Blair and the non-presidential campaign
There can't be many campaigns like this. There is a job out there with a great title, but no-one has yet decided what it means, and there is a fierce argument being fought over a man who is not yet a candidate. So where do we stand on this non-presidential campaign?
Way back, Europe decided it would be more effective if it had a full-time president rather than a rotating presidency every six months. Not everyone was sure about this. The idea was pushed most strongly by Britain and France. They wanted a big name who would be the face of Europe.
Even back then smaller countries were uneasy.They feared this new "big beast" could eclipse them. He might just call Sarkozy or Merkel direct, and cut them out. Still, the job was written into the Lisbon Treaty with the title "President of the European Council". The president will have very little actual power, but could have high visibility.
Those arguments over the job description have not been resolved and, until they are, Tony Blair will not be a candidate. If the job turns out to be chairing summits - or, as someone put, it an "arranger of furniture" then it's not for Tony Blair. He'll be a no-show.
If, on the other hand, European leaders want someone who will get a meeting at the White House rather than a handshake with Joe Biden, then Blair is the only name out there. So we don't have a candidate, but I am certain that Blair wants the job if he can play the world stage. If he didn't he could easily have ruled himself out.
So ,Tony Blair won't declare until he sees the job spec, but that hasn't stopped a campaign being run on his behalf. His campaign team turns out to be the British government. There will be the curious sight of Gordon Brown barnstorming for the man who kept him out of No 10 for so long.
At this week's European summit Gordon Brown will push Tony Blair. The issue of the president is not formally on the agenda at the summit but it will be discussed at dinner on Thursday night. The role of campaign manager looks as if it is being played by an old ally of Tony Blair, the Foreign Secretary David Miliband. He has used every opportunity to "sell" Blair. He wants a president who will stop traffic in Beijing. This is "no time for shy and retiring violets", he told me. Miliband's point is that the world is in danger of becoming a G2 - America and China. Europe needs a spokesman.
The "return of Blair", however, has sent a shock-wave through the British political system. The Tories are furious.
One said: "Imagine the headline next year: 'Prime Minister David Cameron welcomes President Blair to Downing Street'." So the shadow foreign secretary, William Hague, is also on the campaign trail, telling the French and Germans that promoting Blair would be a "hostile act". David Cameron is siding with the small countries in wanting a low-key president, a chair of summits and no more. He certainly doesn't want an "all singing, all-dancing, all acting" President Blair. The Liberal Democrats are set to oppose a President Blair.
The "Blair presidency" has become a surrogate for all the old arguments over the war in Iraq. Some Labour MPs, who bitterly opposed the invasion, say Blair "would be wholly unsuitable for the job". Others, like Roger Liddle, who was an adviser to both Tony Blair and the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, said the war shouldn't be an issue.
However, Tony Blair is attracting so much heat that some say it is damaging his chances. So one candidate has appeared for the job that is yet to be defined. Step forward Jean-Claude Juncker, the prime minister of Luxembourg, a champion of the voice of small countries. "If I were called on," he said modestly, "I would have no reason to refuse". Then he appeared to take a swipe at his non-declared rival. "Europe should be represented by someone whose main concern would be to serve it."
The race will probably only be settled at a special summit held after the Czech president signs the Lisbon Treaty. That will probably be in November.
The electorate is small: the 27 heads of government. It will be decided on qualified majority voting, so expect deals and horse-trading.
Much will turn on the views of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who just happen to be meeting later. It may revolve on how they see the future of Europe - but it may hinge, too, on power. Would a leader with a world-wide reputation detract from their own standing on the international stage?
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~56~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Bad enough that Bliar was shoehorned into "Middle East Peace envoy" (and how ironic was that!), but if this pathetic excuse for a human being is given the EU Presidency rather than taken to War Crimes tribunal in the Hague for his part in two illegal wars, I for one will be washing my hands of all things political. It would, I expect, be the final straw for many other people in the UK, and would lead to even more calls for the UK to leave the European Union. It STINKS.
Complain about this comment
Much as I despise the EU, I would not have the heart to wish Blair on the people of Europe. Juncker sounds like the man... unless our new aristocracy wants even their loyal supporters to look at them in askance.
Complain about this comment
'The electorate is small: the 27 heads of government.'
'democracy - /dimokrsi/ • noun (pl. democracies) 1 a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives. 2 a state governed in such a way. 3 control of a group by the majority of its members.'
Sick.
Complain about this comment
Juncker is a stalking-horse candidate, but if Blair believes he is a contender it really indicates he does not understand why his name is in the frame. European federalists, most certainly including J-C Juncker, want the president of the EU Council to be as insignificant a figure as possible; a president of Germany rather than one of France. Their plan is for the president of the EU Commission to emerge over time as the dominant figure for whom the traffic stops.
Federalists like Juncker have not worked for a decade on a treaty that increases the power of the supranational EU institutions (e.g. Commission, EU Parliament, etc.) relative to the governments of Europe only to see a dominant figure emerge at the EU Council. That is why the president of the EU Council has no formal powers, why the term of office was reduced to 2.5 years, and why the EU high representative for foreign affairs is also a member of the EU Commission who can gradually fall under the control of its president.
A Blair candidature as EU Council president is actually a useful fall guy for the federalists; a man whose notoriety can be used as an excuse for rejecting him, leaving a Lilliputian at the EU Council who will not overshadow the president of the EU Commission. And who may distract some gullible Brits into championing a candidate for a role that should and would not exist had the promised UK referendum on the EU Constitution / Lisbon treaty been held. Better to ignore the fall guy and focus instead on the real campaign that lies ahead; reducing the power that the EU has over us.
Complain about this comment
The man is slipperier than an eel in a vaseline bath. He managed to duck out of UK Plc, leaving Gordon holding the baby and billions of pounds of national debt, whilst embarking on a £10million lecture tour promoting his global ego. I call him "Tony Blairlusconi" because of his arrogance and lack of sensitivity. Surely the Iraq enquiry will apportion some culpability for the hundred thousand civilians needlessly slaughtered there and does Europe seriously want to have such a man at its head. I would hope not. Ex Irish president Mary Robinson would be a much better candidate.
Complain about this comment
" So ,Tony Blair won't declare until he sees the job spec, but that hasn't stopped a campaign being run on his behalf. His campaign team turns out to be the British government."
The BBC is giving the idea quite a bit of airtime, too. Or is that what you meant?
I have just worked out what the Millipede was really saying the other day, when he suggested Europe needs someone who can be forceful on the world stage!
What he means is that Europe needs a native English speaker as President, if it is to be useful on the world stage.
Complain about this comment
I can't see how Blair could ever be considered for the position of EU president. The idea is that a British president would make the UK more -EU-friendly but the reality is that he has no support or credibility anywere in the EU. His name is forever associated to his role in the Iraq war and other numerous serious or less serious 'mistakes'.
