Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
This might have made sense in 2001, but in 2007 it's more of a stretch. Blair could presumably say whatever he wants to say now. The US hardly in a position to attempt a hatchet job on the UK economy, so he could easily have come out and thrown Bush off the cliff. This would be the honourable thing to do now, and is probably the only way Blair can redeem himself.

My guess is either some other form of blackmail - Blair's background is unlikely to be completely squeaky clean, and a few whiffs of weed would be enough to do him seriously political damage - or that Blair got religion in a serious way and actually believes he's in a crusade against Islam.

Or possibly both.

I've seen speculations that the US has a stack of kiddy porn leads on UK pols - which is sort of plausible, but only in a mad conspiracy theory kind of a way. It makes as much sense as any other explanation - which is to say, not much sense at all.

If Bush goes down, Blair would finally be able to tell all - at least subject to the usual threats of a nasty accident. Since an autobiography is inevitable, that would be the obvious place to tell the full story.

But my guess is that whatever the secret is, it's going to stay with Blair until he's dead and buried. And it's likely we'll never know for sure.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu May 10th, 2007 at 01:03:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The only thing that makes any sense to me is that he has another job lined up. It probably explains the Youtube message in french as well.

 All the kiddy porn rumours that I have heard that came from any other source than someone who could probably best be left under some form of medication would be one story that I heard about a British Euro figure.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu May 10th, 2007 at 01:30:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We'll see where he jumps to.

That's going to be a big flashing neon Scooby-clue.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu May 10th, 2007 at 01:44:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But my guess is that whatever the secret is, it's going to stay with Blair until he's dead and buried. And it's likely we'll never know for sure.

We can always hope for a messy divorce and Cherie spilling the beans.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 10th, 2007 at 06:00:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Next on CNN."

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu May 10th, 2007 at 11:58:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure the idea of Britain suffering after 2001 holds much water, though.  For one thing, the dollar was already going to fall against the pound, given the downturn in America and the expansion in Britain.  Bush also doesn't have the capacity to significantly weaken the dollar.  From a policy perspective, the Fed is the big player on the dollar.  Congress can spend money to weaken it, but the other factors will ultimately swamp that.  America wasn't in a position to severely damage Britain, even at the height of the Dot-Com Era.

The military subsidies are another issue, but I'm not sure that produces more than a temporary setback, since the next president would have likely brought the subsidies back around.  It wouldn't make sense to weaken one's closest ally over the long haul, unless Bush was planning to cut ties with Britain.  That's, I suppose, not out of the realm of possibility (given his arrogance and generally vindictive personality), but -- and I say this even while taking the treatment by the American press of countries like France and Germany into account -- it would've raised more than a few eyebrows among average Americans, especially knowing how much Blair was talked up by the Bush administration after 9/11.

So, in my opinion, RogueTrooper's argument, in part, makes no sense; and, in another part, gives what can only be described as an incomplete story, at best.

If I were a betting man, -- and people who've seen my incredibly bad poker game can tell you I'm not -- I'd bet that Blair was somewhere on the fence in deciding whether or not to join.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu May 10th, 2007 at 11:46:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The economic angle also doesn't make any sense for Bush politically because of his donor base.  Investment banks and insurance companies are his big donors.  And most, if not all, of them have large operations in London.  That's to say nothing of the damage that would be done to American shareholders -- whether wealthy individuals or pensioners or whatever other group -- because of the resulting losses in profit, and at a time when people were being hit quite hard already.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu May 10th, 2007 at 11:56:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The only angle I see as making any sense is  this is all done to keep the UK's seat on the security council. There is a push to give Germany and Japan Permanent membership, or to loose the British and French seats and replace them with a European Seat. If this were to happen then the UK would suffer  a blowto its self image. At the moment the UK has its permanent seat on the grounds that it is one of the Five major neuclear powers, however for a large period of time it has been buying its neuclear weapons in. The only countries that replacement weapons could be brought from are the US , every other country would really be discounted for political reasons. Can you imagine how mad the eurosceptics would go if the UK bought its neuclear crak from France? So the UK's status rested on on Keeping the US happy, and George Is just about vindictive enough that he would ban the UK from ever buying neucs from the USA ever again if they had turned him down.

then the Blair government would have been faced with groveling to the French government and that would never have done.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri May 11th, 2007 at 09:46:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The UK could also develop its own nuclear program. Supposedly Iran can have a nuke in one year, so why can't the UK?

