10 reasons why Blair will not become President of the Council of Europe

[E.J.Armstrong]

1/ He's a liar.
He systematically lied to the people of the UK before invading Iraq.

2/ He did nothing to promote the many benefits of Europe while in power.
This alone rules him out.

3/ He was a stooge for the USA.
While in power he looked after the interests of an extreme right wing US government, which had total contempt for international law, rather than the interests of the people of the UK.

3/ He supported a known torturer.
Despite knowing that the US was engaged in an official programme of torture under the direct command of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, he did not respect international law enough to stand against that disgusting abuse of human rights. As a result he was complicit in torture.

4/ He is a failure internationally.
Despite being given his Middle Eastern job as a result of abrogating UK interests in the support of the lunatic Bush, he has totally failed to achieve anything in Palestine due to him not being prepared to stand up against Israel's regular abuses of human rights. He acquiesced in the massacres in Gaza by not demanding a ceasefire until Israel had decided it had killed enough children to teach the Palestinians a lesson they wouldn't forget.

5/ Er... that's enough abject failures to be going on with.

All of the above (and many, many more) render him totally unsuitable to be given any leadership role in Europe - except possibly cleaning the toilets while better women and men get on with the real work.

[Doctor Evil]

Having trouble counting?

[drkitten]

1 reason why Blair will become President of the Council of Europe.

1/ Because E.J. Armstrong isn't voting, and because the people who are voting have a much more nuanced (i.e. reality-based) opinion of Mr. Blair.

[Rolfe]

Who gets to vote, then?

Personally, the vague possibility of Blair as president is enough to make me call for the abolition of the EU wholesale....

Rolfe.

[Fiona]

Who gets to vote, then?

Personally, the vague possibility of Blair as president is enough to make me call for the abolition of the EU wholesale....

Rolfe.

So far as I know he is appointed by a qualified majority vote of the members of the council of europe

[foxholeatheist]

Edited for Rule 12. That's all. I know nothing about Tony Blair except that he used to be in a band.

[Darth Rotor]

1/ He's a liar. He systematically lied to the people of the UK before invading Iraq.
He's a politician. Ergo, he lies. That one might have been a major, rather than a minor and more common sort, so I give you 1/2 a point on that one.
2/ He did nothing to promote the many benefits of Europe while in power. This alone rules him out.
Funny, a great many people in Europe who know how politics actually works take the complete opposite position. 0 points for you.
3/ He was a stooge for the USA. While in power he looked after the interests of an extreme right wing US government, which had total contempt for international law, rather than the interests of the people of the UK.
We can give you half a point for that, and only because we are giving you a pass on "extreme right wing." Your BNP is extreme right wing. Bush and his group were mostly Neoconservatives, and maybe you don't like them (join a large crowd there).

Strike with a clue bat here, EJ: Blair also bought into and played along with BIll Clinton's schtick. Four years worth. Clinton ain't no extreme right wing.
3/ He supported a known torturer. Despite knowing that the US was engaged in an official programme of torture under the direct command of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, he did not respect international law enough to stand against that disgusting abuse of human rights. As a result he was complicit in torture.
Hmmm, no points. Blair had no stick to hit Bush with. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
4/ He is a failure internationally.
Makes him the perfect EU president. No points for you.
5/ Er... that's enough abject failures to be going on with.
No points.
All of the above (and many, many more) render him totally unsuitable to be given any leadership role in Europe - except possibly cleaning the toilets while better women and men get on with the real work.
Blah, blah, blah, pip pip and all that catnip.

A charitable 1.5 points out of your declared 10. Methinks thou ought not play this game without more practice.

DR

[geni]

Not going to happen. He doesn't have the support needed at EU level and he's not really got the right style for the job.

[Rolfe]

I hope you're right.

But irony died the day he was appointed a peace envoy to the Middle East.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

So far as I know he is appointed by a qualified majority vote of the members of the council of europe


And these people have such a wonderfully nuanced and reality-based view of Blair that he will become president?

What planet is this on, Dr Kitten?

Rolfe.

[Fiona]

I am not convinced he will: even Sarkozy is not on board.

[geni]

I hope you're right.