Blair? no, thank you!
Complain about this comment
Will the toothless Sheree be able to call herself " First lady of Europe "? It is a disgrace to even suggest that a man so lacking in integrity should be considered as European president, if there has to be one. Hopefully at some time in the future he will be the subject of a genuine inquiry into the lies and double dealing that embroiled Britain in a war in Iraq. Whether he was culpable or not may never be proven, but he is now so besmirched with dishonesty that he cannot be allowed to reoresent the interests of Britain in any way.
Complain about this comment
This is fascinating stuff. The British government, we learn from the previous thread wants a 'big hitter', somebody with real clout. Blair is their man and Miliband is campaign manager. Brown will argue his cause at the summit even though its not on the agenda.
Anyone get the idea Brown felt a lot safer playing second fiddle to Tony than out there leading from the front?
Complain about this comment
Mr. Hewitt;
Your article would have been strengthened if you had put the national glasses aside, I believe.
As you will know, the general secretary of NATO was recently appointed. During the candidacy for a long time the man kept a low profile because of the following rule: Only shortly after the announcement of your candidature the criticism begins. This is what happens to Blair. Other possible candidates - I do not think you mention anybody - have avoided it so far.
By the way when the new general secretary of NATO had been appointed it was important to him to thank the French president and the German chancellor.
Complain about this comment
5. At 2:27pm on 28 Oct 2009, jonfrance wrote:
"The man is slipperier than an eel in a vaseline bath."
Do you have any practical experience of this?
Complain about this comment
8. At 2:43pm on 28 Oct 2009, kaybraes wrote:
"Will the toothless Sheree be able to call herself " First lady of Europe "? It is a disgrace to even suggest that a man so lacking in integrity should be considered as European president,"
He shouldn't be allowed to run anything.
Complain about this comment
7. At 2:41pm on 28 Oct 2009, DucatiRossa wrote:
"I can't see how Blair could ever be considered for the position of EU president. The idea is that a British president would make the UK more -EU-friendly ..."
He has already tried this and failed.
Thee is this thing called the truth.
You cannot hide all of it forever.
Even the bits of the "EU" which are plain to see make it unacceptable.
I am sure there are other bits which make it even more so.
Complain about this comment
10. At 3:15pm on 28 Oct 2009, Mathiasen wrote:
" ... NATO ..."
I and other "EU"-loathers are starting to have doubts about NATO too.
For a long time I have thought: "We leave the 'EU' but stay in NATO."
If the "EU" and NATO start to look as if they were too cosy, then I might not want to be in NATO either once we are free of the "EU" .
Complain about this comment
The picture of Blair at the top of this blog makes me think:
"Everybody else is looking. Blair is pretending to be looking but mainly concerned that he is wearing his plastic smile for the inevitable photograph."
Complain about this comment
@9
I think you hit the nail on the head there, Brown has shown himself not to be comfortable with the limelight and the decisions that are needed off a leader he's much better at the hiding behind the front man. Blair for all his faults (and there are many) is a good speaker, however it is his faults that have led us to the problems we are facing now and that is just one of many reasons why he should NOT become the EU president.
Complain about this comment
Unfortunately for Blair, the job-selection criteria are likely to include
Honesty, Integrity, Demonstrable Ethics, Ability to Accomplish, Societally Directed, Democratic.
As opposed to a job-spec as invented by Milliband of
Able to ride around in a Motor-cade, Ability to lie to the People, Able to declare War and turn a blind eye to the Casualiites, Ability to rip up expense claims to avoid any future comebacks.
Blair falls short in some of the former Ethics driven criteria but gets a Full House on the latter Milliband criteria.
He is unsuitable.
In fact.... if the EU allows the appointment of any unelected person, then why Blair and not any of the other 600 million citizens ?
What is the EU actually saying to its voters 'Blair is the best we can do on integrity honesty etc'???
As an unelected representative (which is what Blair is), my claim for EU President is stronger than his claim, as I didn't lie to the People about WMD and then walk away and foist the consequences on the families of both sides.
Complain about this comment
Jean-Claude Juncker has been angling for this post ever since it was thought of, but he has had to pretend not to be interested so as to avoid being a lame duck PM.
The word here in Luxembourg is that he has put his head over the parapet just a wee bit too early. Luxembourg is also not particularly popular with France and Germany, which have been using tax havens as whipping-boys since the economic crisis began.
But choosing Blair would be a slap in the face for the Brits. How will they feel when they boot New Labour out at home, only to find it reappearing in Brussels?
Complain about this comment
18 - WillWhitfoot
That's an interesting idea that had not occurred to me. Labour, knowing they are doomed in Britain, looking for another way to cling on to power?
Complain about this comment
It strikes me that the EU has an inferiority complex, seeing itself in a US shadow and thinking a proper President would give it more status. Much like some nerdy teenager growing a wispy beard to be taken more seriously.
If we must have this false presidency thrust upon us, who better than "Phoney Tony" the egomaniac grinning Toby jug....unless there's a vacant cell next to Radovan Karadzic.
Complain about this comment
Let's have a game of multiple choice:
Q: Why will Europeans not vote for the president of the EU?
A: They don't want to choose, because they know they are too stupid to make a good choice.
B: They can't be allowed to choose, because they are too stupid to make a good choice.
C: It doesn't matter, and even if it does, the right people have the matter in hand, so it doesn't.
D: It matters, and even if it doesn't, the right people have the matter in hand, so it does.
E: All of the above.
F: Multiple choice makes me nervous. What does my local party commissar say about this?
Complain about this comment
#21. democracythreat,
You are welcome to tell us how you imagine 500 mio people can vote for a president. Are you in favour of European parties instead of national?
Complain about this comment
Demoracythreat (21): The Answer is:
G: A pan-European election would not confer a democratic legitimacy on the 'winner' because the people doing the voting are not one united group that would agree to be bound by their majority.
Complain about this comment
What is it about the people of this rather mediocre and badly-governed nation that they would prefer a foreigner to lead the EU rather than one of their own?
Say what you like about Tony Blair, but there is little doubt that it would be in the British interest to have an ex-Prime Minister as President of Europe. Those who want to see Europe move more towards Britain's position on policy should welcome the opportunity to have our man leading in Brussels.
Life is a compromise - we could get the Presidency on a plate, but not the candidate of our choosing. Live with it people - far better to have Blair there than a leader from another European nation.
