View Full Version : President Blair strikes again

11th May 2005, 04:37
In today's online Telegraph ( here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/05/11/dl1102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/05/11/ixopinion.html))

The Prime Minister's absence from VE Day celebrations in Moscow and his refusal to allow the Queen to attend London's commemoration were bad misjudgments of how great a part war memories play in a country's identity.

... his refusal to allow the Queen to attend ... ???

Will somebody please explain this to me? Just who the :mad: does he think he is? Jumped-up little wenker.


Duff beer
11th May 2005, 07:42
When it comes to politics take whatever the telegraph writes with 'a pinch of salt'. Its persistant anti Labour drivle is embarrasing at times.

Also.....why should we remember VE day in Russia. I'd prefer to remember the men who defeated Nazism AND handed the liberated their freedom back. (yes I know without the Ruskies we may never have defeated old 'one bollock').

Perhaps European leaders should hold a service in the US, Canada or the UK. etc....to honour these very men.
I think its dead right that the Queen and the PM stayed in the UK and thanked the British who lived through our greatest hour. If our own leaders wont do this then who will?

And finally.....If anyone thinks Bush is there to remember the Russians who died is very wrong. Russian/US relations havent been as bad for years. He is there to seek allies from countries such as Georgia who eventually (against Russian opposition) have been allowed to develop democracy.

henry crun
11th May 2005, 07:51
So Duff beer, regardless of your opinion of the Telegraph you cannot answer the question ?

11th May 2005, 08:04
I would not dare to explain anything to anybody about UK Constitution (is there any?).........as my ignorance is so deep regarding this subject.

About Bliar's motivation I have got some clues: may ove-reaction to Bush's advices?

Duff beer
11th May 2005, 08:32
My knowledge on diplomatic procedures is rather slim, but the way I believe these things work is that neither the Queen nor the PM decide on where and when they will attend, but rather they are 'advised' by their aides. For politically based engagements the Queens aides would take the advise from the Government.

For whatever reason the British Govenment advisors believed that the Queens presence in Russia would not be suitable. Remember, we in the UK are in the position were our head of state is not a politition, but a monarch, compared to France, Russia and the US who have presidents.

To blame Blair is a bit unfair. I would guess the decision wasnt even made by him but by a large group of diplomats and advisors whose expertise and experience on such matters outways his and ours.

11th May 2005, 08:37
What a load of bollocks, the Torygraph are simply having a little rant because New Labour won the election. If Tony Blair really had told the Queen she couldn't attend the celebrations it would be a massive story, not hidden away in some on-line gossip column.

Curious Pax
11th May 2005, 08:37
Not sure, but I have an idea that HMQ has been unenthusiastic about visiting Russia since the Bolsheviks offed her relatives early last century. I suspect that this has rather more to do with the decision than anything Blair may or may not have said.

As for Blair, I believe that he decided not to go so that he would look focussed on home issues deciding the new government post election. So that worked then....

11th May 2005, 08:39
I think its dead right that the Queen and the PM stayed in the UK and thanked the British who lived through our greatest hour.
What, by not turning up to anything?
Also.....why should we remember VE day in Russia.
Don't recall being told to, it was just reporting in the news.

But, speaking for myself, my wife's grandfather was one of those Russians being remembered, so I do find your comment a little offensive.

henry crun
11th May 2005, 08:43
Duff beer: If you read the opening post again, Jerry Coe is not questioning the absence of the Queen from Moscow but from the commemoration in London.

X-QUORK: I don't know if the Telegraph is telling the truth or not, do you ?

11th May 2005, 09:06
No Henry, I don't know.

Duff beer
11th May 2005, 10:10
Henry crun:
Youre right, I do apologise. My reply though was not really about the specifics but more about the ridiculous Blair bashing that goes on.

Ive got nothing against remembering the fallen Russians of WW2, (though I will ignore the mass rape and murder of women in Berlin after the war) what I do despise is doing it in the name of Stalin and the USSR. Sir, the families of the millions he murdered might find this offensive.

11th May 2005, 10:37
The Times:

.....The Queen will lead national commemorations on Sunday, July 10, which has been designated as the principal day of remembrance, chosen as a date between VE-Day and VJ-Day (victory over Japan) which was proclaimed on August 15.

A spokesman for the Royal British Legion said it was satisfied with the memorial plans....

11th May 2005, 11:08
Will somebody please explain this to me

I believe that the commemoration held in London, was partly organised by the British Government, and attendance was by invitation only.

I suppose the Queen did not want to upset protocol and arrive uninvited, but why she needed an invite in the first place is beyond me.

12th May 2005, 05:44
I don't suppose either of them will be at Hiroshima Day either.

I always celebrate on Hiroshima day because its my birthday, but I always think about what else that day stands for as well. It was certainly necessary and saved millions of lives, most probably including my own father's, but it was a pretty horrific event for all that.

VE day, VJ day, 6th August, 11th November, 19th March. What the hell, for all of our leaders' wreath laying, we'll never, ever learn, will we?

12th May 2005, 06:18
A Frenchman (ex FAF) asked me why we didnŽt have a public holiday on VE day?

I told him, if we took a day off for every war we had won, weŽd never get any work done....

12th May 2005, 15:08
Meanwhile, Commons officials are swearing in MPs ahead of next Tuesday's state opening of Parliament. MPs and peers will take an oath of allegiance to the Queen - or a similarly solemn affirmation - in a process which will take up to four days.

On hearing this, Tony Blair sighed "If it were upto me, I'd take 6 days. At least that way, I could justify having the 7th day off..." :E