13:36, 16 November 2009
David Miliband is out, but Tony Blair is still in with a shout. Those whom shriek with horror at the thought of a Blair presidency, but also want a stronger more coherent EU might want to consider the potential contradictions in their respective positions. For example, I wonder whether all those anti-Blair commentators have as yet bemoaned the potential effects of a future Tory government who seem fully intent on hovering above the Union like a nimbus cloud (see ) http://www.ft.com/cms/s/5467ab60-d2e9-11de-af63-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F5467ab60-d2e9-11de-af63-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcomment. Because if they have, perhaps they ought to consider the effect on a Tory government bent on clawing back powers from the EU of a powerful and elegant advocate of political issues such as Blair. It is no coincidence that William Hague shadow Foreign Secretary undertook diplomatic shuttle runs in order to persuade the post 2004 members not to support a Blair presidency. Why was this? Was he so upset by the Iraq war (Hague supported the war and voted for it) that he felt that the Union would identically stained? Doubtful. Did/does he fear Blair, a leader he described himself (during his leadership of the Tory party) as impossible to pin down, akin to ‘trying to pin jelly to a wall’ (sounds like a letter of recommendation). More likely! The Tories are scared of a Blair presidency, which has to be a good thing.
I don’t claim that Blair is a great European leader whom deserves the role on the basis of his record on advocating the EU. The fact that he isn’t a great European leader is nothing to worry about. Why? Because there are no great European leaders (discuss). What the EU needs is a skilful advocate, not an idealist. Blair is the same as David Cameron, namely a ‘post-ideological opportunist’. I see no better assassin of Cameron’s weakness, i.e EU affairs generally which really is the Tories ‘clause 4’ moment (the matter how much he denies it) than Blair. ‘Post ideological opportunist’ versus ‘post ideological opportunist’, is better that woolly idealist from ‘a place from which we no little’ (Luxembourg? Belgium?) with little if no international weight or charisma that could carry the EU’s message into the corridors of power, that would be unable to stop himself from crying during ‘Ode to Joy’, never mind ‘stop the traffic’ in foreign capitals.
Consider this: Cameron wins the general election, Gordon Brown resigns, Miliband becomes Labour Party leader. This seems more than plausible. If Blair gets the role of President, Cameron as Britons PM would be squeezed on Europe. Wouldn’t this me more effective than a feckless idealist?
Simon, perhaps you should read William Hague’s article in today’s FT. Here, he sounds almost positive about the EU – and extremely negative about Blair.
And I agree with his assessment of a Blair appointment. The role is not about “figureheads”, nor about “strong leaders”. It is more about a “convener”: someone who can help people of opposing views to arrive at an acceptable consensus. No real staff support is proposed for the President’s post. The really powerful position – as the Lisbon Treaty explains – is that of High Representative (and Deputy Commission President), complete with substantial supporting staff, such as diplomats, etc.
Someone other than Blair, someone less “low-key” and less likely to arouse strong, competitive feelings, please.
I take your point regards the High Representative/foreign policy role. However, we all know that the ‘grey areas’ resident within the Lisbon Treaty means you make what you will of the roles. In this context the appointment of Massimo D’Alema is a major dissapointment (see http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2009/11/massimo-dalema-pair-of-safe-hands-or-disaster-in-the-making/) especially when you consider the need for ’superhuman’ (http://euobserver.com/9/28996 ) skills needed to actually make the role a success
This appointment may serve to cripple the role before it has started to walk. A mere ‘convener’ in conjunction with D’Alema (the man with iron moustache) would serve to undermine the whole purpose of the Lisbon Treaty in external affairs: namely the more coherent projection of EU positions and policies. Candidates such as Herman Van Rompuy (age 62) with little experience of global affairs are a cop-out. What is the point of forcing the Lisbon Treaty through if you then appoint a lowest common denominator figure?
In relation to Hague, I can only confess my surprise at your reading of his article as EU positive. The undertones of the piece is to constrain the future projection of EU interests. The nonsense he propogates vis a vis Blair’s leadership skewing the,”distribution of power between the EU’s institutions and the member states” can be dealt with by asking: as opposed to what? It is not like we have or will ever have a stable distribution of power/relationship between institutions and member states. The article concentration on bussiness and trade interests only reveals Hague’s wish for the EU to be little more than a trading arena.
It comes down to a simple question: do you want the EU to punch below its weight forever, or in a world where the EU’s power is diminshing do want to see a more enhanced projection of EU interests/power?