Complain about this comment
The job of the president of the EU is to prepare and chair the Council meetings, and to represent the EU on the international level. It is not the other way around. Since part of the agenda for the EU is building a more cohesive Union, it seems odd to push for a divisive figure. Blair looked OK 10 years ago, after the agreement in Northern Ireland. But not anymore: the debate on Irak, and the invasion, wiped out all the goodwill Blair had created before. His EU presidency in 2005 was not very glorious. After he resigned as Prime Minister, he became 'Middle East Peace Envoy', with no result whatsoever, as amply demonstrated earlier this year in Gaza. So why push him now? To help the Chinese police stop some traffic in Beijing? Come on, look at the job of secretary general of NATO, which goes to a European, who, despite his relatively low profile, is still welcomed in the White House, and other traffic stopping places where NATO has something to do. It will be the same with the EU president, whoever it is.
Another point is that Blair did not succeed as Prime Minister to bring his country into the Euro, or in the Schengen area. So why should he now be qualified to prepare the policy in this area? And then, he promised a referendum on the EU Constitution, which was not held, but forced the hand of Chirac to hold one in France. Despite the "elites" being for it, the French people voted NO. Likewise the Dutch. This was due to the growing disenchantment of the majority of people in Europe with the way the EU works, and the patronizing attitude of the YES camp. Blair's appointment, and the way the current campaign in his favour is conducted (who cares about traffic jams in Beijing, anyway, or for most of the other reasons advanced to promote Blair) just fuels this disenchantment, and will cause more people to turn their back to the EU project entirely, despite its rational interest. So please stop promoting Blair, it does not look good at all, and it will only backfire.
Complain about this comment
Where is Charles De Gaulle, this is the job he wanted. We will just have to wait and see who the bankers select.
Complain about this comment
#21. & #23
H: People don't vote on who gets to be a speaker (and yes in several countries, such as Germany, France, Spain etc. the speaker is called a president)
Complain about this comment
21. democracythreat
"…Q: Why will Europeans not vote for the president of the EU?.."
They can't be trusted to give the right answer. This is a poll for the likes of the unelected Gordon Brown to have a punt. Democracy - don't we love it?
Complain about this comment
If Jean Claude Juncker gets the job I can just imagine him meeting President Obama at the White House. The American Media will be like who the heck is Jean Claude Juncker? And the American people will be like "Where the hell is Luxembourg?" if it were to even be covered at all. If Europe is really concerned about a G2 between the United States and China this would not be a good pick. Out of your own interest you need to pick a President with a big name or not have this position at all. Moreover, I do not understand why this person is not elected by the European people anyways? Why not set up an electoral college like the US and weight the vote according to population of the individual member states. The smaller states like Austria and The Netherlands can hold the first primary or something similiar such as New Hampshire and Iowa in the US.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen wrote:
#21. democracythreat,
"You are welcome to tell us how you imagine 500 mio people can vote for a president. Are you in favour of European parties instead of national?"
If it is too difficult for 500 million europeans to take part in a democratic process to decide how and by whom they ought to be governed, surely that is a fine argument against the union of these 500 million people?
As you suggest, the only way would be for political "parties" to take up the challenge. Now where have I heard this reasoning before? Oh yes, the former soviet union.
As you know by now, I am wholly against the concept of representation. I believe people should vote on legislation, not for representatives who then vote for them. And furthermore, I believe people should vote on legislation at a local and regional level, and that any federal structure ought to be strictly limited to support the system of political enfranchisement, not to undermine it.
The erosion of political emancipation in the modern world is a trend of evolution, but I submit it is not ipso facto a glorious step forward.
I think the debate about what sort of political economy (who pays for what in the selection process for politicians and who spends money gathered under tax laws) is not widely undertaken in our society. In fact, the very term "political economy" is something of radical concept.
"Our" media is so completely integrated into the fabric of the current political economy that any debate discussing possible change is inevitably met with complete silence.
If we want a serious debate about the political economy of our society, first we need to have a close look at the political economy of the mass media, and understand how our current system really works.
This is my most serious criticism of the current structure of the EU: it was built by the power brokers of the current political economy to increase control (they would call it "efficiency"). It was not built to enhance the intellectual dignity of the ordinary members of society.
I think that until the ordinary people start to take their own dignity seriously, we will not have a sensible debate about "how" we ought to be governed. All we can expect is for those who control the political economy to speak at us about how it might better better managed. But the terms of reference will remain fixed: "better" management means better for the existing stakeholders. If you question that premis....... guess you may as well post some chatter on a web blog.
Complain about this comment
23. Freeborn-John
"…the people doing the voting are not one united group that would agree to be bound by their majority…"
We are deemed to be a united people under Lisbon. Don't mention any content introduced in the Constitutional Treaty, can't have agitation about a referendum commitment. Sweep it under the carpet and move on.
We can't have democracy getting in the way of progress.
Complain about this comment
What a sick joke even contemplating Tony Blair for this job. He's mucked up Britain, mucked up the Middle East, now he can muck up Europe. Adolf Hitler in his own sick way strove for European unity, but you wouldn't have given the EU Presidency to him. Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
#30. democracythreat
I see quite a few words about things I did not ask and nothing about the topic I actually asked you: What is your idea of how the 500 mio people can vote for a president?
Complain about this comment
#32 - CaledonianComment
" . . . but you wouldn't have given the EU Presidency to him".
We are not giving the presidency to anyone. Our beloved leaders are doing that.
Did we give them a mandate to do that? Well I suppose, in the sense that a board of directors can change the rules about how they appoint a Chairman, yes we did. But did we give them the authority to appoint a Chief Executive? No, we most certainly did not.
The problem is that Tony is not interested in the Chairman's job. It's CEO or nothing. So we are back to square one. We have to wait for the heads of government to spell out exactly what they want of their shiny new president and, if they decide to give him real power, I would say that all of them will be exceeding their mandate.
Complain about this comment
For crying out load...
Everyone and their dog in 27 EU member states are applying for the job.
In Finland to this day the media has noted former President and Nobel Peace Price winner Martti Ahtisaarti to be a candidate, also in speculation has been former Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen and currently it is speculated could our current President Tarja Halonen could be in for the job.
I'm just sick of hearing all this speculation as the fact is, this is the European Union we are talking, the inventors of cow trading, what ever the cow trading will result to, it will be a surprise for all of us.
So how about some grain and salt for all this speculation. There have to be some more important topics to also cover than this continual soap opera.
Complain about this comment
Let's get one thing straight: for all the media hype and political hyperbole, this job is NOT "President of the EU" - it is the chairmanship of one of the several EU institutions, each one of which has its own President. This one chairs the European Council - the four times a year meeting of Prime Ministers of EU Member States.
There is already such a post - it currently changes every six months by buggin's turn. Let the heads of the (democratically chosen) governments of the EU Member States choose who they want to chair their meetings.
The more significant President is that of the Commission, who is elected by the European Parliament on a proposal of the heads of government of the Member States. He actually has an administration to run, not just a hand-shaking role.
Complain about this comment
36. britishandeuropean
"...it is the chairmanship of one of the several EU institutions, each one of which has its own President. This one chairs the European Council..."
