Blair for President?
Dublin: Within Europe's political corridors Tony Blair is emerging as the clear favourite to be the EU's first President.
The post is created under the Lisbon Treaty. The President will be a full-time official chosen by Europe's leaders - to chair summits and be the international face of the European Union.
If the Irish vote "Yes" to Lisbon another key milestone will be passed in ratifying the treaty. We'll know tomorrow.
Tony Blair is not a candidate, but there's a growing assumption that he's the front-runner. As one senior official put it, "he's interested in the job without campaigning for it". He has not moved to take himself out of consideration.
Working in his favour is his profile. He's far better known than any potential rivals. He was the first European politician to meet President Obama in the White House. Working
against him is his role over the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the fear amongst some officials that he's such a big beast he will drown out their influence.
Some say, however, that if his candidacy became too controversial Blair may resist his name going forward.
At the moment he seems to have the support of President Sarkozy of France. Germany's Angela Merkel is less enthusiastic but "persuadable". Berlusconi is an old friend. The new EU countries from Central and Eastern Europe are on-side. Blair had championed enlargement and their joining the EU. The northern European countries will probably raise no objection.
The main opposition comes from Socialist MEPs and to a certain extent centre-left governments like Spain. The issue for them is Iraq. Some hold Tony Blair responsible for going along with George Bush's war.
Now if the Irish vote "Yes" the pace quickens. The Swedes, who currently hold the EU presidency, are keen to move events forward, to mark their time in charge, to give an aura of inevitability that the Lisbon Treaty will be implemented. They would love to see posts like the President on the agenda for the EU summit at the end of October.
It all depends on the Czechs. They have not ratified the Lisbon Treaty and a new complaint has been filed with their constitutional court. A key calculation will be how long that process will go on for. It is even possible the EU summit could be delayed by a few weeks to allow the Czechs to sign the treaty.
In that event, Europe's leaders will vote on who will be the first President of the European Council. If it is Tony Blair then there is the intriguing possibility of a former Labour leader as President of the European Union with potentially a Conservative prime minister in Downing Street.
I'm 
© 2012~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~58~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Our Swedish national parliament politicians voted through a yes without informing the public during the last general elections. Citizens of Sweden were clueless and were led behind the curtains on the Lisbon treaty. Still today, the elected politicians divert attention and downplay the issue when confronted.
Citizens of Ireland, your NO today will be appreciated by 9 million Swedes whose voices are silenced!
Complain about this comment
I'm suprised there's anyone in the UK let alone Europe who would be happy with bLiar being president on the eu
Complain about this comment
However he should have an appointment in Europe at a War Crimes Tribunal
Complain about this comment
I doubt David Cameron would ever allow Tony Blair to become EU President, although I imagine the British people would raise more than a few objections themselves. The only scenario I can see it happening would be for the Scottish to revolt against a Tory UK Government in 2010 and vote for Independence, then England voting to leave the EU laying the way for Blair (as a sudden reborn Scot) to move into the Presidency.
Complain about this comment
Blair is a very charming politician; he's compelling, eloquent, and speaks with gravitas and clarity combined with a lightness of touch that made him a real champion in the age of television, when he came across as someone serious and penetratingly intelligent "yet" like-able.
But as history has showed us he was not the perceptive statesman that I think most of us for long took him for.
He doesn't understand how the world works. I'm not sure it is ever clear to observers or the men themselves whether or not politicians in power are really doing what they think and say they are doing, until events have subsided. But Blair showed himself to be a fantasist and a fool, not someone who fundamentally understands how the world works, what politics is, or how things happen. He allowed for the break-up of his own country by enacting decentralization. What sort of politician does not understand that when new powers are created, there will be an opportunist who uses them for his own political ends? Blair thought that giving Scotland a parliament would 'stave off' calls for independence. Instead it looks like Czechoslovakia, where opportunist politicians sense weakness and stir up populist tribalism to create a new political structure they can control, rather than working co-operatively and responsibly within existing politics. The people who want power but can't get it within existing politics really shouldn't be given the chance to play people's bad instincts to their own advantage, but it's what is bound to happen and Blair would have understood this basic political reality had he been a perceptive man or a fundamentally smart politician. And with Iraq: Blair seems to have thought that he would get some sort of unspecified benefit from America for going along with their evil scheme. Since when have the Americans ever fulfilled any of their pledges or promises, or otherwise paid attention to anything they have done after it's over with, let alone given anyone else any special treats for doing what they tell them to do? Again, Blair was dreaming. If his motivation really was inspired by his secret religious beliefs, as has been convincingly suggested, then he was perhaps more dangerous than Bush because he was a snake in the grass and he himself didn't seem to understand this. He may have thrown away what little weight the UK still had in international politics rather than strengthened it. Even more than previously, it seems that Britain deludedly looks to America instead of constructively co-operating within Europe. (Speaking from America, I assure you America does not look to Britain or anywhere else for anything besides cheap labor and a broader consumer base for glamorous and worthless products, unless we want to stretch our legs a bit and bomb a city or three -- but I digress.) And of course there's the other matter of having been complicit in the murder of millions and the destruction of a society and culture. But it turns out that wasn't a consideration anyway.
Is this the man the European community of nations needs to champion its own interests on the world stage? Is this the politician the people of Europe want managing Brussels, someone able to negotiate with perception and political sophistication the internal give-and-take within the European community and Europe's dealings with its often treacherous allies and neighbors? Blair was a real disappointment. I for one hope he isn't given the chance to fail again and drag down Europe the way he may have dragged down his own country.
Complain about this comment
No! How anyone can say he appears to be likeable, serious and compelling is truly beyond me. I'd go with slimy, superficial and an atrocious actor.
"Berlusconi is an old friend." Says a lot.
Complain about this comment
Superb, Christopher Gill.
Complain about this comment
No admirer of Blair - but the thought of a lot of old blustery Eurosceptics bursting a few blood vessels at his appointment... now that does make me smile!
Viva L'Europe!
Complain about this comment
@mikaelliberal wrote:
Our Swedish national parliament politicians voted through a yes without informing the public during the last general elections. Citizens of Sweden were clueless and were led behind the curtains on the Lisbon treaty. Still today, the elected politicians divert attention and downplay the issue when confronted.
Citizens of Ireland, your NO today will be appreciated by 9 million Swedes whose voices are silenced!
-----------
Would this be the same Sweden where a majorty now support the adoption of the Euro?
Neighbours of Norway - a country where a majority now support joining the EU?
If so, I'm not so sure you are really speaking for all 9 million of us.
Complain about this comment
Minor correction: Liam Cosgrave was the first president of the European Council.
It would be interesting to see if they give the possible post Lisbon job to a current 'eurocrat' for example Barrosso effectively combining the President of the European Commission with the President of the European Council into one.
Or to a MEP the only former leaders sitting in the EP are Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE), Jean-Luc Dehaene (EPP) both from Belgium and Jerzy Buzek (EPP) from Poland. Not exactly a large pool, and Jerzy Buzek is already President of the European Parliament.
I don't see either of this happening though.
Complain about this comment
The man is a fantasist who calculatedly misled Britain into war. A Blair presidency should be avoided at all costs.
Complain about this comment
Well the old fogies who generally inhabit the blog and 'have yr say' areas of these sites are at it again. It's all about how bad Tony Blair was, the war, how he supported the Americans blah blah. The underlying narrative being how better life will be with the 'Tories back in; heaven help us if they do - we'll be back to having people queueing up in hospital casualty depts and dying on trolleys again in no time; cuts for the services that ordinary people rely on (of course those with private health care need not worry!). All of the traditional Tory complainents of a type that lurk around BBC comment areas are are here lining up to rubbish anyone who isn't anti-Europe, pro-Churchillian values etc etc.
Personally, I and many of my generation (I'm a 70's child myself) saw Tony Blair as a real break with the past and he turned out to be one of the most competent and capable politicians that the UK has produced for a generation - maybe that's why the Tories and the 'Right' in general are so scared of him still.
If anyone really believes that a Tory government wouldn't have gone to war with the Americans and only Blair did then they're really lying to themselves; those old Churchillian/Thatcherite values would've seen John Major (or whoever led them) carrying the lead, let alone trotting alongside George Bush. It's plain delusion to believe otherwise.
No, I believe - as do many (who don't even bother blogging here anymore) that Blair will make the post of European President zing! He's totally comfortable with the politics of the world and if anyone knows how the world words Mr 'ChristoperGill' then its the man who let the UK for 10 years, who is 'The Quartet's' chosen man in the Middle East and who likely has his fingers deftly on a personal address book in his Blackberry of the mobile phone number of every leader in the world. He would do Europe proud.
Complain about this comment
Excuse me, but, erm...... Whatever happened to that thing that used to happen back when the people were allowed a say? Oh what was that thing called,... erm, it's that long ago I forget..... I remember it used to be considered a good thing and wars were fought and won to defend and protect it. Tens of millions died in the last century over defending and upholding it. It WAS pretty important back then, but what was it called?
Oh yes, DEMOCRACY!
Where the hell is there any tiny shred of democracy?
An Ireland of a few million people are getting a second say on a matter that could appoint Blair as what is in all accurate definitions of the word, a DEFACTO DICTATOR!
Have we gone quite MAD? How the hell have we come to THIS? The BBC announcing that Blair is likely to be APPOINTED as our President? And in a tone that is entirely nonchalant as if it is completely legal and normal. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT APPOINTING A PRESIDENT WITHOUT ANY SORT OF VOTE WHATSOEVER!!! Excuse me, but am I going clinically insane or WHAT? Am I the only one to be utterly and completely outraged with every single nerve and fibre of my entire being here or what?
Please Ireland, save yourselves from this slimy lying cheating excuse for a man.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE VOTE NO.