But irony died the day he was appointed a peace envoy to the Middle East.

Rolfe.

His lack of effort in that area probably won't help his case either. The smaller european countries do not want a high profile president which also counts against he.

There is a slight shortage of good british candidates. If it wasn't for their respective ages Ashdown or even Kinnock might have been reasonable choices.

As it is someone from one of the small countries seems more likely at this point the irish times goes for:


Dutch prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende, his Luxembourg counterpart Jean-Claude Juncker and former Finnish premier Paavo Lipponen.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/1104/1224258028328.html

Herman Van Rompuy the Belgium Prime Minister has been suggested but well with the parliment in Brussels a Belgian might not send the right signal. There's also Belgium's rather messy internal situation to consider. Removeing significant players from that has the potential for their goverment to collapse. Again.

[Skeptic]

Edited for response to modded post.

[whatthebutlersaw]

I thought there was a tacit agreement between the involved that the post of president would be conceded to someone from the christian right in exchange for the foreign minister post being offered to someone from the social democrat/left side, thus ruling Blair out - because no matter his actions he is still paying lip service to Labour.

Armstrong may be a nut, but there is an argument for the conclusion in the OP - i.e. that Blair will not be president.

He does not have the support of Merkel or Sarkozy and that is kind of crucial.

That, and eeeeveryone hates him. Except Cherie Antoinette of course.

[Mojo]

Can we please make up our minds whether he wants to be president of the Council of Europe (http://www.coe.int/) or of the European Union (http://europa.eu/index_en.htm)?

Do not get confused. (http://www.coe.int/aboutCoe/index.asp?page=nepasconfondre&l=en)

[Darat]

1/ He's a liar.
He systematically lied to the people of the UK before invading Iraq.

...snip...

Well yes he is a liar however the often repeated refrain about the lies to take us to war have never actually shown to be true, at least so far.


2/ He did nothing to promote the many benefits of Europe while in power.
This alone rules him out.

Of course he didn't - why should he?


3/ He was a stooge for the USA.
While in power he looked after the interests of an extreme right wing US government, which had total contempt for international law, rather than the interests of the people of the UK.


Or perhaps he had different ideas than you do about what was in the best interest of the UK?

3/ He supported a known torturer.
Despite knowing that the US was engaged in an official programme of torture under the direct command of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, he did not respect international law enough to stand against that disgusting abuse of human rights. As a result he was complicit in torture.


By that definition so did you.

4/ He is a failure internationally.
Despite being given his Middle Eastern job as a result of abrogating UK interests in the support of the lunatic Bush, he has totally failed to achieve anything in Palestine due to him not being prepared to stand up against Israel's regular abuses of human rights. He acquiesced in the massacres in Gaza by not demanding a ceasefire until Israel had decided it had killed enough children to teach the Palestinians a lesson they wouldn't forget.


I can see why you are confused about this. "he has totally failed to achieve anything in Palestine" that was not the role he took on.

5/ Er... that's enough abject failures to be going on with.


I agree you did pretty much fail with points 1-4 so I can understand why you gave up after that attempt.

[Darat]

Personally I don't think he should become president however the devil in me would like to see it happen for the mischief!

[funk de fino]

There is only 1 reason I would like to see him get it

1. To hose off the OP

[Darth Rotor]

Personally I don't think he should become president however the devil in me would like to see it happen for the mischief!

Concur.

[E.J.Armstrong]

He's a politician. Ergo, he lies. That one might have been a major, rather than a minor and more common sort, so I give you 1/2 a point on that one.

I am not talking about lying in general. I am talking about lying specifically in support of Dubbya's lies about the non-existant WMD in Iraq. Remember Powel's day of shame in the UN telling us all he knew where non-existent things were and showing us all pictures of non-existent things..


Funny, a great many people in Europe who know how politics actually works take the complete opposite position. 0 points for you. Evidence. Naturally as you claim it -, it must be true - n'est ce pas?

We can give you half a point for that, and only because we are giving you a pass on "extreme right wing." Your BNP is extreme right wing. Bush and his group were mostly Neoconservatives, and maybe you don't like them (join a large crowd there). We? Is that the royal we? Are you suddenly in line for the throne?

In relation to normal democratic people Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice et al were extreme right wing - in fact I heard that Genghis Khan was bitterly complaining how right wing they were what with all the official torture. Torturing people to death is not a moderate activity to most normal people though it appears you take a different view.

Strike with a clue bat here, EJ: Blair also bought into and played along with BIll Clinton's schtick. Four years worth. Clinton ain't no extreme right wing. Er - I wasn't talking about Clinton. I was talking about the warmongering party - the extreme right wing Republican party. Clinton only lied about sex, didn't he - or there a property problem as well?

Hmmm, no points. Blair had no stick to hit Bush with. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Au contraire. Bush was desperate for Blair to make him look slightly less than the extreme right wing warmongering nut that he actually was and give the US regime some credibility. Blair did not have to give Bush's torture programme or the Guantanamo concentration camp such an easy time.

Makes him the perfect EU president. No points for you. Ah yes - as a Usan military type you appear to still believe that interfering in other people's business is your god given right. Thanks for making my point so well.


Blah, blah, blah, pip pip and all that catnip.

A charitable 1.5 points out of your declared 10. Methinks thou ought not play this game without more practice.

DR And I give you Nul points for your persistent Usan confusion that you run the world.

No make that 0.5 points for effort. I'm feeling charitable to the colonials today.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Well yes he is a liar however the often repeated refrain about the lies to take us to war have never actually shown to be true, at least so far. But that is simply not true He has been shown to be a liar. My comment about him is accurate.

Let me remind you that Blair claimed in Parliament that the intelligence he had about the WMD was very strong and credible when all the evidence shows that it was nothing of the sort and he tried to beef it up by creating the 'dodgy' dossier. Anything in fact to support his outright lie about the intelligence.


Of course he didn't - why should he? Glad you agree with me. Why should a man who did nothing to promote the EU be given a role in the EU - especially as he chose to turn the UK into a poodle for the torturing regime of Dub, Rummy, Cheney and Rice?

Or perhaps he had different ideas than you do about what was in the best interest of the UK? Clearly he felt that supporting a torturing regime when it decided to invade a country on the basis of lies was in our best interests. The cover he gave to the torturers rules him out of any decent democratic institution. Perhaps you feel that supporting torturers is a qualification for high office in the EU. I don't.


By that definition so did you. Utter nonsense.


I can see why you are confused about this. "he has totally failed to achieve anything in Palestine" that was not the role he took on. Despite your latest assertion you don't seem to know anything about what his job description was. Let me remind you.
'...The job description for Blair's new post is tailored to this endeavour. Mr. Blair is to "help create viable and lasting government institutions representing all Palestinians, a robust economy, and a climate of law and order for the Palestinian people." ...'

from http://www.globalpolitician.com/23072-oslo

I agree you did pretty much fail with points 1-4 so I can understand why you gave up after that attempt. Au contraire. I did not give up. I aped Private Eye in highlighting the most glaring problems with Blair's appointment. But I suspect you knew that.

PS

Darat.

I would like to challenge your behaviour on this thread.

I kinda thought that your role on this site was as a moderator. You however decided to post on this thread and did nothing about the abuse. Is ignoring the rules of the site your role now?

Just so we all know.

[E.J.Armstrong]

There is only 1 reason I would like to see him get it

1. To hose off the OP

As it has no chance of happening I am sorry but you will be disappointed. Ho hum.

[E.J.Armstrong]

1 reason why Blair will become President of the Council of Europe.

1/ Because E.J. Armstrong isn't voting, and because the people who are voting have a much more nuanced (i.e. reality-based) opinion of Mr. Blair.

The people of the EU are not being given a say in the process but they can write to the leaders of the EU.

I urge all the voters in the EU to contact all the heads of government about the issue and ensure that we get someone who actually believes in human rights and the EU and being honest with the people of Europe as President of the Council of Ministers.

[Darat]

But that is simply not true He has been shown to be a liar. My comment about him is accurate.

...snip...

Hmm - how strange I say he is a liar and you say that isn't true.


Let me remind you that Blair claimed in Parliament that the intelligence he had about the WMD was very strong and credible when all the evidence shows that it was nothing of the sort and he tried to beef it up by creating the 'dodgy' dossier. Anything in fact to support his outright lie about the intelligence.
...snip...

For all it would be much easier if this was a black and white matter it isn't, the facts that we have do noit lend themselves to such a conclusion.


Glad you agree with me. Why should a man who did nothing to promote the EU be given a role in the EU - especially as he chose to turn the UK into a poodle for the torturing regime of Dub, Rummy, Cheney and Rice?

..snip...



I think you should check your own post - you do seem to know what you had posted and therefore to what I was replying. Perhaps you should re-read your posts before you post them to better acquaint yourself with what you are posting?






Utter nonsense.



Well yes what you posted was utter nonsense - glad you now realise that.


Despite your latest assertion you don't seem to know anything about what his job description was. Let me remind you.
'...The job description for Blair's new post is tailored to this endeavour. Mr. Blair is to "help create viable and lasting government institutions representing all Palestinians, a robust economy, and a climate of law and order for the Palestinian people." ...'

from http://www.globalpolitician.com/23072-oslo



Any chance you could supply a link to the actual job description rather than a article that merely apparently lifts one line from a description of his role? (And by the way the line supports what I stated.)


Au contraire. I did not give up. I aped Private Eye in highlighting the most glaring problems with Blair's appointment. But I suspect you knew that.

...snip...


Again I think you should check your own posts before you post them you do not seem to have realised that you did give up making your list.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Hmm - how strange I say he is a liar and you say that isn't true.
If you say so it must be true.


or all it would be much easier if this was a black and white matter it isn't, the facts that we have do noit lend themselves to such a conclusion. This matter is in fact black and white. Blair lied in Parliament about the quality of the intelligence. I acknowledge that you are not prepared to accept that fact.


I think you should check your own post - you do seem to know what you had posted and therefore to what I was replying. Perhaps you should re-read your posts before you post them to better acquaint yourself with what you are posting? Perhaps you could tell us all exactly what you are talking about?

Well yes what you posted was utter nonsense - glad you now realise that. Is this what moderators do now on JREF?

Any chance you could supply a link to the actual job description rather than a article that merely apparently lifts one line from a description of his role? (And by the way the line supports what I stated.) You made the original claim about his job. Perhaps you might care to support your own claims instead of responding in the childish manner you adopted above.

Again I think you should check your own posts before you post them you do not seem to have realised that you did give up making your list. If you say so- you must be right. How dare I demonstrate that your assertion is simply false?

PS
You have ignored my direct challenge to explain your failure to address the abuse on this thread. Why is that?

[Darat]

If you say so.



Well when I posted "Well yes he is a liar...." and your reply was "But that is simply not true..." it is hard to see what else you meant apart from Blair is not a liar.


F This matter is in fact black and white. Blair lied in Parliament about the quality of the intelligence. I acknowledge that you are not prepared to accept that fact.


Yet despite much effort no one has yet been able to prove this oft-repeated accusation. (As an aside it would be very strange if it was true as it would mean the leaders of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats knew he lied but decided not to say anything about it.)



Perhaps you could tell us all exactly what you are talking about?



I thought I was clear - however I'll try again - You don't seem to know what you have posted.
...snip...

You made the original claim about his job. Perhaps you might care to support your own claims instead of responding in the childish manner you adopted above.

...snip...

Nope - it was you that claimed he failed in his job by not doing something you claim he hasn't done so as ever the onus is on you to provide evidence for your claims.

You never know if you do provide evidence you might be able to persuade me that one of your list items was not erroneous.

...snip...

If you say so- you must be right. How dare I demonstrate that your assertion is simply false?

...snip..

Again I suggest you read your own post - it is at the start of this thread and it is quite clear what you posted.

[Darth Rotor]

I am not talking about lying in general.
Pip, changing your story.
Evidence. Naturally as you claim it -, it must be true - n'est ce pas?
The evidence is that he is in the position to vie for the seat because he has sufficient people to support his aim.
Torturing people to death is not a moderate activity to most normal people though it appears you take a different view.
Stick to the scenario.
Er - I wasn't talking about Clinton. But you showed your ignorance of who he worked with and how long due to your own imprecision. More backpedalling by EJ, go figure.
Blair did not have to give Bush's torture programme or the Guantanamo concentration camp such an easy time.
Sez you. Unsupported assertion = opinion = worthless.
Ah yes - as a Usan military type you appear to still believe that interfering in other people's business is your god given right.

Liar, deliberate insult, and strawman. Pip Pip, EJ, not doing well.
And I give you Nul points for your persistent Usan confusion that you run the world.
Strawman, lie, and not even remotely what I posted. Sorry to see you off your game ... no, wait, this is your game.

Poop Poop.

DR

[E.J.Armstrong]

Pip, changing your story. No.

The evidence is that he is in the position to vie for the seat because he has sufficient people to support his aim. Nonsense - as shown by the fact that he was not even close.

Stick to the scenario. Do tell us all exactly what you mean.

But you showed your ignorance of who he worked with and how long due to your own imprecision. More backpedalling by EJ, go figure. Darth Rotor is wrong again. Go figure. When you want to support your allegation I am all ears - as always.


Sez you. Unsupported assertion = opinion = worthless. Blair was UK prime Minister of the UK at the time the extreme right wing US regime was officially torturing people. He did nothing to stop that appalling abuse of human rights.

Liar, deliberate insult, and strawman. Pip Pip, EJ, not doing well. The empire is over. Get used to it.

Strawman, lie, and not even remotely what I posted. Sorry to see you off your game ... no, wait, this is your game.

Poop Poop.



DR.

As you know that is simply untrue but at least we are all used to your 'argument' style by now.

To use your own words "Unsupported assertion + opinion = worthless."

[E.J.Armstrong]

=Darat;5277118]Well when I posted "Well yes he is a liar...." and your reply was "But that is simply not true..." it is hard to see what else you meant apart from Blair is not a liar. You are quite correct for that part of the quote. For the rest of the quote you were talking nonsense.


Yet despite much effort no one has yet been able to prove this oft-repeated accusation. (As an aside it would be very strange if it was true as it would mean the leaders of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats knew he lied but decided not to say anything about it.) That is simply not true. Blair specifically told the people of the UK that the intelligence he had was very robust when that was simply a lie. You may not want to accept that simple statement of fact but that is your problem.

Can I suggest that you take a look at some of the evidence including this link - http://ia.rediff.com/news/2004/jul/14blair.htm

'..In a major embarrassment to Prime Minister Tony Blair, an official British inquiry today criticised the country's pre-war intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction saying it was "open to doubt" and "seriously flawed".

In its 196-page report, the panel headed by former civil servant Lord Robin Butler also criticised the Blair government's controversial dossier on Iraqi weapons, published in the run up to war, saying that it went to the "outer limits" of the available intelligence.

It said Blair's statement in the Commons may have "reinforced the impression" that there was "fuller and firmer" intelligence behind the assessments in the dossier than was actually the case.

The damning report, which contradicted Blair's key claim, said when British Government began considering military action against Iraq in March 2002, the intelligence was "insufficiently robust" to justify claims that Iraq was in breach of United Nations resolutions requiring it to disarm. ...'

I know it contradicts your view but pehaps this will educate you about the matter.


Blair also lied to the Uk people about Hussein being able to launch missiles at Uk interests within 45 minutes. Can I suggest that you read the following link to see the level of his mendacity.



I thought I was clear - however I'll try again - You don't seem to know what you have posted. I know exactly what I posted so I will be very clear with you yet again. What are you talking about?


Nope - it was you that claimed he failed in his job by not doing something you claim he hasn't done so as ever the onus is on you to provide evidence for your claims. Another lie. I did not mention his job description. You did and I notice that despite me providing a link you continue to fail to provide one single link to support your assertion. All that can be heard is the sound of crickets.

You never know if you do provide evidence you might be able to persuade me that one of your list items was not erroneous. From your behaviour to date I doubt that very much. I have repeatedly challenged you about your position as a moderator on this thread and you have completely failed to respond. Why should I believe you will start now.

I challenge you yet again - more in hope than expectation. - why did you do nothing about the personal abuse when you are a moderator?


Again I suggest you read your own post - it is at the start of this thread and it is quite clear what you posted. I know what I posted so yet again you will have to explain what exactly you are talking about.

PS

Edited to remove off-topic statement.

Do not discuss issues with Forum Management in non-FM threads. If you wish to discuss Darat's role as a mod, please do it there.

[E.J.Armstrong]

One hundred and eighty!

As predicted in the OP, Blair has been denied the role of President of the Council of Ministers.

That's made a lot of people very, very happy.

Good luck Herman.

[Nogbad]

People twitter on about the EU project and conspiricists mutter darkly about Common Purpose. But how can one view an organisation as suspicious when the Council President is called Herman Von Rumpy Pumpy and his sidekick is called Cathy?

Cheered me up no end :)

[Darth Rotor]

As predicted in the OP, Blair has been denied the role of President of the Council of Ministers.

TIps cap: reasons right or wrong, your estimation was correct.

Cheers.

DR

[Mojo]

One hundred and eighty!

As predicted in the OP, Blair has been denied the role of President of the Council of Ministers.


Actually, the OP predicted that he wouldn't become president of the Council of Europe (http://www.coe.int/). OK, he didn't get that job either, but that is because the position doesn't exist. This means it wasn't much of a prediction.

[E.J.Armstrong]

You are quite correct for that part of the quote. For the rest of the quote you were talking nonsense.


That is simply not true. Blair specifically told the people of the UK that the intelligence he had was very robust when that was simply a lie. You may not want to accept that simple statement of fact but that is your problem.

Can I suggest that you take a look at some of the evidence including this link - http://ia.rediff.com/news/2004/jul/14blair.htm

'..In a major embarrassment to Prime Minister Tony Blair, an official British inquiry today criticised the country's pre-war intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction saying it was "open to doubt" and "seriously flawed".

In its 196-page report, the panel headed by former civil servant Lord Robin Butler also criticised the Blair government's controversial dossier on Iraqi weapons, published in the run up to war, saying that it went to the "outer limits" of the available intelligence.

It said Blair's statement in the Commons may have "reinforced the impression" that there was "fuller and firmer" intelligence behind the assessments in the dossier than was actually the case.

The damning report, which contradicted Blair's key claim, said when British Government began considering military action against Iraq in March 2002, the intelligence was "insufficiently robust" to justify claims that Iraq was in breach of United Nations resolutions requiring it to disarm. ...'

I know it contradicts your view but pehaps this will educate you about the matter.


Blair also lied to the Uk people about Hussein being able to launch missiles at Uk interests within 45 minutes. Can I suggest that you read the following link to see the level of his mendacity.



I know exactly what I posted so I will be very clear with you yet again. What are you talking about?


Another lie. I did not mention his job description. You did and I notice that despite me providing a link you continue to fail to provide one single link to support your assertion. All that can be heard is the sound of crickets.

From your behaviour to date I doubt that very much. I have repeatedly challenged you about your position as a moderator on this thread and you have completely failed to respond. Why should I believe you will start now.

I challenge you yet again - more in hope than expectation. - why did you do nothing about the personal abuse when you are a moderator?


I know what I posted so yet again you will have to explain what exactly you are talking about.

PS

Edited to remove off-topic statement.

Do not discuss issues with Forum Management in non-FM threads. If you wish to discuss Darat's role as a mod, please do it there.

[edit=Professor Yaffle]Edited to remove off topic comment[edit]

[E.J.Armstrong]

Actually, the OP predicted that he wouldn't become president of the Council of Europe (http://www.coe.int/). OK, he didn't get that job either, but that is because the position doesn't exist. This means it wasn't much of a prediction.

You're quite right.

Someone not getting a non-existent post is nothing to boast about.

However, Blair, the notorious liar on behalf of the torturers Dubya, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, not getting the post he wanted in the EU. Now that is worth highlighting.

[Mojo]

But it wasn't predicted in the OP, as you claimed it was.

[Donal]

What is next? Top 10 (err 4) Reasons Blair Won't Be President of the UK?