Category Archives: Blair

On “the President of Europe”

Posted on by

The proposed President of the European Council is very far from being “President of Europe” – either in terms of profile or power.

Whoever lands the job (and it’s highly unlikely to be Tony Blair) will have practically zero influence on anything, acting instead as little more than a moderator between the governments of the member states as they continue to run the EU show. And will be in office for just two and a half years – which is no time at all in EU terms (hell, it’s just taken more than a decade to get agreement on a treaty which doesn’t solve half the problems it was meant to…)

Meanwhile the rotating EU Presidency – the Presidency of the Council of the European Union – will continue as usual (currently Sweden, with Spain taking over on January 1st), ensuring that the President of the European Council can constantly be outshone by whoever holds the more established rotating presidency. Because the rotating presidency still has the ability to influence the EU’s focus for the six months that each member state holds it – whereas the President of the European Council will have *no* formal powers whatsoever, and remains hugely ill-defined.

And that’s before you note that the President of the European Council’s role, as vaguely as it has been described, also overlaps with that of the far better-established Presidency of the European Commission (currently Jose Manuel Barroso) and the EU High Representative (currently Javier Solana). A brand new two and a half year office versus two existing five-year offices? I know which ones I’m betting on to have the real power here.

In other words, it really doesn’t matter who gets the gig. It’s not important in the slightest. It’s a meaningless position.

I do get that it’s confusing to have a (proposed) President of the European Council AND a President of the Council of the European Union (not to mention the Council of Europe), but come on – the significance of this is being blown out of all proportion.

(Originally posted as a comment to this article over at the Guardian)

President Blair… Christ alive…

Posted on by

Allow Tony Blair to become the EU’s first permanent president and I’m very likely to turn anti-EU again.

My feelings have already been succinctly summed up by Ari – a Finn, lest anyone get the idea this is yet another disillusioned Brit:

“Admittedly a lot of people in a lot of different countries know Tony Blair, which can’t be said for most possible candidates. Alas, he’s known for making a disastrous mistake and then not owning up to it, i.e. for showing bad judgment and not being particularly trustworthy. That sort of fame isn’t really a desirable quality in a candidate.”

Plus, of course, despite being supposedly very pro-EU, during his ten years in power Blair repeatedly failed to do anything to convince the country that being pro-EU is sensible – spending most of his time continuing John Major’s “wait and see” approach, despite being in a significantly stronger position than Major ever was throughout his time as PM. Had Blair wanted to he could, with his huge Commons majority and the inexplicable love the country had for him during his first term or so, have used his extraordinarily strong position to have pushed the EU on the UK, or at the very least to try and convince the country that closer engagement is a good plan. Instead, he did nothing.

This lack of action continued even on the continent. During the UK’s last (rotating) presidency of the EU, Blair was so invisible and uninvolved that one MEP even put out a jokey “Missing: The President of the European Union” press release. In fact, Blair’s only real engagement with Brussels during his time in office was to try to use the EU to bypass Westminster and force laws upon us that he never would have been able to get past his own MPs.

On top of that, of course, so hated is Blair in the UK that to have him as the EU’s official figurehead for (most likely) five years is merely going to further entrench British anti-EU feeling. Though he’d have been a good spokesman for the EU ten years ago, now he’d be like using Gary Glitter to advertise a primary school.

Not that the only other “name” candidate is much better. Luxembourg’s Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker is so rabidly, blindly pro-EU that he makes me feel decidedly uncomfortable, still advocating the kind of total political integration that most people gave up on back in the 70s, still advocating a “United States of Europe”. It’s hard to think of anyone with views more likely to drive British europhobes into a foaming rage, or to finally convince moderate eurosceptics that there really is no hope for the EU.

So who else is there? Well, what about Romano Prodi? He’ll most likely be available soon, judging by how his luck’s been failing him in Italy. As a former president of the European Commission he’s got the experience of running things at the top of the EU (during which period he oversaw the introduction of the Euro and expansion from 15 to 25 member states). As a two-time Prime Minister of Italy he has plenty of experience of juggling the multiple interests of tenuous coalitions, essential for anyone trying to keep all 27 EU member states happy while simultaneously trying to get agreements with non-EU powers.

Blair’s experience of diplomacy, in comparison, consists largely of two options: agree entirely with everything George Bush says, or launch an invasion. Jean-Claude Juncker’s, coming as he does from a principality only slightly larger than Greater London with a population less than that of Bristol, is non-existent. And yet these are the two front-runners for a position created largely to help in the EU’s diplomatic relations? Christ…

Oh, the irony, etc.

Posted on by

That dear Mr Blair (today’s his final full day in office, don’tchaknow?) has outright rejected a referendum on the new EU treaty is no surprise.

What is rather entertaining is the sheer gall of the man, arguing that a referendum campaign “would suck in the whole political energy of the country for months”.

This, of course, from the man who took two and a half years to finally announce the date for his resignation (tomorrow! Huzzah!) after the initial hints, prompting a solid 31 months of constant media speculation and petty distractions from the business of government, as both government figures and the opposition have jostled to gain the most from his departure.

Do you think he says that sort of stuff on purpose, or is he genuinely too dense to see the double-standards?

Meanwhile Blair seems to be about to be given a new job sorting out the mess in the Middle East, much like a less likeable British Jimmy Carter. That should keep him nicely out of the way (though not – what a shame – necessarily out of harm’s way) for a few years. As long as he doesn’t get his grubby, incompetent mitts on the proposed EU presidency, I honestly couldn’t care less.

Gordon Brown, meanwhile, must really love Tony right now – this new EU treaty business looks to be the nastiest problem Blair could possibly have left him with. Unless, of course, we manage to invade Iran or North Korea in the next 24 hours…

Where’s a Francis Urquhart when you need one?

Posted on by

In honour of Blair’s little announcement (and Ian Richardson’s untimely death earlier this year), I’ve just started watching the superb House of Cards again. It really is excellent – and wonderfully timeless. Here’s a transcript of the opening monologue, with alterations only to pronouns, job titles and names, marked by square brackets…

Nothing lasts forever. Even the longest, the most glittering reign must come to an end.

Who could replace [him]? Plenty of contenders – old warriors, young pretenders.

[Gordon Brown], say, the [Chancellor]. Too old and too familiar, tainted by a thousand shabby deals.

[David Miliband] – too young and too clever.

[John Reid] – a bit of a lout, a bit of a bully-boy. Yes, it could well be [Reid].

[David Cameron], the people’s favourite. A well-meaning fool – no background and no bottom…

Of course, the wonderful thing about House of Cards is that none of them end up as PM.

Sadly for us, though, there’s no Urquhart waiting in the wings – and his modern-day, real-life equivalent as Chief Whip is the no-mark “Blair babe” Jacqui Smith. Something tells me the only way she’ll be entering Number 10 when Blair exits on 27th June is when she’s summoned so that Gordon Brown can sack her. Ho hum… (Still, the image of her chucking Nick Robinson off the Palace of Westminster roof garden’s one that’s got something going for it…)

Blair’s resignation speech (yawn)

Posted on by

The version on the Labour website is slightly different to that emailed out to the “Labour supporters network”, the latter seeming to be a transcript of what was actually said, rather than merely the notes.

Still, a couple of interesting admissions that reveal a lot: First, Blair only reached “political maturity” in his mid-30s (a tad late, one might think), and secondly (only in the email version) he admits that “none of it [pre-1990s British politics] made sense to me”. Quoting the full paragraph (as it’s not on the website) will show amply just how little he understood:

“I looked at my own country. A great country with a great history and magnificent traditions, proud of its past. But strangely uncertain of its future. Uncertain about the future, almost old fashioned.

“And all that was curiously symbolised you know in the politics of the time. You, you had choices, you stood for individual aspiration and getting on in life, or a social compassion of helping others. You were liberal in your values, or conservative. You believed in the power of the state or the efforts of the individual. Spending more money on the public realm was the answer, or it was the problem. And none of it made sense to me.”

Not only does he seem to have confused pre-Blair British politics with late-20th century American politics (liberal vs. conservative rather than socialist vs. capitalist, etc.), but also please note how none of the words “unions”, “workers”, “democracy”, “the poor” or “socialism” appear even once in the entire speech… (“Iraq” appears once, “education” once, “the NHS” not at all…)

Update: The Times has the full version

Blair and the EU constitution, part 2

Posted on by

On Sunday, the News of the World claimed that Tony Blair has already decided to ratify the EU constitution – with or without the support of either the public or his party (let alone his heir, Gordon Brown).

Today, the News of the World’s weekday sister paper, The Sun – despite being owned by the same company, and despite usually adopting whatever political line big boss Rupert Murdoch wants – had precisely the opposite story:

TONY BLAIR and Gordon Brown have vowed not to let in the hated EU Constitution through the back door.

The Prime Minister and his expected successor plan to stop Euro fanatics resurrecting a bid to give Brussels more power…

Next month EU leaders will discuss a new “declaration” to celebrate the union.

But its precise contents are unknown — causing worry among UK politicians who fear a further EU power grab.

And privately EU leaders will also talk about a new constitution at the summit.

Number 10 insists they will not agree to including elements of the old constitution

That pretty much refutes every single claim that the News of the World made on Sunday, from the contents of the declaration through to Blair’s enthusiasm for the existing text.

Which means, of course, that you can probably trust this report just as much as you could trust Sunday’s. They’re most likely both nonsense.

Were I the sort for conspiracy theories, I might suggest that the two utterly opposed stories were run in such quick succession because dear Mr Murdoch – notoriously anti-EU throughout his time as a newspaper magnate in the UK – wants to demonstrate through the reaction of his readers precisely which course of action should be taken. And in case you can’t tell which one that is:

The Sun Says…

The Sun instinctively mistrusts edicts from Brussels. They are almost never in our nation’s interests. This will be no exception.

Tony Blair has pledged to fight tooth and nail to prevent the rejected constitution being sneaked in by the back door.

We will hold him to that — as we will any future Prime Minister.

By “we”, read Rupert Murdoch – the owner of the top-selling Sunday broadsheet the Sunday Times, top-selling Sunday tabloid the News of the World, top-selling daily broadsheet the Times, top-selling daily tabloid the Sun, plus dominant satellite/digital television broadcaster Sky.

This is Rupert Murdoch using his power to ensure that “Europe” is not an issue at the next general election, by blackmailing both Labour and the Tories into doing what he wants – rejecting the constitution completely and utterly.

It couldn’t be clearer – the News of the World article was a teaser trailer to get up a bit of reaction. Two days later, with the reaction in, the Sun comes up with the real story.

There may be no facts in the Sun’s story either – but what it does have is detailed instructions for Blair, Brown and the rest of the Labour party, letting them know precisely what their next course of action had better be if they don’t want the single most powerful media group in the country to smash them with all its might.

Update: Just realised this was actually yesterday’s Sun. Murdoch works faster than I thought…

Update 2: Murdoch is definitely up to something…

Blair and the EU constitution

Posted on by

As you may have noticed, I’ve spent a fair amount of this week highlighting the lack of British involvement in the ever-increasing moves towards reviving / revising the EU constitution. Now, via Iain Dale, it seems that the (anti-EU Rupert Murdoch tabloid) News of the World reckon they’ve uncovered what Blair’s up to:

the Prime Minister intends to rubber-stamp the European Constitution without consulting his likely successor Chancellor Gordon Brown — not to mention British voters.

Mr Blair has PERSONALLY pushed forward plans for a permanent EU President and Foreign Minister as one of his last acts before he stands down as premier.

He will travel to Berlin on March 25 to sign the 50-page agreement, Declaration on the Future of Europe.

Far from a simple “declaration”, this is a binding treaty which embodies “basic laws” for 490 million people in 27 countries.

Quite how the News of the World think they know what the final text is going to contain when it hasn’t been written yet is anyone’s guess. But, of course, although the major proposals the NOTW mentions are hardly new (an EU President, EU Foreign Minister, EU Defence Minister and greater powers for the – democratically-elected, lest we forget – European Parliament), they all, the paper claims, add up to a move towards the eurosceptic bogeyman of “federalism”.

Is this take justified? It’s impossible to say.

The News of the World asserts (with little in the way of evidence) that this Declaration on the Future of Europe will be legally binding, forcing all signatories into handing over ever more power to Brussels. But considering that this will hardly be the first such declaration (similar ones were issued in 2001 following the practically useless Treaty of Nice and the Laeken EU Council), and that its predecessors were – as the term “declaration” implies – simply declarations of the intention to find a way to move much-needed EU reforms forward, with little in the way of specifics about what those reforms might be, it seems highly unlikely that any such document is going to contain any specific promises to implement new ways of working. Instead, the likelihood is that the latest version is going to be much like its predecessors – nothing more than a public acknowledgement that the current EU system is increasingly unfit for purpose.

And in any case, as my recent run-downs of the ongoing debates about the constitution have surely made clear, there is no consensus amongst our European cousins on precisely what is the best way forward in any case. Even if Blair does sign the thing (seemingly without the promised referendum), there’s little chance that all the other nine member states yet to ratify the original constitutional treaty will do likewise.

It’s far too risky for any of the French presidential candidates to commit to at the moment, the Netherlands are likewise unlikely to ignore their referendum (especially with the Dutch government so precarious), and it’s highly likely that Denmark, the Czech Republic and Poland are also going to have a few things to say about any attempt at straight revival of the old constitution. Yet without unanimity amongst all 27 EU member states, there is no way that the constitution can come into force.

Even if Blair does sign the thing – against the wishes of a decent chunk of his cabinet, not to mention the country – and even if we take the News of the World’s word that this new declaration is somehow legally binding and going to come into force as soon as it’s signed (as they strongly suggest), there’s a very strong probability that at least one other EU country will refuse to, and the whole thing will be scuppered.

Either way, I’m intrigued to know where the News of the World got all this information from – because not only is the declaration yet to be finalised, making their claims about its content speculative at best, but also they make the bizarre claim that “Downing Street played a major role in the latest negotiations”. Because of that there is precisely no evidence whatsoever – in fact, precisely the opposite. Why else would the more enthusiastically pro-EU types across the Channel have been complaining so much about Britain’s lack of involvement over the last year or more?

“An honour and a privilege…”

Posted on by

Standard language of a soon to be departing politico, you might think. No surprise Blair used is in his interview this morning.

But surely the standard, talking about the public, is “it has been an honour and a privilege to serve them” – not, as Blair phrased it – “an honour and a privilege to lead them”.

A minor, pedantic, semantic point from a long interview, but one, I think, worth making.

While I’m on the pedantry, another minor point: he refused to quit tomorrow because “that’s not a very democratic way to get a [new] Prime Minister”.

Unlike, of course, our current – hugely democratic – system of allowing individual parties to select their leader in whatever way they choose, who is then – if the party as a whole manages to gain a sufficient number of parliamentary seats to form a government (though not necessarily a majority of seats, nor even necessarily more seats than any other party) – appointed to the highest office in the land by a single little old lady (by dint of her being related to some people who were good at fighting wars several hundred years ago…)

(By the by, I’ve been asked to give this a plug, so I will – depite not necessarily endorsing the message – Anyone But Labour)

Blair has lost it – official

Posted on by

Check out this interview. Watch the video. The transcript doesn’t do it justice – you miss the long silences, the ums, the ers, the panicked look in his eyes whenever he’s asked a question, be it about Iraq, the honours inquiry, the Saudi arms deal, his legacy, the infighting within the Labour party, anything. A representative response:

“Yeah but you know, I think most people would accept that at least you know, there’s got to be some process of transition, if you’re saying, cos the whole context in which I was saying that was…”

This is a man so totally out of his depth, so confused, and so mired in a swirl of half-truths and little distortions that he has no possibility of maintaining any kind of control over his own inconsistencies and self-contradictions any more. His only resort when challenged is prevarication, meaningless half-sentences and, ultimately, the unjustified, not remotely backed up with argument or evidence to support it as viaible, statement: “Well I don’t accept that for a moment”.

Like watching a particularly slow and meaningless train wreck. Brilliant.

Quality blogging

Posted on by

With this week’s ongoing introspective spat in the UK political blogosphere Fifth Estate (of which I have got so bored I’m afraid I’m no longer paying any attention whatsoever – sorry, chaps), it’s been easy to forget the quality that’s out there. Luckily, our man McKeating – frequently the best example to use when trying to demonstrate that bloggers aren’t all tedious bores – has come up with a corker of a post on that man Blair. Go read.

Blair’s latest anti-liberty wheeze

Posted on by

A very, very small note in the Independent on Sunday:

“[tag]Tony Blair[/tag] will propose this week to change the law to allow government departments to share personal data, including people’s medical records and tax details… The Prime Minister is likely to argue that allowing personal files to be shared will speed up and simplify Whitehall decision-making.”

Well THAT’s alright, then. As long as it makes life easier for politicians and civil servants, who cares if any Sir Tom, Sir Dick or Sir Humphrey in Whitehall and Westminster can check the last time you had an STD test, what variant of MRSA you caught when having your ‘flu jab at the local hospital, or what types of cancers you’re most at risk from? If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear. Etc. Obviously.