Complain about this comment
Quite honestly, when I read reports such as this, I must wonder whether British journalists ever question anybody outside a very select Anglophile club. Blair is widely despised in the Continent, not just because of Iraq, and many of the same reasons why he's also far from popular in Britain right now, but also because of his finger-wagging self-righteous ways during his tenure as PM (not least in economic matters, in which his record is looking less than gleaming now), and his procrastinating about the euro and the EU. He may have made a few friends abroad (mostly the wrong ones, like Berlusconi), but he also made more than a few enemies (the Belgians, for instance, will not soon forget that he vetoed both Jean-Luc Dehaene and Guy Verhofstadt as Commission presidents).
Don't fall for the spin, Blair is too polarizing a figure to get the post. Moreover, since the Council represents the member states' governments, it would be thoroughly surreal to have a Council president of opposite political sign from his own country's PM. I'd rather bet on a "safe hand" from a Scandinavian or Central European country.
Complain about this comment
Please Please Please !!!
Not Bliar recycled again !
A good reason for the Irish to vote NO.
A recruiting agent for UKIP and BNP !
That grin and the "trust me" eyes rattles my brain !
Great success he has achieved as Middle East Peace Envoy !
Why should the Middle East trust Bliar and his illegal wars ?
In 1yr's time-how about this unholy trinity ?
BLIAR for PRESIDENT
CHERIE for EUROPEAN COURT and for
EUROPEAN BANK,the one and lonely Mr G BROON !!!
Wouldn't CAMERON love that ???
Complain about this comment
Please Ireland vote no.
I think Blair will be busy with the Serious Fraud Office and the BEA systems trial.
Complain about this comment
That Blair has got the brass neck to think that he should even be considered for EU President is indicative of his arrogance. There are some here who don't give two hoots that he, along with Bush, caused the deaths of over a million innocent Iraqis.
I do agree however that had the Tories been in power they would have done exactly the same, the "quiet man" was even more eager to inflict murder and mayhem on Iraq than was Bair - if that was possible.
Even Kennedy prevaricated until he saw which way the invasion was going.
Blair is a disgrace to this country and the appalling prospect of having him represent us as Europeans to the rest of the world is a sick joke
Complain about this comment
@christophergill he is complicit in the murder of millions and the destruction of a society and culture.
Please do explain where you get the millions from, since as far as I know the highest, maybe not so reliable number is 1 million people died as a result of the conflict. I am also interested in what part of Iraqi culture was destroyed. And would like to add that Kurdish culture is flourishing like never before.
What nobody here mentions, but I thought Blair's biggest achievement was the peace in north Ireland or maybe that accounts for nothing.
Also I am a little bit annoyed at the fact that people seem to think the job's is in anyway similar to that of say Obama. The powers are limited and the person will be elected unanimous by 27 elected governments, that represent close to 500 million people. I can't see how that is undemocratic or like a dictator.
Complain about this comment
A war criminal appointed as President of Europe?
Didn't we fight a war to prevent just such a scenario?
Says a lot about the state of politics in Europe never mind Britain.
Under Blair Britain has already been turned into a police state, our civil liberties eroded, our very civilisation corrupted.
Look out Europe, Big Brother is coming!
I'm utterly disgusted that anyone could even propose Blair as President.
Complain about this comment
Blair should be facing war crimes charges in the Hague.
What impression and message is Europe going to give to the world if Blair is given this post. Having said that, how could Blair even be made middle east peace envoy.
Personnally, i think its all about who you know. All about seedy favours and under table deals. That is what democracy now is. It has nothing to do with serving the electorate anymore and it will get even more erroded with a Politician who is elected by votes from of politicians. For example, Blair got legal go ahead to go into the 2 illegal wars from people who he installed and was very friendly with!
The world is shrinking and the elite are pulling further away from the people.
Complain about this comment
I would be surprised if a person from a non euro country would become President of the EU, since I don't see the UK joining anytime soon it won't be Blair.
Complain about this comment
Hmmm. Politics is interesting isn't it?
We have a potential President of Europe with a track record that's 'iffy' to put it mildly. Whose personal ambition seems to be to generate as much wealth as possible in the shortest amount of time.
He is supported by a man who has been sacked from Government twice for questionable dealings.
This same person is propping up a Prime Minister that nobody wants, who leads a Government that nobody wants. This support is only to ensure that this unwanted Government remains in power long enough to ratify a treaty that nobody wants, in order that the potential President that nobody wants can be shoehorned into the Presidency.
This whole process relying on Governments not allowing their populaces to vote on any of this because they will get the wrong answer. Then when one Country does have the temerity to offer a vote it gets it wrong. Therefore said Country has to vote again, only this time they are told that they must come up with the right answer.
As I said at the beginning, Politics is interesting isn't it.
Complain about this comment
Not if he was the last person on earth, and with his track record it is very possible.
Complain about this comment
Oh my god, we didn't hold an election for the Speaker of the House of Commons either! Quick, let's overthrow the dictator!
Come on people, do you really not understand HOW democracy works (or doesn't, depending on your philosophical standpoint). We voted for the MP's who ratified the EU over many years. We voted for the MEP's who now sit there. What more do you want? We don't technically vote for Prime Minister either, we vote for our local Member of Parliament, and whichever party has the most MP's gets the prime-ministership by default.
Strange that everyone seems to complain about our voting systems, and they all seem to long for an American system of direct election...however these are the same people who would complain at any "americanising" of our traditions (Supreme Court anyone?).
If you want to pretend to hold political convictions, at least make them consistent.
Complain about this comment
Wow! I am quite shocked that a guy who knowingly lied and rail-roaded his country into joining Bush's war and genocide in Iraq is now being rewarded by his adoring fans at the EU. That tells you what Europeans really think of darker shades. Blair, despite is smooth talking and 'elder statesman' persona in reality is a crook and should be tried as one. Once the gravity of wealth production moves to Asia and Europe's population declines, it will be reduced to a role of a gopher between the powerful U.S. and emerged and a economic machine that will be Asia.
Shame on you EU and Europeans if you let it happen.
Complain about this comment
Also I am a little bit annoyed at the fact that people seem to think the job's is in anyway similar to that of say Obama. The powers are limited and the person will be elected unanimous by 27 elected governments, that represent close to 500 million people. I can't see how that is undemocratic or like a dictator.
************************************************************88
Ah!, that's the whole point. It's GOVERNMENTS that are signing up and voting for everything. They are also doing knowing full well that should most of the changes being proposed were put to the vote the PEOPLE wouldn't agree with it. THat's why the Prime Minister of the UK has broken a promise to give us a referendum and other European Countries have also been denied a vote.
The EU is for politicians. It is a place to make lots of money for very little work. It is a place where politicians can pretend to be important and pose in the belief that we think they are brilliant.
In order for this charade to take place the POLITICIANS need lots and lots of money. Now as POLITICIANS don't spend their own money, they have to take it off the PEOPLE. Therefore they cannot take any chances that the PEOPLE might have seen through their scam and would like to vote them out, so the POLITICIANS
Complain about this comment
God forbid that BLiar gets another chance. But true to form the 'impartial' BBC - runs a subtly persuasive piece 'claiming' that momentum is building up for BLiar. Momentum from whom might we ask? It certainly is not building among the people - if they were ever to be asked it would be a resounding NO!Go Ireland go, say No!
Complain about this comment
When did the United States of Europe become a totalitarian State ?
It`s bad enough, being led in UK government, by an UNELECTED Prime Minister!
WHY do we have NO SAY in who becomes the President of the U.S.E either
just one step too far for the sleepwalking electorate of Britain...time to GET OUT OF EUROPE
Complain about this comment
A dishonest man, yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Des Currie
Complain about this comment
He's tried everything else and failed, why not let him fail at this too? Donchya just love the way he brought peace to the Middle East? And the way he prevented Britain's economy from collapsing? And the way he made Europe "the best place in the world to do business" when he was temporary President of the EU? BTW, why let the facts get in the way? Let's all pretend it was Tony Blair who brought peace to Northern Ireland, not Senator Mitchell. After all, why wouldn't the IRA be just too delighted to surrender its dogma of independence to a British Prime Minister? I can still hear the echoes of his favorite mantra reverberating through the House of Commons; "Britain's problems are all the result of the policies of the previous government of the party opposite." Funny how he got away with that for ten years. I guess nobody paid any attention to anything he said. And they still don't.
Complain about this comment
"Working in his favour is his profile. He's far better known than any potential rivals. He was the first European politician to meet President Obama in the White House."
No he wasn't. That was Gordon Brown. You might want to check your facts before contriving your entries. Just a suggestion.
I do hope he doesn't become president, though. Noone on these pages (including me) likes him, and a good three quarters, if not more, of the populations of both the US and Europe now see the war in Iraq as unnecessary and illegal. What's next? Dubya as Secritary General of the UN?
Just as an aside, and perhaps some of my fellow bloggers can help explain this to me, but what is wrong with Europe the way it is? Why does Lisbon have to pass? I mean its not as if Europe is a lawless place with people and institutions running amuck, so what is so crucial about Lisbon that it must pass or else? Europe can make its presence felt on the international stage just as well with the existing Nice treaty can it not? I personally think the rotating presidency is a better position to have than a permanant one, because it gives each country in Europe the chance to shape Europe according to its vision and solve Europe's problems based upon its idea of which ones need the most attention. But I'm probably far more ignorant than most of you. No doubt my questions and concerns will either fall on deaf ears and/or be dismissed as stupidity. But on the off chance they don't, I'd really love some answers.
Thank You
Complain about this comment
We have Governments to run things and make decisions for us, after 4/5 years you vote for a new one, if you don't like the EU and want out vote for UKIP or the BNP in a general election.
