Boris Johnson

I used to vote Labour, post Blair no one.

And while we're quoting try this -

“For every idealistic peacemaker willing to renounce his self-defence in favour of a weapons-free world, there is at least one warmaker anxious to exploit the other’s good intentions.

I believe Quigley was a convicted IRA member.
Blokes a *****.

There are none so blind.

 

So you voted for Blair's Labour...


The Bush–Blair 2003 Iraq memo or 'Manning' memo is a secret memo of a two-hour meeting between American President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair that took place on 31 January 2003 at the White House. It purportedly shows that at that point the Bush administration had already decided on the US invasion of Iraq. The memo was written by Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time David Manning, who participated in the meeting.

It is controversial for its content, which includes discussing ways to provoke Saddam Hussein into a confrontation, with Bush floating the idea of painting a U-2 spyplane in United Nations colors and letting it fly low over Iraq to provoke Iraq into shooting it down, thus providing a pretext for America and Britain's subsequent invasion.

It also shows George W. Bush and Tony Blair making a secret deal to carry out the invasion 'regardless' of whether weapons of mass destruction were discovered by UN weapons inspectors, in direct contradiction to statements made by Blair to Parliament afterwards that Saddam would be given a final chance to disarm.

In the memo, Bush is paraphrased as saying: 'The start date for the military campaign was now pencilled in for 10 March.'

Bush also said to Blair that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups" in Iraq after the war. Five pages long, and classified as extremely sensitive, the existence of the memo was first alleged by Philippe Sands in his book Lawless World (2005). It was then obtained by American newspaper The New York Times, which confirmed its authenticity.

Tony Blair took us into an unjust 'war' on a sovereign nation, where nearly half a million Iraqis were killed. And just as Corbyn predicted when he gave his speech the day a million people marched in protest through London, invading Iraq would 'set off a spiral of conflict, hate and misery that will fuel the wars of the future'.

 

Except that Parliament voted in favour of military action by 412 to 149. Without that vote, Blair would not have undertaken military action and would have resigned as Prime Minister. So is it fair to say that "Blair took us into an unjust war" or would it be fairer to say that Parliament voted in favour of war? The evidence, mistaken though we now know it was, was placed in the House of Commons Library. MP's were able to read it and form their own view. They did so, and voted in favour. If they did not read it, then they have greater questions to answer. Alan Johnson, who I regard as a man of integrity says " These were honest disagreements, pursued openly in serious debate. Tony Blair didn't lie; neither did he break the law." I tend to agree with him.

 

If anybody thinks Boris is on our side. God help to them. Add to him anyone I've seen who is running for the Tory leadership, who are going to be elected by a set of out of touch people. Politics in this country is on it's arse, as the old two party system & first past the post doesn't work. As much as I hate the Brexit party winning the most seats in the European election, it was a fair result, but it won't translate to votes at a GE. The idea of taking back control has thus fallen on it's arse.

 

The information was dodgy & it was covered up. I get your point on a Parliamentiary majority though, which is the Brexit problem. I'm remain, but if May's deal had been passed i'd have accepted it, despite thinking it was hugely flawed. Truth is there is no majority in parliament. Boris's plan is to run down the clock & bypass parliament.

 

My point is that the information was made available in the House Of Commons Library, so I don't think it was covered up from those who needed to know, and who made the decision. The decision may (or may not) have been wrong, but can we truly say that it is a decision that could not have honestly been made in the light of what was known then?

Boris would face the problem that Parliament has twice voted against 'no deal', and that the Speaker has already indicated he would facilitate a further opportunity for 'no deal' to be made illegal. But if Boris nevertheless succeeds, then once his 'no deal' was actioned, his first job would be to have to start trade negotiations with Europe if he wanted the planes to fly, the criminals to be monitored and the medicines to still be imported freely. He would clearly not then be starting from a position of strength. There would without doubt be a further period of uncertainty measuring years, not months, which would undermine our functioning and prosperity. Before the brexiteers scream "Project Fear!", that doesn't have to be disastrous to still be a serious, serious ball-acher.

 

I was one of over a million marchers around the country. The best Labour MPs resigned the front bench & Labour was tory party lite from there on.

 

Boris is what now? Who said that JP? Suppose they think Farage is as well.

 

"On our side", is what I said. Lots of people think Farage is on our side. I have to disagree.

 

This is brilliant. Thank you!

 

I totally respect your position, JP. But can you list those "best" front bench MP's who resigned?

And Tory-lite or not, you have a Labour Leader winning by 179 (1997), 167 (2001) and 66 (2005), which election came after the Iraq War was launched. Brown, Cameron and May would all have killed for a 66-seat majority. If politics is the art of the possible, don't you have to get elected first? And doesn't that involve the sort of compromise that wins over those who might not normally be your natural supporters? Or is it better to rejoice in your ideological purity while never gaining a sniff of power?

 

Did he? Seems a little odd. Do you have a link?

 

I love quotes. I now realise it was far more complex than that! I was there - Desert Storm they called it! lost 2 friends in a tornado! I was also manning a key gate with other nationalities when the Saudis suggested our life expectancy would be reduced should the Iraqi forces move in. What about the British and Americans whose lives where cut short - shame they couldn’t make political protests. Someone always picks up the bill!

 

You mean the optional common currency we chose not to join?

As for the common fisheries policy - it's a long way from responsible for the ills of the fishing industry. Firstly fishing limits are responsible for most of the decline in catches - and for a good reason too. Historic fishing levels were unsustainable.
Secondly - our government sells our quota to foreigners.
Thirdly - the EU try to give an advantage to smaller local fishing industries - it aims to protect small suppliers - the UK govt ignores this - as always, big business is more important to the UK than a diverse economy.
Finally - how on earth are we supposed to protect the UK fishing industry when our representative never turns up for meetings - because he has no interest in seeing it succeed - he'd rather it fail so he can blame the EU.

And the common market always had plans to be more than a trading block, go and read up on the literature produced in 1975 (and earlier), we've got to a point where we have forgotten the reason for the EU - this is the longest period of time without a major war in Europe. Breaking up the EU and giving in to nationalist tendencies - has an inevitable outcome.

 

Boris would face the problem that Parliament has twice voted against 'no deal', and that the Speaker has already indicated he would facilitate a further opportunity for 'no deal' to be made illegal.
^^^^ This. Sooner or later enough MP's are going to be brave enough to say they are going to do what they think is best for the country rather than what the referendum result said should be done. This will initiate either a general election or a second referendum. Turkeys voting for Christmas, yes in some circumstances but as has been said earlier, MP's aren't elected to necessarily carry out the "will "of the People but to do what they think is right for the country.

 

Yes I did, after the Thatcher years I, along with millions of others really believed that “things can only get better “ I didn't vote again. I wont vote for Corbyn horrible barsteward with horrible politics, as hated as the tories were I think it speaks volumes about what a pr!cj he is when he invited the ira to tea at aWestminster just after the Brighton bombings. Horrible commie tool.

 

You, like eye, are of the older generation. I want to have a reasoned debate on what we do & not Boris doing a NO DEAL.

 

Look up Maria Gartland, who was active in the IRA and is now a Tory councillor.