Tony Blair

Comment at end

28th October, 2009

My “buying-off” is OK. Yours is corrupt.

Tonight Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel meet for dinner. Shades of Granita?

So, what’s on the menu?

Hors d’oeuvres: President Blair Brussels pâté/Trade Commissioner soup/Foreign Affairs High Representative starter.

Main Course: single currency steak/tête-à-tête Turkey/top perch

Dessert: Neutralising British iffy-EU Conservatives tart/Neutralising British anti-EU Conservatives meringue/Neutralising anti-everything-but-Britain British Conservatives fruit compote.

The hypocrisy of the anti-Blair/anti-EU right, (and left), knows no bounds. They are evidently blind to the possibility that THEIR pressing of the anti-Blair for President agenda with the argument that it would be seen as a “hostile act” towards any incoming Tory government in Britain may have backfired. The “over my dead body” Hague, may have produced a few “bloody ‘ells” in the rest of Europe, but not in the way Hague wanted or expected. In fact, the possibility of being hostile to the largely EU-hostile Tories might have proved too much of a temptation for some.

Thus the Conservatives, or at least their supportive press (the Telegraph in this instance), try another tack.

The French and Germans are susceptible to “deals” too.

Ooooh! The politics of it all!

Read more from The Telegraph below the picture of ‘El Presidente‘.

tblair_MoD

Gordon Brown to ‘buy off’ Germany and France to get President Blair

Gordon Brown is hoping to negotiate a deal that will see Germany and France offered big European jobs in exchange for Tony Blair becoming the EU president.

The Prime Minister is now actively campaigning for Mr Blair to get the post.

Number 10 believes that Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, will add her support to the move if she is allowed to choose a German for the other new role created by the Lisbon Treaty, the high representative for foreign affairs.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, would be offered the chance to select a politician to take on one of the top economic portfolios, possibly the EU trade commissioner’s role currently held by Britain.

A senior Number 10 official said: “We believe the French and Germans are holding out for the best possible deal they can get out of this situation. But we think Merkel will agree if she gets the foreign job [to give to her choice] and Sarkozy will also be after a significant position.”

Mrs Merkel has until now been noticeably cool on the prospect of Mr Blair getting the presidency.

David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, has been at the forefront of a change of policy regarding Mr Blair’s ambitions this week. He has begun to lobby hard for his appointment with a series of statements urging EU leaders to grasp the nettle and allow the big figure like Mr Blair who could “stop the traffic” in Washington and Beijing, to take on the role.

That intervention was mocked by David Cameron yesterday who said Europe should be looking at politicians who can get the traffic moving, not stopped.

The horse trading with Germany and France risks backfiring however. It is likely to antagonise the smaller EU nations who fear a secret deal between the three biggest EU countries.

Downing Street sources have confirmed that tomorrow’s meeting of EU heads of government will not discuss the role of president. However, there is certain to be behind-the-scenes negotiating regarding Mr Blair’s possible elevation.

Yesterday, Mr Cameron issued his strongest statement Mr Blair’s campaign by saying the last thing Europe needs is the “all-acting” former prime minister at its head. The Conservative leader warned European leaders against selecting Mr Blair, but admitted that he may be forced to work “reasonably” with him if he is chosen.

Mr Cameron said he was squarely against the role of president. However he said if there had to be one it should not be “El Presidente Blair.”

Instead the role should be taken by someone who was a chairman rather than some “all-singing, all-dancing, all-acting president.”

The Conservatives have warned European leaders that they will view it as “a hostile act” if the former Labour prime minister is handed the job.

Yesterday, Jean-Claude Juncker, the prime minister of Luxembourg and a leading European federalist, became the first leader to declare himself a candidate for the presidency. Mr Blair has yet to formally say he wants the job and is under increasing pressure to do so.

Mr Juncker used an interview in Le Monde to deride Mr Blair’s claims to the job, suggesting the former British premier was too divisive to speak for Europe.

He said: “I can’t really identify any area in which Britain has shown real European inspiration over the past 10 years, apart from a few advances on defence.”

Luxembourg has united with Belgium and the Netherlands to oppose Mr Blair as president. Austria is also understood to be opposing the former prime minister.

Last night Peter Kilfoyle, who was a Labour minister under Tony Blair, tabled a Commons motion saying the former prime minister is “wholly unsuitable to be President of the European Union.”