Because of the way the UK's voting system works they have little to no chance of getting in anywhere, but thats not the EU's fault.
Can you imagine the outrage if someone from the EU told Britain to fix its democracy? Haha, unfortunately though they'd be right.
Complain about this comment
I regret to say Mr Blair is the worst possible kind of confidence trickster in that he fools himself into thinking he is the cat’s whisker (or should it be the bee’s knees?) in addition to those whom I would have credited with better judgement. I should have thought it wise to await the outcome of the Iraq Enquiry before placing Mr Blair in yet another position of power.
Complain about this comment
24....We do not need "americanising" what we need is the same degree of democracy as we forced Germany to adopt after the last skirmish, to whit:- Proportional Representation. 5% minimum for inclusion, 2nd transferrable vote, only then will the (Guesstimate figures, for arguments sake not actual, OK) 20% Lib-Dem, 28% Con, 25% Nu-Lab, 3%BNP,8% Green Get fair and as the name suggests a proportion of the seats in Parliament not that it matters much, as all the power has been ceded to the un-elected pen pushers in Brussels and Strasbourg.
Complain about this comment
My post at 26 seems to have got chopped off somewhere. It was going to finish with:-
In order for this charade to take place the POLITICIANS need lots and lots of money. Now as POLITICIANS don't spend their own money, they have to take it off the PEOPLE. Therefore they cannot take any chances that the PEOPLE might have seen through their scam and would like to vote them out, so the POLITICIANS set systems in place that allow them to make their own decisions and vote for themselves. Sometimes they need more power to do this so they draw up Treaties to give themselves more power. The EU POLITICIANS are getting worried that some of the Countries in the EU might want to govern themselves again, so in order that this can't happen they draw up a Lisbon Treaty to make sure that the EU is relly in charge and individual Countries will only have to rubber stamp their decisions. It matters not whether these decisions are good or bad for anyone, they are being made by IMPORTANT EU POLITICIANS and therefore must be imposed and obeyed. As some Countries are more important than others, it is the duty of the EU to make sure that the important Countries are looked after at the expense of the less important ones - giving Britain's fishing industry to Spain for example.
In order that we can check that the PEOPLE'S money is being spent honestly by the POLITICIAN's- who you'll recall are not expected to spend their own - every year an auditor is asked to check the books. So far they have never managed to find an auditor that will say everything is tickety-boo, but it doesn't matter because they make rules that say their expenses don't need receipts anyway.
So there you have it. A political organisation formed by politicians for politicians. funded by the people who in return will be treated with contempt and told to accept silly laws.
It will not be long before National Governments are redundant and only the EU is in charge.
Complain about this comment
I cannot prove it, but I believe the EU to be a dishonest organisation and a waste of money. Any economic advantages fail to outweigh the hopeless lack of integrity.
I think he's ideal for the job.
But, I wish he wasn't British. That hurts.
Complain about this comment
#24. Impy83
"Strange that everyone seems to complain about our voting systems, and they all seem to long for an American system of direct election..."
Actually the Americans don't directly vote for their leader either, for example, in 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote but Bush ended up as president because he had more votes in the electoral college.
You know I'm starting to believe that people have this perfect view of democracy and only apply this view to the EU but nothing else.
Complain about this comment
I wonder how long till meddlesome would be appointed to some high ranking EU position if that was the case...
Complain about this comment
Tony Blair as partner to GW Bush by the illegal invasion of Iraq is co responsible for the deaths of more than 100,000 Iraqi people and the displacement of more than a million. As a European I believe he (and his partner GWB) should be brought to the Hague and charged with war crimes. He should not represent Europe in any way and his past and possible future actions as a European country member could bring us all to suffer retaliation.
Complain about this comment
Blair is the worst sort of liar. As Paddy Ashdown put it "The problem is, Tony really believes them when he tells them".
He (Blair) is also someone who - if you look at his speeches, over time, and to different audiences - says what he thinks his audience wants to hear. Just like Barroso. But Blair actually gets to be invited to share some bling-bling (with Berliosconi and Sarkozy), whereas Barroso doesn't get an invite.
My nightmare scenario is a Blair/Barroso tandem. My only enlightenment is that, if Blair gives as much attention to the EU as he has given to the Middle East, then we should be in for an easy time. As someone has already noted, the Presidential role is no great shakes anyway: it's the "Foreign Affairs Representative" post that will have the biggest clout.
Oh if only there had been a credible candidate to oppose Barroso ....
Complain about this comment
31. At 4:41pm on 02 Oct 2009, PursuitOfLove wrote:
.....Just as an aside, and perhaps some of my fellow bloggers can help explain this to me, but what is wrong with Europe the way it is? Why does Lisbon have to pass? I mean its not as if Europe is a lawless place with people and institutions running amuck,
*************************************************
Can't comment on whether the rest of Europe is 'lawless' but here in the UK it would seem that gangs of young thugs roaming the streets drunk, urinating in gardens, terrorising residents and causing criminal damage, is 'not a police matter'
Confirmed recently by one of the Chief Constables in Britain.
What is illegal however, is any attempt to stop or reprimand them. This applies even more so if you are a disabled pensioner, as you will then be arrested, charged with assault and subsequently convicted in a Court of Law.
This happens all over the UK.
I leave it to you to judge whether this falls within your definition of a 'lawless place.'
Complain about this comment
ENJOYED ALL YOUR COMMENTS.
A great read !!!
Are there any Tony Bliar supporters out there ?
Lord Mandelson must be worth a quote.
He has had all his jobs except the last one (which
is too long to rember and type !!!)from Tony B.
Google lists Mandy as an MP !
Is this a case of "Gordan-watch your back"
Come on Ireland Vote NO.
A few hours left to ask the Afghans how to rig the poll !
or just phone George Bush's wee brother !
He did it.
Complain about this comment
38. At 5:28pm on 02 Oct 2009, calmandhope wrote:
I wonder how long till meddlesome would be appointed to some high ranking EU position if that was the case...
************************************
EU Foreign Minister perhaps?
With a certain Mrs Blair as the chief lawmaker....
Complain about this comment
@Impy83
When did we vote for anything more than a common market?
Complain about this comment
Blair for EU president? What a disaster for the EU to have as president someone who lied about WMDs to start a war
Complain about this comment
Blair has blood on his hands & no moral compass!
In violation of international law, Tony Blair committed his country to a war in Iraq that a large majority of European citizens opposed.It has been a major factor in today's profound destabilisation of the Middle East, & has weakened world security. In order to lead his country into war, Mr Blair made systematic use of fabricated evidence & the manipulation of information. His role in the Iraq war would weigh heavily on the image of the Union in the world, should he in fact be named its president. STOP BLAIR from becoming the EU President! Go to www.stopblair.eu almost 5000 new signatures since 15th July. Tell your friends - stop this travesty from happening. Sign too the petition to press for him to be brought to the Hague to face charges for war crimes & illegal warmongering. This man is Dishonest, hypocritical & without integrity & must be kept out of public office and brought to justice www.petitiononline.com/BWCF/petition.html
Complain about this comment
This is a good opportunity to discuss the role that the President of the European Council. The role is not the 'President of Europe' and comparisons to Obama's role are inaccurate. It is simply an administrative role, it is a non executive role.
HOWEVER, the European Council would officially become an institution if Lisbon is passed, and it is interesting to see how the role of President develops if it is indeed created. While this person has very little actual power, they will become a recognisable face of the EU and will represent the EU externally in some functions (albeit without any real power).
Therefore irrespective of his popularity (or lack thereof) in Britain, his international reputation should be the main criterion. The role requires someone who will be liked and respected enough by the EU heads so the EU Council will be productive, while being respected internationally. His role is diplomatic on an international level, a role that he conducted reasonably well as PM.
As for the lack of democracy, I don't understand people's obsession with this word, it seems to pop up everywhere as soon as people get stuck in an argument, akin to the race card. It is a lazy argument and should be supported by a reasoned opinion as to why the role needs a direct democratic mandate. Personally, as I see it, since the role is administrative and not policy dictating, I can understand why EU heads of state feel comfortable appointing a leader that they see fit. But as the President will be seen internationally as representing the EU, I can understand an argument being made the other way.
#28 Danswithme
Calling the EU totalitarian etc contributes nothing to the argument, unless qualified. How do you see the EU as totalitarian or undemocratic?
Complain about this comment
Blair for EU President?
Wow, a war criminal for EU President?
I guess that's the best way to escape a war crime being lodged at the EU eh?
Why not have George Bush as UN President too.
Let's have all the war criminals lead us all.
Complain about this comment
"If it is Tony Blair then there is the intriguing possibility of a former Labour leader as President of the European Union with potentially a Conservative prime minister in Downing Street".
It raises the even more intriguing prospect of Europe having a president who, in a previous incarnation, led a government unwilling to participate in the single currency or Schengen - a quasi-European, a fair weather integrationist who is more comfortable on the fence than with his feet planted on the ground. On the plus side, it would seal the Atlantic Alliance. I expect the State Department is already setting aside the facility from which it will run Europe. Yo Blair!
Complain about this comment
#49 threnodio
I think the fact that Blair managed to do all these things shows his diplomatic ability. I'm no supporter of Blair and, in the same manner as Bertie Ahern(who is certainly no moral champion) here in Ireland, his Machiavellian diplomacy seems to outweigh his arguable lack of ability/principles in other areas. The role of EU Council President, as I see it, is suited to this diplomatic fence sitting, ie keeping people sweet. He appears to appeal to many across the board (internationally, I mean). What do you think?
Complain about this comment
To Zydeko @ 41
Yes, the rest of the EU is also pretty lawless, some parts seem to be even worse than the UK. "Drunken youths and bent politicians are not a police matter anywhere" seems to be the rule.
