Tony Blair claptrap

[????]

On the whole I trust the proletariat over middle-class intellectuals.

[Alan Medic]

48 questions Blair posed in his speech:

1. Do you accept that many people who voted Leave did so without knowing the full terms of Brexit?

2. Do you accept that it is open to the people to change their minds if they decide Brexit will in fact harm their own and the country's interests?

3. Do you accept that there is no monopoly on patriotism and that there might be a patriotic case for wishing to reverse the referendum decision, if enough people feel it will be damaging to the UK?

4. Do you agree the government approach can now be defined as 'Brexit at any cost'?

5. Do you accept that people are entitled to be concerned at the scale of that cost, economically and politically?

6. Do you accept that the financial cost of withdrawal, the UK having to pay for previous EU obligations but not benefit from future opportunities, could be as high as ?60bn?

7. Do you agree with the Prime Minister's and the Chancellor's former views that maintaining our partnership with the biggest political union and largest commercial market on our doorstep fulfills rather than diminishes our national interest?

8. Is there not something surreal about the Prime Minister and Chancellor now claiming hard Brexit is a huge boon for the country when during the campaign they said the opposite, in Chancellor Philip Hammond's case with real conviction?

9. Do you accept that politics, not economics or the genuine national interest, is now driving the hard Brexit chosen by May?

10. Are you seriously saying the PM's vision of Britain as a 'great open trading nation' is best served by leaving the largest free trading bloc in the world? Might her vision of Britain as a bridge between Europe and the US be more realistic if we remained part of the EU?

11. In what way will her call for a fairer capitalism be met by moving to a low tax, light regulation economy?

12. Do you accept that if the right-wing ideologues pushing a hard Brexit so Britain becomes a low tax, low regulation, offshore hub have their way, we will need huge tax and welfare changes? Were they voted for in the referendum?

13. Will this approach in fact lead to less not more public money for the NHS? Less not more protection for workers?

14. Is it not the case that the UK government could make these changes now, but wouldn't because they know they do not have public support for them?

15. Is there any chance at all that Brexit will lead to ?350m a week more for the NHS?

16. Please define the 'big argument' that Tony Blair says is missing from this pursuit of hard Brexit, and how it will benefit Britain economically.

17. Do you agree that of the many arguments put forward for Leave in the referendum, only immigration and the European Court of Justice (ECJ) are still really being pursued?

18. Do you accept that the Leave campaign deliberately conflated the ECJ and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)?

19. Can you confirm that that ECHR is not and never has been a EU body?

20. Can you name any laws the UK government has not been able to pass because of the ECJ?

21. Can you confirm that of net immigration into the UK in 2016, over half was from outside the EU?

22. Do you accept that as May wants to keep those EU immigrants who come with a confirmed job offer, and students, this leaves around 80,000 who come looking for work without a job?

23. Do you agree that of these 80,000, roughly a third come to London, mostly working in the food processing and hospitality sectors; and that the practical impact of Brexit on our 'control' of immigration is on analysis less than 12% of the immigration total?

24. Do you agree that most of the immigrants we are talking about in this 12% work hard and pay their taxes?

25. Do you think the biggest constitutional, political, economic and social change of our lifetime is merited by such numbers as set out in questions 23 to 26?

26. Do you accept that the immigration most people worry about ? that of people determined to challenge our security and way of life, in the name of a perverted view of Islam ? is not affected by Brexit?

27. Do you agree that the post Article 50 negotiations are going to be as complex as any we have experienced, covering a vast number of areas?

28. Do you accept, as a matter of fact, that the Single Market covers around half of our trade in goods and services?

29. Do you accept that leaving the Customs Union may adversely impact on trade with other countries like Turkey?

30. Can you confirm that we will need to negotiate the replacement of over 50 Preferential Trade Agreements we have via our membership of the EU?

31. Do you accept that EU-related trade is actually two thirds of the UK total?

32. Do you accept scientific research and culture are both going to suffer as a result of Brexit, and indeed already are?

