1.000 Migrants Since Christmas Day
News2 mins ago
St Tony Slapped Down With 1 Tweet By The Guvnor...
49 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Because Tony wants one now before we implement the the current position. I'm talking about UKIP and their reason for existing and that I would expect them to continue as a party and perhaps secure another referendum in a generations time. These decisions are a generational thing. Who knows, if the EU survives, future voters may vote to join again but for now this generation has decided to leave.
Blair makes a very good case as a matter of fact. Unfortunately he makes it too well almost. And he is really only preaching to the converted. There is sadly no persuasive figure who can get after the people that matter. Only an economic argument will work and if there is going to be an issue there it’ll only happen after the Brexit has occurred.
ichmeria - // Blair makes a very good case as a matter of fact.//
It is a simple fact that whatever case Tony Blair makes for anything under the sun will forever be tainted by who he is, and what he has done.
He is a liar and a warmonger, and I wouldn't trust him to walk my dog around the block.
Even my imaginary dog, because I don't actually have a dog!!
It is a simple fact that whatever case Tony Blair makes for anything under the sun will forever be tainted by who he is, and what he has done.
He is a liar and a warmonger, and I wouldn't trust him to walk my dog around the block.
Even my imaginary dog, because I don't actually have a dog!!
It's true he is tainted, but that should not blind us to what he has to say on issues (faint hope there)
A referendum on a deal would be a good idea. He could hardly be accused of being "undemocratic" there. Arguably that is more "democratic" than leaving it to parliament, which in turn is more democratic than leaving it to the government.
Democracy doesn't stop dead with a single vote as some would have us believe.
A referendum on a deal would be a good idea. He could hardly be accused of being "undemocratic" there. Arguably that is more "democratic" than leaving it to parliament, which in turn is more democratic than leaving it to the government.
Democracy doesn't stop dead with a single vote as some would have us believe.
ichkeria - // A referendum on a deal would be a good idea. He could hardly be accused of being "undemocratic" there. Arguably that is more "democratic" than leaving it to parliament, which in turn is more democratic than leaving it to the government. //
Mr Blair only wants a new referendum because he doesn't like the result of the first one.
Democracy works on a voting system, not 'best of three'.
I didn't notice him asking for a referendum before taking us into an unwinnable war, or asking for another one when it was clear he had made a fatal mistake with the first one.
You could go to the people seven days a week to ask them to consider this or that - we elect a government to make those decisions for us, and on incredibly rare occasions, we are asked to vote on a specific issue.
The fact that it was requested by a PM who was sure he would win, and the lost and slunk away never to be heard of again, does not negate the result.
At least Mr Cameron has the good grace to realise that his view is no longer wanted or needed - a pity Mr Blair cannot develop the same sense of humility and keep quiet.
Mr Blair only wants a new referendum because he doesn't like the result of the first one.
Democracy works on a voting system, not 'best of three'.
I didn't notice him asking for a referendum before taking us into an unwinnable war, or asking for another one when it was clear he had made a fatal mistake with the first one.
You could go to the people seven days a week to ask them to consider this or that - we elect a government to make those decisions for us, and on incredibly rare occasions, we are asked to vote on a specific issue.
The fact that it was requested by a PM who was sure he would win, and the lost and slunk away never to be heard of again, does not negate the result.
At least Mr Cameron has the good grace to realise that his view is no longer wanted or needed - a pity Mr Blair cannot develop the same sense of humility and keep quiet.
ichkeria - // And the "liar and warmonger" stuff is nonsense. You may disagree with the Iraq war (I certainly did) but we need to be careful how we bandy these words around, Trump-like, because it stifles proper debate. //
I hardly think that stating two facts about a has-been is going to 'stifle debate'. The statements that Blair is a liar and a warmonger are made by many apart from me - and that does not make them untrue.
If I thought Mr Blair had a valid point about Brexit, I would not let his shameful blood-soaked premiership divert me from the value of what he is saying. The truth is, he is out of mainstream politics, and should stay out of it - his opinion is not required, or valid.
I hardly think that stating two facts about a has-been is going to 'stifle debate'. The statements that Blair is a liar and a warmonger are made by many apart from me - and that does not make them untrue.
If I thought Mr Blair had a valid point about Brexit, I would not let his shameful blood-soaked premiership divert me from the value of what he is saying. The truth is, he is out of mainstream politics, and should stay out of it - his opinion is not required, or valid.
Blair doesn't want to re-run the referendum though.
He - and others and I am not sure if that includes me - think it would be a good idea to have second referendum on the terms of the deal. I don't think that is outlandish.
The terms "liar" and "warmonger" are emotive and that is why they tend to stifle debate by polarising opinion immediately. There is no evidence whatever that Blair "lied" about WMD or indeed anything else. Disturbing lack of judgment maybe, blind faith in Bush possibly, but actual lies?