The motion also rebukes David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, as “both wrong and unwise” to promote Mr Blair’s candidacy.

RELATED

Irwin Stelzer, Blair supporter on Blair & Miliband. The Good news and the Bad.

Tags:Angela Merkel, David Miliband, EU President, Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy, Tony Blair, what's for dinner
Posted in 1. Tony Blair, British Conservative Party, British Politics, Brown (Gordon Brown & his Labour Government, from June 2007), David Miliband, Foreign Secretary in Gordon Brown's government, from June 2007, Europe/EU/Lisbon Treaty/Full-time President | 3 Comments »

Monbiot’s gone round the twist. Even his Cif commenters have noticed.

October 27, 2009

http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/monbiots-gone-round-the-twist-even-his-cif-commenters-have-noticed-if-he-hasnt/

Comment at end

27th October, 2009

Monbiot: “Making this ruthless liar EU president is a crazy plan. But I’ll be backing Blair”

“If the man who waged an unprovoked war in Iraq gets this job, it could be the chance to hold him to account for his crimes”

Le Roi de l'EU? Aka Tony 'El Presidente' Blair. Pic: Francois Lenoir/Reuters

You have to read this by George Monbiot at The Guardian. No, honestly, you do. (Don’t forget to call back here afterwards. I’ve used a sample of the comments to save you an hour reading them!)

I’ve seen a lot of irritating trash in recent days at the Guardian, the Independent and the Mail, as they all hyperventilate in unison with increasing andrenaline-laden panic over the possibility of El Presidente Blair. But this ‘article’ takes the proverbial.

BLAIR THE ‘LYING WAR CRIMINAL’

As I have mentioned once or twice before I find it increasingly INFURIATING that such as these feel that THEY are the moral arbiters and sole judge of Mr Blair’s honesty. His ‘war criminal’ culpability and ‘guilt’ are taken for granted, of course. And that is BEFORE he has been tried and found guilty of ANYTHING!!!!

What utter trash! What extreme left-leaning anti-liberal, anti-justice, anti-democracy ‘thinking’.

One of the intriguing aspects of the thing is that there are almost as many who support Mr Blair as who offer to contribute to the “bounty” on his head. Seldom do I have a lot to say in favour of a Guardian article and/or its Cif commenters, but since it’s clear that the pro-Blair people are better at putting together an argument and a paragraph than the antis, well – I rest my case.

For your gratification and amusement I have used some of the comments here. (If any Cif commenters are unhappy with this, please let me know, and I’ll remove said comments.)

Monbiot himself adds a comment here. He seems to have realised, if belatedly, that his article may have backfired somewhat:

Monbiot

27 Oct 09, 3:49pm

Contributor

Sorry to come in so late, busy day.

One point which keeps coming up is diplomatic immunity. From what I understand, the issue isn’t clear-cut. I’m told that the International Criminal Court (which, incidentally, does not yet have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression – it is currently a matter for national courts) does not recognise the concept of immunity. Nor did the Nuremberg Tribunal. It is at the very least worth testing. As Berlusconi has found, even a guarantee of immunity doesn’t necessarily stand.

As for initiating a prosecution, I agree that the chances of success are small. One of the tasks of the network of welcoming committees would be to devise and select the most effective tactics. But even a failed citizen’s arrest, if it gets enough coverage, keeps the issue live. A series of attempts throughout his presidency, with the ever-present possibility of eventual success, will show that this greatest of crimes has not been forgotten, and revitalise the demand for official prosecution.

Of course, though some have missed it, the underlying intent of the article is sardonic. How could someone who should be – and could be – prosecuted for the supreme international crime be elected president of the EU? My real hope is that other EU leaders might understand what they are dealing with and see that Blair should be an international pariah, not an international leader.

Here’s a question for you all: if Blair is not appointed president, should I put up the bounty anyway?

Here follow some of the CIF comments:

haldir

27 Oct 09, 12:51pm

I’d be happy to front some money – but only to hire the services of an elite snatch squad, probably ex-SAS guys who could ‘rendition’ him to the Hague. If anything, ahem, terminal, happened when he was resisting arrest – well too bad.

timnicholls

27 Oct 09, 1:07pm

The only thing more ridiculous than this rant of an article is the complete ignorance, within it, of sovereign immunity. Even if you were to try to arrest Blair, as EU President, you would not be able to. Even functional immunity depends on the individual no longer being in the ‘immune’ position (a la Pinochet). And if you want him before the ICC, you’ll have to set up one of your national arrest Blair centres there.