To several on the question of democracy.
Democracy is government of, for and by the people. For me, this requires at least:
- a workable and representative voting system
- recognition of the role of an elected opposition as well as a government
- a government answerable in public to the elected opposition
- a judicial system that is independent of the legislature
- legislation created by the enitre legislature not just the government (no rule by decree)
- a legislature that is subject to laws and the judicial system as any other citizen
- freedom of speech including a free and independent news media with free and independent journlists
- limitations on the powers of individual members of the government in legal action against members of the public
- local representation for every citizen
No doubt, you can all think of a lot more or phrase them more eloquently. However, according to my list, the EU and several member states fail miserably. And the USA doesn't do too brilliantly either.
Complain about this comment
@43 I shudder to think of the consquences
Complain about this comment
# 51 WolfiePeters
Like the post, and agree with all of it. My problem however is the absolute value given to democracy, ie if the people didn't vote on it directly it isn't legitimate. Also, everything has its limits, for example,
' - a legislature that is subject to laws and the judicial system as any other citizen' is good, and required, but in only as a general rule. Many laws can't be applied to the legislature, such as defamation laws, and generally afford privilege to what is said in parliament, as necessary to allow legislators discuss without fear of being sued.
It is the portayal of a whole process/entity as 'undemocratic' so easily if any of these criteria are limited in any way, it seems all or nothing in peoples minds.
Remeber, “The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority" (Lord Acton). Nothing should be above criticism, and it seems to me that in the current world of countries 'exporting democracy' and slavishly cherishing freedom (another idea that is seen as absolute) it is too easy to use democracy as a trump card in any argument
Complain about this comment
As the job, assuming the treaty comes into force, will be President of the Council and NOT President of Europe.
From what I know of Tony Blair I quite like the guy on a personal level and have no reason to think he would not do a good job of fore filling the very limited mandate that would be given him.
However, having said that, before anyone from the U.K. is even considered both the Euro and open borders must be adopted for a start.
Complain about this comment
51. At 7:25pm on 02 Oct 2009, WolfiePeters wrote:
To several on the question of democracy.
******************************
Can't argue with your definitions of democracy Wolfie. Where I do have a problem is trying to match them to the situation re Europe as it is today.
Ireland being forced to vote for a second time because the first DEMOCRATIC vote came up with the wrong answer. No doubt that if they vote NO again this time they will have to suffer a third poll with a'YES' box and a 'NOT NO' box on it. As there will be a 'choice' this will be deemed democratic by the EU.
Several Governments in Europe are well aware that their people do not want the EU but, as I said in an earlier post, it is a politicians Utopia, and cannot be allowed to fail. Therefore any involvement of the populace that might threaten their gravy train has to be staunchly resisted. Denial of democracy is the usual tool for this. Often quoting such insulting phrases as 'the general public won't understand it' to justify their chicanery.
An earlier blogger on here said words to the effect that ' whatever we think of Tony Blair, he has the respect of many World leaders' To me this only re-affirms how widespread the lack of democracy is. If World heads of state, who one would assume to be intelligent men or women, are prepared to accept him knowing how unpopular he is with the ordinary Jack or Jill on the street. Knowing that he has a suspect history in terms of the truth about Iraq and knowing he is supported and promoted by equally disreputable persons then democracy has no chance.
I repeat what I said earlier, the EU exists for politicians alone. Our only role is to pay for it!
Complain about this comment
Tony Blair would be an awful choice as President of EU. This man has an impressive history of bad judgement. As "labour" leader he like a dog followed the worst gang of rightwing extremists US have had in perhaps 100 years. He and his fellows on the other side of the Atlantic has dealt the western civilization a heavy blow. I will never regard him with respect.
Complain about this comment
53 DanRemont
I agree with your comment. Having lived in several countries and seen their democracies in action, I'm inclined to the view that 'democracy' doesn't happen overnight. What exists in the English speaking world (in the very widest sense) and a few other places has taken close to a thousand years to evolve. You cannot impose it by force. Or, with all the good will in the world, write a democratic constitution and expect it to function immediately. The latter applies to the EU as well as many countries.
55 Zydeco
Once democratically elected the tendency of many governments is to reduce democracy, put themselves above the law and suppress, by various means, the voice of the opposition. At the mildest level in the UK, every government laments the balance of the BBC. Elsewhere, 'democratic' governments control TV and other news and 'license' journalists. The worst is when it becomes a matter of violence. The first defence that we have is to ensure the effectivness of the opposition. And that is one thing that I don't see in the EU. When, where and how often do the council of ministers or the commision stand up before a critical, elected audience to defend their views and actions?
Is this why so many politicians are so favourable to the EU?
The repeated Irish vote (and the lack of a vote or ignoring the result of the vote in other countries) is further deliberate abuse of the concept of democracy. Keep asking the question until you get the 'democratic' answer you want from Ireland. And then make it binding for ever! It's like voting in a life president in some banana republic.
Complain about this comment
To my previous comment I would like to add. Tony Blair didn't follow the humanism for which Europe has fought so hard retain. Instead he decided to follow the neobarbars of the Bush government. He followed people who didn't think torture was a bad thing. He betrayed the ideals of humanity.
Complain about this comment
I'd like to add my vote to the "No to Bliar" camp. Although, if he does as good a job at wrecking the EU as he's done to the UK then perhaps I ought to offer him my support.
Complain about this comment
I don't know what you Brits are complaining about. The UK wasn't attacked even one time by Iraq with WMDs thanks to Sheriff George and his Deupty Tony. Mission accomplished. Arf! Arf! Maybe he could team up with Gorby and Bill Clinton and form some sort of think tank where they solve the problems of the world and then tell the current leaders who will ignore them what to do.
Complain about this comment
"Ah!, that's the whole point. It's GOVERNMENTS that are signing up and voting for everything."
And ever single goverment is voted for in Europe so whats your point? We do not vot for our chancellor directly either and that has never been anything to critizice.... besides Blair will have far less power!
"The EU is for politicians. It is a place to make lots of money for very little work. It is a place where politicians can pretend to be important and pose in the belief that we think they are brilliant."
"Do you even believe that stuff yourselves? Just take alook what shitlot of money banksters or certain managers make just to jeopardzie tax payers money. Politicians are not the ones highly overpaid for doing a crappy job in this world.
"Europe can make its presence felt on the international stage just as well with the existing Nice treaty can it not?"
The previous treaties were shaped for an EU of far less than 27 members. Thus everyone was always allowed to veto which is - and here comes the surprise - everything BUT democratic! If 450 million europeans think something is good and 400.000 people on malta (sorry just need an example i doubt malta would) don't think so they can veto it and block the entire rest of europe. You may say now it is a good thing to have a last word for every country but you shouldn't call the system we have now more democratic than Lisbon would be. Let's just imagine a not so unrealistic scenario that a country like ireland is due to something we call fincial crisis for now completely broke. With the rules we have now every single country could theoretically veto bailing it out - though the majority of Europe agrees that now link of the chain should be left behind. I am not calling you stupid, but have you thought of that? ;-)
WolfiePeters, we have many of the things in your list here... frankly not all and there are other things that bother me, but still reading the list I thought after every second "check we got that" :)
It's almost a shame that we have not many other politicians who could easyly be set up as a counter part to Mr Blair. The only one I can think of is our now "former" financial minister. He is a very honest man but that may even be a bad thing when having to deal with diplomats - at least he screwed up with Switzerland by saying what everyone was thinking and just too scared to speak it out.
Complain about this comment
57. At 8:53pm on 02 Oct 2009, WolfiePeters wrote:
53 DanRemont
55 Zydeco
The repeated Irish vote (and the lack of a vote or ignoring the result of the vote in other countries) is further deliberate abuse of the concept of democracy. Keep asking the question until you get the 'democratic' answer you want from Ireland. And then make it binding for ever! It's like voting in a life president in some banana republic.
************************************************
The Irish Yes/No is perhaps one of the more blatant abuses of democracy, others are more subtle.
However, whatever form the lack of democracy takes, there is this all prevailing feeling that nothing can be done about it. The EU is remorseless in its pursuit of its objectives. I don't like generalisations but will make an exception here by saying that once an idea is proposed at EU level it is almost certainly going to happen. There are forums for discussion, but most of them seem to be on the same basis as the Irish Yes/No question i.e. It is going to happen, its only a matter of how long before it happens.
This feeling of ineffectiveness for our citizens is compounded by the way that directives that do come from Brussels are rarely discussed by our own representives in Parliament, being passed into law 'on the nod'.
Complain about this comment
"The Irish Yes/No is perhaps one of the more blatant abuses of democracy"
At least they got to vote. Some people didn't have even that opportunity. In fact in at least one country, the rubber stamp Parilament didn't even get the opportunity to take out its rubber stamp, the Prime Minister had the power to approve Lisbon by fiat just like a King. Now what nation do you suppose that was? That's Europe's idea of democracy. Makes you wonder what its idea of dictatorship is.
Complain about this comment
WolfiePeters #51. . .
"According to my list, the EU and several member states fail miserably. And the USA doesn't do too brilliantly either."
Really? Interesting! Do you mean on a state level or on a national level? During the Bush administration or the Obama administration? Are you comparing today's reality to the lofty dream layed out in our constitution? I'd really love to know in detail why you think the US doesn't possess the characteristics of a decent democracy sighted in your list. Will you tell me?
PS. I think you're being too hard on Europe, though your conclusion regarding the EU as aposed to the individual European countries may be a little more acurit.
