**feigned shock and horror** http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2824447.stm Shouldn't Tony be honest (for a change, if nothing else) and just say: "I'm going to do whatever Dubya tells me to do" At least then it would remove the pretence of an independent British foreign policy, and we could then elect a couple of senators and a few dozen congressmen instead of MPs, Heck, Tony might even fancy becoming the first British President of the United States. After all, Thomas Friedman said a week or so ago that the Democrats could do a lot worse than giving Blair a green card.
the question is, why is it so bad for Britain to back the United States? is it too hard for the British people to swallow. personally, i think blair is being sincere and doing what he thinks is the right thing, why else would he? it's political suicide.
Re: Re: Blair changes his policy on Iraq Why is it political suicide? Because he is going against the will of the people in his country. He is chosing to follow the policy of GWB over the citizens that he represents.
i mean apparently blair is taking a lot of flack from his people, the press and his party. personally, i think he is a man with conviction, but i'm sure i'll be blasted for that b/c after all, he is friend with the "bushies" and we all know the "bushies" and "blairies" have never done anything right.
Because it isn't our national interest to be associating ourselves with Bush's crusade(s) in the Middle East. England ended up in the brown stuff the last time they tried that, Sure, he looks sincere. Sincerely wrong. I doubt his sincerity though. (comes with bitter experience, you see) I suspect there are alterior motives. He doesn't want to sign up to the "fortress Europe" ideal that France and Germany are proposing. So Iraq may just be another front in that war over the future of Europe. There are also domestic political considerations. Sure, it looks like political suicide presently given what is happening to his ratings. But:- 1) along as he has some sort of mandate from the UN (1441 + most elected members agreeing to war resolution), he can hold the Labour party together. The rebellion was large, but there is no serious suggestion yet of a coup. That would only happen if a war went badly. 2) He gives the Tories no room to criticise him, making them look even more incompetent and impotent. 3) He exposes the Liberals to criticism from the authoritarian media. 4) He has probably calculated that he can't actually stop Bush from going to war. Therefore, I think Blair has decided he might as well go along with Bush, so that he can make sure that Bush doesn't cause too much damage (ie doesn't balls up post-Saddam Iraq, doesn't scrap/ignore the UN completely, and so on). 5) He has also probably assessed that the chances of the US winning (very?) quickly in Iraq are pretty large. It would make him look clever if he is closely associated with a military victory. (this is the vain element of Blair creeping in here)
well it doesn't seem that he wants to be part of europe, so why is this the wrong move for him politically?
It is the right move for him politically, so long as the war doesn't go badly. Problem is that is the wrong move as far as the national interest is concerned. The malevolent side of me thinks that the US getting involved in lots of wars on its own would be good for us. After all, this could only weaken the US, which would surely benefit the second tier of powers. There may be some risks in this, but we would have to compensate for these by:- forcing the continental Europeans (particularly the Germans) to increase their own defence spending. It might also force a more integrated European defence and foreign policy, since we could no longer take our lead from the US. This would give Europe, as a whole, greater influence in the world. This would be good for the British national interest. Presently, we are only a small influence on the larger juggernaut. Being a key part of a strong Europe in a multi-polar world (US, EU, China, India, Russia?, Brazil?) would give us more power.
Here's the thing -- if Bush would share even a small percentage of the "secret intelligence" that they say that they've collected on weapons and whatnot, Blair and likely the other permanent members would have almost no choice but to vote for this new resolution (even if none of them committed troops to any action). The fact that the US won't share means that we're either paranoid or lying.
but if the British don't join the EU and all the stuff about the US you said above does happen, where does that leave britain?
We are in the EU - the problem is that we never seem capable of deciding how much we want to involve ourselves. My hope would be that in my scenario we would be a key part of the EU. The problem with Blair's policy is that if it goes wrong, the power of France and Germany within the EU will strengthen too much, which is not a good thing. It would also be hard for our relations to be healed in the short term, while the current leaders are still in power.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1991214.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk_politics/2522931.stm Blair: Prepare for a 'new Europe' Tony Blair has outlined a blueprint for reform of the European Union aimed at making it stronger and more democratic. In a keynote speech in Cardiff the prime minister called for more powers for European institutions and a new fixed presidency for the EU to help increase Europe's prestige in the world. Key points EU a bigger force in world Not a federal "superstate" More majority voting Creation of European "team presidency" Strengthen foreign policy Overhaul defence policy Adopt European constitution He said enlargement of the EU would create "a new Europe", making the time right for sweeping reforms. (...) He said Europe must become a partner of the US - not its "servant or its rival".
Well, technically correct. Since the EUs inception. But not since the beginning proper. We came in in the early 70's. The Treaty of Rome (1957) is where you want to look for the usual suspects (France, West Germany) Had a few incarnations. The Common Market; the EEC, the EC and now the EU. I'm sure the only need for the huge numbers of Eurocrats is to occasionally come up with new names and appropriate acronyms. And don't forget there was a proposal for the forthcoming 'United States of Europe', so these people are still working hard obviously.
Fair enough. http://www.eurunion.org/infores/euguide/milestones.htm January 1, 1973 Denmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom join the (European Economic) Community. The guy I was replying to wrote "but if the British don't join the EU and all the stuff about the US you said above does happen, where does that leave britain? " Implying that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is not currently part of the EU. It is, and it has been for 30 years.
We wanted to be member before that, but the sweaty French stopped us. Tony Blair is definetely a pro-European, the only thing he wants is radical reform, he now even wants a full time President of EU.