What complete, utter nonsense: and that’s without even going into the Iraq War legality arguments ably dealt with by other comments.

logos

27 Oct 09, 1:51pm

They say that excrement attracts flies who feed on it and this certainly seems to be so in the case of this article which is a classic example of muck spreading.

bill2

27 Oct 09, 2:24pm

We can’t arrest him, not when we are spending £3m a year to keep him safe from us.

ElleGreen

27 Oct 09, 2:26pm

Was the war in Iraq a mistake? Probably
Did Tony Blair enter into the the war with malicious intentions? Probably Not

Are there still people suffering in Iraq who need our time and money to stop the catastrophe that the war has begun? Definitely.
Would it be better to spend our time and money on a lengthy and tedious arbitration process to have Tony Blair tried for a crime that may or may not have been committed? Definitely not.

(and for those who think that such a decision will act as a deterent for future international crimes think again a) has it worked before? b)the decision if taken at a nation state level would have no binding effect on any other jurisdictions so all a “war criminal” has to do is avoid holidaying in Estonia)

George, I always basically agree with what you say however please just once could you refrain from taking the shock and awe approach and present your arguments in a balanced and reasonable fashion.

JoshRogan

27 Oct 09, 2:37pm

Where’s Judge Dredd when you need him?

You realise, George, that you will now be put on (if you are not already) on the ‘Domestic Extremist’ photo card along with Mark Thomas.

I will arrest Blair for free!

But you know that only dirty foreigners go to the Hague and face international law.
Western leaders and G.I.s, marines, etc are immune.

Blair is such an evil little slimeball he will manage to squirm his way out of any legal wrangle.

He’s probably a mason and also a member of that super secret Cheney Gang.

I’d love to see his head on the block, but alas it will never happen.

Citizens arrest … is there a citizen’s execution?

Bobagain

27 Oct 09, 11:19am

The only good thing about Blair being made president is that the likelihood of him being assassinated would exponentially increase.

firsttimer

27 Oct 09, 8:27am

This thirst for revenge is futile and even counterproductive.

Indulging a legalistic case against Blair won’t do a damn thing for world peace and will just damage Europe’s place in the world.

The US has already destroyed its ability to conduct such wars in future – does anyone seriously think a risen China would feel itself restricted by whatever happened in a court in The Hague?

It just shows a lack of sense of proportion that people would put that before establishing a credible European role in the world that might prevent such adventurism in future.

The UK might never have gone out on a limb for the US had the EU had a more formal foreign policy agreement.

Let’s focus on the future, people – that’s where we’re all going to be living.

DrChris

27 Oct 09, 5:59pm

The ‘possession weapons of mass destruction itself does not amount to an armed attack’ – true, but it does amount to a violation of UNSC resolutions that authorize the use of force. Not to mention that Saddam’snon-compliance was a gross violation of the ceasefire that essentially authorised a resumption of the Gulf War.

DanielRM

27 Oct 09, 6:06pm

I find it disquieting that one of the Guardian’s more prominent writers, one who is otherwise so sensible in many areas, particularly the environment, can possibly make such a ludicrous and positively infantile cry of support for a man to become president of the EU simply on the basis that he may then be prosecuted for an action which, whilst unpopular, was most likely the correct course of action and indeed was a moral course of action, given that the suffering currently experienced by the Iraqi people will be far less and will occur for a much shorter period of time than that which would have been experienced under the continued reign of such an immoral dictator as Saddam Hussein was.

PogueMahone

27 Oct 09, 3:43pm

There was no improvement of getting rid of him

I’ll assume you are trying to state that getting rid of Saddam represented no improvement for the people of Iraq

Of course you are not Iraqi – more to the point you are not a Shia or Kurdish Iraqi – or indeed just about any Iraqi who ran afoul of Saddam and his goons

You simply pontificate from thousands of miles away about how getting rid of this despot was “no improvement”

The murderers have no better allies than you and George and all your lot – you excuse their every atrocity and work only to tear at those who finally stepped in to do JUSTICE to these evil men

There was a time when a liberal would stand with those who sought freedom

that time has passed

BTW Peter – great post – like shooting fish in a barrel but it must be said again and again

You won’t penetrate the hardest core libtards – but some will recognize their own hypocrisy

keep it up

Cairncross

27 Oct 09, 3:45pm

waging an unprovoked war, described by the Nuremberg tribunal as “the supreme international crime”

Saddam Hussein launched two such wars. By Moronbiot’s very own logic, this justified his removal.