I thought the job was President of the European Council – the supreme body in the EU?
Complain about this comment
To Britishandeuropean 36
You are, of course, absolutely correct.
But why let reality get in the way of a good media story. It least a good British media story.
As for the idea that whoever eventually gets the post will be able to get a meeting at the White House I find absolutely pathetic.
Frankly, the President of the United States of America will invite whoever he wants to and for his own reasons. Here the U.K. has a real problem. President Obama sent the bust of Sir Winston Churchill back to the British Embassy. And we all know how well PM Gordon Brown is received in Washington - or not.
In my opinion Tony Blair could prove a good choice for the job on offer, but he is associated with the Bush administration in America, which just about rules him out there.
But Gavin - is this not supposed to be a European rather than a U K blog. Next time could we please have a Continental European story or theme.
Complain about this comment
36. At 8:30pm on 28 Oct 2009, britishandeuropean wrote:
'Let's get one thing straight: for all the media hype and political hyperbole, this job is NOT "President of the EU" ...'
SB2:
There are European Union Battlegroups. Under whose command are they?
There are "Euroepan Gendarmes". Under whose command are they?
Complain about this comment
I have seen several unflattering references to Cherie Blair on this site.
I think we ought to leave her out of it.
The "EU", the Labour Party, the LibDems, the UK government, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Miliband, Merkel, Sarkozy and Barrosso are all enemies of the British people.
We have enough to chew on.
Complain about this comment
Since the role of the "President" is unclear, the effects of the Lisbon Treaty are unclear.
Surely, that alone should be sufficient reason for President Klaus to refuse to sign it.
Complain about this comment
35. At 7:33pm on 28 Oct 2009, Jukka_Rohila wrote:
"For crying out load...
...
There have to be some more important topics to also cover than this continual soap opera."
Hardly! The sick megalomaniac "EU" may well be about put an arrogant megalomaniac in charge of it resulting in wars in which many could die. Hardly trivial!
The fact that we are all speculating instead of worrying about hows we will be voting shows how sick it all ias.
Complain about this comment
What is all this about the White House and Washington?
I want to be friendly with the Americans but I don't want to suck up to then - in or out of the "EU".
Complain about this comment
Gavin Hewitt said: "Those arguments over the job description have not been resolved and, until they are, Tony Blair will not be a candidate. If the job turns out to be chairing summits ... then it's not for Tony Blair."
This implies that Tony Bair believes that powers not mentioned in the Lisbon Treaty can simply be 'invented' for this role after Lisbon comes into force. In other words that Lisbon is worthless in delimiting EU power and will not be able to prevent more of the unchecked centralisation of power in Brussels that has been hollowing out the powers of national governments, parliaments and we voters for so long already. David Miliband must believe the same too because the existing organizer of EU summits that Richard Corbett (36) describes does not "stop the traffic" in Beijing today or have automatic access to the Oval Office.
If Richard Corbett is correct, Blair and Miliband do not understand the limited role of this position, which makes one wonder what else they failed to comprehend about Lisbon before agreeing to it. If Blair and Miliband are correct that additional powers that appear in no treaty can simply be invented for this role, then Lisbon is an open door to further institutional self-aggrandizement which they should never have signed up to either.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen wrote:
#30. democracythreat
"I see quite a few words about things I did not ask and nothing about the topic I actually asked you: What is your idea of how the 500 mio people can vote for a president?"
I would have thought you could do it any number of ways.
You could have pan european parties holding primaries and then a presidential run off, as they do in the states.
Or you could have the 20 candidates from the European parliament who achieved the highest approval rating from their peers over the past year.
You could make the process operate any way you wanted. And that is rather the point. The current system operates the way the parties want it to operate. Behind closed doors.
But demanding that I propose a method for representative selection is a bit weak, when I have given my reasons for rejecting representation as a form of government. This sets you up to now say "That way is no good because XXX. You don't have a good idea for the process, therefore the current model is best."
I repeat what I said earlier: If we can't have a discussion about the political economy that established the current EU structure and institutions, then I guess we are left to accept whatever suits the people who own that political economy.
I don't want to use technical jargon, so I will repeat what I mean by the term "political economy": Who pays for what in the establishment and furtherance of political careers, and who gets to spend the taxpayers contributions to the state.
At the end of the day, Mathiasen, if you give me control of the structure of the political economy, do I really care what the procedure is for the ratification of the results that transpire?
Unless the demos vote on legislative proposals, and unless the demos has the power to strike down proposed legislation if they deem it to be counter to their interests, then I disagree that you have a functioning democracy.
Complain about this comment
"There is a job out there ..." (Gavin Hewitt)
Has the Lisbon Treaty now been ratified by all 27 EU member states?
I must have missed the announcement.
Complain about this comment
A disaster and a disgrace if Blair back anywhere on the world stage comes about - in my opinion the only limelight he deserves is in the dock on charges of deception, dishonesty, corruption, and warcrimes - let him be president of the inside of a locked prison cell - he can strut about all he likes there whithout harming or shaming the UK or EU political systems any more than he already has - come on Gordon, can't you do better than this? Is foisting the worst Prime-Minister in living memory on the whole of the European Union population really what you want to be remembered for?
Complain about this comment
#45. democracythreat
Thank you for your thoughts. They actually support structures that go across the borders of the nation states, and that is a thing that we know many citizens in the union are less enthusiastic about.
Obviously the groups of the EP are organisations that can select candidates but before we reach such a thing they will have to consider the matter of language. It seems to me that a candidate will have to speak more languages if we imagine that the candidates were also campaigning in more countries. The big countries with many voters are of course the most attractive, and then everything begins to be a problem, but that will take us too far to go into.
For the moment I would prefer the EP to have a more important role in this.
Complain about this comment
Now that the new German government is in place, we begin to hear arguments from Berlin (see the article “German party cool on Blair for EU” here on BBC. The party is the liberal junior partner of the coalition, which is also the party of the new foreign minister, G. Westerwelle.)
Contrary to the tone used in the articles in this blog the German party seems to share Jean-Claude Juncker’s understanding, namely that the position of the so-called president should not go to one of the largest countries. In addition, I believe that the German government would like to have a person from the centre of the union, which would mean a person from a country that is using the Euro and is participating in the Schengen agreement.
Complain about this comment
The new post of EU president is being delayed by Vaclav Klaus. Is this the first time a Post is being held up by a Czech?
Complain about this comment
Yes, lets make (hey, I'm not even frm the EU..,
Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, Gorbachev, or some true EU hero, the President and let it be a ceremonial honour:)
Or have "it" rotate, yet again, but make the post truly powerful, Lasting 4 Years.
I.E., If one has no opposition to speak of, is one really a leader?
Complain about this comment
"Suffolk Boy2" at #40 says: "The...Labour Party, the LibDems, the UK government" etc are "all enemies of the British people".
