No one quite knows precisely what the job of President of the European Council will be or into what it will develop. Theoretically it is no more than a Chairmanship. Being a Chairman is an important job and it is influential; agendas are set, milestones are proposed and a Chairman must aim to achieve consensus among the members of the Council. Being a President is a different role. Not only do you set agendas but you formulate policy and lead others. I suspect that many politicians think that the Presidency of the Council will morph into a Presidency of Europe, and certainly that seems to be the thinking of the United Kingdom Government, who is touting Tony Blair for President of the European Council.
The arguments advanced for Mr Blair’s candidacy are that he is qualified for the job, he is a well known figure that is internationally respected especially in the USA and China, and that it will serve Britain’s interests to have a British politician leading Europe. The last argument, of British self interest, is not going to appeal to the other 26 European Union member states. It is in their interest that the President is neutral and will not favour any single nation, especially his own.
The argument that we need a famous charismatic figure to lead Europe implies that Europeans are not confident enough to catch the attention of the USA without such a leader. Frankly I think this is nonsense. The European Union is a powerful economic block with more economic power and a greater population than the United States. The USA understands this and will not ignore a European President.
The arguments against Mr Blair doing this job are that he comes from the United Kingdom, which is not part of the Eurozone and also did not ratify the Schenken treaty, which provides for free movement in Europe so that there is no passport control between those states that adhere to the treaty. These are important features of Europe. It is clear now that not joining the Eurozone was a mistake. Since it was established the euro has been a disciplined currency with even the small participating states following its rules. The pound has declined in value against the euro and has become a smaller, less important currency, more susceptible to speculators influence than the euro.
The Schenken Treaty has improved travel within Europe without increasing security problems. When I visited Slovakia a few months ago I flew to Vienna where I met some guests from South Korea. We travelled to Slovakia without border controls and if we wanted to could have gone further west right into France without having to stop at a border once.
It is quite difficult to understand why European nations that have signed up to the Euro and to Schenken would want, as a leader, a person who when Prime Minister of the United Kingdom did neither.
An argument that has been advanced for Mr Blair’s candidacy is that he has environmental credentials. This argument is pure fiction. The United Kingdom’s record on climate change is among the worse of the largest economies in the European Union with less investment and less tight climate change regulation than most other European union states.
Another reason why Mr Blair will not find favour is many suspect that his judgment is faulty. He took the United Kingdom into the war with Iraq on an assurance that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. We know this to be entirely wrong now, but Mr Blair’s belief in these non-existent weapons of mass destruction indicates an inability to sift through data and arguments to discover the truth. When an expert, Dr David Kelly, had the temerity to leak against the weapons of mass destruction theory, Mr Blair’s government went into overdrive in an attempt to discredit Dr Kelly, with tragic consequences. It will also be hard to understand how he will be able to do a decent job as president while having to give evidence and be cross examined at the forthcoming inquiry into the Iraq war.
Filed under: Tony Blair, climate change | Tagged: dr david kelly, euro, european council president, iraq war, president blair, schenken, weapons of mass destruction, wmd
The Economist recently referred to the candidacy of the Belgian prime minister as “comical” while Tony Blair’s would be quite good for the EU standing next to the US. While Blair is a good choice as a figure head, the Belgian prime minister is perhaps superior in negotiating common positions (which is necessary in divided Belgium). I have just posted on what might be behind the British position here. http://euandus3.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/228
Whilst he has been sorting out the situation in the Middle East as a peace envoy Tony Blair has been in talks with Tesco about representing the company and promoting the opening of new stores. At the same time the population of Gaza are starving the British troops he sent to Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering high casualty levels and many have been killed. Tony B lar doesn’t seem to spend much time in the Middle East appart from when he is collecting cheques from Kuwait. I think the Kuwait money is a token payment for Mr Blair invading Iraq, the money he recieved from Ateneo De Manila University for his speach there is not unconnected with his sanctioning UK government loans for infrastructure in The Philippines such as the bridges etc.
* Speaking fees: = £2.5 million per annum
* Advance for memoirs: = £4.6 million
* Advisory role with JPMorgan Chase: = £2 million pa
* Advisory role with Zurich financial services: = £500,000 pa
* Prime Ministerial pension: = £63,468
* Allowance for private office: = £84,000
* Contract to advise Kuwaiti leaders on good governance:
* £1 million
* Total to June 2009: = £15,894,936
[Source: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/9496941/Tony_Blair_helps_Gordon_Brown_by_reminding_us_of_his_existence/
…so I still don’t think Tony Blair should be president of the European Council / EU ! We live in hope that Tony Blair will be tried for his crimes he should not be above the law.
Should anyone become President of Europe in the absence of a popular vote? If my memory serves, there is something called “democracy” which Blair was prepared to kill for…
… keep tony blair for prime minister ? as far as I know he left quite some time ago, he packed his bags, and he went to go and sort out the middle-east as a middle-east peace envoy whilst two wars continue in that region of the world initiated by him, some other fella walked into number 10 downing street unelected, and still there hasn’t been an election, we are in a situation where baks are being bailled out young soldiers are in Afghanistan and Iraq being killed every day, to achieve what exactly ?
How much do you think has been spent by the UK to reduce CO2 since 2005 and how much per day the British military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing ?
Would you like to tell us about depleted uranium bullets that have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan?
So please make a comment that tells us why you think Tony Blair is the right man to take control of the EU Mr keeptonyblairforpm ?
I am assuming that maybe you are the person who changed their name to Mr keeptonyblairforpm. Why don’t you change your Blog now to keepgordonbrownforpm
It could be that you are a little bit shy of your infatuation with Tony Blair and thats why you did not give your correct name. You address me by my name yet choose not to disclose your own which shows how feable your stance is.
Go a few people what they think about Mr Blair and Mr Brown , or better still hope for an election.
In opposition to your position and to that of Mr Burke – YES Mr Blair should be president of the EU council.
The agendas of such as your commenter here are clear. Wrong, of course, but clear.
He’ll only be happy when the Iraq Trial – sorry, Iraq war Inquiry pins Blair to the wall.
In other words such as Mr Burke will never be happy.
http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/all-links-to-the-trial-of-tony-blair-posts/
As for climate issues – I think you should remember Gleneagles 2005, and the main mover.
http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page7883
Btw, 22 out of the then 25 EU countries supported Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Blair did NOT split the continent. Stop this nonsensical re-writing of history, please.
The point is not whether Blair or Junkers or whoever should be President but that the President should be elected.
Since the role is so ill-defined, there is a real chance that the post could become one with real executive powers. This is a position that must be accountable to the electorate of the EU.
In answer to your question no I do dot think Tony Blair should be president of the European council or any other EU presidency.
However I must say he does pass one test in that he will not favour any single nation, especially his own. Because he really doesn’t care at all he is self centric !
Maybe one day the trial of Tony Blair for Iraq and afghanistan will be something akin to the current trial of Dr Radovan Karadzi.
Iraq and Afghanistan are now both very instable countries with so many troops from the UK needlessly being killed.
The figures speak for themselves!
I agree. The theory is that this presidency is merely a chairmanship, and traditionally chairmen are elected from the body that they are chairing. Apparently that will not happen here. The danger is that the chairmanship will morph into a Presidency; it seems that Mr Blair only favours democracy for other nations, not for the European Union.
The fact that 22 nations supported the invasion of Iraq does not make the invasion right or legal. Mr Blair has not put any significant Government money raised from taxes in climate protection. Gleneagles 2005 was just one of many conferences statements consultations etc which has achieved…nothing – no reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, almost no renewable energy – I could go on. If you can point to any significant expenditure I’d like to know it.
The Belgian got it and I must say how relieved I am. Tony Blair is a great persuader, but persuasion only works if you have a goal and work towards that goal. Negotiations finding common positions is what Europe needs right now.