Are Blair’s Brexit interventions about more than just rewriting his legacy? | Conservative Home

Tony Blair’s re-emergence in British political debate in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum serves as a stark reminder of how quickly history can move.

Here is a man who, just over ten years ago, looked to have recast our politics as decisively, in his own way, as had Margaret Thatcher before him. New Labour were the natural party of government, and under David Cameron the Tories were scrambling to wrest ownership of the Blairite orthodoxies from the resentful grip of Gordon Brown.

Now? Writing just after the referendum in 2016, Andrew Rawnsley offered a guided tour of the rubble of Blair’s project. He identified three “pillars of Blairism”: an ‘electable’ (moderate) Labour Party; Britain engaged with Europe; and an interventionist foreign policy. Then he wrote:


Source: Are Blair’s Brexit interventions about more than just rewriting his legacy? | Conservative Home

One thought on “Are Blair’s Brexit interventions about more than just rewriting his legacy? | Conservative Home

  1. In my opinion can Blair be trusted, my own view is NO.

    Blair with George W Bush entered the Iraq War on the pretext they had ‘Weapons of Mass-Destruction’ and no they did not. He advised the UK Parliament, to put it mildly ‘incorrectly’ and of course none of these, so called, weapons were ever found.

    On the EU he decided without recourse to any referendum to put the UK more under the control of the EU. When I voted in the 75 referendum I purely voted for a trading relationship and not a political one, in fact one where the UK was in charge of its own destiny politically, economically (Tax and Finance), militarily, legaly (the UK makes its own laws, with no reference to European courts and other aspects.
    Blair decided referendums were not required on any of his bowing to the EU.

    He followed the Conservative ‘Thatcher’ policy of increasing privatisation in the NHS.

    No I did not vote for Blair in any of his elections, as after his first General Election win, I said to my wife, who could vote and trust someone with a smile like Blairs, it mage me feel ‘not well’.

    How times have changed when we did have a referendum where he did not agree with the result.So why is it right to have another referendum now, when the 2016 was supposed to be used as our decision on what to do, but not have any referendums while he was Prime Minister, when he was taking the UK way further than was agreed in 75.

    A major agrguement, now is that the population of the UK did not have any clue what they were voring and were not advised the correct fact in which to make a decision.

    On this basis, it could be argued that this was also so in 75, so do we disregard that result. If we do that have we been in the EU illegally since 75.

    The understanding of the UK electorate, it could be argued do not fully understand who or what they are voting for in any political election, so have all the results of every General Election not been correct, so how does the political situation of the UK stand, if we are stating that a result can only stand if everyone who voted, exactly knew what they were doing.

    In a referendum you are supposedly voting ‘Yes or No’ to an assumed ‘simple’ question and not a multitude of assumed questions in a General Election.

    Elections and also referendums cost the UK, so to save money, like ‘austerity’ should we ban any elections. Of course that is stupid and therefore so is the question of a 2nd EU referendum, for if one side is not happy with the result, why not have a 3rd, 4th, 5th etc. until both sides agree to go with the result.

    That I believe will be anarchy and cause so much disillusionment in all areas of the UK.

    The 2016 referendum produced a result, albeit, only just, but a result all the same and all of us within the UK should except that we are leaving the EU.

    The most important part now is for a consensus of opinion on how to achieve that, for while the Remainers still push for the totally opposite result, no one will believe what the outcome will be, as an element will still believe we can stay within the EU. If that does occur then I state, why ever have another election, for what would be the point, we could just go with the ‘loudest’ voice i.e. the one with more power, in effect a ‘dictatorship’ so the end of democracy, if that is what we do have now.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.