Interesting. Will watch his full speech tonight. My position on Blair can only be summarised as, "it's complicated." I do not think he's the antichrist. I also don't think he's moral. But I do think he genuinely believes in left-wing ideologies and understands politics perhaps better than anyone else alive.
Unlike the wider left, he dismisses the idea of historical inevitability and profoundly believes in the power of human agency. Unlike the populist right, he contests the notion of light-switch moments where the electorate has the right to issue irreversible instructions.
From this premise follows a sense of responsibility, deepened by a new sense of pessimism. As he said on Friday, “for the first time in my adult life” it is no longer obvious that liberty, democracy and the rule of law are secure... it is to his credit that, unlike many on the embattled centre-ground, he has not yielded to fatalism.
There will be no Churchillian return to office, nor to frontline politics. What counts is his convening power: his capacity to bring people together, to build networks of the like-minded as well as an institute in bricks and mortar.
And if not him, then who? A lesser character, hearing the rumblings of the mob, would walk away. Blair chooses to do precisely the opposite. Good for him.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/20/tony-blair-brexit?CMP=share_btn_tw
Give Corbyn's failure, I concede. You were right.
ReplyDeleteBut... Article 50 is still not reversible. The UK made it that way itself.
Legally, Article 50 is reversible. That's what the Scottish author of it says.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628
Whether it is politically possible to do this (or whether Blair is the right person to lead an anti-Brexit revolution) is another matter entirely.
Rhys Taylor It's not a long article, nor is the language complex. Please point out where it says anything about reversing the process:
ReplyDelete1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
Well, where does it say explicitly that the exit must occur ? It says a member state must notify of its "intention". It doesn't say anything about the possibility of changing that intention. I tend to think the guy who wrote it who says that legally there's no way the EU could insist on Britain leaving probably knows what he's talking about ! Part 5 explicitly says that re-entry is possible, which surely has to count as "reversible" at least in a basic sense.
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question ... two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2
ReplyDeleteThat can be extended, or shortened ... not reversed.
Yes, but what does "shall" mean legally ? The Union "shall" do this that and the other, but what if it doesn't ? You'd have to ask a lawyer.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone knows voters act on impulse it's B.Liar.. after all they voted for him in 1998. But yes, Corbyn has been a massive disappointment here. Especially as his electorate a. voted overwhelmingly FOR Brexit and b. will suffer the most...
ReplyDeleteConversely Tory voters, at least in the southeast also suffer massively, but none of their MPs have done a symbolic jot..
Rhys Taylor Hm. It seems the strongest argument for your case is not in the article, but "below"...
ReplyDeleteArticle 68 here: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201155/volume-1155-I-18232-English.pdf