Blair urged to loosen ties with US

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
47
Tokens
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1216536,00.html

Blair urged to loosen ties with US

Ministers call for public disengagement

Nicholas Watt and Michael White
Friday May 14, 2004
The Guardian

Senior figures across the Labour party are intensifying pressure on Tony Blair to publicly detach himself from the Bush administration, calling on him to spell out an independent British position on the Middle East, peacekeeping in Iraq and the US presidential election.
Normally loyal ministers have joined backbench colleagues to urge the prime minister to demonstrate his political detachment from Washington amid fears that the crisis in Iraq is undermining his domestic standing.

According to ministers and Labour backbenchers from all wings of the party interviewed by the Guardian, Mr Blair should seize the earliest opportunity to recalibrate his approach to foreign affairs.

Key party members are advising Downing Street to change tack in three key areas:

· Drawing a line between Britain's widely acclaimed peacekeeping record and the heavy-handed military tactics of US forces in Iraq;

· Advocating a more emollient approach to the Middle East peace process, undoing the damage of Mr Blair's Rose Garden endorsement of the Sharon plan. In particular, they want No 10 to highlight the EU's refusal to follow Washington's imposition of sanctions on Syria;

· Courting US Democrats more actively in election year without breaking traditional conventions of government-to-government neutrality.

Mr Blair has made clear to his supporters that he will not criticise President George Bush in public. In an interview with the Independent today the prime minister said it was not a time to start "messing around with your main ally".

But he is said to have conceded tha he will have to soften his stance on Iraq in the wake of the Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal. "Tony can seem a bit one-dimensional on Iraq because he is so sure that what he did was right. That has changed with the pictures from Abu Ghraib: he now realises that people who supported the war are very worried and have the right to ask: How did it end up like this?" one former minister said.

Mr Blair has also indicated that he will do more to court the Democrats, who are seeking to put Senator John Kerry in the White House. Mr Blair is understood to have heeded the advice of ministers who say that, unless his party can improve ties with the Democrats, the government will be badly exposed if Mr Kerry wins on November 2.

Ministers are expected to try to shape their US trips around Democrat-controlled states, where they will meet like-minded opposite numbers.

Downing Street's priority is to refocus political debate on the domestic agenda. Mr Blair yesterday concluded the outlines of a deal with his chancellor and rival, Gordon Brown, to rescue 60,000 people who lost their occupational pensions when their firms went bust.

The prime minister also enjoyed what was billed as "one of the best-humoured cabinets". He then headed for the West Midlands to trumpet plans to offer a free "second chance" to adults without five GCSEs or equivalent NVQs.

John Prescott told yesterday's cabinet to "get things in perspective". And a Blair adviser said: "When you go out and meet real people, no one mentions Iraq."

But many MPs are more divided over the much-debated prospect of Mr Brown succeeding to the Labour leadership this side of a general election, a bet on which the bookmaker William Hill cut the odds from 14/1 to 8/1 yesterday.

The extent to which the Iraq crisis is spreading political unease across Europe was underlined yesterday when the French government said the region was spinning out of control. Speaking to Le Monde, foreign minister Michel Barnier, likened Iraq to a black hole. He said: "It all gives the impression of a total lack of direction.

"What strikes me is the spiral of horror, of blood, of inhumanity that one sees on all fronts, from Falluja to Gaza and in the terrible pictures of the assassination of the unfortunate American hostage."

In negotiations in New York on a new UN resolution for Iraq, the French government is pressing for as many powers as possible to be handed to the caretaker government. The main sticking point is the role of US-led forces after June 30.

Any change of tack in British foreign policy would show the degree of soul-searching at the top of government.

Earlier this week, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, made unusually forthright criticisms of the Bush administration.

Peter Hain, leader of the Commons, followed suit yesterday with a strong statement on the US's abuse of prisoners. "It is a stain on the coalition and the sooner the better it is got control of - and eradicated - then we can move forward," he told MPs.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
I read an article yesterday (which I can't find now) discussing how the UK is likely to stay out of the EU (a mistake, in my opinion) ... the article went on to discuss the merits of the UK joining NAFTA. This in mind, I think the Blair/Bush affair is just beginning. If either is elected to another term, I see international lubricant on the horizon.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
I doubt it.
No one makes real money out of the USA, except the USA itself.

The US is useful militarily, no doubt about that, but economically its a far poorer option being a US trading partner.

Look at the state of Central America and most Carribean places...
Neighbours of the richest place on the planet for years and years and years, and look at the flippin' state of them.

Look at the level of poverty in the US itself!
The US has serious haves/have-nots divisions.
Bugger that for a lark, thats the Brazil/India system.

Economically, Europe is a FAR better option as a trading partner. Europe spreads wealth, and makes investments.
(They are totally usless for military stuff tho...)
The spread of wealth into recent EEC members has been stunning to watch, and the EEC monster just got bigger with its recent expansion.


The US takes the max, and gives the min, which is fair enuf, its a big bad world.
But this only works with the desperate countries where they can be shafted for every buck.

Us europeans know that the US is no honey pot for anyone except Americans.
Its a closed shop/protectionist market to outsiders anyway, it always has been.

The US can't even uphold bilateral passport agreements for chissakes, it just changes the rules as it goes along, and always in its favour.

NAFTA? Naff that.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
A2: I was under the impression the UK had not yet joined the EU?

I agree with both of you that joining the EU is the best move. Frankly, I wish we could dig a big trench and float on over there and hook up with you guys, too. The next five years in Canadian politics will play a significant role in our alliances with both the US and the EU ... hopefully our (soon to be elected) PM favours the latter.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
844
Tokens
UK joined EC (European Community as it was known) in 1972.
I am not very knowledgable about NAFTA but I know quite a bit about the EU.
The EU is much more than a free-trade area, it has its own institutions (and legal supremacy over Member State law) including elected parliament, commission, council of ministers and Court (European Court of Justice). There are established treaties and provisions ranging from free movement of workers/goods/information, consumer protection to rights of EU citizens.

Therefore it goes a lot farther than NAFTA which is strictly a free-trade area.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
735
Tokens
I agree that the UK would be better served to remain in the EU. As far as passports go, they are more than welcome to increase their entrance criteria. The U.S. chose to do that because of security concerns following the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. I'm sure you realize that but for those that don't, that's why.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
20
Tokens
"It would be short of a disaster if the UK left the EU."

For the UK or the EU?

The UK people (and a lot of other countries in Europe for similar reasons) will never give up their sovereignty, culture, legal system, economic principles, taxation and foreign to the French elite who run the EU.

The referendum on the EU Constitution will be followed by a referendum on EU membership. The EU can't work without a Constitution ratified by all members. Those countries that do not ratify the Constitution (or adopt the Euro) will eventually be kicked out. Although the EU will probably survive as a trading bloc, the federalization of foreign policy and military will fail. It will leave Europe divided and just as weak as it was in the Cold War era. They may be even weaker considering their (EU leaders) egos have been inflated by optimistic predictions of a successful federal EU super-state.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
Good, For both UK and europe.

Us Brits have an aversion to europe because of WW 1 and 2.
We don't trust the place politically/militarily.(look at bosnia/kosovo in the 90's)

Economically though, its a serious wealth creation zone.

When I travelled around Europe in the 80's there were some pretty piss poor places, Spain and Portugal in particular, Much of Ireland too.
Don't forget that E.Germany has been fully absorbed now too.

It was great for someone with dosh, they were so CHEAP compared to UK, Germany, Holland etc.

Just look at those places now, they're as prosperous as any of the major euronations.

The US can't even get Mexico up to scratch....

Is pretty obvious that the EU and the US are reading different scripts for trade/wealth creation.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
844
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The UK people (and a lot of other countries in Europe for similar reasons) will never give up their sovereignty, culture, legal system, economic principles, taxation and foreign <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well for the sovereignty, the UK has already given up most of it to Brussels. If the European Court of Justice rule on a case or the Parliament/Commission pass a treaty or directive it is up to the UK courts to apply it and any legislation that is inconsistant with that EU legislation/case-law is not valid. There are some matters such as taxation and foreign policy that the Member State still has some discretion but proposals in the Draft Constitution suggest that these areas may be passed onto Brussels but voting on these matters would have to unaminous (very difficult when there is 25 Member States voting).

As for culture, I agree that the British and others are very proud people and all that. Although I am a firm believer that someone should hold onto their heritage, the British may be proud for negative reasons - as was pointed out before, centuries of warfare etc. Some of these people living in the past need to move on and accept this common European heritage while still preserving their national identities. Afterall, the genetic makeup of Western Union, at least, is really similar. Germans, Dutch, British and French (the least) are the most similar with Viking, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Roman ancestry.

As for them getting kicked out, I doubt it...it would be a blow for the EU for the Member State to be kicked out and it wouldnt be in their interest. UK is 1/8 of the population of the U and about 30% GDP.

Regarding about the EU being a federal State one day, it probably will be but only if the Member States agree on it. That is what is important, the powers of the EU institutions are written down expressly and if they over-step that then they can be taken to court and their decision voided.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
The bottom line is, if Europe collapses into conflict again our greatest defence the English Channel, will still be there.

No matter how 'integrated' we are, we've still got the Channel.

The bit we haven't joined yet btw is the 'Euro zone'. €

We still use sterling. £

Moving over to euros would mean a big shift in who controls economic policy in the UK, the Bank of England/Gov. or those foreign johnnies in Brussels.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,803
Messages
13,573,316
Members
100,871
Latest member
Legend813
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com