Complain about this comment
#50 - danremont
I think I would agree if what was needed was a soft centred compromise. Unfortunately, I think the EU has had it's fair share of that in recent times and needs a clear sense of direction. I do not see how someone who has been offside on at least two core issues can provide either. I am not going to jump on the anti-Iraq bandwagon because there are too many rabid 'war criminal type' allegations creeping into this thread but I do think that Blair would - unintentionally maybe - turn out to be a devisive figure because he would come to represent all that is bad about Britain's ambivalent attitude to the EU. If we are going to have a figurehead, it should be someone who does not inspire strong feelings. If we are looking for clear leadership, it should not be a quibbler but a conviction politician. Blair, I fear, is neither.
Complain about this comment
31. PursuitOfLove Sorry your wrong Blair was the first... Brown did not meet him until early March.
As reported on the BBC:
7:04 GMT, Thursday, 5 February 2009
Obama greets 'good friend' Blair
Tony Blair has become the first leading British politician to meet Barack Obama since he was sworn in as US President.
The former prime minister was welcomed as a "very good friend" by Mr Obama, as he gave a speech at the traditional National Prayer Breakfast.
Complain about this comment
threnodio #49. . .
"On the plus side, it would seal the Atlantic Alliance. I expect the State Department is already setting aside the facility from which it will run Europe. Yo Blair!"
Yup, you got it!! Its gonna be called the "European State Department" in their honor (or rather dishonor.) Isn't that cute? Oh think of all the fun times we'll have!! Now we'll be able to go to war with anyone and you won't be able to do anything but help us or suffer the consiquences!! We'll rule this world with an iron fist!! Oh I can hardly waight!!
You have got to be the most bipolar person in the world. God!! So you honestly believe that most Americans, much less Democrats (who are in charge now) want to "run" Europe? You actually believe that "all" Republicans (although admitedly there aren't many sane ones left) want to as well? How calis do you think we are? Waight!! Don't answer that. I don't want to know.
And to think I believed your very objective and respectful commentary on Mark's blog expressing a desire for a relationship of equals between the US and UK!!
Complain about this comment
61.Seraphim85
A reasonable response to the points I and others have been making but, what no-one seems to get is this feeling of frustation caused by our presence in Europe. Firstly, very few got to vote to actually join the European Union. A lot, myself included, did vote to join the Common Market. That was a good idea and I still think a trading consortium is the way to approach Europe. However, once the Common Market became something more than just a trading bloc, the opportunities to withdraw became less. We were sold on expansion of the trading aspect which would require additional 'executive' power being given to those who controlled the system. Then came a series of treaties, agreements, etc and suddenly the European Union was born. It was at this point it was realised that the intention was, and I believe, still is to form a Federal Europe run as one Nation under a European Government. At the same time the opportunity to protest that this wasn't what we voted for wasn't there.
No Country has been given the chance to have a say on continued membership and any proposal such as the EU Constitution, which did get put to a referendum, was firmly rejected by those given the chance to vote. So what happens? Democracy EU style come into play. Rename it and approve it without giving the voters a say. All this indicates quite clearly to me that EU politicians , and our home Nation ones, have no intention of letting us spoil their plan. The EU is here to stay and the will of the people is irrelevant.
Complain about this comment
Zydeco #41. . .
While I'm sure those things happen, don't you think you're being a little too hard on yourself? Every country has gettos and nice areas. Heck! I'm willing to bet you that if you spent a week in down town Baltimore, your unfavorible view of your own country's crime problem would virtually evaporate into thin air!!
Let me tell you something! It is nothing to be proud of to be a citizen of the nation which has the highest prison population in the world. In the world!! That means higher than China and India, despite the fact that their populations are 1 billion strong each!!
And don't even get me started on capital punishment...a thing that has been rightfully done away with in all of Europe!!
Complain about this comment
64 PursuitOfLove
I was living in the United States at the end of the Bush Sr. administration and the beginning of Bush Jr.'s time as Governor of Texas. The comment, or regret, that I heard from a lot of my American friends was that the President was not forced to stand up in front of an aggressive opposition at least once a week to defend his plans and actions.
My impression was that they felt it would improve the President's thinking and force his opponents to make their criticsms clear and specific. Debate in the House and the Senate is excellent, but the President isn't there. His arguments are not presented by him and the opposing politicians are not present at his TV press conferences.
Perhaps, some Americans have too good an impression of the PM's question time from the London. On the other hand, it would have been good to see George W. debating Iraq with the Democrats and Obama debate health care with the Republicans.
As for being too hard on Europe, read, for example, about the leader that Mrs Obama didn't embrace at G20, not about his private life, but how his government operates. And I imagine the ruling power of the Presidents of France is one that many other leaders would relish.
Please don't think that I'm claiming the British system is particularly good. After all, we had Tone as PM for far too long! I wrote earlier that democracy cannot be imposed and is difficult to achieve. It's also difficult to maintain. We all have to work at it.
Complain about this comment
69. At 10:14pm on 02 Oct 2009, PursuitOfLove wrote:
Zydeco #41. . .
While I'm sure those things happen, don't you think you're being a little too hard on yourself? Every country has gettos and nice areas. Heck! I'm willing to bet you that if you spent a week in down town Baltimore, your unfavorible view of your own country's crime problem would virtually evaporate into thin air!!
*******************************************
As I said, I can only speak for the UK.
Whilst crime levels may not quite be up to US levels, there really are no-go areas in the UK, with gun crime and drive by shootings, while still at low levels, far more prevelant than it used to be. The frightening thing is that a lot of this crime is being carried out by teenagers involved in the drugs trade.
I do have experience of living and working in the USA in the late 60s/early 70s, mainly in Chicago and Houston. Although advised that certain areas should be avoided, I saw a lot of both Cities and never had any problems - apart from driving standards on some of the freeways!!
Complain about this comment
Blair 'clear favourite'?
Is this a joke?
It is amazing how such stories keep on re-surfacing. Few weeks ago we were reading that even Sarcozy had abandoned Tony, knowing how unpopular throughout Europe he is.
Is this factual reporting or fantasising Gavin? Are we serious or are we kidding? Please tell us you were only kidding. Please!
Allow us at least the luxury to forget that man.
Complain about this comment
Christopher Gill @ 5, that was very well said.
There is a lot of lament about the possibility of an Irish YES vote, but we should not confuse a staged event with the predictable social response across europe. They are entirely different things. Sure, a staged event like this referendum CAN provide endorsement to a bid for power. But it does not always do so.
Remember folks, these referenda are completely bogus anyways. They were intended as a means of gathering respect for the EU, not as the be all and end all of legal ratifications. It was thought the process would be an easy way to gain legitimacy for the Eurotocracy's plans.
The social reaction of the european people is not always entirely a thing to be controlled by the parties. That is why they have these big stunts, because they are trying to move the huge beast that is the people. It isn't easy.
And I wonder, maybe the EU has already lost this referendum.
Follow me here: What is the end game, after tomorrow?
If the referendum gets a NO, The Czechs are going to move on things pretty quickly, and the EU will get bogged down in attritional warfare with member state governments as they fight for the power to tax and spend in the publics' name.
If the referendum gets a "YES", ....... then what?
Are all the people who despise the EU and who want democracy going to say "OK, fair enough. Clean fight. The people want it."?
I mean, are they?
I doubt it. The whole process of ratification has been a farce, and a massive liberty taken upon the dignity of the people of europe. As resentment builds towards the current structure of the EU, all across Europe from England to Latvia to Italy to Greece, the stage managed attempts at legitimacy by the Eurocrats just look more and more pathetic.
I suspect this referendum is already lost for the EU, because if they lose they lose, and if they win they are losers.
Not a great strategy, but that is the EU.
Complain about this comment
I liked Blair, but yes his judgement was ..iffy ...on Iraq.
But, what choice did he have in that decision? None...and G. Bush was uncharismatically horrific, yet horribly influential ..until his economy tanked.
But, the anti-Americanism here would scare any other American (many are normal and not bigoted,... surprise!!) whom would care to comment or..care.
That is the main reason they don't come here (except for a few) and comment or they would be rattled/disturbed...is that a good way to promote debate?
NO. But, hey, enjoy...the bliss.
And, I have no opinion on EU's future president, but I do say Good Luck:)
Complain about this comment
My vote goes to Sumo, the smartest living individual in France. Excellent instincts, willingness to act, and fearless of large lizard like creatures many times his size. He'd make an excellent President of the EU IMO.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8287166.stm
Complain about this comment
44 & 68: It's not really true to say you joined the Common Market and never signed up to further developments. You joined the Common Market by signing the Treaty of Rome, in the same way as everyone else. The preamble to the Treaty of Rome states very clearly that the signatories were establishing a European Economic Community in order to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples. Ever Closer Union. The Common Market was always only a means to that end. And this wasn't hidden in some obscure place, either. It was right there on page one of the treaty. That's what you signed up to.
Lisbon keeps this phrase and aim, by the way, in what I think is one of the more significant - if subtle - differences between the abandoned Constitution and the new reformed treaties. The Constitution would have gotten rid of this ambition.
That aside, I'm fascinated by why so many English people seem so convinced there's a plot afoot to have Blair made the first EU President.
For starters, being President of the EU Council is hardly the same thing as being President of the EU. There's already a Council President, just as there's a Commission President, and as there's a Parliamentary President. If Lisbon is passed, there'll be three presidents, just as there are now. The only difference is that the Council President will become a stable, full-time, thirty-month appointment, rather than being someone who is only in office for a few months and is primarily concerned with domestic issues anyway. It's a way of giving the governments of the EU a recognisable and clear voice in the world, that's all.
The assumption that Blair is a shoo-in for the role is particularly odd, and seems a peculiarly British fantasy. There are 27 countries in the Union; can you see them all settling for Blair, let alone wanting him? He's from a big country; he's unpopular in his own country; he's despised by the left across the continent; he's from a country that hasn't joined the Euro zone; he's from a country that won't join the Schengen zone; he's widely seen as America's poodle; he failed to bridge the gap between America and Europe at the time of the Iraq War; he failed to lead his country into the heart of Europe even when he was insanely popular. This job may ultimately go to Blair, but it can hardly be a done deal. There are plenty of others it could go to.