So, those elected by the British people are enemies of the British people. The British are funny!
Complain about this comment
Most of your comments seem to be very Brit egocentric. There has been hardly any mention on French TV or in the press of the potential Blair presidency apart from one analysis in Le Monde which decided that he was definitely not the right choice.
We have a fairly broad mix of the various EU nations living here many of whom are back and forth to their home countries on a regular basis. I'm told by some Dutch and Belgian friends that there is a great deal of hostility to him within the Benelux countries and am waiting to hear from some German friends who come back from Germany this week end as to what they have heard.
It sounds to me like the Brit media are talking up a storm. It is good to see that there doesn't seem much support for him on this blog, although I can't imagine he has much support in the UK anyway.
Complain about this comment
No. 29 Seedorf - LOL. Indeed, many Americans know that Luxembourg is in Iowa. Or possibly Wisconsin. They are equally vague about the position of many European countries. But it is a sorry argument for Blair that he is the only candidate the geographically-challenged US people have heard of.
No. 35 Jukka Rohila - That is a point. Of course each country will be touting its own top people. Ahtisaari has the clout, and he is known as a peacemaker. Like many others, he has done well not to get his name mentioned in this connection outside Finland yet. Openly being a candidate is the kiss of death, which is why Juncker probably won't get it.
Complain about this comment
What if Britain were to leave the EU during Tony Blairs Presidency ?
Might he have to stand down ? I would seem very inappropriate to choose a president from a country that is so eurosceptic .
Complain about this comment
Europe is concerned about a G2 world between the US and China? The EU should get it's act together then The GDP of the EU is $14.91 trillion (2008 est.) and that in the US a mere $14.26 trillion (2008 est.)
The US should be concerned about becoming a second tier state after so long as top dog.
There is far too much at stake to let this sort of argument degenerate into UK vs the rest of Europe.
Complain about this comment
Does this job have to go to a politician? I'd rather see a football manager. In fact, I can think of nothing better for the EU than it to have the likes of Ferguson, Capello, Wenger and Mourinho at the helm.
The danger is that it would probably work rather well.
Complain about this comment
The BBC (bless them)is trying so hard to keep Mr Cool, Tony Blair up front and in the limelight; he's a 'big beast' (dunno about the big),a traffic stopper and the only one able to shake Obama's hand. Wow - this is thrilling stuff! If only they could have arranged for Tony to be given that Nobel. Ah well, never too late, there's alway the Oscars, or reporting an heroic ride on Obama's horse 'Trigger'- or how they both don't need swine flu jabs - because unlike us normal sheeple they (and their families) have already beaten it.
Complain about this comment
No. 53 T1m0thy - Le Figaro reported several times about this, starting after the announcement in July that the British Government supports a Blair candidacy. The main reports are positive for Blair, and the comments mostly negative. A week ago, the deputy editor ruefully noted that 'Blair is too brillant for Europe', and again the comments were mostly negative for Blair. Of course it was noted as well that a frontrunner rarely wins in this kind of 'European' job selection process, witness Verhofstadt who was vetoed by Blair in 2004 in favour of Barroso as president of the European Commission.
Complain about this comment
#56 rogted
I totally agree with your sentiment but not your figures. According to Wikipedia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29) quoting the CIA World Fact Book and the IMF the EU for 2008 had GDP of 18.2trillion USD. Possibly the number you quoted in for the Eurozone. That, of course, only reinforces your point not detract from it and an EU UK argument about someone as trivial as Blair would be tragic.
Complain about this comment
39 SuffolkBoy2 wrote:
"There are European Union Battlegroups. Under whose command are they?
There are "Euroepan Gendarmes". Under whose command are they?"
A: The Battlegroups are under the control of the member states.
B: The Gendarmes are under the control of participating members, of which the UK is not, infact, most of the EU is not.
C: If you really think President whoever could command the battlegroups to lead the EU to war your deluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------
41 SuffolkBoy2 wrote:
"Since the role of the "President" is unclear, the effects of the Lisbon Treaty are unclear.
Surely, that alone should be sufficient reason for President Klaus to refuse to sign it."
The powers are clear and specific, the role is not. They are different things. He chairs meetings, organizes the agenda, stuff like that. The role is whether he will be flying around the world, meeting leaders and proposing plans, or managing debate and organzing member state agendas and fancy dinners.
Seriously, the Commission president is the real mover and shaker, and come next EP elections, chosen by the electorate. They should have really called the post "Chairman of the Council" or something. The word President seems to have worked everyone up into a blind rage.
Complain about this comment
I'm Irish and recognise that Blair was probably the best British PM to deal with for Ireland ever.
And he would be perfect for the role if he conducted himself with similar applomb as EU President.
But one word - IRAQ.
A catastrophic and disasterous policy decision of monstrous proportions costing countless lives, inflciting physical and psychological torture on an entire country and desicrating global inter-communal relations.
No way. Just no way after that.
And it wouldn't even be countenanced if Iraqis spoke English and were white.
Complain about this comment
#56 Rogted
Having posted #60 I got to thinking about those numbers. The first thought was 'so this is small and insignificant economy that the sceptics want to take the UK out of'!!!.
Second thought was why does the BBC still continually quote in all it's articles that the US is the world's larget economy? Afraid that they might be accused of pro EU bias by the sceptics perhaps?
Thirdly we are always being told that the Chinese economy will be the world's greatest and the impression one is given is that this event will be fairly soon. The fact is that I will be very glad to see it happen in my lifetime because I will be approaching 90 by then. A quick calculation giving China growth compounded at 8% per annum (which is doubtful as the economy becomes more mature in later years) and the EU at 2% means that China will not overtop the EU for another 22 years.
Complain about this comment
I would have thought that anyone who was supposed to be representing Europe on the international stage would need to be know for his/her integrity, not for lying about WMDs, and leading the UK into war because his buddy in the White House wanted it, before doing a runner and leaving someone else to sort the mess out. It was bad enough when the UK was playing poodle, it would be much worse if he did it to the whole EU.
The Dutch TV news site is saying that Blair will be forever linked to Bush. America has moved on, and Europe does not need yesterday's man.
Complain about this comment
T1m0thy (63) asks "why does the BBC still continually quote in all it's articles that the US is the world's larget economy?".
If they reported that NAFTA was the world's largest economy then Britons might start to consider how much better off and freer they could be as NAFTA members with a free trade arrangement with the EU/EEA similar to that which Mexico has already, and Canada is negotiating. These countries have tariff free access to nearly a billion of the world’s wealthiest consumers throughout North America and Europe, without any of the democracy-suffocating supranational political union. How can the UK survive without that?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/opinion/06iht-edemmott.html
Complain about this comment
#63
Maybe the US is the world's largest economy on some other basis, like per capita GDP (Nope Jersey, amongst others is higher). In fact the only indicators that the US is in first place for seem to be "Stock of quasi money" and "Market value of publicly traded shares" according to the CIA WorldBook.
