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?