As for why Lisbon is necessary, and whether Nice is good enough, try to remember that pretty much everyone who is opposed to Lisbon had been opposed to Nice too, and for the same reasons. Nice, as it happens, was only ever intended as a temporary stopgap treaty until the system was properly streamlined and opened up. Lisbon does that. To take a small handful of obvious improvements, none of which seem to be being discussed in the UK, save in a hysterical way:
1. It simplifies the mouthpiece of the EU, by stabilising the Council presidency, merging the foreign ministries, and unifying the legal persons that make up the Union. Things will be tidier and our collective voice will be louder and cleare, which should prove very handy when we're haggling over climate change with America, China, and India.
2. It requires all Commission proposals to be vetted by the national parliaments before going to the decision-making Council. In other words, your elected representatives in Westminster will get to scrutinise everything two months before the Council votes.
3. The Council will then vote in public, so we can see exactly which governments favour what. Currently it votes secretly, which creates the impression of 'faceless bureaucrats' scheming in the background. Surely you'd like this to be more transparent?
4. Lisbon allows you to leave the EU if you really get fed up with it. There's currently no exit mechanism. I'd have thought the real Europhobes would have loved Lisbon because it offers them a way out, but no, evidently not. If you can explain that to me I'd be very grateful.
Complain about this comment
Tony Blair should never be allowed to become President of EU because he will be upto mischief in the Middel East as soon as he is allowed that position. he lies, he has no credibility in most parts of the World and Europe stands to lose lot with him at the helms. I wish better sense prevails. It all depends I think on the Irish who were very sensible so far not to ratify the Lisbon Treaty.
Complain about this comment
5. At 2:03pm on 02 Oct 2009, christophergill wrote:
"Blair ... came across as someone serious and penetratingly intelligent "yet" like-able.
But as history has showed us he was not the perceptive statesman that I think most of us for long took him for."
SB2: I am proud to say that I saw through him before he became PM. By writing that I am not claiming to be clever. I have been fooled before. I presume I learnt from that experience.
christophergill: "He doesn't understand how the world works."
SB2: I think he does. I think he just doesn't care what sort of a mess he leaves behind him.
Complain about this comment
If the post would necessitate his leaving Yale University behind,taking his penchant for faith - based funding with him I would wholly support that.
Complain about this comment
The EU president coming from a country that is decisively anti-european, swears on the special relationship with the US and has not joined the Eurozone would be more than ridiculous. Tony Blair's 'success' as Middle East envoy shows that he should rather retire sooner than later.
Complain about this comment
All the hype about Blair's coming victory is to be found exclusively in the UK media. This is all about bulking up the candidacy and creating an aura of inevitability around it.
If you think that Blair should not be president of the European Council because of his past record on the Iraq war, his hyper-obedience to neocon US policies, his failure to be a pro-European leader of Britain, his self-aggrandizing ego that is likely to make him grandstand rather than be the diplomat that is required in this job - for any or all of these reasons, or others that you may have, please take a moment to sign the StopBlair! petition at http://stopblair.eu/
Complain about this comment
Tony Blair has an almost unbroken record of failure - so why stop him now? First there was the hash he made of Britain - then the Iraq disaster - then the failed peace mission to the middle east - then his puerile Faith Foundation - now he can make a pig's ear of Europe - after that he'll no doubt get a lucrative job mucking things up as world climate change czar. His cynical conversion to Roman Catholicism in time for this European post shows that his forward planning is OK for his own self-interest, if nothing else. And the thought of Cherie Blair as First Lady of Europe? Pass the sick bag. Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
Is this an exercise in scraping the barrel? Should the EU elect Mr Blair as its President then so far as I am concerned that organization loses all credibility.
Complain about this comment
andfreedom wrote:
I doubt David Cameron would ever allow Tony Blair to become EU President, although I imagine the British people would raise more than a few objections themselves.
###
Actually, I doubt DC will have much of a say in the matter - it could happen before the election.
Also, you misread Cameron. Hi Eurosceptic stance is really rather misleading - I think he is far more pro EU than he pretends (and pro treaty too).
But also, unlike with Brown where they really don't get on, Cameron had a lot of time for Blair as a politician and a negotiator. He would be able to work with him well, I think. And that is the most important part.
Complain about this comment
#76...
It may be because countries could always leave the EU anyway, under basic international law. The idea that they needed a clause in a treaty to allow them to leave is absolutely laughable. That clause was always a symbolic rather than important one.
The Lisbon treaty is a fundamentally bad treaty giving the ECJ more powers to come out with even more ridiculous judgments taking sensitive matters out of the political arena where they belong, and I cannot believe that Ireland has been bullied into voting yes to something they already rejected.
As a once Pro-European, the whole Constitution to Lisbon process has made me absolutely sick and ashamed frankly to be a "citizen of Europe". You'd think this was some other corrupt part of Africa or South America the way this treaty has been forced through in the majority of member states. Disgraceful.
Complain about this comment
85. At 10:54am on 03 Oct 2009, SCLSCL wrote:
....As a once Pro-European, the whole Constitution to Lisbon process has made me absolutely sick and ashamed frankly to be a "citizen of Europe". You'd think this was some other corrupt part of Africa or South America the way this treaty has been forced through in the majority of member states. Disgraceful.
********************************
As I said earlier on this blog, the EU is strictly for the enrichment of politicians!!
Complain about this comment
The volume of anti-Blair, anti-Europe vitriol appearing in response to this blog amazes me. No matter whether the Lisbon treaty is ratified or not, it is still domestic politics that dominates in how the lives of European citizens change, the EU is still a somewhat marginalized institution.
In regards to Blair, on the continent he is still a respected statesman, despite Iraq. The claims that he should face a war crimes tribunal are ridiculous, he was head of a democratically elected government and the decision to go to war was put to the House of Commons, where democratically elected MPs on both sides of the house voted to go to war. Did he deceive the house? He provided information that was subsequently found to be false, but I suspect there is no or little evidence that he provided false information knowingly.
I am no fan of Blair, I've always found him to be more style than substance, but the level of negative feeling in reply to this blog in no way reflects the reality.
Complain about this comment
I can't image that Blair would be a popular leader in Europe, however when it comes the the EU, nothing really surprises me anymore..
> who would think that such a polarizing figure would be deemed a good choice?
> Who would have thought the Ireland was the only country 'democratic' enough to give there people a vote on the treaty
>Who would have though that 'democratic' Ireland would be forced to vote again until it made the right decision (as was the case in the Nice treaty)
>And finally and most strangely, why is it that I can work, live and travel in Ireland and not see a nun in a habit for months on end but whenever a BBC photographer covers an election in Ireland the only people ever voting are nuns? It really is a poor reflection on petty stereotyping within the BBC
Complain about this comment
87. At 11:46am on 03 Oct 2009, njc874 wrote:
........ the EU is still a somewhat marginalized institution.
******************************
You jest surely? 80% of current legislation in the UK is either set by or influenced by EU directives.
Complain about this comment
Gavin Hewitt writes, "Some hold Tony Blair responsible for going along with George Bush's war."
----------------------------------
Can anyone not hold Tony Blair responsible for the war in Iraq? Even if you thought that it was fine to go to war, that it was fine to invent false evidences and go against the UN to seize the country by force, you cannot say that Tony Blair had no responsibility over such calculated evil blunder that is costing so many lives as well as benefits... And if the EU is to have any ethics, they should ban Tony Blair from its presidency. The only European place where Blair should stand is trial in "The Hague" tribunal...
Complain about this comment
njc874 says: "In regards to Blair, on the continent he is still a respected statesman, despite Iraq. "
Please, allow me to rephrase your sentence: " In regards to John, in the Pub he is still a respected lad, despite being a criminal."
njc874 says, "Did he deceive the house? He provided information that was subsequently found to be false, but I suspect there is no or little evidence that he provided false information knowingly."
Of course there's little if no evidence at all given that the information is provided by the secrete services. But there was also information that was not secret, provided by the UN inspectors, and that did not find one single thread of evidence revealing that Iraq was a risk to the UK, not an immediate threat that could not be dealt with peacefully. And the WWII Chamberlain analogy does not hold given that inspectors were allowed in Iraq to check the situation. I mean you can delude yourself as much as you like, the only ones who benefit do not care what you think.
Complain about this comment
calzone;
"now he can make a pig's ear of Europe"
Why do you gratuitously insult pigs, what have they ever done to you?
Complain about this comment
85 - I don't think it's fair to say Ireland has been bullied on this one.
Last summer, the mainstream parties started by not bothering to make a case for the Treaty. The government simply assumed people would trust their judgement, while the opposition treated the referendum like an election campaign, trying to get people familiar with their candidates while again saying only 'trust us'. Given how politicians tend to be regarded nowadays, that was clearly folly. This gave Sinn Fein, the hard left, the ultra-Catholic right, and the new element that was Libertas the opportunity to spread all manner of lies about abortion, taxation, neutrality, and other issues. Misinformation was rife, and the mainstream parties were forced to playing 'whack a mole'.
After the referendum, serious studies were carried out across the country, which found that over 40% of those who voted no admitted they did so because they simply didn't understand the treaty. Of those who believed they understood the treaty and voted no, many were concerned about neutrality, taxation, and abortion, none of which were effected by the treaty; in other words, they didn't understand it either. Others were concerned by the loss of a Commissioner, feeling it would weaken Ireland's position in Brussels.
