But there are four arguments for Mr Blair. First, notwithstanding Iraq, he has a track record as a successful politician. He brokered a peace deal for Northern Ireland, while his recent work on the Palestinian economy shows a commitment to settling the Middle East conflict. As for the EU, he invented its defence policy (with Jacques Chirac, the former French president), helped create the Lisbon agenda of economic reform, and ensured that climate change and energy security became priorities. Second, Mr Blair would give the EU credibility in other parts of the world. When the leader of a small country represents the EU - as sometimes happens with the current, rotating presidency - other powers do not always take it seriously. In January during the Gaza conflict, the Czech prime minister - then EU president - was not a big player in the diplomacy that tried to resolve it. The new EU president will take on that external role. Recently an Indian official said to me: "If you want us to respect your EU president, choose someone we have heard of, like Mr Blair, Angela Merkel or Nicolas Sarkozy. If you choose the prime minister of Luxembourg we may not find the time to meet him."Third, Mr Blair is a great salesman. One of the EU's big problems is that few citizens understand what it does, how it works or why it adds value. Mr Blair's communications skills would help the Union get its message across, within Europe and beyond.Finally, Mr Blair could help the EU to cope with the Conservatives, who seem likely to form a British government by mid-2010. They have yet to define their EU policies but may try to opt out of parts of the Lisbon treaty or the institutions of EU defence. If David Cameron, the Tory leader, does start to move against the EU, who better to argue back than President Blair? In private he would try to dissuade Mr Cameron but, if that failed, he would defend the EU eloquently before the court of British public opinion. Though Mr Blair's presence in Brussels would provoke eurosceptics, many Britons might start to see that the EU is not an anti-British project.The EU president will have to work with the Commission president (Mr Blair and Mr Barroso get on well) and with the new high representative for foreign policy. If Mr Blair becomes president, the high representative will need to be someone more interested in the nitty-gritty. Mr Blair would have to be modest enough not to provoke fears of empire-building among the governments, but strong enough to offer leadership and ideas, to help to forge a consensus and, when necessary, knock heads together. He would be a risky choice. But he might inspire the EU to shift its focus from sterile institutional debates towards global challenges such as climate change, energy security, nuclear proliferation and the Middle East.
But there are four arguments for Mr Blair. First, notwithstanding Iraq, he has a track record as a successful politician. He brokered a peace deal for Northern Ireland, while his recent work on the Palestinian economy shows a commitment to settling the Middle East conflict. As for the EU, he invented its defence policy (with Jacques Chirac, the former French president), helped create the Lisbon agenda of economic reform, and ensured that climate change and energy security became priorities.
Second, Mr Blair would give the EU credibility in other parts of the world. When the leader of a small country represents the EU - as sometimes happens with the current, rotating presidency - other powers do not always take it seriously. In January during the Gaza conflict, the Czech prime minister - then EU president - was not a big player in the diplomacy that tried to resolve it. The new EU president will take on that external role. Recently an Indian official said to me: "If you want us to respect your EU president, choose someone we have heard of, like Mr Blair, Angela Merkel or Nicolas Sarkozy. If you choose the prime minister of Luxembourg we may not find the time to meet him."
Third, Mr Blair is a great salesman. One of the EU's big problems is that few citizens understand what it does, how it works or why it adds value. Mr Blair's communications skills would help the Union get its message across, within Europe and beyond.
Finally, Mr Blair could help the EU to cope with the Conservatives, who seem likely to form a British government by mid-2010. They have yet to define their EU policies but may try to opt out of parts of the Lisbon treaty or the institutions of EU defence. If David Cameron, the Tory leader, does start to move against the EU, who better to argue back than President Blair? In private he would try to dissuade Mr Cameron but, if that failed, he would defend the EU eloquently before the court of British public opinion. Though Mr Blair's presence in Brussels would provoke eurosceptics, many Britons might start to see that the EU is not an anti-British project.
The EU president will have to work with the Commission president (Mr Blair and Mr Barroso get on well) and with the new high representative for foreign policy. If Mr Blair becomes president, the high representative will need to be someone more interested in the nitty-gritty. Mr Blair would have to be modest enough not to provoke fears of empire-building among the governments, but strong enough to offer leadership and ideas, to help to forge a consensus and, when necessary, knock heads together. He would be a risky choice. But he might inspire the EU to shift its focus from sterile institutional debates towards global challenges such as climate change, energy security, nuclear proliferation and the Middle East.
his recent work on the Palestinian economy shows a commitment to settling the Middle East conflict
helped create the Lisbon agenda of economic reform
When the leader of a small country represents the EU - as sometimes happens with the current, rotating presidency - other powers do not always take it seriously. In January during the Gaza conflict, the Czech prime minister - then EU president - was not a big player in the diplomacy that tried to resolve it. The new EU president will take on that external role.
One of the EU's big problems is that few citizens understand what it does, how it works or why it adds value. Mr Blair's communications skills would help the Union get its message across
If David Cameron, the Tory leader, does start to move against the EU, who better to argue back than President Blair?
In private he would try to dissuade Mr Cameron but, if that failed, he would defend the EU eloquently before the court of British public opinion.
The EU president will have to work with the Commission president (Mr Blair and Mr Barroso get on well) and with the new high representative for foreign policy. If Mr Blair becomes president, the high representative will need to be someone more interested in the nitty-gritty.
Mr Blair would have to be modest enough not to provoke fears of empire-building among the governments, but strong enough to offer leadership and ideas, to help to forge a consensus and, when necessary, knock heads together.
He would be a risky choice.
But he might inspire the EU to shift its focus from sterile institutional debates towards global challenges such as climate change, energy security, nuclear proliferation and the Middle East.
Energy Security? Don't make me laugh. The Scottish oil and gas fields in the North Sea peaked under his watch and he had not bothered to commission forecasts when he came into office, or to act on them, and all he did afterwards was scream that it was the bloody Russians' fault (or the bloody French or Dutch for not sharing).
Nuclear Proliferation? To Blair Trident was non-negotiable. He wasn't even arguing to keep them as a bargaining chip for negotiating disarmament at some global forum or other.
The Middle East? Just because he was appointed "quartet envoy" doesn't mean he's done anything. Or that the "quartet" is an impartial or effectual player anyway.
Climate Change? Much talk and no action. The UK still lags behind most of the rest of Europe in exploiting its wind resource, which is better than most others'. And the British government is one of the first to mention the need to protect "growth" as an excuse to do nothing on the environment. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