Durrrr….

littleoleamerican

27 Oct 09, 4:43pm

This arm-chair-conjured-up-hatred coming from this article and most of the commentors is almost laughable. No facts here. Fact is we went into Iraq, not because of WMD’s, but because of Saddam’s violations of the articles set down by the UN. That made the invasion LEGAL. This will be proven in the Iraq Inquiry. There were only what , 5,000 British troops in Iraq? Hello? But, what a hard-fighting, lovely, proud, patriotic group they are, too. They may have been small in number, but very big on training the Iraqi police correctly and leaving a “positive” influence on the Iraqi people. That is a FACT. Iraqis have told us so at the Ban Blair Baiting petition (google it).
Do you really think Bush would have gone into Iraq, along with friend Blair, Williams, and 25 other countries, if we had not first consulted with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and especially Kuwaite? Come on, put your thinking caps on. We would not have gone in there if we feared a backlash from the other Middle Eastern countries now would we? So perhaps you have this ass-backwards. Perhaps it was King Abdullah himself who asked for our assistance (the U.S. and the U.K.) with that pesky Saddam. (just a theory).
At any rate, for Blair to have committed all these crimes, war crimes, stealing, lying, cheating and what all…….he would have to have been more than one person. He would have to have been in 10 places at 12 times. It’s ludicrous.
He’s simply not capable of all this wrongdoing. He is a better man than you, Mr. Monbiot. A much better man. The EU would be fortunate to have someone like him on board. With someone like Blair, the United States would feel comfortable dealing with the “new” EU. Everyone knows Blair and MOST leaders of FREE countries respect and admire him. THAT is what is really counts isn’t it?

And this is one of mine:

ThisStinks

27 Oct 09, 10:41pm

@ Monbiot

“One point which keeps coming up is diplomatic immunity. From what I understand, the issue isn’t clear-cut.”

Well blow me down with a Guardianisto rant article! NOT clear -cut? So Blair, aka El Presidente, may be immune from prosecution after all?

Your bounty fund may be all for nothing, Monbiot! A little like your rabid yelps of “lying war criminal” towards one of the finest politicians of his generation.

It seems you are keen on global warming issues, though I must say I hadn’t noticed your writings on this. So THAT’S your anti-Blair gripe! He’s hi-jacked your baby! You want him locked up so that he can’t fix the climate before YOU can!?

A little late now to explain the sardonic nature of your article, btw. The gullible believed you meant it.

As for other leaders – others are not so blinded by YOUR distorted “facts” on Iraq.

Give it up and do something that makes you happy. Or as I often say to people like you – what have YOU done today to make you feel proud?

And, by the way – to this:

Here’s a question for you all: if Blair is not appointed president, should I put up the bounty anyway?

Sardonic? Again?

You could always send it to the Iraqi people whose fate you have always, presumably for decades, had at the front of your mind.

RELATED

Lord David Owen slanders Tony Blair – Join the growing queue, Lord Owen, of those who should end up in court for this.
Cameron distances himself from Hague on Blair. Cameron says Tories WOULD work with a President Blair. Hmmm…
But in this video clip he says that the Tories don’t support Blair. Hmmm… again! Ambivalence, Mr Cameron?
On the other hand – to other EU leaders – Cameron says he doesn’t want an all-singing, all-dancing El Presidente.
Pro-Blair Labour blogger trying to work out Cameron on Blair. It’s simple, really. DC loves TB and william Hague is kind of jealous … or ambitious. Probably both. (Hague on Blair for President: “Over my dead body”)
Oliver Kamm – also on Owen on ‘President’ Blair.
Blair urged to “seize the day”
Juncker set to challenge Blair for presidency. Who?
FT says battle heating up
Lisbon – the Endgame. Brown denies civil servants will lobby for Blair in Europe. Update – Brown says HE will lobby for Blair to Merkel and Sarkozy.
Blair as President – a “no brainer”

Tags:bounty to arrest Blair, David Cameron, david owen, EU President, George Monbiot, Oliver Kamm, the Guardian, Tony Blair
Posted in 1. Tony Blair, BBC, Broadcast Outlets & Press, Europe/EU/Lisbon Treaty/Full-time President, Press - Truth & Lies | 1 Comment »

The Mail (pot/kettle/black) on Secrets and Dishonesty- oh, my!

