Tony Blair: UK may face 'interesting choice' over euro

A._Badger

BobQ wrote: »

No, I think it just demonstrates that those who attack the man and not what he says have no credible arguments on the substantive issues as Littleweedj so eloquently shows.

Guess we will have to agree to differ!

And what about those who attack both the man and what he says?

Let me ask you a question. Do you apply the same standard to, say, Nick Griffin or George Galloway? Do you listen to what they say with an entirely open mind, ready to give due weight to their arguments, however much you know they are wanabe demagogues?

BobQ

A._Badger wrote: »

And what about those who attack both the man and what he says?

Let me ask you a question. Do you apply the same standard to, say, Nick Griffin or George Galloway? Do you listen to what they say with an entirely open mind, ready to give due weight to their arguments, however much you know they are wanabe demagogues?

I try to apply the same standards. I would agree that if you know the policies that someone stands for ( as with Nick Griffin) its sometimes difficult to ignore the behaviour of the man.

I find the vitriol reserved for Blair on here to be rather pathetic. He won three elections, introduced some reforming policies and took some difficult decisions regarding terrorism. People may not like the decisions he made 10 years ago, but calling him an idiot and other juvenile names when he makes a speech rather than arguing he is wrong, or even considering he might be right, is quite childish in my view.

A._Badger

BobQ wrote: »

I try to apply the same standards. I would agree that if you know the policies that someone stands for ( as with Nick Griffin) its sometimes difficult to ignore the behaviour of the man.

It is not the man's policies - it is his character and you cannot divorce the one from the other, whatever the fashion for moral relativism might dictate.

BobQ wrote: »

I find the vitriol reserved for Blair on here to be rather pathetic. He won three elections, introduced some reforming policies and took some difficult decisions regarding terrorism. People may not like the decisions he made 10 years ago, but calling him an idiot and other juvenile names when he makes a speech rather than arguing he is wrong, or even considering he might be right, is quite childish in my view.

So, no doubt, you equally condemn the foam-flecked posters who rail against 'Fatcher'?

You see, I can't help feeling that you are an apologist for a man many people think belongs in the dock. Just off the top of my head, the questions might include: Lakshmi Mitall, Bernie Ecclestone, Campbell, Dr. David Kelly, Iraq, lies over immigration, hypocrisy over private education, lies about his past, dodgy property deals, misleading Parliament over Iraq, preventing the Cabinet from hearing legal advice over same...

With a past like that, why should anyone give a damn what he thinks about the Euro?

Littleweedj

BobQ wrote: »

No, I think it just demonstrates that those who attack the man and not what he says have no credible arguments on the substantive issues as Littleweedj so eloquently shows.

Guess we will have to agree to differ!

Thank you so much for commenting as above. Most kind that you consider me most eloquent.

My comments were short and to the point and I do not think it juvenile to call a man an idiot when he so rightly justifies it.

If you wish more substantive issues - let me count the ways.

"Puppet" to President George Bush (you may not like that comment either but rather relative to him pulling the strings and Blair colluding). Although perhaps Pinnochio would be better suited with regard lies and more lies!

Weapons of Mass Destruction etc. etc. - totally unbelievable to anyone with any intelligence.

Quote by Sir Richard Dalton "made a series of very bad decisions about the legality of the 2003 invasion."

"exaggerated evidence at Iraq inquiry with regard to Iran's role"

Chilcot Enquiry: made no apology for the deaths of tens of thousands of people, both civilians and soldiers.

Peace Envoy to the Middle East - incredible!

Tony Blair - Faith Foundation - words fail me.

I rest my case, but it would be more elequently put by the widows, orphans, mothers, fathers of the young soldiers and civilians killed in a war which never should have been.

John_Pierpoint

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

He's absolutely right about this part.



Again, he's right about that.

The question is, how do you define "part of it"?



Again, absolutely correct.

This is inevitable, eventually. The only question is how we get there.



What's not to take seriously?

-That Europe will eventually integrate fully, as a "United States of Europe" type entity?

Absolutely inevitable in my opinion. The only question is how and when. Nationalism has been a disaster for Europe over the last couple of centuries, so the natural evolution is to a more joined up future.

-That the UK should join the Euro?

Well recent events have reminded us that a country which issues debt in it's own currency, and keeps hold of it's own monetary policy, controls it's own destiny to a far greater extent than those who do not. So I'd suggest joining the Euro is not right for us in the foreseeable future. But Blair is right, eventually there will be a decision to make, and it's not going to be as easy or as clear cut as it seems today.

I think I would prefer to live in Canada than in USA.

So there we have it:
Norway : Canada
Switzerland : Bahamas
Greece : Mexico

hillcats

Why on earth would we want to join the euro?
How about we don't put the UK at a higher risk than needs be.
Long live the pound, I say...

squatlover

We don't want to join the euro, but its too politically incorrect for Blair to be anti European.

BobQ

Littleweedj wrote: »

Thank you so much for commenting as above. Most kind that you consider me most eloquent.

My comments were short and to the point and I do not think it juvenile to call a man an idiot when he so rightly justifies it.

If you wish more substantive issues - let me count the ways.

"Puppet" to President George Bush (you may not like that comment either but rather relative to him pulling the strings and Blair colluding). Although perhaps Pinnochio would be better suited with regard lies and more lies!

Weapons of Mass Destruction etc. etc. - totally unbelievable to anyone with any intelligence.

Quote by Sir Richard Dalton "made a series of very bad decisions about the legality of the 2003 invasion."

"exaggerated evidence at Iraq inquiry with regard to Iran's role"

Chilcot Enquiry: made no apology for the deaths of tens of thousands of people, both civilians and soldiers.

Peace Envoy to the Middle East - incredible!

Tony Blair - Faith Foundation - words fail me.

I rest my case, but it would be more elequently put by the widows, orphans, mothers, fathers of the young soldiers and civilians killed in a war which never should have been.

Well at least these are arguments as to why you do not agree with Blair! Does it follow that what he said about the euro is flawed?

BobQ

A._Badger wrote: »

So, no doubt, you equally condemn the foam-flecked posters who rail against 'Fatcher'?

Well I have to agree that she raised hackles in a lot of people too, but the same argument applies.

A._Badger wrote: »

You see, I can't help feeling that you are an apologist for a man many people think belongs in the dock. Just off the top of my head, the questions might include: Lakshmi Mitall, Bernie Ecclestone, Campbell, Dr. David Kelly, Iraq, lies over immigration, hypocrisy over private education, lies about his past, dodgy property deals, misleading Parliament over Iraq, preventing the Cabinet from hearing legal advice over same...

You may see it that way but I do not claim Blair never made mistakes, he did, but much of the criticism leveled is done with the benefit of hindsight and some is just unfair.

A._Badger wrote: »

With a past like that, why should anyone give a damn what he thinks about the Euro?

That's the point, if the arguments are so easily countered why "play the man"? Lets agree to disagree!

Littleweedj

BobQ wrote: »

Well at least these are arguments as to why you do not agree with Blair! Does it follow that what he said about the euro is flawed?

Yes I think it does follow. Blair has clearly shown he has no credibility and therefore am not in the least interested about his views on the euro. I would rather gain information from other reliable sources (although aware that is a big ask at the moment).