The Institute for global change, Blair & Adonis


The latest utterances from a so-called think tank called “The Institute for Global Change” blames Populism for the incorrect result of the Brexit referendum.  This needs to be challenged along with today’s poppycock spouted by Lord Adonis after his resignation as Chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission. Adonis said in his letter of resignation “Brexit is a populist and nationalist spasm worthy of Donald Trump” (full text of his letter here).

Blair agreed with Jeremy Corbyn then! See the full text extract from their 1983 manifesto at the foot of this post. An interesting read because it sounds just like today’s news!

This preposterously and egotistically named organisation, fronted by Tony Blair and funded by globalised multinationals (but try and find out who!) is a poorly camouflaged attempt attempt to make the call for a second referendum on EU membership seem reasonable.

You just have to follow this link for the Twitter response to his Christmas message on Twitter. The responses are enough to gladden the heart of any curmudgeon like me 😉

Lord Adonis, a Labour peer, was the last Blairite sympathiser to have remained anywhere near the seat of current political power and has chaired the National Infrastructure Commission since 2015. Both he and Blair are Remoaners but look how Blair’s views have changed since 1983 when he was a Labour leadership candidate.  Lord Adonis, who was transport secretary under Gordon Brown between 2009 and 2010, has chaired the National Infrastructure Commission since 2015. The commission produces a report in every Parliament advising the government on spending in areas such as transport connections and energy.

Lord Adonis sparked anger earlier this year when he compared Brexit to the appeasement of the Nazis in the 1930s, and has repeatedly called for last year’s referendum vote to be reversed.

Pope Blair on why he lied over the invasion of Iraq. A good Catholic convert from Anglicanism, just like Robert Mugabe…

The article appears so logical and is indeed very well researched, but fails to even consider the real reason for so-called populism, which is the proliferation of lying (sorry, of course I meant to say disingenuous), duplicitous self-interested scum-bags like Blair! The rise of the bland, but ‘clever’, career politician who never answers the question, who are trained to waste our time but who have at last succeeded in pissing off an entire generation of voters. We the people have nobody to vote for but we are all a bit too lazy to revolt, so we must take our share of blame. Any politician with integrity, balls and vision has either retired or cannot stomach what is now required to be today’s party political leader.

I hate almost everything about Tony Blair and just cannot understand why so many regard him as some sort of wise elder statesman. I have been unable to write about him for some years because the very sight of him just makes me feel sick. Most of us over the age of 40 will remember the first few weeks of his first term as PM and thinking “At last, a politician (see the glowing teeth of the young man to the left) with vision, integrity and the energy to change the status quo”.

How wrong we all were! The first clue as to his real nature, for me at least, was when I heard his smarmy utterance “I feel the hand of destiny on my shoulder (Diana’s death)” issuing from his loathsome face.

That realisation morphed into my disdain of everything he and his consumerist wife became and still are.

OK, back to his article on populism where the most important thing to know is who funds ‘think-tanks’. (You try to find out yourself!)

They were invented by a few clever, but conservative, strategists just before Margaret Thatcher first became Prime Minister. Their rise is probably the most significant event in recent British political history along with Special Advisers and the party whip system. I can heartily recommend Owen Jones’ book “The Establishment (and how they get way with it)”, in which he analyses the rise of the think tank in forensic detail. You won’t believe how they ever so cleverly changed public opinion.

‘A dissection of the profoundly and sickeningly corrupt state that is present-day Britain. He (Owen Jones) is a fine writer, and this is a truly necessary book’ Philip Pullman (author of His Dark Materials)

1983 Labour Party manifesto (extract)

It explains why we should have left years ago & demonstrates why we can’t trust Corbyn, and we all know we can’t trust Blair (I hope?)

This from 1983 is so reasonable and is fully supportive of Winston Churchill’s (Tory) and Clement Atlee’s (Labour) views in the 1950s despite Adonis and Blair saying otherwise.

Britain and the Common Market

Geography and history determine that Britain is part of Europe, and Labour wants to see Europe safe and prosperous. But the European Economic Community, which does not even include the whole of Western Europe, was never devised to suit us, and our experience as a member of it has made it more difficult for us to deal with our economic and industrial problems. It has sometimes weakened our ability to achieve the objectives of Labour’s international policy.

The next Labour government, committed to radical, socialist policies for reviving the British economy, is bound to find continued membership a most serious obstacle to the fulfilment of those policies. In particular the rules of the Treaty of Rome are bound to conflict with our strategy for economic growth and full employment, our proposals on industrial policy and for increasing trade, and our need to restore exchange controls and to regulate direct overseas investment. Moreover, by preventing us from buying food from the best sources of world supply, they would run counter to our plans to control prices and inflation.

For all these reasons, British withdrawal from the Community is the right policy for Britain – to be completed well within the lifetime of the parliament. That is our commitment. But we are also committed to bring about withdrawal in an amicable and orderly way, so that we do not prejudice employment or the prospect of increased political and economic co-operation with the whole of Europe.

We emphasise that our decision to bring about withdrawal in no sense represents any weakening of our commitment to internationalism and international co operation. We are not ‘withdrawing from Europe’. We are seeking to extricate ourselves from the Treaty of Rome and other Community treaties which place political burdens on Britain. Indeed, we believe our withdrawal will allow us to pursue a more dynamic and positive international policy – one which recognises the true political and geographical spread of international problems and interests. We will also seek agreement with other European governments – both in the EEC and outside – on a common strategy for economic expansion.

The process of withdrawal

On taking office we will open preliminary negotiations with the other EEC member states to establish a timetable for withdrawal; and we will publish the results of these negotiations in a White Paper. In addition, as soon as possible after the House assembles, we will introduce a Repeal Bill: first, in order to amend the 1972 European Communities Act, ending the powers of the Community in the UK; and second, to provide the necessary powers to repeal the 1972 Act, when the negotiations on withdrawal are completed.

Following the publication of the White Paper, we will begin the main negotiations on withdrawal. Later, when appropriate and in the same parliament, we will use our powers to repeal the 1972 Act and abrogate the Treaty of Accession – thus breaking all of our formal links with the Community. Britain will at this point withdraw from the Council of Ministers and from the European Parliament.

There will need to be a period of transition, to ensure a minimum of disruption – and to phase in any new agreements we might make with the Community. This will enable us to make all the necessary changes in our domestic legislation. Until these changes in UK law have taken place, the status quo as regards particular items of EEC legislation will remain. And this period will, of course, extend beyond the date when we cease, formally, to be members.

One gets a feeling of deja vu?


Leave a Reply