October 27, 2009

Comment at end

26th October, 2009

As the Daily Mail continues on its downward Destroy (President) Blair campaign it’s worth taking a look at the 2000 80-page report which lay behind the recent kerfuffle over Andrew Neather’s recent thoughts as stated here by the unbiased Mail(!)

tblair_jackstraw

‘Dishonest’ Blair and Straw accused over secret plan for multicultural UK

‘Jack Straw and Tony Blair ‘dishonestly’ concealed a plan to allow in more immigrants and make Britain more multi-cultural because they feared a public backlash if it was made public, it has been claimed.

The allegation was made after a former Labour adviser said the Government opened up UK borders partly to humiliate Right-wing opponents of immigration.

Andrew Neather, who worked for Mr Straw when he was Home Secretary, and as a speech writer for Mr Blair, claimed a secret Government report in 2000 called for mass immigration to change Britain’s cultural make-up forever.’

PDF Report: ‘Research, Development And Statistics Occasional Paper No67 – Migration: An Economic And Social Analysis’

If this is an indictment of any “deceit” behind Blair’s governments true aims, and this is arguable, it also says something about the Conservatives’ ability or willingness to oppose.

Plus ca change, it seems, as today’s Tories flail around in utter bewilderment as to how, just HOW to deal with the political powerhouse that was/is T Blair.

Btw, a friend tweeted me this morning with this:

Quietzapple If Tony Blair was mooted as Blofeld’s successor @ SPECTRE would BlairSupporter http://url.ie/2pgf raise a petition in support?

I told him – it depends …

Tags:Andrew Neather, immigration secret policy, jack straw, Tony Blair
Posted in 1. Tony Blair | Leave a Comment »

EU President Blair can ‘Stop The Traffic’! Decision possible THIS week.

October 26, 2009

Comment at end

26th October, 2009

By Friday we may all know if it’s to be -

PRESIDENT BLAIR

Guardian, Nicholas Watt:

Miliband gives Blair strong backing in contest for European presidency

• UK and EU would benefit, foreign secretary says
• Merkel’s alarm over Tories could open door to ex-PM

Tony-Blair-and-David-Mili-011

David Miliband says the council needs a strong president like Tony Blair but some small states fear their voices might not be heard. Photograph: Toby Melville/REUTERS

Tony Blair won strong backing from Britain to become the first president of the European council when David Miliband declared that the EU needed a big hitter who could stop the traffic in world capitals.

Amid signs that the Czech Republic will soon ratify the Lisbon treaty, creating a legal basis for the new post, the foreign secretary described Blair as a very good choice for Britain and the EU.

“I think it’s very important for Europe that it has a strong figure in that role,” Miliband told the Andrew Marr Show on BBC1. “I think it would be very good for Britain, as well as very good for Europe … We need someone who can do more than simply run through the agenda.

“We need someone who, when he or she lands in Beijing or Washington or Moscow, the traffic does need to stop, the talks do need to begin at a very, very high level.”

Miliband’s remarks may have been designed to divert attention away from speculation that he could assume the other major post created under the treaty – the high representative for foreign affairs.

The foreign secretary’s intervention was the strongest British endorsement of Blair for the post that will be created if the Lisbon treaty enters EU law. Gordon Brown has endorsed Blair but refused to say more until the former prime minister makes clear his intentions. Blair is keen to become president, but he does not want to find himself caught up in an unseemly battle between EU member states. European leaders may start to intensify their debate on who should assume the new post when they hold their October summit in Brussels on Thursday and Friday.

No real discussions could be held before the Czech Republic ratifies the Lisbon treaty, but Vaclav Klaus, the country’s arch Eurosceptic president, softened his opposition last week when he indicated his satisfaction with a concession he had demanded on the charter of fundamental rights. Klaus had raised concerns that German citizens expelled from the Sudetenland after the second world war – the regions of Czechoslovakia inhabited by ethnic Germans – could use the charter to reclaim properties.

Klaus told the Czech newspaper Lidovy Noviny: “The train carrying the treaty is going so fast and it’s so far that it can’t be stopped or returned no matter how much some of us would want that.”

Blair wants to remain above the fray once EU leaders start discussing the new post because all sides expect the traditional EU battle.

Smaller member states, notably the Benelux countries of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, are wary of appointing such a controversial figure as Blair and are concerned that a former prime minister from one of the “big three” – Britain, France and Germany – would lead to their voices being drowned out. This has led to suggestions that Jan Peter Balkenende, the Dutch prime minister, or Jean Claude Juncker, the Luxembourg prime minister, could be appointed to the new post.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, who initially pushed Blair’s candidacy, appeared to alter his stance earlier this month when he raised doubts about appointing a president from outside the eurozone. Some Blair supporters welcomed this because it reduced Blair’s status as frontrunner, always helpful in EU negotiations.

The key figure is expected to be Angela Merkel, the newly re-elected German chancellor, who has been wary of Blair. Merkel may be attracted by having a big hitter who would help to manage relations with David Cameron, whose expected arrival as prime minister is alarming Berlin.

Cameron recently wrote a private letter to Klaus encouraging him to delay ratifying the Lisbon treaty until after the British general election, allowing a Tory government to hold a referendum.

Kenneth Clarke, the shadow business secretary, made clear he is out of step with Cameron on the EU when he rubbished Klaus.

“Vaclav Klaus is the Boris Johnson of central Europe,” Clarke told the Politics Show on BBC1. “He suddenly decided that the treaty in some way would allow the Sudeten Germans to come back to claim their land. That’s about the most nonsensical argument about the treaty I’ve ever heard.”

RELATED

This site, the British-based Henry Jackson Society has an article on the Two Rival Visions of Europe. It is a good read with much food for thought.
FT Miliband backs Blair for President – “stopping the traffic in Beijing, Washignton & Moscow”
Independent Minds (MINDS? Hah!?) on Miliband backing Blair
Tories: “Two weeks to avoid civil war!” (or … er … defeat in the general election)
John Rentoul: Blair Rage “too much” for Blair critic Jon Snow. Well, did you ever? No, never, eh, Mr Snow?

Tags:Blair can stop the traffic, cameron, David Miliband, EU President, Hague, John Rentoul, merkel, Tony Blair, Tories
Posted in 1. Tony Blair, David Miliband, Foreign Secretary in Gordon Brown's government, from June 2007, Europe/EU/Lisbon Treaty/Full-time President | 2 Comments »

Panicking William Hague raises the spectre of EU President Blair. But who’s REALLY frightened?

October 25, 2009

Comment at end

25th October, 2009

JUST WILLIAM IS AT IT AGAIN – THIS TIME TO THE EUROPEANS

“To the Europeans”?

By way of explanation: that’s how Conservatives refer to our colleagues in the rest of Europe, when they’re not being rude about them.

Those who quite enjoyed watching William Hague oppose Tony Blair in the House of Commons, in the same way as we enjoy watching a rival being decisively but politely squashed, may be keen to see the poor guy go through it all again.

Hague, despite being a good and witty speaker, never quite cut the mustard when up against The MAN. Not that he was alone in that. I DO recall him admitting that even though he occasionally managed to land some punches on Blair, “a fat lot of good it did me”.

But it is intriguing to watch how low the Conservatives will stoop in order to keep Mr Blair’s hands off the levers of power and to keep him out of their hair. Now they are raising the spectre of Blair as a damaged and tainted “witness” in the Iraq inquiry.

This tainting won’t happen, Mr Hague, and the attempt to smear Mr Blair in advance to other EU leaders won’t wash.

Brief History of William Hague and other Tory leaders who opposed Blair

[Pics: left to right, top to bottom - John Major, William Hague, Iain Duncan-Smith, Michael Howard, David Cameron & Tony Blair (2).]

Hague replaced John Major after Blair’s first landslide of 1997, and stood down after Blair‘s party’s second landslide in 2001. He was succeeded by the far less charismatic Iain Duncan-Smith, who floundered as Tory leader and was in turn replaced half-way through Blair’s second term (in 2003) by Michael Howard.

NONE of them got anywhere against The Master.

Michael Howard was replaced in 2005, after a THIRD Conservative drubbing at the polls. The way was now open for the Tories’ answer to Blair – Blair Mark II, otherwise known as David Cameron. History has yet to write HIS story.

Hague is only eight years younger than Tony Blair and has been an MP for 20 years, 1989 -to present. Blair served as an MP for 24 years, 1983 – 2007, 10 of which as prime minister.

The panic and hardly containable anguish at what THE MAN could do to the Tories if he has the power AGAIN hardly needs explaining.

EUROPE – THE TORY FAULTLINE

Europe has always been and probably always will be the Tories’ graveyard. Despite there being some well-known pro-Europeans in the party, it is generally anti-EU.

So how other EU leaders must have smiled a wry smile at Hague’s attempt to terrify other Europeans with the prospect of Tony Blair (aka “the war criminal”) being First President of the EU Council.

And how Cameron must have been relieved that HE didn’t have to argue against Blair, but sent his shadow foreign secretary to do the defilement job.

Four Tory leaders lost to their party at the hands of Blair is enough for Cameron. He knows on which side his bread may soon need to be buttered.

Original report follows of Hague’s meeting with EU ambassadors.

EUROCRATS BEMUSED AT HAGUE’S ATTACK ON BLAIR (SOURCE)

William Hague spent four years opposing Tony Blair in the House of Commons before the then prime minister ended Hague’s reign as Tory leader with a humiliating drubbing at the polls. It now appears the shadow foreign secretary is sparking up the rivalry again.

Addressing a meeting of 26 EU ambassadors in London last week, Hague argued that to appoint Blair as the first permanent president of the European Council would be a ‘‘mistake’’.

The shadow foreign secretary was keen to point out that, if Blair was appointed, his first few months in the job would be spent giving evidence to the Chilcot enquiry into the 2003 Iraq war. The war, the shadow foreign secretary added, exemplified Blair’s propensity to favour the US over the EU during his ten-year tenure as prime minister.

Hague claimed that it would simply confirm many Briton’s worst fears about the lack of democracy in the EU if, having removed a Labour government, they were then to see Blair installed as the president of Europe.

As one EU diplomat put it, Hague was at pains to point out that backing Blair would be ‘‘seen as a hostile gesture’’ towards the Conservatives.

While Britain’s EU allies were reportedly bemused at the sight of a potential British foreign secretary arguing against a British candidate for Europe’s top job, Downing Street officials were furious. They suggested that the Conservative Party’s recent foreign affairs manoeuvrings were the reason the US government was so unsure about what to expect i f the Tories were elected.

As if to confirm that was the case, Hague also travelled to Washington last week for a meeting with US secretary of state, Hilary Clinton. He reportedly reassured Clinton that the Conservatives’ new coalition partners in Europe were neither neo-Nazi nor anti-Semitic, and that, despite the Conservatives’ Euroscepticism, they would play no less of a role in European affairs.

With the Obama administration’s focus on multilateralism, the US is counting on cooperation from its European allies to deal with issues such as Iran and climate change. With Blair so well-liked on that side of the Atlantic, many US officials believe he would make an ideal EU president.

The Tories will be hoping it’s a bridge they won’t have to cross, but Tory leader David Cameron’s silence on the issue suggests they are not betting against Blair turning over Hague one more time.

Tags:David Cameron, David Miliband, EU ambassadors, Tony Blair, William Hague
Posted in 1. Tony Blair, David Miliband, Foreign Secretary in Gordon Brown's government, from June 2007, Europe/EU/Lisbon Treaty/Full-time President, Iraq inquiry | 3 Comments »

Clive James asks – “What do I know?” (aka – ‘What do YOU know?’)

October 25, 2009

Clive James returns in A Point of View

Comment at end

25th October, 2009

WHAT DO I KNOW?

I have already used two of Mr James’s excellent May editions, on Democracy & the Press, and on western feminists’ failure to stand up for women in non-democratic states, oh, and on Iraq.

In the latest programme, taking as its launch point our attitude towards climate change sceptics and Montaigne’s motto – “What do I know”, James finishes with a pertinent point as regards knowledge and its limitations and prejudices. He may not have necessarily intended that we extend the question away from climate uncertainties. But for me, it extended that way without too much thinking, lateral or otherwise. Ditto, presumably Montaigne and Mr James:

“It might be time to ask yourself if you have not put too much value on your own opinion? The other way of saying ‘what do I know?’ is ‘What do I know?’”

A must read for all British journalists and opiners?

Listen here and read transcript here.

Tags:BBC A Point of View, climate change sceptics, Clive James, Montaigne, radio 4, what do I know?
Posted in 1. Tony Blair, BBC, Broadcast Outlets & Press, Major Political Issues, Britain & World, Press - Truth & Lies, The Independent - Daily Mail - Guardian - British "feral" Press, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Do some “Independent” readers deserve ‘a bullet’?

October 25, 2009

Comment at end

25th October, 2009

SHOOTING THE MESSENGER – aka

STOMACHING BLAIR AS EU PRESIDENT

An Independent Journal commenter said on Tony Blair:

“I’d rather be eaten alive by rats….

…. than see that evil little liar president of anything; the only thing he deserves is a bullet.”

The good news is that since I copied and pasted the above comment from this Independent Journal page, the Indie moderators have seen the light and removed it.

The only reason I repeat it here is to show that the violent and vitriolic enemy is within. And it ain’t Tony Blair!

Put aside for a moment that many times – FAR too many times – have I seen calls for ending the life of the previous Prime Minister in any way possible – put that aside. There is more, FAR more that needs to be edited out by responsible editors and moderators. There is, for instance, the facile and wrong-headed assumption that Mr Blair has already been found guilty of war crimes and of lying to parliament and the country, when he has NOT been so proved.

The Iraq Inquiry is meant to satisfy remaining questions on the legality or otherwise of the Iraq war. If this were a real trial, NONE of the pronouncements of the believed “guilt” of the accused would be allowed in court. In fact it might well invalidate ANY legal case against ANY accused individuals.

But right now as the Iraq Inquiry proceeds the opposite is the case. Our former Prime Minister has already been found guilty by the press, and through them by ‘ public opinion’.

The dullards who repeat these unproven allegations against political decisions and political decision-makers continue to harm their own case by repeating the allegations. How CRAZY are these people? If the day ever comes when the Iraq Inquiry says that there may be questions of legality that a judicial hearing might wish to put before a court, the case would be thrown out as impossible to fairly hold.

WHO, WHERE would the 12 good men and true be found? Not here in Britain.

[Ed: Reference "kill Blair" comments: I have saved many such disgraceful comments (and chosen NOT to republish them.) But their repeated regurgitation particularly online should not go unremarked. Many sites are perfectly happy to leave them online, following their articles which clearly encourage such calls, whilst not including them in their original articles.

The end result is that gullible individuals are left with the impression that it is fine, in fact de rigueur that 'death to Blair' is a good call. IT IS NOT.]

So in the week that members of the Iranian Guard are wiped out by suicide bombers and as Europe still tries to decide whether it needs or wants a figurehead or a person of authority and command as EU Council President, the liberal-minded peace ‘n’ lovers at the Independent continue their Blair-Bashing campaign.

There’s something oddly pitiful about The Independent and its readers. They grasp in vain at any passing straw as they hang on with fingernails to their lifeboat already holed beneath the waterline. Thus it’s “Blair the evil liar, warmonger, war criminal” etcetera, et… blooming … cetera.

The Indie can’t accept that is has already lost this campaign. So, like its partner in crime The Mail it keeps hammering away at the Bury Blair business; dead or alive.

I have no reason to doubt that the ratio of pro-Blairs to anti-Blairs is anything different from what it seems to be in these responses. How could they be anything different, given press bias? Bias against the Iraq war, which I have news for you is proving to have been the RIGHT war and not as they insisted “the wrong war”.

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY

Tony Blair Is NOT a warmonger, NOT a war criminal, NOT a liar, not ANY of the regurgitated nonsense that Independent readers have been taught to believe passes for TRUTH.

I would appreciate, I really WOULD appreciate it if the Independent, the Mail, the Guardian or anything else that passes for a newspaper in Britain would refuse to publish this kind of comment:

I’d rather be eaten alive by rats….

…. than see that evil little liar president of anything; the only thing he deserves is a bullet.

We can assume this commenter was not aiming for a flesh wound.

As soon as THESE “news”papers stop using this kind of comment, I’ll stop republishing their disgraceful commenters.

The Indie’s remaining ‘result’ commenters are jammed full of lies, and misconceptions. If you REALLY want to see for yourself…

The Independent asked: Could you really stomach Tony Blair as EU President? These are your responses – posted by The Independent on Sunday 18th October, 2009

Tags:Iraq inquiry, The Independent, Tony Blair EU President
Posted in 1. Tony Blair, BBC, Broadcast Outlets & Press, Iraq, Iraq inquiry, Major Political Issues, Britain & World, Press - Truth & Lies, The Independent - Daily Mail - Guardian - British "feral" Press | 1 Comment »

Blair for President – Denis MacShane’s Newsweek article

October 24, 2009