of each of their positions rather than scaremongering about the other sides position the result may have been different but it is churlish and wrong to suggest the nation was not aware of what they were voting for.
"Overturn democracy"? Isn't the whole point of democracy the fact we can debate any issue and, at the point where sufficient public opinion determines it, change direction?
Blair is asking for (some) leave voters to consider changing their minds. That's democratic.
He's suggesting that the basis on which some people made up their minds is questioned, investigated and tested. That's democratic.
He's asking that the decisions that are being made by the government are ratified by plebiscite, rather than being determined by an exclusive, minority group, meeting in secret. That's democratic.
If it's undemocratic for the public to consider options and to request and require that the government changes its direction, then the referendum last year was undemocratic. I don't think that's the case. I also don't think it's undemocratic to continue to argue for the right outcome. In fact it's the most democratic thing that can be done.
Blair, of course, got some things very wrong in his time as PM. But he's right now. And it's telling that every other living former PM agrees with him.
You either agree that people should be allowed and encouraged to voice their opinion (even when the vote goes against them) or you don't, though
Of course, and it's been done to death on the Brexit thread. But you didn't just posit a viewpoint for debate, you introduced Tony Blair into the equation and now you are feigning surprise that people are focusing on the messenger instead of the message.
Imagine what this country would be like if people weren't allowed to stand up for what they believe in. We'd be like Putin's Russia, Kim's North Korea or, even worse, Trump's United States.
You either agree that people should be allowed and encouraged to voice their opinion (even when the vote goes against them) or you don't, though
Of course, and it's been done to death on the Brexit thread. But you didn't just posit a viewpoint for debate, you introduced Tony Blair into the equation and now you are feigning surprise that people are focusing on the messenger instead of the message.
Imagine what this country would be like if people weren't allowed to stand up for what they believe in. We'd be like Putin's Russia, Kim's North Korea or, even worse, Trump's United States.
You either agree that people should be allowed and encouraged to voice their opinion (even when the vote goes against them) or you don't, though
Of course, and it's been done to death on the Brexit thread. But you didn't just posit a viewpoint for debate, you introduced Tony Blair into the equation and now you are feigning surprise that people are focusing on the messenger instead of the message.
Imagine what this country would be like if people weren't allowed to stand up for what they believe in. We'd be like Putin's Russia, Kim's North Korea or, even worse, Trump's United States.
Oh for heavens sake pull yourself together!
I didn't introduce Tony Blair into the equation!
I think it was me that introduced Tony Blair into the equation. As anyone can see from the thread title! ;-)
You either agree that people should be allowed and encouraged to voice their opinion (even when the vote goes against them) or you don't, though
Of course, and it's been done to death on the Brexit thread. But you didn't just posit a viewpoint for debate, you introduced Tony Blair into the equation and now you are feigning surprise that people are focusing on the messenger instead of the message.
Imagine what this country would be like if people weren't allowed to stand up for what they believe in. We'd be like Putin's Russia, Kim's North Korea or, even worse, Trump's United States.
Oh for heavens sake pull yourself together!
I didn't introduce Tony Blair into the equation!
I think it was me that introduced Tony Blair into the equation. As anyone can see from the thread title! ;-)
Ah yes, schoolboy error. Solly Chizz. I think my point still stands though as regards the message being tainted by virtue of the messenger.
You either agree that people should be allowed and encouraged to voice their opinion (even when the vote goes against them) or you don't, though
Of course, and it's been done to death on the Brexit thread. But you didn't just posit a viewpoint for debate, you introduced Tony Blair into the equation and now you are feigning surprise that people are focusing on the messenger instead of the message.
Imagine what this country would be like if people weren't allowed to stand up for what they believe in. We'd be like Putin's Russia, Kim's North Korea or, even worse, Trump's United States.
Oh for heavens sake pull yourself together!
I didn't introduce Tony Blair into the equation!
I think it was me that introduced Tony Blair into the equation. As anyone can see from the thread title! ;-)
Ah yes, schoolboy error. Solly Chizz. I think my point still stands though as regards the message being tainted by virtue of the messenger.
My view is this: those people that concentrate on denigrating Blair yesterday, seemed tacitly to admit that they didn't have a counter-argument to the view he was putting forward.
I am certainly not surprised that lots of people have leaped forward to throw oprobrium in his direction. But, in doing so, they've ignored the argument.
I am not saying I agree with the argument that he's become the most important person in Bitish politics, again (as some have put forward). But it's an interesting and timely intervention. Because he's stirred up the debate by diametrically opposing the views Theresa May has been putting forward since she switched sides in June. And he's doing it much more effectively than the "real" opposition.
You either agree that people should be allowed and encouraged to voice their opinion (even when the vote goes against them) or you don't, though
Of course, and it's been done to death on the Brexit thread. But you didn't just posit a viewpoint for debate, you introduced Tony Blair into the equation and now you are feigning surprise that people are focusing on the messenger instead of the message.
Imagine what this country would be like if people weren't allowed to stand up for what they believe in. We'd be like Putin's Russia, Kim's North Korea or, even worse, Trump's United States.
Oh for heavens sake pull yourself together!
I didn't introduce Tony Blair into the equation!
I think it was me that introduced Tony Blair into the equation. As anyone can see from the thread title! ;-)
Ah yes, schoolboy error. Solly Chizz. I think my point still stands though as regards the message being tainted by virtue of the messenger.
My view is this: those people that concentrate on denigrating Blair yesterday, seemed tacitly to admit that they didn't have a counter-argument to the view he was putting forward.
I don't subscribe to your view and think you are being tad disingenuous.
Comments
I am not interested in anything he has to offer and I was a Remainer but have accepted democracy.
I think, he just wanted to get himself back on TV. He's seen Trump getting all the limelight and decided he wants a piece of the action. I've not read what he's said as I'm not sure it will add anything of value to the process one way or another.
The withdrawal of the Zionists from the new Developments in Jerusalem allowing both Hezbollah and Hamas to move in harmoniously has been a wonder to behold and a sign of TB's ability to hold core negotiations with all parties involved to achieve the desired outcome that everyone is comfortable with.
I'm fully behind Tony on this one.
Fart'ssorry Trump's view on this.Oddly, his neighbour is Claudia winkelman, the BBC must pay well.
Despise him and his loathsome wife.
There was a big run up to the referendum where both sides put their case and the country voted. Perhaps if both sides had concentrated on the benefits of each of their positions rather than scaremongering about the other sides position the result may have been different but it is churlish and wrong to suggest the nation was not aware of what they were voting for.
Blair is asking for (some) leave voters to consider changing their minds. That's democratic.
He's suggesting that the basis on which some people made up their minds is questioned, investigated and tested. That's democratic.
He's asking that the decisions that are being made by the government are ratified by plebiscite, rather than being determined by an exclusive, minority group, meeting in secret. That's democratic.
If it's undemocratic for the public to consider options and to request and require that the government changes its direction, then the referendum last year was undemocratic. I don't think that's the case. I also don't think it's undemocratic to continue to argue for the right outcome. In fact it's the most democratic thing that can be done.
Blair, of course, got some things very wrong in his time as PM. But he's right now. And it's telling that every other living former PM agrees with him.
But you didn't just posit a viewpoint for debate, you introduced Tony Blair into the equation and now you are feigning surprise that people are focusing on the messenger instead of the message. Oh for heavens sake pull yourself together!
I think my point still stands though as regards the message being tainted by virtue of the messenger.
By your definition I'm proud to be an unpleasant toad.
I am certainly not surprised that lots of people have leaped forward to throw oprobrium in his direction. But, in doing so, they've ignored the argument.
I am not saying I agree with the argument that he's become the most important person in Bitish politics, again (as some have put forward). But it's an interesting and timely intervention. Because he's stirred up the debate by diametrically opposing the views Theresa May has been putting forward since she switched sides in June. And he's doing it much more effectively than the "real" opposition.
standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-criticises-tony-blair-over-brexit-intervention-a3470326.html