Even the CIA fact book opens with "The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world" There's a myth to maintain, I feel
Complain about this comment
To 62 BGolden
I might be totally wrong, but I had the impression that the position of British PMs in relation to Ireland changed mainly because of the good relations and swapping of favours between Reagan and Thatcher. No doubt in exchange for something from the UK, the CIA stopped its sponsorship of various terrorist groups. Without that cash all sides were forced to negotiate over the north.
Once again, Tone managed to shine thanks to OBE.
Complain about this comment
#65 Freeborn-John
Are you saying that the NAFTA nations have a larger economy than the EU? If so I'm afraid you have that wrong, from the same source as #63 the total NAFTA GDP for 2008 was $16.7 trillion. Also the NAFTA population ie potential customers is 447 million as against the 489 million of the EU.
As with most of the sceptic fringe figures about possible UK involvement elsewhere your figures seem to be a little wrong.
As another small point. It would appear that the US is about to hand us Europeans 'space' on a plate. Given that Europe has, ESA, Ariane, the space truck, and that the UK has some of the best space science and space related industry in the world are we going to be asked to throw all that away just to satisfy your very dodgy claims about a lack of democracy? Or is the UK economy going to be just hunky dory based on financial services as it is now?
I don't trust the economic basis of claims made by the 'fringe' (I give you that name because it clearly outlines your minority status). You never back them up it's all airy fairy stuff with little quotes about places like Norway doing so well.
Complain about this comment
# 67 Wolfiepeters
Sounds a bit too cynical :)
Unless anyone else wants a tangental discussion stop reading now!
The most progress on "the Irish issue" was always historically related to the amount of time the British PM devoted to it. What Thatcher did was sign the Anglo-Irish agreement which forced Unionists to negotiate since 'No to everything but the status quo' was no longer the best option for them when the status quo changed. She really only saw it as a security issue though.
The issues were so major and the lack of trust between Unionists and Nationalists so complete that the total committment of many including Blair was vital to achieving the Good Friday Agreement.
The CIA never sponsored any Northern Irish terror groups....maybe you are mistaking this for funds from Irish Americans (an irony here is some knew so little that they contributed to the IRA even though their ansectry was from the other side). There was no trade-offs on Northern Ireland between Reagan and Thatcher. NI is just not that important.
Complain about this comment
#68
'You never back them up it's all airy fairy stuff with little quotes about places like Norway doing so well.'
It's funny how the Eurosceptics are so quiet about Iceland these days.
Complain about this comment
With the evaluation that Blair has done nothing for, Europe German television channel one, ARD, has just said in the 17 news that Blair's candidacy is completely dead.
Complain about this comment
#65 Freeborn-John
Yes that makes sense, we give up 30 years of labouriously developed trade links to join and organisation where we would be
1. The 'new boys'
2. Be up against competition where three of the partners have contiguous borders but we have to ship stuff an absolute minimum of 3250 miles before we can deliver.
3. Up against one of those partners, the USA, is in most areas technologically in advance of us and it's high tech industries are very large with the attendant economies of scale.
4. With another one of those partners Canada with a small population (33 million) which produces huge quantities of food at prices the UK couldn't match ever and has a massive business shipping raw materials. Just what are we going to sell them?
5. Dealing in Mexico with a population of 107 million and a GDP per head of population at 25% of that of the UK and therefore a much lower wage cost. Just how are we going to compete with that.
When you add to that the sound of the doors closing on all those car plants and other foreign owned plants in the UK as our EU status vanishes and you can see where 'fringe economics gets you. Very poor.
Complain about this comment
#70 Iantonhill
Funny that isn't it I noticed that Iceland has gone off the 'fringe' radar.
Complain about this comment
To Freeborn-John (65) and T1m0thy (68):
Just to add to your discussion...
NAFTA isn't a single market! EU is a special case as it has developed the single market were goods, capital and people can freely move. In addition EU countries have more and more common trade and foreign policies with extra-EU countries and it has internal common policies to guide member states into a common goal. Lastly but not least important is the fact the EU shares a common currency that all members countries, not including UK and Denmark, are obligated to take in to use.
In the end this all boils to this, where as NAFTA is just co-operation of trade, the EU is a formation of federal state itself, thus the overall EU and especially Eurozone values can and should be compared to other state entities.
And lastly one hugely important fact about different economies!
UK is an oil state! USA is an oil state! EU is not an oil state.
UK for the last 20-30 years has produced as much oil as it has consumed. USA for the last hundred years has been a major oil state and while its internal production relative to consumption has dropped, it still produces somewhere around 50% of the oil that it consumes.
Why is this an important fact? Well, producing oil is more or less akin to money dropping from sky, just look at the Gulf oil states for an example of this. In essence, the UK and USA have had higher GDP per capita figures than countries in the continental Europe while working actually doing less work. This is very important as when oil production is starting to decrease in UK and USA, and we are moving from oil away to other sources of energy, both UK and USA have to replace the addition that the oil has contributed to their economies or face having their GDP per capita figures drop.
PS. Having money dropping from the sky does have interesting effects on places where it lands. In oil producing regions in USA you have fundamentalist Christians. In oil producing Arab and Persian regions you have fundamentalist Muslims, and in the UK you have fundamentalist too, namely eurosceptics.
Complain about this comment
To Bgolden @ 69 and staying off topic.
I agree that it sounds cynical, but there's a lot of circumstantial evidence of the CIA supporting groups even at the cost of the US itself never mind supposed allies.
It's certainly true that the US strangled funds from Irish Americans and you are quite correct about them not knowing what they were doing or why. I remember meeting some in Boston....
As for contributing his time to NI, perhaps Blair was fortunate, in that period, that he had relatively few other problems. And he was desperate to make a name for something. If he'd stopped then, we might all be supporting him for President of Europe. However, I'll stick with my previous suggestions... and aplogise to Liverpool fans... I should have included Benitez as a candidate.
Complain about this comment
#74 Jukka_Rohila
Is there any chance that in future you could call them (eurosceptics) by their given name the 'fringe'? It's useful in that it reminds them that their claim to be in the majority is about as fraudulent as that of the so called moral 'majority' in the US.
Complain about this comment
Would Tony Blair make a good President?
Europeans must beware
of the latest news about Tony Blair.
It is said to head the European Council he would not be adverse
though many think his selection would be perverse.
He represents a country that considers Europe a joke
where many would like to see the Union go up in smoke.
They deride a currency they think is funny,
convinced only the pound can be called real money.
There are others who have a different opinion
and think Tony would serve the Council as an ideal minion.
So let us look at what he has achieved
that would make his candidature be well received.
When he burst onto the scene as Prime Minister
he did not tell us of his intention sinister.