33. Are you content to have the WTO as a fall back strategy should we fail to reach a satisfactory deal within two years?

34. Do you accept this too has enormous complexity attached to it; that we would need to negotiate the removal not just of tariff barriers; but the prevention of non-tariff barriers which today are often the biggest impediments to trade?

35. Do you agree that the fall in the value of sterling against the euro and the dollar as a result of Brexit is an indication that the international financial markets believe we are going to be poorer?

36. Do you accept that therefore the price of imported goods is up and so will be inflation?

37. Do you agree that the Single Market and enlargement were huge foreign policy successes for the UK?

38. Do you agree that the Single Market has brought billions of pounds of wealth, hundreds of thousands of jobs, and major investment opportunities for the UK?

39. Do you agree that enlargement has enhanced EU and NATO security?

40. Do you accept that in the early 21st century, most countries are seeking to forge rather than break regional and economic alliances?

41. Do you agree we can do more on issues like the environment with others than alone?

42. Do you agree that the route taken on and since June 23 has helped revive the argument about Scotland leaving the UK?

43. Do you accept that the failure to address the question of how to maintain EU freedom of movement without a hard border between Ireland and the UK is destabilising the peace process?

44. Do you accept the government is obsessed with Brexit, and has no choice but to be so?

45. Do you accept that the scale of government focus on Brexit is having a detrimental impact on their ability to deal with other issues, such as the NHS, education, the new economy, crime, prisons ? and, er, immigration policy?

46. Do you accept there is a cartel of right wing newspapers skewing the debate in the broadcast media, and whose support for May is contingent on her pursuing a hard Brexit policy?

47. Do you agree that had the business survey mentioned by Tony Blair said the opposite ? namely huge confidence in Brexit ? it would have led the news because the cartel would have splashed on it, not ignored it?

48. Do you accept Brexit has divided the country across its nations, regions and generations, contrary to May's claim to have 65 million people behind her?

[keano77]

My, somebody has had his shredded wheat this morning.

I could answer each of these 48 questions line by line but the way the questions are framed is to elicit answers that will support the Remain cause. Also edf readers will find it all very tedious.

In my opinion the Brexit vote and Trump's victory were part of a bigger problem facing the world and that is Western Capitalism isn't working for the majority of people. Many working people are just about coping, dependent on tax credits to supplement poor wages. Many economies haven't recovered since the financial crisis of 2008.

We are heading into the unknown and understandably people are nervous. There are many issues Theresa May and the government need to grapple with that you mention above, tax and welfare issues for example. A post Brexit Britain will need to create conditions that will unleash entrepreneurial talent for Britain to realise it's potential. A simple example here is the need for Business rates reform which is crippling small businesses.

The only thing stopping Britain trading successfully with our European neighbours is the EU itself. It cannot be seen to give Britain a good deal outside the EU otherwise the house of cards will fall - hence the notion of a hard Brexit.

If in 10 years time the EU still exists and has made substantial reforms there is nothing to stop the British people rejoining if they so choose.

[Louisa]

More interesting to me at this time, is the question of the island of Ireland.

Part of this island remains part of the United Kingdom, and following on from the Good Friday Agreement, it remains absolutely imperative for reasons of peace and democracy that no 'hard border' ever returns following Brexit. Will this happen? Who knows. Currently everything is open to discussion for negotiation with the EU, but for the Northern Irish population this really is the most important issue to arise for many years. At the moment it feels as though we will potentially be stepping back in time, and as we all know the fragility of peace in the north of Ireland is a constant threat to all stakeholders in the peace process.

Secondly, the Irish Republic. We are there second largest trading partner, last year they exported $16.3 billion of services and goods to this country, 12.7% of their national total (United States was first). If we leave the single market, where does this leave the trading deal between us and them? It's become a hot topic over there too, with some even suggesting there should be a 'Irexit'. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/03/ireland-should-not-rule-out-leaving-eu-says-ex-diplomat-ray-bassett

Not to mention the simple fact that many hundreds of thousands of Brits and Irish citizens live in each propestive country, and have family ties too. Where will this leave us with our closest neighbour and reliant trading partner post Brexit?

Louisa.

[jaywalker]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A post Brexit Britain will need to create

> conditions that will unleash entrepreneurial

> talent for Britain to realise it's potential.

Ah, that would be the abolition of corporation tax and a more flexible labour market (all those pernickety constraints to labour security and equality engineered in the EU) - and lower taxes require further cuts in social security spending (since we are already spending way beyond our tax revenue and the economic cycle is about to downturn reducing those revenues, and raising the debt, even faster). Now where will that lead I wonder? Surely not inflation (which will hammer those with little capital with which to protect themselves).

That combined with ad hoc stupid promises to individual foreign companies to beg them not to "rationalise" our industries (i.e. eviscerate them). Will May meet the owners of Kraft I wonder: they have a policy of reducing all their manager's budgets to zero and asking them then to justify every expenditure. They operate on way reduced costs than Unilever: one of the reasons is that Unilever has much more of a social-environmental agenda. Will we pay Kraft off? Or just seek reassurances over job cuts :-). And there are many further companies in the target of the USA (Buffet etc) now that the pound is so cheap.

My outrage at Corbyn and the labour party is that the EU was the primary defence against this sort of nonsense. I have begun to wonder if they actually want economic chaos, as a chance for the revolution.

May, by the way, will not survive this. She is a reactionary interventionist, not a laissez-faire free-marketeer. But she will be completely riven: trying to find trading partners in an era of protectionism (having torn up the agreement that protects two thirds of our trade from just that) she will have to allow USA capital to do what it wants: so we will be scorched, face a collapse in tax revenues and she will have to abandon even the semblance of her socialist side (which I have no doubt is deeply felt).

[stringvest]

I heard Tony Blair Radio 4 Friday and was really annoyed at the bare faced cheek of him. I don't trust him at all. He is a total liar, two-faced narcissistic money grabbing ?$%^.... There must have been something in staying in for him, maybe a highly paid presidency with a chateaux or something? He should crawl back into the slime from which he emerged. WMD etc ......

[red devil]

Stringy, try not to sit on the fence next time...:)

[malumbu]

Most of us voted for him. He had two landslide elections, almost unheard of.

Yes he is annoying, you sort of want to brush him off your shoulder. The inability to give a straight answer for fear of offending. Being a Thatcherite, sort of, certainly in support of the free market. Not reversing the selling off of state assets. Toadying to the Americans (which we have seen before, and are seeing now) with the dreadful mistake of believing WMD, regime change etc. Not ending the boom/bust cycle.

But if we can ignore much of that there were some good things as a moderniser, a more prosperous nation, social fairness, trade unions, and generally as a world stateman. He was not a control freak like his successor and more so the current PM, 7/7 showed this (of course it may not have happened if....) And not an idiot like the last bloke.

Old labour, and 'new' old labour were/are unelectable.

No answers I am afraid.

[Loz]

stringvest Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I heard Tony Blair Radio 4 Friday and was really annoyed at the bare faced cheek of him. I don't

> trust him at all. He is a total liar, two-faced narcissistic money grabbing ?$%^....

Hmmm. Can anyone guess which way stringy voted in the referendum? Anyone?

[JoeLeg]

Oh stringy's already made that plain! I do love the way they think good old Tony should be singled out for being a total wanker (which he is), but somehow I suspect good old Gove, Johnson and the others are ok. I love a good double standard.

The problem is that Blair is massively tainted goods, but that doesn't stop him from raising valid points. However I'm not sure he's he person to do it. Many people will dismiss him out of hand, understandably.

[stringvest]

I am grateful to have a vote. I don't like any politicians much, they seem mostly self-interested. Thanks.

[JoeLeg]

Yup, there's that double standard, nice to see you're at least consistent.

Question - if someone is a self-interested politician, does that mean their views should be dismissed?

[teddyboy23]

Yes.

[Otta]

How many of you can honestly say you vote for purely altruistic reasons?