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 11th, 2007 at 10:24:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If we built it ourselves, do you have any idea how overpriced, rubbish and late it would be?

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri May 11th, 2007 at 11:40:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think I do, yes.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 11th, 2007 at 11:46:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Looking at the majority of projects that have been made in the last 20 years, you could take the cost of the US version, and treble it for the cost of a UK version,  so roughly an excess 40 billion pounds.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri May 11th, 2007 at 12:27:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe it could be funded by bonds. Or an LLP.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri May 11th, 2007 at 01:41:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Or an interest-only, negative-equity mortgage.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 11th, 2007 at 04:49:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
True. But the Iranians are short of even OUR level of management "competence".

They couldn't build a bomb in five years, even if all sanctions were dropped tomorrow and they went shopping at "Centrifuges 'r us"

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri May 11th, 2007 at 11:48:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Really?  Short of the country that digs random holes in its streets and doesn't touch them for six months (if even then) for no apparent reason?  You're not giving Britain enough credit for its incompetence, Chris.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun May 13th, 2007 at 12:50:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We are pretty good at incompetence, I grant you.

Pretty good at creativity though: you have to be creative to be idle.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun May 13th, 2007 at 04:05:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
overpriced, rubbish and late

...only to be referred to as "Stability & Growth" after June 27th.  Enjoy it while you can, ceebs. ;)

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun May 13th, 2007 at 12:52:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That, too, would be foolish, though.  It would amount to kicking off one of the two permanent members who are close allies.  (Bush can talk about looking into Putie-Pu's soul all he likes, but France and Britain are the only serious allies on the council.)  And it, too, would sent shockwaves through both Britain and America.

As for buying nukes from France, I suspect the eurosceptic crowd would rather buy them from France than not buy them at all.

Can the US even kick countries off the council?  I have no idea what the protocol is for that at the UN.  If so, and if the US was going to threaten Britain with it, why did the Bushies not kick France, Russia and China off?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri May 11th, 2007 at 10:52:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nobody can kick countries off the council, though apparently the General Assembly could decide at one point that it was Mainland China and not Taiwan that represented "China" and so the UNSC seat changed hands (and Taiwan lost its UN membership)
From the 1960s onwards, nations friendly to the PRC, led by Albania, moved an annual resolution in the General Assembly to transfer China's seat at the UN from the ROC to the PRC. Every year the United States was able to assemble a majority of votes to block this resolution. But the admission of newly independent developing nations in the 1960s gradually turned the General Assembly from being Western-dominated to being dominated by countries sympathetic to Beijing. In addition, the desire of the Nixon administration to improve relations with China to counterbalance the Soviet Union reduced American willingness to support the ROC.

As a result of these trends, on October 25, 1971, Resolution 2758 was passed by the General Assembly, withdrawing recognition of the ROC as the legitimate government of China, and recognising the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China. China received support from two-thirds of all United Nations' members and the complete unanimous approval by the Security Council excluding the ROC.

The Resolution declared "that the representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations." Because this resolution was on an issue of credentials rather than one of membership, it was possible to bypass the Security Council where the United States and the ROC could have used their vetoes.

Thus, ROC was expelled from UN.



Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 11th, 2007 at 10:59:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
is that blair is a willing partner in this mess, and that it has a lot to do with peak oil and the declining north sea oil fields. he bet britain's fate on controlling what oil remains, to be a "great" power.

i would love to see what was in those cheney energy task force documents.

by wu ming on Fri May 11th, 2007 at 03:32:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Herd Immunity .. Filling the Gaps

by Oui - Jul 24
17 comments

LQD - Long Term Covid: The Brain

by ATinNM - Jul 13
28 comments

Say No to Racism

by Oui - Jul 12
26 comments

England surrenders to Covid

by IdiotSavant - Jul 9
27 comments

Occasional Series