On taking the reins in ninety-seven
he set out to change the party of Attlee and Bevan.
On it he put a terrible blight
by converting it into New Labour Lite.
Then in 2000 he was quick to rush
to embrace his new friend George W. Bush.
He stood shoulder to shoulder with his pal in the Iraq conflict
the outcome of which was not hard to predict.
More than a million have so far perished in that bloody affair
in a futile search for weapons that were not there.
As his God, Tony claimed, had been his guide,
he had no responsibility for those who died.
Then his pal Afghanistan to invade was to decide
with Tony again standing unwaveringly by his side.
He would have known his nose was about to be bloodied
If at school he had paid attention when history was studied.
He might then have pondered his country’s woeful fate
when its first Afghan invasion failed in 1838.
That was followed by a second and third attempt
both earning the inhabitants’ derisive contempt.
Before naming Gordon Brown as his successor.
did he perhaps consult his confessor?
No thought he gave to a democratic election
when he named Gordon as his personal selection.
In some countries that is known as finger pointing
though many in Britain called it an anointing.
Being out of a job left the former P.M. perplexed
as he tried to decide what to do next.
Voters asked themselves by what urge he had been driven
when he decided that to Gordon the finger should be given.
His chum George W., to repay his debt
got Tony named as Envoy of the Middle East Quartet.
The hope was Blair would be able to guarantee
that the opponents would meet and together agree.
That he would persuade them their conflicts to cease
and finally all live together in something resembling peace.
He was expected every effort to put into the task
and in ultimate triumph be able to bask.
But it took him two years to prepare a trip
for a very brief visit to the devastated Gaza Strip.
He made no contact with the party elected to rule
but instead visited a United Nations school.
As being an envoy was not too taxing
he put his mind to work while he was relaxing
He decided it would be quite a lark
if with a faith foundation he could make a mark.
Faith, he said, would stop people from fighting
especially if they could prevent the mosquitoes biting.
So he would ask his followers to lay all their bets
on providing holy mosquito nets.
He also said faith could be a power for good
showing about the Middle East he never understood.
He maintained his faith foundation would improve the economy
though he did not, as some claim, say it would be good for gastronomy.
Tony changed his own faith to Roman Catholic from Anglican
a move many asserted was a cunning plan.
They believed it was Tony’s fervent hope
that he might one day end up as pope.
With Bush gone, Obama did not give Tony his backing
as it dawned on him in the Middle East something was lacking.
He appointed George Mitchell as his own envoy
without thinking whether it would Blair annoy.
That left our friend looking for a new position
which explains his sudden interest in the European Commission.
But if the leaders consulted include those of Germany and France
then what Tony will have is a big fat chance.
Complain about this comment
76. T1m0thy
"...Is there any chance that in future you could call them (eurosceptics) by their given name the 'fringe'?.."
Given that the Irish voted no to Lisbon first time round this doesn't suggest a sceptical fringe. The only way this Treaty got on the statute book was by Labour & their Liberal Democrat friends ducking a referendum in the UK.
An EU sceptic 'fringe' – pull the other one its got bells on it!
Complain about this comment
#78 rg
No it's the truth. You 'the fringe' want the UK out of the EU. None of the major UK political parties have that on the agenda, although there are probably 'fringe' groups within the Tory party. The only political party in the UK with that on the agenda is UKIP and they have no support hence 'the fringe' QED
Complain about this comment
79. T1m0thy
"...No it's the truth..."
How does answering a different question constitute truth?
Complain about this comment
Some of the British media have made a mediocre job in the last couple of days. The summit in Bruxelles had hardly begun before it was clear that the support behind Tony Blair’s candidacy was very limited and mainly consisted of the British government.
Why British journalists were not able to find out about this, we will probably never know.
In a democracy media are supposed to scrutinise the government and not work as an advertising bureau for it. However, this is more or less what these media have done,. They did almost nothing to find out about alternative candidates and what the positions in the other EU governments in this question are.
It is somewhat surprising that media manage the most important capital they have - reliability - in this way.
Complain about this comment
#79 rg
Have you a comprehension problem. I have just explained very clearly why you are a fringe please read #79 above.
I find the constant whinging of you and your other 'fringe' members about the Irish referendum somewhat boring. The Irish voted no in the first referendum. I saw many of the interviews with people who voted and a large number clearly stated that they voted no because they did not understand and that voting no was a safer option. We move on the the second referendum where adjustments had been made at the request of the Irish government to the treaty document and a lot more time was spent explaining the treaty at that point the Irish voted yes.
You huff and you can puff but it's not going to work and Cameron, if elected won't give you your referendum because Vaclav Klaus will have signed the treaty and Cameron will go back to his carefully prepared get out and there will be no referendum. And that little trick is a lot more cynical than actually altering a treaty to take into account people's fears and then asking for their approval.
Complain about this comment
82. T1m0thy
"...I have just explained very clearly why you are a fringe please read #79 above..."
Er T1m0thy 79 says " 'the fringe' want the UK out of the EU. None of the major UK political parties have that on the agenda"
This was supposedly a response to 78 "Given that the Irish voted no to Lisbon first time round this doesn't suggest a sceptical fringe."
I don't see the two are connected.
That said looking at the second Eire vote the result was 2:1 in favour of 'Lisbon clarified for Eire'. The EU sceptic vote was not so off the scale. By your reckoning the combined Labour and Liberal Democrat vote in 2009 European elections of 29% branded them a 'fringe'. http://www.europarl.org.uk/section/european-elections/results-2009-european-elections-uk
As suggested earlier the EU sceptics may be a lot of things; a fringe they are not.
Complain about this comment
82. T1m0thy
Sorry I missed this bit
"...And that little trick is a lot more cynical than actually altering a treaty to take into account people's fears and then asking for their approval..."
I don't remember being asked.
Complain about this comment
#84 rg
Being asked what exactly?
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen wrote:
#45. democracythreat
"Thank you for your thoughts. They actually support structures that go across the borders of the nation states, and that is a thing that we know many citizens in the union are less enthusiastic about."
Indeed.
With respect, this is a longhand way of saying the the people of Europe don't want the EU, so asking them to vote for a president is unwise. The EU institutions are, after all, merely structures that go across the borders of nation states.
Now this idea that the actual europeans don't want the EU is of particular interest to others in this thread.
We see Tim arguing that RG is a member of a "fringe group" because he is not a member of one of the major political parties. I am not paraphrasing, either. He said:
"You 'the fringe' want the UK out of the EU. None of the major UK political parties have that on the agenda, although there are probably 'fringe' groups within the Tory party. The only political party in the UK with that on the agenda is UKIP and they have no support hence 'the fringe' QED"
In other words, if you are not a member of one of the major parties, you don't matter. Even if there are overwhelming numbers of you, so what?
