Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Blair. watch

  • View Poll Results: Blair?
    I like him.
    34.48%
    I don't like him.
    58.62%
    I have no opinion of him.
    6.90%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DemonDemonic)
    He’ll stay until he beats Thatchers record, I think he might go the day after and I think that’s sometime in 2008.
    I think that's his dream.

    She went in the November of her 11th year so if Blair gets his way he'll be in Downing Street until December 2008. The funny thing is that Thatcher will still be the longest serving Prime Minister of the 20th Century and Blair will only have eight years in the 21st.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DemonDemonic)
    He’ll stay until he beats Thatchers record, I think he might go the day after and I think that’s sometime in 2008.
    Yes I know, its a bit of an ego thing for him to beat Thatcher but in my opinion we need Brown to step in sooner rather than later.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by technik)
    i liked major. a man you could just trust - even when he lied. you cant trust blair even when hes being truthful.
    I agree, major was a good man, too bad about his cabinet

    Anyway, Blair, what a c*ck
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dhesi)
    Yes I know, its a bit of an ego thing for him to beat Thatcher but in my opinion we need Brown to step in sooner rather than later.
    I understand where your coming from but why do we need Brown sooner rather than later? The bad council election result can’t be helped and it’s quite likely where going to win the next general election anyway. When Blair goes there will be a leadership election for 6 or so months Labour will get completely biased coverage like the conservatives did, who ever wins will hold a quickie general election on the height of New Labour popularity. Not fair but that’s what is going to happen. Taking that into conciderration why does Blair need to go sooner rather than later. New Labour is about 3points clear of the conservatives in terms of popularity, why rock the boat? Kick him out whern the tory's are 3 points in front lol. :confused:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Tony personally - is a cool chap.

    Politically however, he could be Mother Teresa and still be hated.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dhesi)
    He has faults but he's been a good Prime Minister. The time has come for Brown to take over I think.
    Oh yes. He'll be great for the country.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Oh yes. He'll be great for the country.
    My only question is which one?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Salt and Sauce)
    I disagree: when Blair surrendered £1 billion from the British EU rebate, he did so while getting nothing concrete in return. Whether the rebate should or shouldn't have been given up is open to debate, but the fact that he gave it up in return for nothing is certainly not making 'good representation' on behalf of the U.K.
    Oh go and read up on a topic will you?

    In December 2005 the UK agreed to give up approximately 20% of the rebate for the period 2007-2013, on condition that the funds did not contribute to CAP payments, were matched by other countries contributions and were only for the new member states.

    Edit: Look on page 35. Do try to understand an issue before parroting out Daily Mail headlines, catchy though they may be.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnny)
    Oh go and read up on a topic will you?

    In December 2005 the UK agreed to give up approximately 20% of the rebate for the period 2007-2013, on condition that the funds did not contribute to CAP payments, were matched by other countries contributions and were only for the new member states.

    Edit: Look on page 35. Do try to understand an issue before parroting out Daily Mail headlines, catchy though they may be.
    erm, i believe the 'nothing' that 'Salt and Sauce' was refering to was the vast amount of money given to french farmers. Tony Blair originally said that the rebate would not be negotiated away. Indeed, Blair said that the rebate would only be negotiated if large concessions were made when it came to the CAP . He was also keen to point out that, even with the rebate, England still had the moral high ground when it came to a comparison between the contributions given to the EU by England and France.

    There is no way to describe the rebate situation other than as a loss. Even by Blair's own criteria, he failed to meet the only condition he claimed would lead to the renegotiation of the rebate. Though we have actually given up our rebate, it is not inevitable that the CAP will be reformed. Thus, even the fact that our rebate won't go towards still represents a major climb-down. Also, I was under the impression that tony Blair was elected by the people of Britain? would that not logically mean that he is there to protect the interests of the British people? As much as the new member states might need that money, it was originally intended for the UK. The fact that it is now heading somewhere else is a big failure on Tony Blair's part. Especially since other EU nations are so quick to viciously defend their own interests.

    Personally, i don't see how anyone can like Tony Blair. Although he's a strong leader when it comes to bullying small Middle Eastern tyrants (with the help of a super power), I don't trust him to negotiate with anyone who has a similar level of political/economic clout. Labour's domestic policies are also seem to have been constructed by spin doctors, and built around lies. Too many people unemployed? Simply make young people not count anymore! Too many people failing exams? Simply make the exams easy enough for everyone to pass! Too many people on doctor's waiting lists? simply scrap waiting lists! True, these innovations may make the country head down the toilet at an alarming rate...but hey, on paper our statistics mean we have the best education, employment and national health services in the entire world! Who cares about the real problems...the statistics should shut Cameron up come PMQ's!

    If that's not bad enough, lets look at a small quote from Tony at te 1995 labour conference shall we:

    "…instead of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on compulsory ID cards as the Tory Right demand, let that money provide thousands of extra police officers on the beat in our local communities."

    I think that says it all, doesn't it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnny)
    Oh go and read up on a topic will you?

    In December 2005 the UK agreed to give up approximately 20% of the rebate for the period 2007-2013, on condition that the funds did not contribute to CAP payments, were matched by other countries contributions and were only for the new member states.

    Edit: Look on page 35. Do try to understand an issue before parroting out Daily Mail headlines, catchy though they may be.
    So. What.

    The point I made is that giving up the rebate entitled Blair to request something substantial in return, and he should have ensured that serious review of the CAP (for several reasons) was done in exchange. He got no such thing. I really don't see why that led to your wailing at me.

    All Blair got was:
    "The European Commission is asked to hold a "full and wide-ranging" review of all EU spending, including the Common Agricultural Policy and the British rebate, and to draw up a report in 2008/9. EU governments will be able to take decisions on all subjects covered by the review - but will also be able to wield their veto."
    And how likely are France, for instance, going to be to use their veto against something that isn't to their best interests? Very, because their governments are good at representing their national interests. He got a promise of some vague review, which future governments with an interest in the CAP can take or leave as they choose. It was an especially easy promise for Chirac to accede to, as he will be retiring before any such review is completed, and his successor should not feel too bound to keep any promise that they themselves hadn't made.

    Incidentally, if you're going to cut-and-paste your arguments from Wikipedia, then at least have the honesty to credit them: that is where your post content came from (excluding the peeing on the floor at the top and tail of it), as did your link.

    (Original post by Johnny)
    In December 2005 the UK agreed to give up approximately 20% of the rebate for the period 2007-2013, on condition that the funds did not contribute to CAP payments, were matched by other countries contributions and were only for the new member states.
    (Original post by Wikipedia)
    In December 2005 the UK agreed to give up approximately 20% of the rebate for the period 2007-2013, on condition that the funds did not contribute to CAP payments, were matched by other countries contributions and were only for the new member states. Spending on the CAP remained fixed, as had previously been agreed. Overall, this reduced the proportion of the budget spent on the CAP. It was agreed that the European Commission should conduct a full review of all EU spending.
    I'm not at all surprised that you cut out the last bit, though: it kind of shows how weak your argument is, and that the actual result of the affair was that the rebate had been given up in return for nothing concrete at all. And whether Britain's money does or doesn't get put into the CAP is irrelevant, given that the total size of it stays the same.

    Another thing: would someone who "parrots Daily Mail headlines" really have said: "Whether the rebate should or shouldn't have been given up is open to debate"? Stupid boy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Salt and Sauce)
    So. What.

    The point I made is that giving up the rebate entitled Blair to request something substantial in return, and he should have ensured that serious review of the CAP (for several reasons) was done in exchange. He got no such thing. I really don't see why that led to your wailing at me.
    I think its worth stressing that Blair himself said that the rebate would only be negotiated if concessions were made with the CAP. Its not like we're forcing some small-minded right-wing criteria on him, HE set the criteria for what would be a successful negotiation. HE failed to meet it!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Salt and Sauce)
    So. What.

    The point I made is that giving up the rebate entitled Blair to request something substantial in return, and he should have ensured that serious review of the CAP (for several reasons) was done in exchange. He got no such thing. I really don't see why that led to your wailing at me.

    All Blair got was:
    "The European Commission is asked to hold a "full and wide-ranging" review of all EU spending, including the Common Agricultural Policy and the British rebate, and to draw up a report in 2008/9. EU governments will be able to take decisions on all subjects covered by the review - but will also be able to wield their veto."
    And how likely are France, for instance, going to be to use their veto against something that isn't to their best interests? Very, because their governments are good at representing their national interests. He got a promise of some vague review, which future governments with an interest in the CAP can take or leave as they choose. It was an especially easy promise for Chirac to accede to, as he will be retiring before any such review is completed, and his successor should not feel too bound to keep any promise that they themselves hadn't made.

    Incidentally, if you're going to cut-and-paste your arguments from Wikipedia, then at least have the honesty to credit them: that is where your post content came from (excluding the peeing on the floor at the top and tail of it), as did your link.





    I'm not at all surprised that you cut out the last bit, though: it kind of shows how weak your argument is, and that the actual result of the affair was that the rebate had been given up in return for nothing concrete at all. And whether Britain's money does or doesn't get put into the CAP is irrelevant, given that the total size of it stays the same.

    Another thing: would someone who "parrots Daily Mail headlines" really have said: "Whether the rebate should or shouldn't have been given up is open to debate"? Stupid boy.
    You claimed that Blair gave up the section of the rebate that he did for "nothing".

    Evidently this is not the case, regardless of whether what I posted came from wikipedia or not. In fact for this issue, wikipedia is far more accurate than my memory. And yours too apparently.

    I don't care about Blair's original aims and I'm certainly not defending him or his performance in Europe; I'm not that big a fan really.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dhesi)
    Yes I know, its a bit of an ego thing for him to beat Thatcher but in my opinion we need Brown to step in sooner rather than later.
    i agree. the longer brown is at the helm before the next election the better. people will return to the tories in massive numbers once they see the socialist babbling of brown.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnny)
    You claimed that Blair gave up the section of the rebate that he did for "nothing".

    Evidently this is not the case, regardless of whether what I posted came from wikipedia or not. In fact for this issue, wikipedia is far more accurate than my memory. And yours too apparently.

    I don't care about Blair's original aims and I'm certainly not defending him or his performance in Europe; I'm not that big a fan really.
    Well, as far as I am concerned, what he brought back from the diplomatic table in exchange for the rebate was 'nothing'. A promise to possibly change things at some unspecified point in the future; a promise that won't have to be held by many of those that made it; a promise that is subject to national veto...that to me sounds like a whole lot of nothing. What did he really bring back for the nation he was representing in exchange for the rebate?

    To use the obvious example, it's like saying that what Neville Chamberlain brought back from Munich was anything other than nothing. 'But he had a guarantee!' Sure.
    When it comes to the crunch, saying 'Oh, but you promised me!' will get you nothing. You can't bargain unless you have something to bargain with.

    (Now, please don't think for a minute that I view the EU as being in any way whatsoever similar to the nation relevant to my example: absolutely not at all, in no way. But it's the most well-known example: I could talk about Stalin's guarantees of free Polish elections, or basically anything promised by the East India Company to the Nawab of Oudh, but that would just be using more obscure examples for no good reason.
    Plus, if it wasn't for the fact that I live in the country, and hence the economy, that got the short end of the stick from this, I would have been really quite amused seeing Chirac manipulate Blair as skilfully as he did. I'm not hostile to Europe in the slightest: but giving away something for nothing is just stupid. )

    Anyway, if you want to be precise about it: Blair did bring something back from the negotiations. Something that was worth nothing. Hence why I say it was given up for nothing. But I don't expect either of us can really be bothered to debate what we each mean when we say 'nothing' in this context.

    I'm perfectly happy for you to use Wikipedia all you like, by all means. Just don't pass it off as being your own (assuming you didn't actually write the article yourself, and even then you'd have to provide a source for that). It's just a bit rich to criticise people for -supposedly- not knowing what they're talking about, then make a reply that is entirely (and selectively) cut-and-pasted from someone else's knowledge.

    You say that you don't care what his original position was: hey, fair enough. But he should have: and that is the basis on which I am criticising him here. Someone else has already said it, so I don't have to:

    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
    I think its worth stressing that Blair himself said that the rebate would only be negotiated if concessions were made with the CAP. Its not like we're forcing some small-minded right-wing criteria on him, HE set the criteria for what would be a successful negotiation. HE failed to meet it!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cuth)
    I agree, major was a good man, too bad about his cabinet

    Anyway, Blair, what a c*ck
    indeed, if major had been able to get a workable majority and had been better at controlling some of the muppets in the cabinet then i reckon he'd have lasted easily into this century. why? he was grey and a tad dour and not very charismatic but you knew he was an intelligent and thoughtful man. with blair i just see photo opportunities and arrogance.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by technik)
    you knew he was an intelligent and thoughtful man. with blair i just see photo opportunities and arrogance.
    Well he's hardly a fool is he though?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by technik)
    indeed, if major had been able to get a workable majority and had been better at controlling some of the muppets in the cabinet then i reckon he'd have lasted easily into this century. why? he was grey and a tad dour and not very charismatic but you knew he was an intelligent and thoughtful man. with blair i just see photo opportunities and arrogance.
    I agree, I think Major would have been a great PM circumstances permitting and was a very trustworthy person who seemed to care, none of which can be said about Blair.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    Well he's hardly a fool is he though?
    blair is in the labour party...

    can't get much more foolish really, lets be honest
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Blair hasn't particularly impressed me on the international scene, but I can't imagine Brown (or Red, as he should be known) or Cameron (although I do respect the guy) doing much better. Esp. if Cameron's move in the European Parliament takes places - it may be seen as a bit of a personal insult to some European States.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Both Blair and Brown are corrupt, manipulative *******s who are destroying this nation. And my laptop battery is about to die so I'm not going to elaborate.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 21, 2006
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.