09 February 2008
President Blair?
The news is full at the moment of speculation about whether Tony Blair might be a suitable candidate to be president of the European Council. The post doesn’t exist yet, but will be created by the Lisbon treaty, and thoughts are racing ahead.
This blog wrote about the possibility two months ago – read it here – so it is welcome if the mainstream media can catch up now.
Blair himself is reported to have said that he would only be interested in the post if it were given some powers. As it stands, according to the treaty, that is a hope that will not be fulfilled. But, as with pretty much any senior job in any organisation, political, government or otherwise, much rests on what the post-holder makes of the job, not only on what it says on paper. Authority and influence are not allocated solely by treaty but also by action. A president who acts in the right way will exercise more power than a president who does not. The question, then, is whether Tony Blair can act in that way.
Here, opinions differ. You will no doubt have your own, but let me point you to two others.
First, read Peter Sain ley Berry in EUobserver yesterday: http://euobserver.com/9/25625
Next, there is a further argument here, by Sir Samuel Brittan, reflecting on Blair’s conduct of the business of government. His interest in “what works”, regardless of how it works, was the source of much of his success and also of much of his failure.
The European Union itself is founded on the rule of law, and a profound understanding that “what works” depends utterly on how it works. There might be some short-cuts that work in the short-term, but a long-term objective of peace and prosperity needs more solid foundations than that. It can be frustrating sometimes, but a constant reminder of this point is needed. Is Tony Blair the man to provide it?
This blog wrote about the possibility two months ago – read it here – so it is welcome if the mainstream media can catch up now.
Blair himself is reported to have said that he would only be interested in the post if it were given some powers. As it stands, according to the treaty, that is a hope that will not be fulfilled. But, as with pretty much any senior job in any organisation, political, government or otherwise, much rests on what the post-holder makes of the job, not only on what it says on paper. Authority and influence are not allocated solely by treaty but also by action. A president who acts in the right way will exercise more power than a president who does not. The question, then, is whether Tony Blair can act in that way.
Here, opinions differ. You will no doubt have your own, but let me point you to two others.
First, read Peter Sain ley Berry in EUobserver yesterday: http://euobserver.com/9/25625
Next, there is a further argument here, by Sir Samuel Brittan, reflecting on Blair’s conduct of the business of government. His interest in “what works”, regardless of how it works, was the source of much of his success and also of much of his failure.
The European Union itself is founded on the rule of law, and a profound understanding that “what works” depends utterly on how it works. There might be some short-cuts that work in the short-term, but a long-term objective of peace and prosperity needs more solid foundations than that. It can be frustrating sometimes, but a constant reminder of this point is needed. Is Tony Blair the man to provide it?
Posted by Richard Laming at 15:54
Hello Richard,
we haven't met since Ventotene but is always nice hearing from you.
In my opinion Mr Blair has been a mild pro European leader. Which is good especially in a country such as the UK where euroskepticism is strong.
However as Prime Minister of his country, he was not able to share with its people the importance of projects such as the Euro, Shengen, Social Charter, did not take a clear position on the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe and stood on the Thatcher side on the Rebate.
How can we expect him to represent the Union and its 27 Member states when he has been the "leader of the opt outs"? Which Europe would he represent?
Moreover, how can we expect that a leader that was not able to share the importance of some of the basic EU projects with his own people, to do that with the whole peoples of Europe? And will he not have a conflict of interest being the former elected leader of the most euro-skeptic country in the EU?
On the other hand he has been on the stage for many years and he has lots of credibility to spend... but is that really all we need? The first president will have a very important role as it will to set, together with the President of the Commission and the High Representatives for Foreign Affairs, the modus operandi. Personally I would opt instead for a Merkel, Fisher, Verhofstadt,Junker or Prodi.
Anyway I am up for a chat if you like as now I am in Cambridge.
Ciao!
Pietro
Dear Richard,
How many divisions ? OK, the French section of UEF is not heavy weight... However, you may be interested in knowing that, at the recent National Commission meeting in Lyons, the name of Blair was resoundingly booed down, when we had a debate about the choice of a President for the EU. Why ? For the very same raesons so well detailed by Pietro. Honestly, Prodi did not fare much better for another reason : he is too much like so many of our own French politicians...
Cordially, Jacques Chauvin
In my view, it would be more important to discuss the election procedures first.
The all too probable worst case scenario is that an electoral college of 27 heads of state or government deal behind closed doors and that the citizens are only offered the result.
(Even the conclave of cardinals is larger, though the procedures look pretty equal at the present stage.)
The European Council has the powers, if the will is there, to arrange open nominations, public debate and transparent decision making.
Let us apply pressure.
The second issue is to look at the qualifications needed. Different viewpoints are not only necessary, they are highly desirable.
My own heavily weighted main criteria would look at the candidate and his/her country with the following in mind:
* Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and conduct during the reform process.
* The Eurozone
* The Schengen area
* The Charter of Fundamental Rights
* Commitment to the CFSP and CSDP based on dual EU and NATO membership
* Commitment to a future democratic European Union
Then come the personal qualities of the candidates, when we know who they are.
I agree with grahnlaw about the need to know the election procedure.
If we really mean it when we say we support more public participation in the EU we must press for the public to be given an opportunity to participate in the procedure for the nomination of individuals to such an important post.
Transparency is vital for the future development of the Union.
By the way I do not believe such a word is in Tony Blair's vocabulary!!
I believe it would be a travesty if he were allowewd to slip into this position by some ministerial conclave.
Pietro de matteis already lists some of the many shortcomings which make him unsuitable.
Best wishes
Margaret Daly
There's masses of analysis of this issue across loads of blogs about EU politics... Would be very good if you could link to some of those too!
http://www.jonworth.eu/lets-all-have-a-whinge-at-blair/
http://remibazillier.blogspot.com/2008/01/bye-bye-tony-blair.html
http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/?p=1686
http://kosmopolit.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/stop-blair/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/certainideasofeurope/2008/02/the_petition_to_stop_president.cfm
http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2008/02/tony-blair-for.html
hello,
I found the creation of the President of the European COuncil, a new institution, dubious at the time.I knew this would survive the constitutional debacle, because part of a deal. If we need a function for retired national politicians, then Juncker, Fischer, Verhofstadt... would have the necessary credibility.
Mr Blair, despite his charm, proved reckless and uncontrolable (Irak...), in complete opposition to his public opinion too!!
Catherine
Dear Federal Union
You asked me for my views on whether Tony Blair should become Europresident. I tried to publish my reply on your blog here: https://www.blogger.com/comment.do but to know avail. It probably won't be of much interest to you since i regard Tony Blair as a war criminal, but here's what I have written:
I think this proposal is about as appropriate as proposing Radovan Karadic for Europresident. Both Blair and Karadic should be being tried for war crimes. Blair has led Britain into a war of aggression against a country, Iraq, which posed no threat to the UK. As a result hundreds of thousands of mainly civilian men women and children have been murdered. (estimates range from 100 thousand to 1.2 million)
The war crimes relevant to this case are to be found in the following statutes:
1. The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War 1928 [The Kellogg-Briand Pact].
2. The United Nations Charter 1945.
3. The Geneva Conventions 1948,
4. the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998.
5. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.
6. The Nuremburg Principles 1950.
7. Article 24 The Manual of Military Law.
Acts which have fuelled public tolerance of this war are:
1. lies about alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
2. lies about an alleged connection between Saddaam Husein and Al Queda
3. lies about the London bombings of 07/07/05 (Blair said that an inquiry into who had perpetrated the attacks would be a "ludicrous diversion" because "we know who did it". That means that prime minister's word now take precedence over the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". Four lads were presumed guilty though no trial and no enquiry was held and their families were deprived of the common law right to clear their name).
4. complicity in the lies which are being told about the 9/11 attacks in the US. (people are reluctant to examine the evidence with an open mind for fear of being dubbed "conspiracy theorists" and hence crazy. Were the "conspiracy theorists" who said the Nazis set fire to the Reichstag crazy? Are there never any conspiracies?
Yours for world peace
Noel Glynn
Post a Comment
Back to the top