The speculation that Tony Blair might become the first President of the European Union – a post created by the soon-to-be-ratified Lisbon Treaty – continues to swirl around. The BBC reports today:
Gordon Brown has said he would be “very happy” to support a bid by his predecessor Tony Blair to be the first president of the European Council. But the prime minister told MPs the post did not yet exist as the Lisbon Treaty creating it had not become law. The BBC understands Mr Brown will put Mr Blair’s case to other EU leaders in Brussels later this week after previously denying it would do so.
But there are major potential obstacles in Mr Blair’s way – first, other qualified candidates, especially from the EU’s smaller nation states, and, secondly, the opposition of the Lib Dems and Tories to his candidacy. Here’s what Nick Clegg today said:
Tony Blair’s chances of becoming the EU president were dealt a blow today when Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, rejected his candidacy … Clegg joined the ranks opposing Blair, saying he had the wrong political skills. “Government by directive, or in his case by sofa, just does not work in the EU,” he said.
Clegg’s views carry weight because there are seven Liberal prime ministers in the EU and he leads the largest Liberal party in Europe. The Lib Dem leader, who worked in the European commission and was an MEP, said: “Blair really is the wrong person for this job. He won’t be very good at it and he will not enjoy it. This job is about giving the EU strength that is the sum of its parts, and it is not importing Hollywood stardust in the hope that a political globetrotting superstar will transform the fortunes of the EU.” …
He suggested the best UK candidates were either Lord Patten, the former Conservative party chairman, or the former Lib Dem leader Lord Ashdown.
But is Nick right? Labour’s Dennis MacShane has put forward staunchly the case for President Tony in Newsweek:
This is not a traditional contest for a big international job. Everyone knows Blair’s qualities and faults. But almost everyone also recognizes that he can put Europe on the world map in a way that no Brussels Eurocrat has ever managed. … if Europe chooses a bland, barely known former national leader for its first true president, the continent and the rest of the world will roll over in boredom and promptly ignore him or her.
… the post of EU president will be shaped by the first person who holds it. Here Blair offers a big advantage: he’ll bring with him the vision thing that Europe often lacks. Limiting himself to just a few major interventions a year, Blair could speak for Europe at a global level. He could use the post as a bully pulpit and help the EU regain the enthusiasm that was generated 25 years ago when Jacques Delors worked with Helmut Kohl and François Mitterrand to create the single market, launch the euro, and thus transform the old, cozy European Economic Community into something bigger and much more meaningful. … To make the job work, Europe’s elected leaders are also going to have to share the limelight. But if anyone can persuade them to, it’s President Blair.
What do LDV’s readers think? Does the mere notion of President Blair fill you with dismal despair? Or would you be prepared to hold your nose and vote for Tony because a Big Job needs a Big Politician? Here’s the question: Do you support or oppose Tony Blair becoming the first President of the European Union? And here are your options:
- Yes – no matter what you think of Blair, Europe needs his leadership abilities
- No – he is the wrong man for the job
Please feel free to show your working in the comments thread below …
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Full slate of Lib Dems in council by-elections
Getting things done - West Port #dundeewestend
Payback time
The Joy of Six 1274
Gasping Local Government.
The Chagos Islands, Mauritius and the ICJ
Honouring the Real Thing and launching Black History Month in Liverpool
Russell
Peter Martin
Peter Davies
Dave Tate
47 Comments
The choice is between a non-entity who will achieve not much, or a powerful figure who will do a great deal of things we dont agree with. Hmm.
NO NO NO Blair doesnt just have blood on his hands, hes up to his waist in it . A Million dead to preserve an imaginary “special relationship”. Blair has the vision thing alright but its fake, the visions of a con-artist.
No – he’s a warmongering liar who ought to be on trial for war crimes. Next!
“Hell No”, as Texans say. He hasn’t got a snowball’s chance in hell of getting the job with Angela Merkel against him, so all this speculation is a waste of breath.
I feel that you’ve missed out a third option which is No, not even if he was the last person on earth:-).
It was bizarre enough to send someone who had participated in an illegal invasion of another country in the region to be a peace envoy to the Middle East, but the thought of Blair as President of Europe makes me want to be very, and noisily, ill.
In short – no, I disagreed with a big chunk of what he did for the UK on the war and civil liberties front. I don’t think the benefits he brings the brand of Europe outweigh the problems it would cause.
Dennis MacShane does raise the point that the EU needs a strong politician, rather than another unknown Brussels Eurocrat to make a big impact, but I think this comes to even more centralisation of power in Europe. Ultimately if Europe does move to a style more like the USA with the powerbase at one central figure (rather than still having all the different presidents within EU and PMs in respective countries) – then the rest of the world has no choice but to respect that individual and deal with them on such a level, as long as countries like the UK/Czech Republic draw their red lines for what they do/don’t take part in and as long as it remains a lose coalition then the rest of the world will see it as such and realise that UK PM has power in UK, German Chancellor has power in Germany, etc. I’m not advocating this – merely saying that if the EU wants to be viewed as powerful, it needs more than a figurehead.
Possibly.
If the only other candidate was Nick Griffin.
Though, on the other hand ………
No, I’m voting for the Nolan Sister.
I don’t really want to see anyone as President of Europe, but there are at least a couple of hundred million people I’d choose ahead of that turd.
This whole ‘debate’ if I can call it that neatly sums up why this country is such a dead loss on the international stage.
A lightweight, American aircraft carrier and stooge.
Regardless of their opinions, the French political establishment or that of most other European nations would bite your hand off at the chance to have one of their politicians, however much they might dislike him or her, as the first European President.
Influence, national advantage and importance would be seen as being more important than a like or dislike of the individual.
Meanwhile, we just bite our hand off. Instead of being the most influential and important member of the largest political and economic unit in the world, we are just the 51st state. Pathetic.
I don’t particularly like Blair either but like Martin I realise that he is an important figure on the International stage. In other countries he is thought of as a supreme politician a man to be admired not a minnow like Cameron and his coterie of hangers on. Yes he is an atlanticist, which I think will count against him on the European stage but gives him a great deal of clout in the USA.
If we have a anti European Government next (very probably), a Tony Blair presidency of the EU would make things very interesting.
I wouldn’t put it in the same terms, but Martin makes a good point. The French have a national policy of getting the first president of anything (and very often succeed). Look at the row when they didn’t get the first President of the ECB. The Spanish take a similar approach. I am pretty sure the PP would back Gonzalez (who might be in the running).
“Instead of being the most influential and important member of the largest political and economic unit in the world, we are just the 51st state. Pathetic.”
I’m afraid any ideas about Britain being “the most influential and important member” of the EU are firmly in the realms of fantasy. And of course the irony is that Blair has done more than anyone else to damage relations with the other members of the EU in recent years.
He also has a rather unusual quality in a politician – he seems even more loathsome in “retirement” than he did in power.
The very idea of the office itself revolts me. That in the twentieth century we should be elevating anyone to such extraordinary offices is anathema to me. Clearly the ages of reason and enlightenment have long gone when we acclaim such new demi-gods and pander to people like this. Hierarchy is a terrible thing. 500 million people go down a step on the ladder relatively as we create a new rung at the top for people like him. It is obscene to me.
Oops – of course I meant in the twenty-first century!
Jock – Bryan Appleyard makes a similar point. It does seem democratically deficient.
But, on the other hand, there’s also the Monbiot argument in favour of Blair as EU President.
Voting yes, on the grounds of Monbiot’s argument.
Forget Monbiot’s £100. I’d put in £1000 for “Dead or Alive” frankly!
No better or worse than Blair and his masters did for Saddam and his “deck of cards”.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
BLiar is a war criminal with blood all over his hands. He should be in jail.
“Voting yes, on the grounds of Monbiot’s argument.”
Just for the benefit of people who couldn’t be bothered to find out what that argument was – I almost couldn’t – it seems to be that presidential duties would make it harder for Blair to avoid arrest as a mass murderer.
I wish he could be brought to justice, but the cynic in me says that such things don’t happen.
YES, YES and YES.
Absolutely. I’ve even blogged about it.
“No – he is the wrong man for the job”
Martin Land, together with others who argue for Blair’s accession to this undemocratic throne, look to the influence His Tonyness supposedly has in capital cities across the world. Question: did Tony influence George in convincing him to pursue the UN route before invading Iraq?
Blair’s undoubted charisma carry him only so far in the eyes of most leaders of the free world – simple fact is that other than winning London the Olympics, I struggle to see a single positive internationalist achievement in his legacy, whereas he did manage to alienate the very continent he’s looking to lead by ignoring popular and political opinion over the US-lead war in Iraq.
So much for Europe needing a strong character at the helm – we’d be better off with someone willing to do the right thing, together.
The post will make the man (or woman), not the other way round, as Miliband and Blair;s other cheer-leaders should realise. The president will be the chief representative of a bloc of 27 states, including the euro group of 16.
The president should be a person who goes with the grain of the EU.
One suspects the motive of a man who was always more transatlantic than European.
My own feeling is that Blair most likely did think a quick intervention in Iraq would topple Saddam Hussein and a government reasonable for the people of Iraq would arise. Had this happened, those of us who opposed the intervention would have been left looking very foolish, continually taunted with “If you had your way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, inflicting death and misery on the people of Iraq”. I remember thinking at the time that they must have something organisationally set up in Iraq – Saddam’s inner circle riddled with US/UK plants – which obviously they couldn’t tell us about, which would spring into action and become the government once the intervention started, because it would surely be very stupid if they didn’t.
Well, it looks like they didn’t, but I think it has to be classed as stupidity rather than evil. I don’t think Blair set out delighting in the idea of huge numbers being killed, which is what is implied by much of this “mass murderer” and “war criminal” accusations. I am not myself sure how many of the deaths we are told occurred are directly due to US/UK troop action, and how many are due to the civil war and gangs which grew up i the aftermath of the intervention. Unfortunately, there are too many people with a political motivation, and the ultimate driving force of Islamicism which seems very cleverly to have set this whole thing up to work like clockwork, to be able to trust much of what is being said.
So, I would certainly reject Blair for any leading role, but it would be on the grounds of foolishness and poor judgement, rather than the accusations made by many here. In particular it is clear he is a person who blunders on convinced by his own superiority and lack of any sort of collegial instinct, not taking advice given to him by wiser people, proud even of not taking that advice. Those he seems closest to, who he chooses to mix with, show that he is an appalling judge of character. He has not learnt from his mistakes, and he is unable to be honest about them or to apologise. The man is a nightmare and should not be given a position of leadership in a corner sweet shop, let alone the whole of the European Union. But he is not evil.
@ Matthew Huntbach: the mass murder thing is indeed put of place, but putting the Iraw war down to bad judgment and an underestimation of the adverse consequences of invasion simply won’t wash. Let’s be generous, let’s assume that Blair was convinced that invading was the right thing to do (whether for WMD or for any other reason…). The point then is that a) he should have hoped for the best case scenario (flowers and welcoming processions) and planned for the worst (all out civil war lasting a decade) and b) he should have used his famed charm and persuasion (i.e. Jedi mind tricks…) to convince those around him of the case, taking them with him (and us as a nation) as opposed to either alientating them (as he did to the rest of Europe) or strong-arming them into building what is now accepted as being a spurious legal case for war.
Not just a case of bad judgment I’m afraid, more a case of megalomania and a bitter disregard for democracy – not the qualities one values in a President.
And btw, I believe ‘war criminal’ should be used as a technical term under the law – there’s a significant body of opinion that suggests the Iraq war was indeed a war of aggression, meaning the perpetrators contravened war conventions and could face prosecution – so war criminal many not be so inappropriate, if somewhat emotive…
@Teek
My assumption is that he actually was hoping for a), should have done b), and also c) consulted wiser colleagues, d) done a bit more research to absolutely sure this wouldn’t go as it did, e) think again – troops, even when sent with good intentions, rarely act in a way consistent with those good intentions.
So I’m not sure where you’re disagreeing with me, unless you’re expecting me to use some modern style linguistic inflation so that I have to say something like “Super duper 110% bad judgement”.
On war crimes, the technical meaning of this term is when cruelty and terror beyond what is acceptable with armies fighting in a war happens. If Blair had ordered torture, or rounding up civilians and executing them, yes that would have been a war crime. I think it useful to reserve the term for that sort of thing.
If, let us say, the government of a country is rounding up people and putting them into gas chambers, and other governments for reasons of fear or because they are doing similar do not agree to a United Nations involvement to stop that, unilateral action by one government to stop it may be “illegal”, but I think perhaps we need a different word than “war criminal” to describe those ordering it, because “war criminal” has an existing and different meaning.
I have felt throughout that there are a lot of people who because of their dislike for Blair for other reasons have been too happy to use exaggerated lines. To what extent these lines are being picked up and used to fan the flame of Islamicism, or are being furthered by those who want that, is an interesting question. Islamicism seems to me in any case to be essentially Trotkskyism with a hard Islamic coating. It is just a coating – exaggerated adoption of the outward signs of religion is often a sign of lack of faith inside – as the prophet Issa is recorded as saying on several occasions. Just because we dislike Blair, however, is no reason for us to join in these people’s political campaign.
I couldn’t agree more with Will Hutton about Tony Blair as a candidate for the EU presidency: He wasn’t a brave pro-European at home; he sided with American neocons and went on to lead Britain into an invasion of Iraq; he’d inflame British euro-sceptics [and vary many euro-philes]. And I couldn’t disagree more with Hutton’s conclusion, which is – despite all that – that Blair is the best British candidate because: Blair as EU President would give Britain an opportunity to lead the EU and provide Britain with an inside track on trade, security and financial issues.
Phiiippe Sands has it right – lets keep looking for a : “President of the European Council [who is a] person of unimpeachable integrity and judgment, a unifier who can craft consensus at home and inspire respect abroad… Europe is entitled to someone who won’t be the subject of inquiries. Europe needs a president who is associated with promoting modern values, including the rule of law and fundamental rights for all.”
Even ignoring whether Blair would be good at the job: one way to make the EU even less popular than it already is in the UK, would be to make Tony Blair president . . .
The Headline would be
“Euro President on Trial for War Crimes”
No thanks.
There are absolutely no circumstances in which I could support this man undertaking any public office. He should dispatch himself to an enclosed monastery and reflect there on his conduct for the rest of his days. Sackcloth & ashes!
I must admit though, it is quite entertaining to watch so many people who were happy cheerleaders for the Lisbon treaty having a collective tantrum at the potential consequences.
Iainm
I must admit though, it is quite entertaining to watch so many people who were happy cheerleaders for the Lisbon treaty having a collective tantrum at the potential consequences.
The fact that one argues very strongly against some proposed candidate for some position does not necessarily imply one is against that position existing. You might as well argue that it is amusing to watch people who are supporters of democracy attacking some of those whom democracy sometimes puts in power.
In this case it is important that people who are British should be particularly forceful in arguing why some particular British person is not wanted in this position. It is very easy for people elsewhere to see a successful politician from a particular country and think he or she is universally admired in that country. That is particularly so for the UK, where our electoral system distorts support so that the scale of electoral opposition to the Prime Minister is often not realised outside our country.
If any of those with the power to make Blair president think he is “universally admired…” they obviously should not hold such power, for they are either fools or knaves.
You people who so blithely and casually accuse Blair of ‘war crimes’ need to work out how you manage to get the other 21 or is it 22 (out of then 25) European countries’ leaders into the dock with him.
See here for a breakdown on this and understand why it is a disingenuous argument put about by the anti-Blair, anti-war, anti-EU bedfellows for their own political agendas.
http://puschiii.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/why-iraq-is-no-reason-to-reject-president-blair/
Tony Blair is CLEARLY the only man for this job, which is probably why he looks unlikely to get it.
Politics in the EU too, folks.
BlairSupporter:
I thoroughly agree, we have ID cards, detention without trial, mismanagement of the economy, undermining of democratic rights and a whole host of domestic reasons for not wanting to inflict him on the poor unsuspecting people of Europe.
Still, with Gordon’s backing it’s looking less and less likely… 🙂
Yes – MacShane is correct; Tony Blair should be the president of the EU Council. I have never heard of any of the other candidates. If most of the world hasn’t heard of them, it must mean they haven’t done anything significant during their political lives. Totally boring, ha? I would hope that whoever is chosen, would speak English. Sorry if that sounds arrogant, but I’m an American, after all.
People pay attention when Tony Blair speaks. When you are intelligent, experienced and have charisma to boot, I don’t see there is any other logical choice.
The appointment of Tony Blair to the post of Chair of the Council of Ministers would be wrong as the post itself is supernumerary in the context of the oligarchical and supra national Treaty of Lisbon.
Should a Chair be required if the rueful Czechs do decide to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon, than Paddy Ashdown would be the most appropriate democratic choice for Chair of the Council of European Ministers, as he has the greater understanding and respect for diversity.
I have also read Norman Baker`s `A Strange Death of David Kelly’ and remember well Charles Kennedy`s principled stance based on plain reasoning as to why the L/D`s did not vote for the original intervention in Iraq. in 2003.
To Cllr Smith:
Ref:
“I have also read Norman Baker`s `A Strange Death of David Kelly’ and remember well Charles Kennedy`s principled stance based on plain reasoning as to why the L/D`s did not vote for the original intervention in Iraq. in 2003.”
How did I guess that?
Have you also read this?
http://puschiii.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/why-iraq-is-no-reason-to-reject-president-blair/
If Blair does NOT become EU President it will not be because of the silly “war criminal” accusers.
I WOULD NOT VOTE FOR TONY BLAIR FOR ANY OFFICE I BELIEVE HE IS A WAR CRIMINAL AND IS GUILTY OF CAUSEING THE DEATHS OF VERY MANY PEOPLE INCLUDING MANY OF OUR OWN SERVICE MEN AND WEAMEN.. HE SHOULD A COURT TO ANSWER THESE CHARGES. R.DYER, .
While it is tempting to regard this choice as all about Tony Blair, there is much more at stake than that. The choice — or failure to choose — Tony Blair will prove to be more important than Lisbon itself. It will define the agenda of the
EU for at least the next decade. Possibly even more. Blair == strong president == strong Europe. Choosing a strong player in the international stage would be seen by the world as wanting to be a strong player in the world stage. Choosing an unknown bureaucrat will give the world a reason to ignore or downplay the political capital and weight that the Lisbon treaty could give the EU.
The power is shifting eastward, the rules are changing. Tony Blair and Lisbon may well be the game changer EU countries needs to rise alongside eastern powers. Otherwise, they may risk being a large and irrelevant institution like the UN.
Nonsense. We have half of the G8. At least they are answerable to their people.
yes. despite what we, as Lib Dems, think about his decision to go to war in Iraq, we can’t deny he is a first rate politican with excellent communications skills. This is vital if we are to get across the pro-European message in the UK. he might have disappointed during his time as PM on European issues, but he is still a pro-European and we would be foolish to try and stop him just because of our national, political differences. I would personally welcome his appointment here in Brussels.
I’m sorry, why should the President of the Council be the person to “sell us Europe”? Let alone anyone else?
Where can I sign up for Oxford to secede?
While I share the general aversion to the idea of Tony Blair as president of Europe (or anything else), is raising this as a question on LDV not a little like shooting fish in a barrel, or inviting George Bush to Climate Camp?
I do wish there had been an option for “He is the wrong man for the wrong job.”
There should not be a President of the European Union.
Jock, because no one else has done it succesfully and so why not take advantage of one fo the great communicators being at the helm of Europe? We lib dems have done a bloody awful job at it so ill take what i can get. perhaps you disagree because you dont want someone selling Europe because you dont agree with the whole idea? it certainly sounds like it. secede to your hearts content. good luck though: We conspiritorial federalists have made it impossible anyway. peace!
One Trackback
[…] Our poll on the issue is currently running – and is not looking good for Mr Blair’s interests in the role of president of the Council of Ministers. […]