He - and others and I am not sure if that includes me - think it would be a good idea to have second referendum on the terms of the deal. I don't think that is outlandish.
The terms "liar" and "warmonger" are emotive and that is why they tend to stifle debate by polarising opinion immediately. There is no evidence whatever that Blair "lied" about WMD or indeed anything else. Disturbing lack of judgment maybe, blind faith in Bush possibly, but actual lies?
"The truth is, he is out of mainstream politics, and should stay out of it - his opinion is not required, or valid. "
You think he should stay out of the debate because you don't agree with him??!
I for one happen to diagree profoundly with Nigel Farage but I certainly wouldn't want him out of the political arena. On the contrary in fact.
You think he should stay out of the debate because you don't agree with him??!
I for one happen to diagree profoundly with Nigel Farage but I certainly wouldn't want him out of the political arena. On the contrary in fact.
It may be a good idea to have a second referendum once the terms of the deal are known.
What definitely isn't a good idea at this point is to even raise the possibility that we may have a second referendum, because that would change the basis of the negotiations and make it likely that we're offered the worst possible exit deal.
We have to present the united front that we're leaving no matter what.
What definitely isn't a good idea at this point is to even raise the possibility that we may have a second referendum, because that would change the basis of the negotiations and make it likely that we're offered the worst possible exit deal.
We have to present the united front that we're leaving no matter what.
ichkeria - // "The truth is, he is out of mainstream politics, and should stay out of it - his opinion is not required, or valid. "
You think he should stay out of the debate because you don't agree with him??! //
If I thought he should stay out of the debate because I don't agree with him, my post would have said -
"He should stay out of the debate because I don't agree with him."
What my post did say was -
"The truth is, he is out of mainstream politics, and should stay out of it - his opinion is not required, or valid."
That's because I think he is out of mainstream politics and his opinion is not required or valid.
You think he should stay out of the debate because you don't agree with him??! //
If I thought he should stay out of the debate because I don't agree with him, my post would have said -
"He should stay out of the debate because I don't agree with him."
What my post did say was -
"The truth is, he is out of mainstream politics, and should stay out of it - his opinion is not required, or valid."
That's because I think he is out of mainstream politics and his opinion is not required or valid.
“Only an economic argument will work…”
It won’t work with me or most people I know, Ikky. What you are effectively saying is that you are prepared to sell your country’s independence for thirty pieces of silver. It should not be for sale at any price.
“A referendum on a deal would be a good idea.”
Sure. If you could tell me what happens if the “deal” is rejected.
There is little doubt, judging by the way the “first round” of the discussions went, that any final deal that the EU will agree to will not be remotely in the UK’s best interests. There will be no compromises. The EU does not do compromises. So what happens if a totally unacceptable deal is rejected by the electorate? The problem I have, of course, is that I trust the electorate to reject such a deal far more than I trust the government to do so. But unless I know what the answer to my earlier question is, I cannot support a referendum on the “deal”.
It won’t work with me or most people I know, Ikky. What you are effectively saying is that you are prepared to sell your country’s independence for thirty pieces of silver. It should not be for sale at any price.
“A referendum on a deal would be a good idea.”
Sure. If you could tell me what happens if the “deal” is rejected.
There is little doubt, judging by the way the “first round” of the discussions went, that any final deal that the EU will agree to will not be remotely in the UK’s best interests. There will be no compromises. The EU does not do compromises. So what happens if a totally unacceptable deal is rejected by the electorate? The problem I have, of course, is that I trust the electorate to reject such a deal far more than I trust the government to do so. But unless I know what the answer to my earlier question is, I cannot support a referendum on the “deal”.
"What you are effectively saying is that you are prepared to sell your country’s independence for thirty pieces of silver. It should not be for sale at any price. "
More emotive language NJ: everyone wants what is best for the country and themselves. The Remain side assumed people would vote to cut their losses economically and that consquently the economic argument would trump (eugh) the immigration/expense/sovereignty one. That didn't work because in the minds of a signigicant number of voters, at least two out of the latter three were tightly connected to the former one. That connection of course will almost certainly break, and not necessarily bwcause the economy must necessarily go down the pan: it may not and hopefully won't.
I do find it disappointing that there is so much attempt to stifle debate by saying: "the people have spoken/he's irrelevant/she shouldn't say that" etc etc. Luckily, no one pays any attention :-)
More emotive language NJ: everyone wants what is best for the country and themselves. The Remain side assumed people would vote to cut their losses economically and that consquently the economic argument would trump (eugh) the immigration/expense/sovereignty one. That didn't work because in the minds of a signigicant number of voters, at least two out of the latter three were tightly connected to the former one. That connection of course will almost certainly break, and not necessarily bwcause the economy must necessarily go down the pan: it may not and hopefully won't.
I do find it disappointing that there is so much attempt to stifle debate by saying: "the people have spoken/he's irrelevant/she shouldn't say that" etc etc. Luckily, no one pays any attention :-)
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.