The majority of us are self interested to some extent, why expect MPs to be different?

[teddyboy23]

True

[JohnL]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> How many of you can honestly say you vote for

> purely altruistic reasons?

>

> The majority of us are self interested to some

> extent, why expect MPs to be different?

But I separate my job and my personal life.

I can't bring personal feelings to my job (other

than ethics).

[titch juicy]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> How many of you can honestly say you vote for

> purely altruistic reasons?

>

> The majority of us are self interested to some

> extent, why expect MPs to be different?

I can.

I rarely look at policies from a personal point of view. I consider myself to be in the fortunate position (white, middle class, full time employment- around average City of London salary) whereby it doesn't matter who's in charge, my personal well-being is unlikely to be significantly affected. I've resigned myself to the fact that i'm unlikely to own a property on my own in London, but am comfortable renting.

Therefore, i feel the right thing to do is consider those worse off than me when considering who to vote for.

[JoeLeg]

Power corrupts, as they say. There's not a single politician that's climbed above back-bencher level who cannot be accused of this fault of self-interest; it sees too often like they seek and then cling onto power for its own sake. Even Corbyn is now in this trap (don't get me started on Diane Abbot).

So I struggle with the idea that just because Blair (and many others) have soiled themselves - in his case copiously - with the dirt that comes with high office, they are unable to contribute to debates. At what point do we draw the line, where do we say 'no, you are no longer entitled to be part of public life'? And who makes that decision?

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of limiting people free speech on the basis of past mistakes, no matter how large. I agree no one should take policy initiatives from former South American dictators or convicted sex offenders, but beyond that I think it's a dangerous path to take. It smacks of censorship. Plus, they may actually have a point worth making.

[teddyboy23]

Joe would you agree concerning the house of lords.some of the peers who are getting EU funded pensions or payments.debating on our exit from the EU.when it would suit them to remain.also mandelson suggesting who receives EU funding to endorse the EU telling the house to make things as difficult as possible with delaying tactics. unlike you mandelson and the rest shouldn't have a leg to stand on.

[Jeremy]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> How many of you can honestly say you vote for purely altruistic reasons?

> The majority of us are self interested to some extent

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I can. I rarely look at policies from a personal point of view.

Voting a certain way is not necessarily an act of altruism or selflessness. If you believe certain policies are more likely to lead to the kind of society you want to live in, and your children to grow up in... it's a form of self interest in a way.

[titch juicy]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Otta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > How many of you can honestly say you vote for

> purely altruistic reasons?

> > The majority of us are self interested to some

> extent

>

> titch juicy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I can. I rarely look at policies from a personal

> point of view.

>

> Voting a certain way is not necessarily an act of

> altruism or selflessness. If you believe certain

> policies are more likely to lead to the kind of

> society you want to live in, and your children to

> grow up in... it's a form of self interest in a

> way.

That's a bit of a stretch no?

I don't have children and I vote with those worse off in mind.

As in, the kind of society that would benefit them rather than me. I suppose you could argue that they might not want to live in a society that benefits them more, in which case i'm projecting my views of what is a better society for them, but I think that might be overthinking it a little.

[titch juicy]

I should add that I don't have children because I don't want them.

And if I did want them, i'd look to adopt, as I feel very strongly that while there are many children desperate for a family, it doesn't make sense to bring more into an already crowded society.

I'm aware that i'm glossing over all kinds of reasoning with that view, but it is an honest view.

[Jeremy]

I don't it's so much of a stretch. I think we all have a stake in the success of our country. Of course, there are different ways of measuring "success". Having kids may or may not change your reasoning.

[titch juicy]

I'm struggling to understand how me voting that way could be with my personal well-being in mind. I might just be misunderstanding.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Again (and at risk of being accused of 'virtue signalling') - I genuinely vote (or at least consciously I do - I'm sure there are all kind of bias' that come into it) for the policies I think are best for the country and the society I want to live in. I think it's not unusual to be honest (hence the notion of 'Champagne Socialists' - which while meant as a pejorative, could also be seen as quite a noble position).