So the government went back to Brussels, got the European partners to agree that everyone should keep a Commissioner, and got guarantees that underlined the fact that Ireland's positions on tax, military matters, and abortion will remain Irish matters for the Irish to decide. Armed with these guarantees, all of which will be lodged with the UN, giving them full treaty status, to allay the more tangible concerns of those who had voted no, the government then put the treaty to the people again, this time with a serious campaign to explain the treaty to people the reduce the number voting no out of ignorance, whether acknowledged or not.
In short, the government asked the people whether they wanted something, realised they said no because they didn't understand it, and then asked again, this time improving and explaining the offer. Is this really bullying?
Complain about this comment
@ Zydeco 68:
I see your points and I understand that the British perception of what the aim of the former treaties were aimed at are different than ours is (I think it is even written down in our [more or less] constitution that the European Unification is one of the major targets. But it was written down after two very bloody wars while yours if older. So there were not many ways to disapprove Lisbon for the Judges or politicians.)
Complain about this comment
Let's face it.... the idea that Blair should get this job must have greatly influenced Brown to join the Lisbon constitutional EU super-federal-state (modelled inadvertantly on the German indirect 30%-democratic constitutional (70% 'Rechtsstaat') state. This is scandalous and demeans British democracy. (Could it be even possible that other EU states offered this job to GB for British cooperation as Blair was still PM? The mind boggles! but I don't believe in such stupid and senseless conspiracy theiories, so please discount this)
The very fact that only one country was allowed to vote shows that GB is moving towards joining a force which has not yet been conceived as a 'State' and therefore the idea that this should be a fully democratic has become unimportant and irrelevant and has not even been considered. The Irish decision was not considered valid and the Irish were forced to vote again under various threats from people in the German and French pro-Euro factions with expulsion, large-scale unemployment, isolation etc. etc. after which they switched their actions by increasing the already enormous pressure on a very weak Irish primeminister (whose ability to deal with even the easiest of tasks has long been put into question). This proves that democracy at the national level counts for nothing in the core European states and is even frowned upon as 'unhelpful'.
Anyone who does not want to be forced into this setup which is been singularly decide by Brown and a few of his comrades must votes anything but Labour. Europe should be an economical and commercial union and the interests and cultural being of the individual countries should not be cen tralised! Remember what happened to Ireland the first time they were forced to vote a second time over the extension of the EU into Eastern Europe (as the EUs most western state)?... inside two years the population of Ireland increased by 10-15% with eastern Euopean immigration, like it or not!
I anyhow hope that Blair does not get this job and I hope Labour suffers the biggest crushing defeat in history at the next election, which is not unlikely!
Complain about this comment
#93..
The thing is that there will have been very few people in Ireland voting "yes" who knew exactly what they were voting for either. I am not disputing that there will have been some people who voted No the first time because they thought that Ireland somehow would have to legalise abortion etc, instead I am pointing out that the people of Ireland were scared into believing that a vote against Lisbon was somehow a vote against the EU and not just against a terrible treaty that introduced several things which were not debated openly and transparently across Europe (that being the fault of national governments).
The idea that to oppose Lisbon is to oppose many positive aspects about the EU is a joke. As if the EU would suddenly crumble without the Lisbon treaty - its all complete nonsense. Ireland as a whole was bullied throughout this debate, from its politicians being forced by Sarkozy and co to run another referendum, to its people being fooled into believing that a vote against Lisbon would somehow see Ireland kicked out of the EU. With the Poles, Czechs and UK just to name a few of the countries that would have not allowed this to happen, it is a shame that the people of Ireland have bought the scaremongering. Things must be particularly bad there for them to have fallen for it all.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Blair for president? I don´t believe Great Britain has sunk that deep. I dear say it because he is not to become "my president".
He has never told us the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Complain about this comment
RE 5. At 2:03pm on 02 Oct 2009, christophergill wrote:
Christopher, your own oratorical-of-sorts summation of Blair is good, the mistakes you mention are right. Only the other day I was thinking about the Blair-as-president situation. I agreed with the faults over Iraq war and war against terror and those flawed political "beliefs" that is to say Blair believed in America as a model of progress. A bit starry eyed. That was then.
And also, as most enterprising individuals admit - you learn from your past mistakes and it makes you a better person in terms of experience and making better decisions and getting better outcomes in the future.
So your own views are correct but probably have relevance in the year 2005. Things have moved on a good bit.
The current Tony Blair is not only well briefed but is an extremely active global partner if not leader in multi-faith tolerance, in global climate change and in peace processing in the middle east. Not to metion those strong and relevant connections stateside. The past is there for Tony Blair to bit him a little; but, it is the future which holds the challenges and Tony Blair's vast and relevant political networks and connections are indespensible to a modern Europe. He is as a man serious about poverty and genuine on getting global climate change agreements. These are two of the most important issues in today's world let alone Europe. Check Google is you don't believe me re Blair's post-PM work!
To close, I do feel he shouldn't be paid a considerable salary given that most people coming to the post will likely be wealthy because of the experience and background of the person required for the post - wealth and power are sadly connected in all spheres of life; ergo the EU President will already have enough money to get by without ever having to work another day. There will also be something more edifying if the EU keep the salary down for Blair as it will make things stick better by reducing those moralistic arguments belonging to the hard-right anti-EU brigade.
Complain about this comment
#67 - PursuitOfLove
I am sorry you read my post that way.
My intention was not to contradict in any way what I posted on Mark's blog. Far from it. I do believe in a partnership of equals.
My criticism was directed at Blair not your good selves.
Complain about this comment
Now that we are being more specific in regard to the justification for invading Iraq, I should like to put this point.
According Mr Blair Iraq had nuclear devices that were capable of use within 45 minutes notice. (Where he had this from is irrelevant – it may have been from God, knowing the man’s religious credentials.) If Mr Blair, and others, seriously suspected Iraq had these devices then the coalition went into Iraq with the full likelihood of starting a nuclear exchange in the region that could have quickly engulfed the planet. I don’t think Mr Blair would have risked such a catastrophe (I hope not).
Conclusion? He (Blair) knew damn well there were no WMDs. On the other hand, if he was convinced by his case, then we can say the so-called nuclear deterrence factor failed. Either way it is a pretty kettle of damsels.
Complain about this comment
And what exactly is the President supposed to be doing when in office? What happened to a brotherhood of nationas acting independently? Sounds like a United States of Europe to me. And why does Europe need a more powerful voice? To do what? To stop what? We can'r even get a fair share of troops to Afghanistan or stop out neighbours ignoring agreements made in the EU. Who's going to take an EU Presdident seriously unless the EU is going to throw its weight around with military intervention or trade barriers - both of which the EU says its against?
All looks like a very liberal talking shop that wants a new role that all EU and country politicians can aspire to. Oh, and with a huge pay package paid for by us. I really don't see what I'd be getting by spending my taxes on this.
Complain about this comment
ditto,ditto,ditto Christopher Gill
Complain about this comment
#12,Jamie Taylor
I am a sixties child and i recall the last labour leader Harold Wilson and his pal in number 11 Dennis Healy going cap in hand to the I M F in 1974 saying please sir can we have some money because we are Bankrupt.
Yet another Labour government. "Silly me new labour" who have ruined the economy yet again.
Complain about this comment
Sorry Jamie but the quartet is a waste of time as there will never be peace in the middle east,they have only been at each others throats for two thousand years
Complain about this comment
Was'nt Blair questioned by the police about a minor problem of giving peerage's for money?
surely that is Fraud?
Complain about this comment
What was World War II actually fought for?
Not for us to be dragged against our will into a fascist Eurostate, we assume.
Not to be the paymasters of a new elite that gained its position through duplicity and false promises, presumably.
The EU makes a mockery of democracy. For that reason, our two main political parties should both feel at home in the new, politically correct jumbo state.
Complain about this comment
The Belgians have an additional argument to veto Blair.
Two Belgian (former) Prime Ministers were once backed by a majority of the Member States of the EU to become president of the European Commission: Dehaene (1995) and Verhofstadt (2004). It were Major (for Dehaene) and Blair (for Verhofstadt) who vetoed the appointment of Dehaene en Verhofstadt.
Belgium has not yet forgotten that, as was shown today on Belgian Public Broadcast when the PM was asked what he thought of Blair as a potential President of the Council.
Complain about this comment
Selling out an entire country and their taxes must seem a small price to pay for a plum sinecure to salve Bliar's non existent conscience. Well finally having admitted his catholicism it is only a quick confession and his crimes are wiped away.
Who will lead us to war this time to topple this cabal of Empire builders? Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, and now the EU elite political cabal. Round and round goes the repeating wheel of history. Names not intents only change.
Complain about this comment
Re: 98.
(you wrote)
"... as most enterprising individuals admit - you learn from your past mistakes and it makes you a better person in terms of experience and making better decisions and getting better outcomes in the future.
So your own views are correct but probably have relevance in the year 2005. Things have moved on a good bit. "
----
I must ask you to understand the limits of my own experience -- I grew up in America, so this phenomenon you speak of, of people "learning from past mistakes" to make "better decisions in the future" -- of such marvels I can scarcely begin to imagine! However, even if such persons exist, and you aren't having me on for a larf at my expense, it doesn't necessarily mean everyone learns from their mistakes, or that they learn the right things from them.
So yes, I know Blair has been doing a bunch of stuff and I know he has an impressive looking Rolodex.
What I am saying is: Does he know how to use his Rolodex? If he places a call to someone in his Rolodex will that person end up using him, not the other way 'round?
I think most politicians big enough to get a call from Tony will be smart enough to play chess with him while he thinks he's playing checkers.
Complain about this comment
96... I don't think that it's quite so ludicrous as you suggest to believe that opposition to Lisbon is tantamount to opposition to the Union. I don't quite take that line myself, but statistics tell an interesting story.
Barring the anomaly of Lisbon I's 28%, here's a clear trend in Irish referendums on Europe for 20% or so of eligible voters to come out and oppose any European reforms: Maastricht 18%, Amsterdam 21%, Nice I 18%, Nice II 18%, Lisbon II 19%. This is a hard No vote. I don't think we're ever going to persuade these people to come onside. So what?
Well, one thing that recent polls have thrown up is that 18% of Irish people think we would be better off withdrawing from the Union, rather than remaining within it. I think it's safe to assume that these didn't vote for Lisbon II, so it seems rather likely that the 19% of eligible voters who voted against the Treaty included the 18% of eligible voters who want to withdraw altogether.
You're right, of course: disapproval of Lisbon doesn't necessarily imply disapproval of the European project. In Ireland, however, it does appear though that those who voted against Lisbon are completely at odds with the European project. This in turn raises questions about the professed Europhilia of leading No campaigners.
As for whether the people who voted yes feel as though they were scared into it, I'm not convinced. I couldn't make it home to vote, but I've spoken to plenty of people about the referendum. Not one of them has talked of being scared or bullied - not even the ones who've switched from No to Yes. Instead they've felt much better informed this time out, largely due to proper campaigns by the mainstream political parties and by new civic groups, not to mention the Referendum Commission doing a much better job this year than last year. Most of all, they've felt that this vote really mattered, and that this was no time to cut off our nose to spite our face.
My constituency, I should point out, was one of the most negative ones last year, and had a 20% swing to a positive result this time.
Were people bothered about the possible economic effects of a no vote? Yes, of course. They realised full well that this is no time to be annoying our trading partners and sending mixed signals to possible investors. But this doesn't seem to have been a major reason for voting yes, just a serious deterrent against voting no for trivial reasons or to irk the government.
Certainly it's not the case that the whole population was conned into believing that it'd be the end of the world if they voted no. They're not stupid, you know. What's more, there were no shortage of people pointing out that a No vote would not lead to Ireland being kicked out of the Union. As far as I can tell, the only people who are claiming that they've felt bullied are the ones who feel they've withstood this perceived bullying and voted no anyway. That'd be the same 20% that have voted no every time since the Maastricht Treaty.
Why do you think Lisbon is a terrible treaty? And what are the things it introduces that you don't think were debated openly and transparently across Europe?
Complain about this comment
Blair has had his eye on the EU presidency for a VERY long time now, I saw this 3-4 years ago so I'm sure it's been much longer than that.
It's his way of being sure he gets into the history books, he know it's never going to be for anything he's achieved, but whoever gets the job will always be remembered as the first president.
Look at the USA, the whole world knows who the first president was, but how many remember the 9th? or the 6th? or even the 2nd?
Complain about this comment
Tony Blair for EU representative? Is it too much to ask for someone who is truthful and committed to human rights?
Complain about this comment
On what grounds is Mr Blair a 'big beast?'
An ex prime minister from a medium sized economy who has achieved nothing since he was forced out by his own party.
Complain about this comment
ThirstyGargoyle wrote:
"The assumption that Blair is a shoo-in for the role is particularly odd, and seems a peculiarly British fantasy. There are 27 countries in the Union; can you see them all settling for Blair, let alone wanting him? He's from a big country; he's unpopular in his own country; he's despised by the left across the continent; he's from a country that hasn't joined the Euro zone; he's from a country that won't join the Schengen zone; he's widely seen as America's poodle; he failed to bridge the gap between America and Europe at the time of the Iraq War; he failed to lead his country into the heart of Europe even when he was insanely popular. This job may ultimately go to Blair, but it can hardly be a done deal. "
This passage is taken without its surrounding context and argument, but it is a beautiful summary of where Europe stands with regard to democratic participation. What is most striking, apart from the litany of reasons Blair is unpopular, is the final sentence. Having described point after point which would disqualify Blair from any reasonable process of election, the author concedes that "This job may ultimately go to Blair.."
How is it even possible? Because of the party machine, and because Europe is ruled by party politics.
Blair made a farce of international law and the truth whilst he was in office governing the economy of the UK towards a crash, and if he takes the EU presidency he will put his horrid stamp of quality on democracy in Europe as well.
His name will become a verb, transcending the normal boundaries of proper nouns.
To have been "blaired" will mean to have your dignity stripped away by the deceitful gobbling and scheming of a political party.
There are a few shadows hovering over Europe just now, and Blair is one of them.
Complain about this comment
Yes. Wonderful. Let's have a war criminal for president! Why not make Bush an honourary european too? I'm sure he could bring a wealth of experience to the EU.
Complain about this comment
Yes! A war criminal for president. I can't wait. Let's invite Bush to be his deputy. I'm sure we can make him an honourary European. Three cheers for the EU!
Complain about this comment
There isn't a single person in the E.U. who can hold a candle to Tony Blair as far as experience is concerned, he is the most qualified to tackle the job and the problems associated with it. He has done more for Britain than any previous Prime Ministers except Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill. No one stood out, he did. By the way Jon_Cornwall; John Hanson was the first president of the United States.
Complain about this comment
In respose to ADVOCATUS-DIABOLI (117):
Is this tongue in cheek or a genuine appraisal? If the latter then it only goes to prove it takes all sorts…
Complain about this comment
I wouldn´t had any problem with an British Citizen being the first President of the EU. The way I regard Mr Blair according to his policies while he was the UK PM, I think that there might will be a more better Person to become EU President.
It is clear to me, that now after the Irish voted in favour of the Lisbon treaty, the European Parliament might receive more power. Therefore it is - in my opinion - important that the enactment of the treaty next year should set up an new mark in the EU. The power should shift from the bureaucrats to the members of the EU Parliament and then bring in more directly democracy for all people within the EU. So the people might get the chance to vote on referendums even in those countries which rejected the demand for an referendum on this treaty.
More direct democracy and less bureaucracy can change the opinions of the people towards the EU and if the MP´s of the EU Parliament will do a good work for the people, democracy in Europe will find a new way to reach the people. For these efforts, in my opinion, Mr Blair would be the wrong man to bring Europe forward on the afore mentioned road. If he will become EU President, what I fear might could be, it would be seen by many people, even outside of the UK as if he would get this job because nobody in the UK want him anymore.
It is a bad habit to send "worn out" politicians from the homecountry to the EU, just to get rid of them and there they can do what they like and nobody really cares about them.
There are many good chances for the EU and its future, but these chances demands the right people who can take it and make the best out from them.
It has been most overseen in most debates about the Lisbon treaty, that by all fears, it offers also chances for better abilities of the EU Parliament and to cut the power of the bureaucrats. Those are the ones who are also responsible for the negatives the people relate with the EU in itself.
Complain about this comment
go tony my mate you were the best primeminister this contry has has since churchill hope you can do the same for the EU
Complain about this comment
What I find disturbing is the general illiteracy of many who write to this blog. Tony Blair lied about WMD? Did he? What is the evidence for this claim? If he believed, as all the intelligence agencies, the US, the Russians, the Chinese etc believed, that Saddam still had WMD and was prepared to use them, as indeed he had done in the past, then he did not lie. A lie is when something is said to be false when the person who says it knows it to be untrue. To say that of Blair is absolute nonsense.
Turning to the invasion of Iraq, we cannot unravel history. Someday Saddam would have fallen and it is quite possible that civil war would have erupted. How many millions would have died then? What we do know is that the preexisting regime of sanctions was failing courtesy of French, Chinese and Russian oil deals, and pressure from public opinion in the face of Iraqi propaganda. The UN was hopelessly divided but it is worth remembering that the majority of non-aligned nations supported the invasion. However, the French focused opposition in the Security Council happy, for their self-serving purposes to leave the legal position ambiguous. Even today (real) experts in international jurisprudence cannot settle the legal argument about whether the invasion contravened international law. What is clear is that the commissions that have considered this have strongly argued that it was. As joint signatories of the 1992 surrender document the UK and US were always in the front line of resolving the Iraqi problem. To call Blair a liar and a war criminal is the most irrational form of tribal politics and makes me think that if people who write such nonsense have the power to vote then maybe democracy is not such a good idea.
As others have said Blair is one of the few international statesmen who could give the EU real political clout and influence. Like it or not we are in and we should all work to make Europe work. Blair, if he was willing to serve again - and who could blame him if he said no - could change the face of Europe and help create the union we desperately need.
Complain about this comment
Mrs Thatcher or John Major but not Blair!
Complain about this comment
These were the responses of Blair in his attempt to justify joining Bush on the war in Iraq.
" I think it's my job as Prime Minister, even if frankly I might be more popular if I didn't say this to you or said I'm having nothing to do with George Bush, I think it's my duty to tell it to you if I really believe it, and I do really believe it. I may be wrong in believing it but I do believe it". Faith and truth and faith won. 'I Think' 'I Believe'
Still want him?
Complain about this comment
Gavin Hewitt:
Yes, but, No major decision regarding Tony Blair has yet been made; And, no, I have no idea on that going problem with Blair and his future.
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
Hi , how can Blair(Bliar) ever be trusted with the future of Europe given that he left office early after promising to see out his full term as PM ,lied through his smiling teeth about the need to disarm Saddam Hussein based on sexed up intelligence (more lies) and no longer holds any proper governmental post, just making highly lucrative speeches to his business pals .The war in Iraq was planned by Bush and supported by Blair way before the actual invasion ,therefore any actions taken by Hans Blix or advice from the late Mr Kelly were of no significance.Blair had his ego trip and it backfired .He should never be given any position of power again ,let alone the unelected Presidency of Europe .I write as a supporter of a democratic and peaceful EU ,both of which properties are not characteristics of Blair both in words and deeds , in the words of the WHO "We won't be fooled again" Bill Cotter
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS