No. He's a corrupt outside influencer, the same as Blair. His choice in being chummy with organisations such as the WEF, do him no favours, just like his former boss.
John Brighton I know that once we have political independence from the UK our vote will count in the UK you get promises such as a federal uk within two years and devo max and a lot more none of which came true so here’s to 2019 the year Scotland said enough #ScotRef
Assume his repeated use of the word "betrayal" in his introduction whilst also calling for a second referendum was deliberate irony / sarcasm? Pretty sure many of the 17m+ leave voters would feel betrayal if we don't leave. I'm not unhappy to have a second referendum, but those asking for it need to answer: - If leave wins the expectation is we do not re-visit this issue "for a generation". This is what the message was a) 70's European referendum b) Scottish independence referendum (very similar issue) c) the actual referendum in the first place (!) - If remain wins 55/45 (highest share remain can realistically expect) then we still need to 45% leave. As 48/52 to remain resulted in the remain side still expecting a compromise and us only just about leaving in name only. 55/45 remain doesn't equate to remain under status quo unless they are morally inconsistent. - What if remain wins 52/48 but on a lower turn out? (I would say quite a likely result - If remain wins then leave can just demand another referendum in a few years time. And how could this be denied? I voted leave but I'm not unhappy if the government just say "Thanks for your input. But you were wrong, as per all EU countries populations are in any referendum we disagree with. To be honest, we think you 17m shouldn't be allowed to vote at any future elections."
@@kaieden I thought before (and bet and therefore lost £) on remain winning between 55 and 60%. I'd have then expected the outcome to be 100% status-quo, been thankful that we had the chance to vote, not expected another vote for 30+ years.
Why was their 27 papers on analysing joining the Euro? Had the first 26 authors / contributors not studied GCSE maths or economics or history or politics? Anyone who ever thought the UK should, like the IMF and BCC, join the Euro should have been banned from speaking / making predictions at the EU referendum. Like we used to ban the IRA's voice on the news.
@@kaieden I haven't researched if 2 + 2 = 7 or if rainbows have pots of gold at the end of them. Or, maybe more seriously, if say women should not be allowed to vote as there isn't any valid reason to even consider that proposition / it has already been answered. It is self-evident that a) a currency union is a significant loss of sovereignty (difficult to see how decisions could be made 100% by the UK for the benefit / strategic goals / inline with democratically elected government. If was 95% then would be a reduction. And can be seen now with Italy's elected government not permitted to set their own budget) b) a single interest rate may not suit all countries (we already knew that theoretically a lower interest rate would have helped in Yorkshire in the 70s than was required in London then) c) impossible to ascertain at what exchange rate to join (we'd had the run on the pound that same decade whilst trying to converge exchange rates) d) fixed exchange rates removes the natural stabilising effect on a country's balance of payments. This was known from the first half of the 20th century (and can be seen now with Greece) So these were all known in 1996
@danielwebb8402 The IRA's voices were banned but not their words. Only a dictatorship silences opposing or differing opinions. If you value democracy, you must allow *all* to have their say or it isn't democracy at all.
@MS19 But in relation to my original point. On anyone that ever advocated joining the Euro. Maybe they shouldn't be banned, but treated as an adult would treat a flat earther? Laughed at. Ridiculed. Don't allow them to use metal cutlery as a danger to themselves and others.
He’s far more popular than Tony Blair, Theresa May and David Cameron now....kinda ironic
After 4 years, this comment aged quite well.
No. He's a corrupt outside influencer, the same as Blair. His choice in being chummy with organisations such as the WEF, do him no favours, just like his former boss.
@@A-Gordon-Brown-Stan-Account It really did
@@alice1374 ☺
Love you Mr King of this earth. Love henry
I love when you told the world father brown. This is the day the world faught back against the global recession
five years later.
take a deep breath and congratulate,humourize and fudge the common man like a snake charmer from calcutta.
Remember Mrs Duffy !
Scotland 🏴 voted Remain all 32 councils 🇪🇺
John Brighton I know that once we have political independence from the UK our vote will count in the UK you get promises such as a federal uk within two years and devo max and a lot more none of which came true so here’s to 2019 the year Scotland said enough #ScotRef
@@patrickwoodside5998 Not going to happen, half my family are from scotland and they don't want it either.
Blufor 4014 Our Parliament by majority has already voted for an indyref that’s democracy!
@@ewanmcfadyen it will be in the manifesto in the Scottish Parliament Election in May & SNP set to win a landslide
Assume his repeated use of the word "betrayal" in his introduction whilst also calling for a second referendum was deliberate irony / sarcasm? Pretty sure many of the 17m+ leave voters would feel betrayal if we don't leave.
I'm not unhappy to have a second referendum, but those asking for it need to answer:
- If leave wins the expectation is we do not re-visit this issue "for a generation". This is what the message was a) 70's European referendum b) Scottish independence referendum (very similar issue) c) the actual referendum in the first place (!)
- If remain wins 55/45 (highest share remain can realistically expect) then we still need to 45% leave. As 48/52 to remain resulted in the remain side still expecting a compromise and us only just about leaving in name only. 55/45 remain doesn't equate to remain under status quo unless they are morally inconsistent.
- What if remain wins 52/48 but on a lower turn out? (I would say quite a likely result
- If remain wins then leave can just demand another referendum in a few years time. And how could this be denied?
I voted leave but I'm not unhappy if the government just say "Thanks for your input. But you were wrong, as per all EU countries populations are in any referendum we disagree with. To be honest, we think you 17m shouldn't be allowed to vote at any future elections."
@@kaieden I thought before (and bet and therefore lost £) on remain winning between 55 and 60%. I'd have then expected the outcome to be 100% status-quo, been thankful that we had the chance to vote, not expected another vote for 30+ years.
Actually the only acceptable deal is a great big smoking hole where the EU so called parliament used to be!!!
That tell us enough about who you are.
Steady on - even Nigel Farage expressed admiration for the parliament building. Dissolve the parliament but keep the building!
Get rid of traitors like him & brexit would be brilliant
Evidence that Gordon Brown committed treason?
Also your labour PFI schemes in Scotland we are still paying for !
Why was their 27 papers on analysing joining the Euro? Had the first 26 authors / contributors not studied GCSE maths or economics or history or politics? Anyone who ever thought the UK should, like the IMF and BCC, join the Euro should have been banned from speaking / making predictions at the EU referendum. Like we used to ban the IRA's voice on the news.
Funnily enough it was Gordon's foresight and diligence which led to Britain not joining the Euro
@@Matt-ty3hr Yes. He did well reigning in Blair on this topic. Without Brown would have been a much higher chance we'd have joined.
@@kaieden I haven't researched if 2 + 2 = 7 or if rainbows have pots of gold at the end of them. Or, maybe more seriously, if say women should not be allowed to vote as there isn't any valid reason to even consider that proposition / it has already been answered.
It is self-evident that a) a currency union is a significant loss of sovereignty (difficult to see how decisions could be made 100% by the UK for the benefit / strategic goals / inline with democratically elected government. If was 95% then would be a reduction. And can be seen now with Italy's elected government not permitted to set their own budget) b) a single interest rate may not suit all countries (we already knew that theoretically a lower interest rate would have helped in Yorkshire in the 70s than was required in London then) c) impossible to ascertain at what exchange rate to join (we'd had the run on the pound that same decade whilst trying to converge exchange rates) d) fixed exchange rates removes the natural stabilising effect on a country's balance of payments. This was known from the first half of the 20th century (and can be seen now with Greece)
So these were all known in 1996
@danielwebb8402 The IRA's voices were banned but not their words. Only a dictatorship silences opposing or differing opinions. If you value democracy, you must allow *all* to have their say or it isn't democracy at all.
@MS19
But in relation to my original point. On anyone that ever advocated joining the Euro. Maybe they shouldn't be banned, but treated as an adult would treat a flat earther? Laughed at. Ridiculed. Don't allow them to use metal cutlery as a danger to themselves and others.