I have to be honest, the more I think about Tony Blair as EU President, the more I like it. Love it, even. Deep down, I think we can all admit that we've missed him dearly.
I don't know how likely the eventual appointment is but Gordon Brown looks reasonable in maturely campaigning for Tony Blair to be EU President while David Cameron's comments will surely be seen as childish.
To reduce the former PM of 10 years who won three back-to-back UK elections to an "all-singing, all-dancing, all-acting president" is poor form from the Tory leader. I reckon Dave needs to be a bit more careful with his comments, 'too many twits makes a twat' and the SNP being 'an irrelevance' are not the kind of weighty, considered views that I personally look for in a leader.
Crucially, they fail the Bartlett-test (that is, can you picture Martin Sheen saying them as President in the West Wing?)
At the end of the day, Tony Blair looking out for European interests, Hague (or Miliband) looking out for UK interests and Angus Robertson and Alex Salmond fighting for particular Scottish interests is a very strong position for a Scottish citizen to be in.
Yes there is a concern regarding the man's principles in that Tony seemingly only wants the job if it's big enough. We perhaps shouldn't be considering applicants if they'll only take the job on the basis that they'll get to shake Obama's hand four times a year.
Lord Owen called the proposed appointment of Tony Blair "a perfect disgrace" but the perfection outweighs the disgrace in my view and if the EU is going to be a global heavyweight, we need a global heavyweight to front it.
Tony Blair fits the bill.
SNP Tax
9 minutes ago
24 comments:
I am unable to support Tony Blair as I don't trust him.It would be very interesting to see his expenses while in power.If you want a corrupt Europe then he's your man.
he shredded his expenses and lied about iraq.
in short he is exactly what the scheming eu need if they want a yes man to do america's bidding.
as for giving up other things if he got the job, i would have thought sorting out the middle east was quite big and his diplomatic skills there appear to be non existent, as he is hardly ever in the region.
if you cannot talk to hamas you will get nowhere. he learned that from northern ireland surely.
mind you, it is hard to be in the nmiddle east with all those book and conference tours.
Not really sure I follow your argument (not really sure I see an argument, actually). Basically, you want Blair as President of the European Council because you do.
Fair enough.
I don't want Blair in that position, largely because if he gets it, it confirms everything we have been told by the Eurosceptic right about the EU basically being a cosy little club for career politicians and diplomats. The very idea that a proven liar and dissembler can even be considered for such a high profile (albeit low responsibility) position brings the institution of the EU into disrepute.
The Tories have the right answer, just the wrong argument.
Well, Jeff there is no accounting for taste. I`ve been giving some thought (and painfully long posts) on the subject recently and I don`t think Blair stands a chance.
The job he is being touted for simply does not exist. The role is not that of 'il presidente' of the EU as Cameron (and, it seems, Blair) would have it and will instead be much more of an amiable convener role.
The single most powerful role in the EU will remain the President of the Commision - not the President of the Council.
Blair's bum is oot the windae on this one (thankfully).
Anseo,
I've not read the Lisbon Treaty, but it's ratification creates the role of EU President. Are you saying this new role is not a powerful role?
Jeff,
I'm am honestly dismayed at this post. I am asking myself if you are being deliberately provocative.
What Europe needs is a president who would reform it for the benefit of us, not use its deeply untransparent mechanisms for their own benefit.
In some way you are right. This role is perfect for Blair because he has shown he could harness all its power for his own and his US pals' ends.
The man is a deceitful war criminal and, quite frankly, deserves to be in the dock alongside Milosevic instead of presiding over the Council of Ministers.
I hope the first act of an Independent Scotland will be to bring this monster to justice.
I think a man who managed to help make the world seven times more dangerous, and his own country the target of Islamist terrorism, will be unacceptable to the vast majority of Europeans.
You only have to look at what is happening in Iraq just now to form a judgement on Tony Blair.
It's a shame that saying you like the PM of ten years and suggesting that he still has a contribution to make is deemed 'provocative'.
Yes the Iraq War was a screw up, that Tony and George didn't get a UN resolution remains a deep disappointment, but I don't think it should bar a man so ideally suited to a role from getting on with things and boosting the EU's progress.
Anon...
"I've not read the Lisbon Treaty, but it's ratification creates the role of EU President. Are you saying this new role is not a powerful role?"
There will be no position of 'EU President' - it does not exist.
What is being created is 'President of the European Council'.
This will, in fact, be the third role within the EU that has the title 'president'. Both the European Parliament and the European Commission have them.
(I've got a dull post on it here http://tiny.cc/EUPresx3)
The treaty really doesn`t define the job other than the President of the Council chairs the meetings.
The debate that is taking place in the EU corridors at the moment is whether the role should be a powerful role (like the French President) or a largely symbolic role (like the Irish President).
The single most powerful position in the EU remains the President of the Commission - Barroso.
It is possible in theory that Barroso may be appointed to be both the President of the Council and also the President of the Commission at the same time - if this was to happen we really would have a 'President of Europe'; but that is even less likely than Blair getting it (I think).
I`ve got another (even duller) post on the runners and riders for the job of President of the Council here - http://tiny.cc/MR4Pres
A screw up? My goodness it was rather more than that.
Why do you think the SNP and Plaid wanted him impeached?
They believe, as the vast majority of nationalists I have ever met do, that Blair falsified the cassus belli justifying the invasion of Iraq, and lied to the Parliament and to the people in the process.
And many many people died, deaths that were wholly avoidable. I would like to see Blair in Europe alright. In the dock at the Hague.
Jeff
Blair taking us into an illegal war was more than a "disappointment". It was a crime against humanity. This man should be on trial for war crimes not lording it as an unelected president of Europe.
The first President of Europe should be a unifying figure, someone who deserves respect, not someone who is an unrepentant war criminal.
I agree with you on many things, but this?
Vain, venal, corrupt, warmonger. Presumably your recommendation means either you think that he has already completed his job as special envoy to the Middle east, or that he could do more good to the EU than the ME?
I suspect he would damage and denigrate the role, as he has dome with his entire legacy
He has no love for Europe, only a desire to feed his own vanity "if the role is something substantial." Listen to the pomposity, the self-importance, the arrogance
Make Blair Grand-Panjumdrun of Europe, and the Tories should have an eassy ride when they have a referendum on EU membership.
A more divisive figure than Blair would be difficult to name.
Anyone?
Well, I strongly suspect Silvio would be a more divisive figure to name but one (unlikely) potential candidate but I of course take your point.
Going into the Iraq War on a prospectus that turned out to be false is not necessarily the same thing as going in on a false prospectus.
Everyone thought Saddam had those weapons and the Iraq leader himself botched the opportunity to stem the aggression.
But yes, on balance we shouldn't have gone to War in the circumstances but Tony still won an election afterwards providing him legitimacy. And at the end of the day, the world only spins forwards so you've got to look ahead and opt for the best people available. After looking at the options (thanks Anseo) it's still Blair by a country mile for me. As for Middle East, despite Tony's best efforts that situation is at a logjam and I'd say it's fair for Blair to be aware that his talent and flair is best shared elsewhere.
Jeff
I take it you've watched "Twelve Angry Men" ??
A bit of work to do yet then!
It's odd about Blair - on the one hand I can't help but feel that history will be kinder to him than his present reputation - accusations of vanity etc seem a little childish. Not only did he win 3 elections, he was phenomenally popular for a good portion of his time as PM.
But then I remember Iraq. Let's be clear about what we did - invaded a sovereign nation without the slightest justification. Blair's insistence that he believed he was right just doesn't wash - ignorance is no legal justification.
Everyone thought Saddam had those weapons ...
In the US, one heck of a lot of people did NOT think he had those weapons and said so. Bush should have been tried as a war criminal and Blair as his flunky.
And at the end of the day, the world only spins forwards so you've got to look ahead and opt for the best people available....
Winning an election doesn't make what he did any less criminal nor does "the world spinning forward".
If that's the best person available, God help us all!
Oh well, looks like the only possible British runner and/or rider is Miliband for the foreign minister position anyway. A relative 'clean skin' all in all.
Miliband as 'High Representative'...oh, bugger. I'll have to do another long epistle on why that isn't going happen either!
Or maybe you have all suffered enough!
Jeff:
"Everyone thought Saddam had those weapons"
It's a pity that this seems to have become accepted wisdom. Here's Robin Cook in 2003:
"Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target."
I've always been agog that more was not made of this remark. Blair said that the intelligence - to which Cook was privy - was "undeniable" in proving that Iraq did have such weapons. That is, it was not a matter of interpretation. So one of the two men must have been lying. Considering the matter six years down the line, whose appraisal of Iraq's capability sounds more accurate?
Redcliffe says Blair is exactly what the scheming EU need if they want a yes man to do america's bidding.
They don't.
Hell will freeze over before Blair becomes President. No Brit will get the job because Britain is not in the euro, not in Schengen and has opted out of more EU policies than it has opted into (I may be exaggerating slightly there but only slightly). Britain is seen as semi-detatched from Europe and obviously on foreign policy etc led by the US.
It is a sign of Blair's insane egomania that he even thought he would be considered.
From what the papers are saying the other nations seem to be agreeing a political carve up with someone from the centre right taking on the President position and someone from the centre left taking on the Foreign Minister position. That sounds quite sensible to me but neither one of then will be British.
Re: "Everyone thought Saddam had those weapons"
No they didn't.
Don't you remember Hans Blix and his weapons inspectors?
They found nothing - that was why they were pulled out.
The pretext for the war was completely false and they knew it and so did the troops. If the US/UK Government had actually believed that the Iraqis had chemical weapons then our troops would have been wearing noddy suits but they were not issued with any protective gear because there was no danger.
Jeff,
Interesting post. I think, though, Blair is a controversial figure and I think that is a valid concern.
But, in terms of what the role demands, I think Blair is just too big a figure to essentially be the chairman of the Council and the member governments do not want such a big political figure in that role. I think they would prefer a candidate with a much lower profile, and that's not even taking into account the controversy that surrounds Blair.
Post a Comment