That is very honest of Tim. It is also indicative of how political parties work. Like any cult, they attract the noxious and the lonely, and then suggest that through selective unity is strength.
I suppose Tim could argue that the major political parties put forward policies based upon what the majority of people want.
Are you going to argue that, Tim?
Go on. You know you want to. You've been outrageously patronizing and arrogant so far. Go for the grand prize, and play squealer for the party machine.
Tell us that the major political parties have their agendas set by the views of the general populace.
Tell us representation is democracy.
Tell us the soviet union was what the people really wanted.
Complain about this comment
T1m0thy (79): you are not correct in saying that UKIP is the only party favouring UK withdrawal from the EU. At the recent Euro elections there were at least 6 withdrawalist parties:
UKIP
BNP
UK First (a UKIP splinter group)
The English Democrats
No2eu Yes to Democracy (a trade-union-based group)
The Socialist Labour Party (Arthur Scargill's party).
So the total withdrawalist vote, from both right and left, well exceeded the UKIP vote - which in turn exceeded the governing party's vote!
As for the main parties, the Tories probably have the largest withdrawalist faction (I think about 35% according to a recent poll). But the vast majority of Tories are euroscpetical to one degree or another; I think that same poll had only about 3% of Tory party members favouring full British participation in the "European project".
Labour probably has a smaller percentage of eurosceptics, but among them are some of its most independent-minded and thoughtful people, such as Frank Field, Kate Hoey and (dare I say it!) Tony Benn.
As to the population at large: please see the poll results below:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/7949104.stm
These include the following:
"Britain should leave the EU but maintain close trading links"
Agree- 55%
Disagree- 41%
On that basis, the withdrawalists among the British public amount to at least 55%.
(The reason I say "at least" is because the 41% would include those who think that Britain should leave the EU but NOT maintain close trading links. They probably amount to a very small number; I've never heard anyone express that view).
Unavoidable conclusion: eurosceptics are NOT a fringe!
Complain about this comment
"The American Media will be like who the heck is Jean Claude Juncker? And the American people will be like "Where the hell is Luxembourg?" if it were to even be covered at all."
So? I think neither the American people nor the American media should be the first thing to be taken into consideration when choosing a president. Some Americans don't even know that France is a country (search youtube for it if you like), but I would like seeing a president serving Europe instead of serving himself.
Complain about this comment
Recollection of the BBC TV programme ," Till Death Us Do Part "!
I can just see Cheri's actor father , is he still alive ,lounging with beatific smile , his feet up on the sofa in the presidential palace , a flight of three pottery ducks on the wall behind him .
Hasn't anybody thought of having a diplomat - ambassador as president , someone with no political skeletons in the cupboard . To have an unknown from a smaller country , may please them ; but why bother to have a president at all .
Complain about this comment
As a Filipino Asian, Tony Blair is the best man to head the whole of Europe right now. It is because what the world wants to head Europe is one not too provincially and inwardly looking European, but a true European who is also international in scope and experience and stature. I believe of all Europeans to day, it is only Tony Blair who fits this picture. We Asians do not want a too inwardly looking European to head Europe because we want Europe to be represented by a leader who is a true European but who is also expansive, open, and care free. And only Tony Blair fits this good picture that we Asians want.
Complain about this comment
Tony Blair has the drive, vision and pragmatic sense of mission to shock Europe out of its ideological slumber. Can't think of anyone anywhere near suitable or enthusiastic enough to take on the task with new ideas and not stifling the Union with idealistic hang-ups. People in Britain who are so out of touch with Bruxelles are not qualified, in view of their Anglo-Celtic mindset, to make judgement on the kind of leadership most needed to strengthen and make Europe a superpower to be reckon with.
Complain about this comment
Britain does not deserve to have anybody as President of the Council. We do not even deserve to have a candidate (not that Blair even is).
Much as I would like to see a Brit making waves in Europe, in any serious discussion in the Council Britain simply has no chance!
We are not in Schengen. We are not in the Euro. We show contempt and hostility towards the EU – note, day after day, the comments on this blog! Likewise, the ‘Brits abroad’ image does us no favours – in fact I think the British public has an even worse reputation in Europe than do our politicians.
Britain’s reputation in Europe is in tatters and this serious debate around a Blair- this ‘credible candidacy’- is a construction of the British media.
The rest of the EU don’t want a Brit to represent them. And why should they? We give them no reason.
Complain about this comment
92. Catnap
"…We show contempt and hostility towards the EU – note, day after day, the comments on this blog!.."
This is rather broad brush isn't it. I have come across 'hostility' to the EU on my travels in Germany. There is a difference between legitimate concern about a democratic deficit in how the Project has been progressed in the UK, and that of the Project itself.
Complain about this comment
I’m not sure I understand your comment, what you mean by ‘the project’, or why you bring Germany into it?
Even if you’re a eurosceptic I find many of the comments on this page alone to be rather strong descriptions. And as a regular reader of this blog I also find the eurosceptic/ pro-Europe balance on this page to be fairly representative of other comments on other pages.
I can’t generalise about whether the balance of views here reflect the balance in the public at large, but, as you yourself say, the eurosceptics are hardly a ‘fringe’ group.
A sample from this page:
..the EU is ‘sick’.. the EU is a ‘sick meglomaniac’.. the EU ‘STINKS’.. the EU is ‘despised’..
Complain about this comment
94. Catnap
"…A sample from this page: ..the EU is ‘sick’.. the EU is a ‘sick meglomaniac’…"
A sample from one post.
Complain about this comment
95. rj
Actually no - I took them all from different posts.. those two are from 3 and 42 respectively..
Complain about this comment
96. Catnap
"…those two are from 3 and 42 respectively…"
In 3 this does not as you suggest say "the EU is ‘sick’" it implies that the President of the European Council should by elected by more than twenty-seven people. You can have 'sick' in 42 if you like though that still leaves two from one.
My argument is not with the EU per se. It is with the underhand way the British electorate have been treated to allow it to progress.
Complain about this comment
We obviously differ in what we perceive to be hostile towards the EU. I consider the use of an adjective like 'sick' to describe articles in the Lisbon Treaty as fairly eurosceptic.
If you like I could add to the list so that, in your eyes, two of the quotes above don't come from the same post? I have no shortage of material.
Your argument may well be that. My argument is unrelated. I am commenting on the high level of euroscepticism in the UK and how this, along with Britain's half-hearted membership of the EU (as it is neither in Schengen nor the Euro), negates any outright claim we may make on the President's job, or at least makes us undeserving of it.
In the interests of not splitting anymore hairs and of getting on with our evenings, I wish you goodnight.
Complain about this comment
98. Catnap
"...In the interests of not splitting any more hairs and of getting on with our evenings, I wish you goodnight..."
I'm all for that Catnap. Goodnight.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS