Why Not Tony?

by afew
Sun Aug 16th, 2009 at 03:44:16 AM EST

Post here what is, in your view, the main, central reason why Tony Blair is not suited for the job of President of the European Council.

Please avoid insults and hyperbole. Please do not avoid cold, sober, thoughtful, penetrating analysis. If it suddenly happens. (Perhaps it always does, to you ;)).


Diary rescue by Migeru

Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
Two reasons - to me he is a hypocrit and war criminal.

Hope that is not hyperbol - at least it doesn't feel like to me. :-)

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 04:04:31 AM EST
To me, those are exactly the two reasons that would make someone a very effective candidate for that job, and I'm only half-snarking here.  We're talking about Europe, remember, not Nepal. Who would be his historical predecessors?  The Habsburg emperors, Napoleon Bonaparte, the Renaissance Popes, Charlemagne?  Not a hypocrite nor a murderer among them, no?
by santiago on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 04:58:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Would you rather we judge amurka by the genocide of the native peoples, perpetrated by slave owners?

or would you care to show some intelligence on this site?

If you look around, you just might discern that Yurp has progressed mightily since the days of King Leopold. Unlike the land where "wise latinas" stir up opposition, and black presidents are "undocumented."

you couldn't half snark if your... say, how often have you been in Nepal anyway?

Skennah Kowa

by Crazy Horse on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 05:15:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nepal is the land of the literary Shangri-La , which is the allusion. But I actually enjoy the acquaintance of a number of Nepalese friends and hope to visit there someday myself.  Have you been there?

Europe has progressed a lot, as has America and the rest of the world.  But the Yugoslav disaster was a European calamity too reminiscent of its recent past to go away believing that a return to those rivalries is not just a few misunderstandings away.

My point, however, was not that Europe is barbaric, but that it takes a Prince to govern effectively there as it does anywhere else. A weak but saintly EU president would likely spell disaster.  And it is all the more so given that it is not popular support but institutional support that matters in that office.

by santiago on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 06:32:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Your assumption that this is a post of "EU president" is mistaken. The Lisbon treaty provides for a president of the European Council of 27 heads of government, in replacement of the present revolving presidency taken on by a different national government every six months. The new president will collaborate with a head of foreign affairs with an increased profile.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 02:28:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
...but that it takes a Prince to govern effectively there as it does anywhere else.

Perhaps it does take a Prince for people like yourself, though I doubt even that.

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 06:41:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you want to stir up trouble, santiago, try another place.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 05:23:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Excuse me, but that it is well thought response.  Do you want a realist or not as President of the EU?  
by santiago on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 06:33:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 07:07:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not in international relations, but in domestic politics, yes, in the original Machiavellian sense of having a knack for identifying pragmatic self interest.
by santiago on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 09:01:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But that's not the sense of realpolitic that the EU needs ... what the EU needs is a "realpolitic" that is founded on reality. The short term media magic spin cycle that sweeps the ongoing problems under the rug will do no good for the long term interests of the EU.


Utsukushikereba sore de ii
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 09:10:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Quite.

The right calls it realism. Or realpolitik.

The real word for it is psychosis.

That whole self interest schtick only works if you can model reality accurately. If you're flailing around like an emo kid on a bad day, lying to everyone, getting into fights for the sake of it, and generally acting like a hormonal teen nightmare with a shit eating grin and a sharp suit, this is possibly not the pancakes we're looking for.

Someone who can deal with reality effectively might be a better choice.  

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 10:02:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Realism means assuming that actors work to maximize self-interest.  Realpolitik assumes that nation-states are the relevant actors in international relations and that power is the element that each is trying to maximize relative to others.  Obviously, the EU project denies that model -- nation-states AND other collective institutions are the relevant actors and power is but one element of interest among many.  
by santiago on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 10:20:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Realism means assuming that actors work to maximize self-interest.

This is as much of a FAIL™ in international relations as it is in economics.

Thanks for playing, anyway.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 11:05:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, that's the problem with psychosis - you think you're maximising self-interest, when in reality you're just acting out a death wish.

I'm sure Hitler thought he was a great patriot, who was totally dedicated to maximising Germany's glory. Unfortunately, being a psychopath, he destroyed his Germany and himself instead.

So can we please stop pretending that 'maximising self interest' actually means anything non-crazy?

The kindest thing you can say about it is that it's inherently pro-cyclical. The mood swings when reality catches up with it don't seem to be fun.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 03:53:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
santiago:
Realism means assuming that actors work to maximize self-interest.  Realpolitik assumes that nation-states are the relevant actors in international relations and that power is the element that each is trying to maximize relative to others.

that's our tone! a poster child for exactly why that approach leads to guaranteed Trouble.

that whole machiavelli adulation really served the neocons well, huh?

power-over instead of power-with, that is the basest of lower common denominators of human behaviour and political skills, and while it may have been the modus operandi of so many leaders through euro-history, there's no reason at all to assume that re-pursuing this bleakly evil vision of human affairs will do aught but mire us in the muck we spent much of the last few millennia roiling around in.

which is why characters like TB should be anathema to the future EU leadership, as emblematic of the nakedly expedient, rank opportunist, selfishly short-sighted wrong way to go about things on any level, be it matters personal or of state.

as for electing a saint, that's effing hilarious in its improbability, they're thin on the political ground, and if they exist at all, they would fess up to what they did, not run to swaddle their consciences under the vatican's seamy petticoats, while claiming to be blessed by faith.

the only thing TB ever believed in was that he was immune to consequences because of the intensity of his will-to-power.

he is the epitome of all that's worst and most hypocritical in the 'perfidious' part of shakespeare's famous quote, in fact he redefines the term.

like obama, he flew to grace on wings of rhetoric, and obama will be just as denigrated if he continues to appease all that's nastiest in anglo-atlanticist politics, ie bankstas and the MIC.

the harder they come, the harder they fall, one and all.

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do." Jim Hightower

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 08:01:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not in the least.  But I was responding to Fran's very flippant suggestion that being a hypocrite and a murderer both describes Tony Blair and are not desirable attributes for European leaders.  Forgetting TB for a minute, does a search for other leaders, present or historical, find any who have successfully united disparate parties on an international level and not had those same charges placed on them by armchair politicos.
by santiago on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 01:15:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The fact that most people in positions of power turn out to be assholes does not necessarily mean that one should pick somebody one knows to be an asshole for a position of power.

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 07:55:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
LOL

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 08:34:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What the EU needs is someone capable of uniting disparate factions.  That is the essence of the EU project.  I don't know that Tony is the right person for the job at all, but if the criticism against him is that he knows hot to dissimulate and knows what its like to have blood on his hands, I suggest that those are possibly positive traits rather than negatives.
by santiago on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 10:12:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"What the EU needs is someone capable of uniting disparate factions."

Exactly, and also exactly the capability that Blair does not have.

As for "knows what its like to have blood on his hands", Blair has gained about as much knowledge of that as I have from playing RTS war games. He has ordered men to their deaths, but has he ever taken the time to look honestly and unflinchingly at what he wrought? You and I might agree that Blair has blood on his hands - I very much doubt that he does. And rest assured, he firmly believes he is right.

An ability to lie is definitely a negative trait if it is used to extensively lie to oneself.

by det on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 10:33:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As you say. In power, Tony only knows
  1. crushing all opposition (something he won't be able to as merely a de-facto permament chairman),
  2. building top-down power structures below him (something he won't be able to do either),
  3. be a nice puppy to various masters (be them the USA, Murdoch, or financial or industrial lobbies) he deems either too powerful to confront or part of an exclusive club he would like to join (something we don't need in a top EU official).

...furthermore, a warrior uniting sovereign heads of states and governments, what a ridiculous idea.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 02:34:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But most of all, utterly destroying his party.

And it's a pattern. While Saint Tony has been the Extra Secret Super Special Hot Sauce Quartet Envoy to the Middle East, the Gaza situation has devolved into naked barbarism and atrocity, and Israel is - still - seriously considering an attack on Iran.

Does Europe want someone so likely to destroy the EU?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 09:10:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... if the conclusion is to be "Tony is the right person to bring people together", which is whether it is well understood by all parties that he is an able liar and willing to have blood on his hands in pursuit of what he sees as his own interest.

That common knowledge undermines rather than strengthens his capacities for bringing people together ... setting aside the leap in the dark regarding believing that he has changed his ways and will be trying to bring people together.

After specifying that he is an able liar, we are supposed to believe that he has reversed his modus operandi by 180 degrees on his say so?

Indeed, even if he seriously intends and is 100% committed to changing his modus operandi ... he is entirely untested in that role.

Its like picking someone for the starting XI in the Ashes because he's the star pitcher for the Olympic Baseball team.

Better pick someone who has some runs on the board for that particular contest.

Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 02:11:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well he's only shown an ability to unite people in distaste.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 08:37:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
santiago:
he knows hot to dissimulate and knows what its like to have blood on his hands, I suggest that those are possibly positive traits rather than negatives.

thanks for sharing, that's some belief system you've got going there, lol!

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do." Jim Hightower

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 08:05:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not my belief system.  But I'm not getting anywhere on this thread but knee-jerk reactions to presumed ideas rather than what is actually said, so I'm through.  chao.
by santiago on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 01:24:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
santiago:
Not my belief system.  But I'm not getting anywhere on this thread but knee-jerk reactions to presumed ideas rather than what is actually said,

i don't think you're convincing anyone here of your points of view, but you have a lot of knowledge and time to share it, helping to provide some interesting counter-arguments, thickening the mix, as it were, and certainly helping avoid any notion ET is a cosy corner of choral communion.

to me the fault line occurs when you say things are true, but you don't necessarily believe them, which is like trying to reverse engineer glenn beck's brain.

(he thinks it's important to believe in something even though it's wrong, hmmm, you could say these two approaches are halves of a whole.)

because everyone else in this discussion, it appears to me, (and everywhere else at this blog for that matter, is intent on sharing things because we believe them to be true.)

by the way, i do have a life, thanks.

although you will get the the occasional 4 by throwing insulting comments my way, i'm guessing that's not really why you're here, lol.

enjoy your stay, and thanks for helping to catalise the discussion through your comments here why it is we have such a strong desire not to see Tony Blair get any more rewarded for his actions than he is already.

ansi...

ciao

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do." Jim Hightower

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Jul 24th, 2009 at 08:59:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If comparing the future post of president of the European Council, uniting 27 European nations in a structure that guarantees peace and cooperation, to past absolutists in totally different historical conditions, is in your view a well-thought response, then we don't share the same definition of good thinking.

Your comment could, as I pointed out, quite easily to be construed as trouble-making aka flame-baiting.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 02:23:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Um, they weren't absolutists. (Except for Napoleon and Charlemange, of course.  I suggest you read up on your European history. The EU is more closely modeled on the habsburg inspired than you seem to recognize.
by santiago on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 01:28:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Habsburgs not absolutist?

You seem to have no idea of Spanish history 1500-1700 either...

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 08:37:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
santiago probably confuses the position of (Austrian) Habsburg emperors as Holy Roman Emperors and as rulers of their own empire.

In the Holy Roman Empire, the Emperor was elected by kings and regents and counts with election rights (Kurfürst). The post was usually given to the strongest. Which was also the source of its weakening; when there were two strong rivals who did not accept the rule of the other (i.e. Prussia and Austria in the end).

The only similarity with the European Council is the intergovernmental nature. (No cycling of the post every six months among all governments that are treated equal as of current, and the holder of the post had his own kindgdom(s), unlike the post-Lisbon Council President; and there were at least formal executive rights.)

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 09:20:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have seen  comparisons of the EU to the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation several times already. For example throughout the whole history of the Empire the power structure was more or less in state of change and never fixed. The real power was never with the Kaiser but with the strong local rulers, etc.
by rz on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 12:32:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Except the Kaiser was usually one of the strong local rulers himself.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 02:27:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The one significant power that several Emperors had, even if relying on significant support from other strong kingdoms and principalities (and not seldom ending up in internal defeat), was to start war. The European Council has so far not gone that route, fortunately, nor is it in its post-Lisbon President's remit.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 02:32:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I bet you that Phony Tony would try, though.

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 06:12:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, there are many other similarities: One, it is still a nation-state based system, recognizing the sovereignty of individual member-polities. Another similarity is that the conveners of the legislative bodies -- those who carry important agenda-setting powers -- are elected institutionally, not popularly. Their authority derives from their relationships with other institutional authorities of governance. This is not necessarily "power with" instead of "power over," as some have argued here.  This is power exercised by a governing class of elites, and the presidencies answer to those elites, not any popular constituency.  Correct me if I'm wrong.
by santiago on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 02:01:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One might argue that it creates a difference in kind that the elites who appoint the EU leaders are in turn answerable to their publics, rather than absolutist and/or feudal monarchs.

Of course, one might then argue about whether this is, in fact, the case, but that would take us a little farther afield...

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 02:42:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
  • What you describe is a confederal system. The EU is a de-facto mixed federal-conferedal system, with the latter stronger at present. True, the Holy Roman Empire developed the Reichstag; though that didn't develop into a democratic body until the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation was over.

  • Who are the "conveners of the legislative bodies"? I can't parse this one.

  • The selection of the de-facto executive, the Commission (or at least its President) by the European Council, with mere approval from the EP, is indeed institutional -- but I don't see the direct parallel with the Holy Roman Empire. There is a stronger parallel with the post of the Prime Minister at the time it was emerging below a still strong monarch in Britain, and a weaker parallel with the way the post of the Chancellor emerged in 19th century Second Reich Germany.

  • I would characterise the legitimacy problem as one from multiple levels above the democratic body, rather than undemocratic from the start as in the Holy Roman Empire. E.g. national parliaments represent the democratic will in simplified form, governments in parliamentary democracies get power from a majority of these, the European Council is yet another level, and only then do we have the Commission. We can get down from four to two levels if the EP gets more serious about its approval, and turns the Commission into a de-facto elected government of the EP majority.


*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 02:50:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Convener is another, functional, word for president, and it could have been used if the goal was truly to limit the institutional powers of those positions to just convening legislative bodies and setting agendas.

The main difference between the EU project today is that of its democratic claims to legitimacy, as opposed to religious/aristocratic claims -- that sovereignty, in political discourse, is now generally agreed to rest with the governed instead of with the Church. In earlier attempts at pan-European governance, sovereignty was determined at the time to be a kind of relationship with God, for which the Church was the agreed-upon institution that could determine God's opinion on the matter.  

However, it was Machiavelli who challenged that model directly.  (He did not advocate "power over" or absolutism in any sense.)  What he proposed is that just being named a prince because of the institutional decisions by the Church or other authority did not guarantee one's capacity to rule or remain in office -- that sovereignty is always a contested space which must be defended vigorously in every moment.  That is why he is considered the founder of political science -- after his work, power was could no longer be considered to be a gift from God or fate, so sovereignty must rest, ultimately, in something more foundational than a mere institutional arrangement, which gave rise to the enlightenment idea that sovereignty ultimately rests with the governed and not the other way around.

by santiago on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 03:54:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Convener is another, functional, word for president

Which one? The EU has Presidents of all three of its main institutions: President of the European Parliament (elected by parliamentary majority; currently Jerzy Buzek), the President of the European Commission (formally proposed by the Council and approved by Parliament; currently, José Manuel Barroso, who stands for a second term), and the President of the Council of the European Union (post rotating every six months, currently Sweden, resp. the corresponding minister or PM of the government of Sweden, whicheer form the Council convenes in). Once Lisbon is in effect, we would get the European Council officialised as fourth institution, adding a fourth, a permanent President of the European Council.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 05:55:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
All of them. That's both the beauty and the risk of the EU project. All have authority to convene EU-wide policymaking institutions of varying degrees of authority over different policy domains. The question is what other authorities and powers can the achieve?

The provision of a permanent President of the European Council provides for a centralized political authority that, to me, may be disconcertingly powerful relative to other bodies. But if centralization of power is what one wants in order to strengthen the EU as a unified polity, than the person that holds that office should be judged on both his general ideological outlook (and for all his faults, Blair is a liberal, not a neo-con, after all) and personal leadership qualities as well as her or his capacity to effectively negotiate outcomes among institutional elites that are pretty well insulated from the effects of public opinion. I'd like to see criticisms of Blair that address those qualities and not merely the fact that he favored invading Iraq or appears to play the high-stakes game of bureaucratic poker too well, attracting the meaningless label of "hypocrite."

by santiago on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 06:21:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
All of them.

Well, not all of them. Only the President of the EP. However, he can do so only under exceptional circumstances; but normally, convening is automatic. (See rules -- the Conference of Presidents mentioned therein is a body also including the faction leaders.) The job of the President of the EP (and his/her deputies) is mostly, just like for the Speaker in British and US parliaments, to conduct the sessions.

The provision of a permanent President of the European Council provides for a centralized political authority that, to me, may be disconcertingly powerful relative to other bodies.

Well, that's what Bliar would no doubt like it to become. But, at present, it is set out to be a rather weak institution: merely a chairman. He can't order around the heads of elected governments, nor does he control the money. It is a rough parallel to your Senate President, not to your THE President.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 06:38:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Now you're getting to a reasonable argument against Blair, finally.

Do you favor a strong President model or a weak one? If you think Blair will be both strong and effective, and you really want a weak presidency, then I find that a compelling reason to oppose him.  However, I think the winds on this are actually blowing the other way in Brussels. What was the problem with the rotating presidency after all, if you just wanted something like the US presidency of the Senate?  I suspect that there is a dominant constituency of institutional elites who want a strong, powerful presidency and believe that it will help lead to a stronger and more powerful central European authority in Brussels, and that is precisely why someone like Blair, who has been successful in the face of significant adversity (and for good reason), is being considered as a candidate. Rather than call him a liar and a warmonger, which are terms that likely have little negative connotations for institutional elites, it might be better to simply oppose the strong presidency and those candidates that are likely to want to make it stronger.

by santiago on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 at 01:14:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you think Blair will be both strong and effective, and you really want a weak presidency, then I find that a compelling reason to oppose him.

Blair wouldn't try to be strong and effective. He'd try to be strong, he'd be a disaster, and he'd totally discredit the institution. But just his mere appointment would be a PR mistake for the EU as a whole.

Just look at what he's done as Quartet Envoy to the Middle East.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 at 02:01:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru:
Blair wouldn't try to be strong and effective


The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 at 03:35:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed: while the President of the European Council was created in no small part to be living PR for the European Council, Bliar would not only fail to achieve this goal, but he would be a PR mistake for the EU as a whole.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 at 05:14:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I can buy that argument.
by santiago on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 at 03:28:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Now you're getting to a reasonable argument against Blair, finally.

Finally? I think in one for or another, all of my arguments were told by me and others in this thread.

Do you favor a strong President model or a weak one?

For that specific post or the EU as a whole?

  • If the former, of course a weak one; I'd like to see the Council develop into some kind of a second chamber, in which the President is only a facilitator. Tony would want to turn this into something stronger (he would want it to become "strong and effective"). I am rather sceptical about his chances to succeed against the will of the national heads of states and governments, and probably the EP would put up some resistance, too; but even if he failed, he is unfit for the facilitator role.

  • If the latter, I prefer the parliamentary model vs. the Presidential one; e.g. an executive getting its power from an elected parliament, rather than from the election of its leader. Why? (1) the Presidential model unifies the representative/identification role and executive power, thus reducing the role of political considerations in the choice too much; (2) a President in the Presidential model is elected first-past-the-post, while a parliament can represent a wider range of political views, and the government too if no opinion has absolute majority; (3) a President in the Presidential model is concentration of too much power in a single hand for my taste.

    IOW, I want a strong Parliament and Commission; which consequently means a strong President of the European Commission (and also strong Commissioners).

(Note terminology issue: in English-language countries, the Latin-origin term "President" in politics is rarely used for posts other than a combined head of the executive and the state. In many of not most other EU, however, corresponding to its original literal meaning -- c. 'chairman' --, it is used in combination for all kinds of posts -- f.e. "Minister President" in place of the British Prime Minister for head of executive, "Republican President" for a ceremonial figurehead head of state, etc..)

in Brussels

The Lisbon Treaty as is represents a compromise between the various players (e.g. the EU's main institutions). Behind that, winds blew in different directions in different quarters of Brussels.

What was the problem with the rotating presidency after all

Too messy. The holders of the office have to govern at home at the time, every six months there is a handover, and when there is a government crisis at home, the EU takes a second seat (see Czech Presidency earlier this year). I note that the rotating Presidency would stay on in the Council of the European Union (the day-to-day intergovernmental institution of the EU). I should also note that in discussions on ET, it transspired to us that the Lisbon treaty definitely solidifies the European Council as an institution of its own separate from the Council, which was seen negatively by most.

dominant constituency of institutional elites who want a strong, powerful presidency

Who would they be? Surely not the Commission and the bureaucracy under it; the Commission wants power for itself (even if Barroso is quite inefficient in seeking it). Surely not Parliament, which was against it and wants more influence for itself. As for the European Council, its members want power to themselves, but that quite obviously doesn't translate into wanting a strong power over their heads. Quite the opposite: they want someone representative to stand in the spotlight, who puts them in a better light -- more a figurehead than power position. (In Eurobarometer polls, the Council was persistently the leat popular EU institution with citizens; with the Parliament scoring highest.) For that reason, Tony would again be a bad choice; and I suspect that's why today the only voices for Tony for President come from Britain.

successful in the face of significant adversity

I am not aware of any real successes achieved by Tony.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 at 05:11:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Lisbon Treaty as is represents a compromise between the various players (e.g. the EU's main institutions).

In fact, I should point out, also within the institutions. In the Council, back then, it was just Tony who advocated a strong President, but with enough opposition for the end result to be severely de-fanged, fortunately. It was reported back then that Tony, who everyone knew wanted the post for himself, no longer wanted such a job -- however, recently he is said to have changed his mind, bored of his Middle East envoy job.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 at 05:20:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As for the rest.
  • We don't wish centralisation of power in the Council, much less the European Council. More in the Commission, once it gets more into the influence of Parliament.
  • Tony was not supposed to be a liberal or neocon, but a social democrat. But with the policies enacted at home during the Iraq War, he can't be counted as a liberal, either. Sorry but neocon comes closest.
  • Tony has no personal leadership qualities. He knows about concentrating power, but not about using power to do something effective. This was true at home, true in all his failed attempts to push policy at EU level, and on the world stage -- see Iraq War.
  • Tony has no capacity to effectively negotiate, either, especially among powerful people -- again see his record of failed EU diplomacy, and his no-show as Middle East negotiator, as was point out before to you.
  • That Tony invaded Iraq is not a 'mere'. It determines his unpopularity, and would be bad for the EU's image -- at home and abroad (the only place where Tony is popular may be the USA).


*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 06:48:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think this is a very good and concise list of answers to the diary's question.

I would like to give an appleuse not only to DoDo, but also santiago for the consistant playing of the role as Devil's advocate (intended or unintended) which spurred DoDo to produce such a distinct list.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Jul 23rd, 2009 at 03:02:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
santiago:
attracting the meaningless label of "hypocrite."

boy, you won't quit, will you?

it's quite insidious, how you sneak in your 'values' within your comment.

just because Fran put a smiley after her comment, doesn't mean she was speaking in a flippant manner.

imo, it's you who are flippant, calling hypocrisy a 'meaningless label'.

because if that's how you really think, that's sad.

cue your reply that's not how you really think.

if you are so cynical as to believe conscience is a delusion, and politicians should lie like rugs, then why don't you just say so? it's certainly appears to be what you're inferring, between the lines...

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do." Jim Hightower

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 07:22:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
melo, get a life.  Calling a politician a "hypocrite" is like calling a calling a pop star "vain."  It is too easy to apply to anyone to be useful even for an insult.  Who isn't a hypocrite, after all?  

I do NOT think politicians should lie, just like I don't think spouses should cheat, but I do think that you will find it difficult to come up with the names of very many statesmen or stateswomen at the international level who have been very successful and who haven't committed their share of dissimulation.  Can you?  (I can think of a few possible candidates off hand -- Dag Hammarskjöld and the Catholic Popes since John XXIII -- but their exception appears to prove the rule by their extra-ordinariness, doesn't it? And their success seems somewhat limited compared to other good statesmen who haven't been so pure.) Maybe some sins are more forgivable than others, so perhaps we can expand our criteria beyond obvious and useless cliches.

by santiago on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 at 12:47:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is hypocrite and hypocrite. Tony is a 24/24 hypocrite, so the qualifier is not meaningless.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 at 05:22:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
One, it is still a nation-state based system, recognizing the sovereignty of individual member-polities.

After the Peace of Westphalia it did consist of sovereign states, as this peace created the concept. Before that it was a feudal state with a decentralised power structure. Not unlike France before and during the hudred year's war. The thirty year's war finished of a series of attempts at creating a more centralised state in HRE, like the failed introduction of common taxation around 1500.

But the concept of nation-state is hardly appliable at all when looking at the constituent parts of HRE, if the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation had a nation, it was simply German. I would however rather argue that the modern concept of nation was not born until the late 18th century, and did not find traction in Germany until France abolished the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.

So yes, the EU and the HRE are both confederacies but but not very similar at all.

Another similarity is that the conveners of the legislative bodies -- those who carry important agenda-setting powers -- are elected institutionally, not popularly. Their authority derives from their relationships with other institutional authorities of governance. This is not necessarily "power with" instead of "power over," as some have argued here.  This is power exercised by a governing class of elites, and the presidencies answer to those elites, not any popular constituency.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

This basically seperates states into two cathegories, those were the executives are popularly elected and those where are they are not.

And yes, the HRE and the EU share that they are confederate systems where the executive is not directly elected, but so was the Delian League or Swiss confederation.

How was the EU more similar to the HRE (and in what century of HREs development) then say to the abortive Federal German state of 1848-49?

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 05:21:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The nation-state is just a form of a more or less sovereign polity, the more general term for a nation, country, state, or whatever.  HRE was a system of governance among such polities, which provided for a degree of centralization of governance both before and after the existence of so-called nation-states as distinct categories. Other European examples of such efforts also exist, such as the German federal state.  That the EU should be seen as an historical outcome of those efforts and not something brand, spanking new was my point, not that the HRE is more like the EU than other European experiments. As such, it is possible, after correcting for the contextual differences, to identify those qualities of personal leadership which lead to more desirable outcomes -- perhaps strength and unity of purpose in multinational political entities.  And because, like the HRE and other examples, there is one or more layers of separation between popular sovereignty and the institutional offices of President, it might behoove us to look at different qualities of leadership than we would expect from popularly elected leaders.  For example, ideological transparency and non-interventionist foreign relations philosophy might enjoy strong popular sentiments, but they might be the opposite of what is needed for negotiating effective policy outcomes among the institutional authorities that will really be calling more of the shots in the EU, post-Lisbon.  

Unless I'm mistaken, the authority will be more centralized in Brussels relative to what it is now, which means that the ability to unite disparate institutional interests in Brussels might be more important than placating popular interests in Paris, London, Madrid, or anywhere else.  I don't know that TB is the right person at all for that, but I do suggest that being a leader in an unpopular war and being able to imply one thing to a popular constituency while doing another behind the scenes do not appear, from the historical evidence in Europe, to be negative qualities for forging institutional alliances that can unify and advance the EU project rather than stall it.

by santiago on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 06:09:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The nation-state is just a form of a more or less sovereign polity, the more general term for a nation, country, state, or whatever.

Nope. The nation state is the concept of disjunct territories ruled centrally on the basis of a community of citizens. The feudal state was a concept based on feudums -- land owned by noblemen. The feudal concept had no distinct countries, only a hierarchy of territories and corresponding titles. One nobleman could own multiple feudums, without an overarching title -- for example, the Habsburg Empire was not officially consolidated until it became Austria-Hungary; the empire was officially an assemblage of kingdoms and principalities whose titles were all held by the emperor. Furthermore, there were non-overlapping titles: some parts of the Habsburg Empire were outside the Holy Roman Empire; the French king was de jure the liege of the English king for some areas held prior to the end of the 100 years war; during that war, at times Burgundy had more de-facto sovereignity than France, which it was supposed to be part of; and so on.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 06:26:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
feudums -- land owned by noblemen

...and given by higher-ranked noblemen one was supposed to be loyal to.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 06:53:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"supposed" to be loyal.  The fact that loyalty could not be counted on is what led to the development of political theory -- to understand why and under what conditions political power can actually be wielded.
by santiago on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 at 03:34:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That was then. Feudalism has much in common with fascism. The weak are oppressed by their alleged defenders, and the strong vie with each other for total political domination through endless war.

Feudalism doesn't have the jack boots and comical posturing of Italian fascism. Or the jack boots, racism, and even more comical (but tragic) posturing of Nazism.

But the world view is essentially Hobbesian, with no quarter for weakness, and perpetual competition among those strong enough to compete. The strong leader survives as long as he (sic) stays strong and invincible. When strong leaders fail, they are killed and replaced.

The European Right would doubtless approve of that morality, although it might be circumspect about saying so in public.

But what makes Europe different is a strong socialist tradition which has a rather different and more measured and successful world view. There was class consciousness of a sort in feudalism. But it was random, sporadic, and never organised or properly socialised.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Jul 24th, 2009 at 01:03:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You must mean Machiavelli -- though methinks political theory arose under similar circumstances much earlier (Greece, China). However, (real or feigned) loyalty is a fundamental of feudalism, while it is not a factor in modern intra-federation and -confederation politics.

The HRE Emperor got weaker because the kings and princes and cities were ever more into paying lip service. Absolutism was the king finding ways to enforce loyalty beyond the feudal standard by binding the noblemen around his court. Meanwhile, no one in the European Council will even feign loyalty to its President.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sat Jul 25th, 2009 at 06:27:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not talking about the difference between nation-states and other forms of polities, so it doesn't matter what you call them.  I'm talking about the essential similarity between historical attempts to unify groups of independent polities -- whether they are nations, empires, principalities, counties, cantons, whatever -- and the present attempt to do so in the EU.  The essential similarity is this I think: the centralized political authority answered not to popular consent except in indirect ways, but instead it answered to institutional elites who were insulated from popular opinion. What were the attributes, then, that provided for success or failure among those personalities selected for leadership of those historical predecessors to the EU?  Or are the differences between them and the present EU in fact so great as to make them useless as case studies?
by santiago on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 at 01:02:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You keep forgetting that unification is a policy, not an objective.

If unification produces objectionable results, it is not to be supported. Only if it stands to produce, on balance, more favourable than objectionable results is there any sense to supporting it.

So I can live with slower unification if it means that we escape presidentialisation and escape having to live with a neoconservative traitor and war criminal in a high office.

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 at 02:08:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Everything is a policy, even unification. Some policies are purposeful means toward other political ends and other policies have unintended consequences on other ends as well.  I am concerned that unification is a primary outcome sought by a number of institutional elites in Brussels and elsewhere because of the purposeful outcomes they seek (increased power for some institutional elites at the possible expense of decreased welfare for many people) that I think many progressives would find objectionable.  

I think there are many progressives, however, who see the EU project as primarily a means to contest American power in international relations, and an over-presidentialization might be a cost they're willing to accept toward that end.  I hope that sentiment is not large and doesn't carry the day.

 

by santiago on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 at 03:43:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course, Tory Bliar would not contest American power...

And overall, I'm hopeful that the last eight years of "a strong president" on the other side of the Pond (along with Corruptioni et al on our side) have convinced most progressives that an overly strong executive centred around a single person is A Bad Idea.

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 at 04:31:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I hope so too.
by santiago on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 at 05:17:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not talking about the difference between nation-states and other forms of polities

Come on, don't backpedal, you did.

I'm talking about the essential similarity between historical attempts to unify groups of independent polities

Which cannot be essential, given the essential differences between the polities you consider -- for one, the feudal polities weren't independent. For the other, the example you named (or mis-named -- you first gave the Habsburg Empire, which emerged from personal union rather than a meta position, while you meant something else), the Holy Roman Empire, was not an attempt to unify groups, but to keep together parts of a pre-existing falling-apart empire (the Carolingian one).

The essential similarity is this I think: the centralized political authority answered not to popular consent except in indirect ways, but instead it answered to institutional elites who were insulated from popular opinion.

With that, we get back to another basic problem of your analogy I pointed out in the very first reply: none of the polities in the feudal HRC were democracies. No indirect answering to popular consent. That top-level feudal overlords are undemocratic in an undemocratic feudal world, let's say, doesn't come as a surprise... As for the EU,  by all democratic deficits, you should not forget about the EP, and about referendums.

Or are the differences between them and the present EU in fact so great as to make them useless as case studies?

Since I don't see them as historical predecessors, not direct at least (the EU's structure is in no small part modelled on the federal structure of West Germany, so there the long lineage back to the HRE behind that; but just the strength of the intergovernmental side is a deviation), I would obviously say yes. To be more specific, I can't compare feudal lords with their own kingdoms elected for life to people without other positions elected for fixed terms.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 at 05:39:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The electors of the HRE had at least as much independence as the member states of the EU. Feudal loyalty was a contested space, in reality, as Machivelli showed.  Breaking oaths of fealty was as common as keeping them during the period, which allows for using much of that history as case studies for political theory and the present EU situation, I argue.

I used the Habsburg name because of its long association with the HRE and also because of its success in holding the most power within the system for the longest time. Obviously Blair would have trouble using their marriage strategy to achieve inter generational success among electors, but I think a sound application of political theory (which has come a long way since Machiavelli) to both European history and the EU would yield some very helpful information about what are desirable and undesirable leadership traits for a council president at this time, and for whom they would be desirable or undesirable.  I think they will also provide more sound arguments about why Blair might be the wrong man for the job, as well.

by santiago on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 at 03:54:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I should also add that I don't see any proper historical analogies to EU unification in general. Most prior unifications happened through contest by one dominant party (see Carolingian Empire, Qin China, Stephen I's Hungary, Mindaugas's Lithuania, etc. etc., and also the Prussia-created German Second Reich). Alliances that did not achieve unification or achieved it without conquest also tended to have one over-dominant member or faction (see Delian League, India). The one exception is the USA, if we treat the Colonies as independent units -- however, those still had a head start as the colonies of the same colonial empire, pushed into union by opposition to the same.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 at 05:51:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But the EU also has a dominant power - well, two dominant powers, but I'm not sure that changes the dynamics very much.

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 at 06:06:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Dominant, but not over-dominant. Germany is not even a fifth of the EU, and Turkey wouldn't be either by current population projections. As for Franco-German dominance, whether it is over-dominance or not, that would be a joint dual dominance, now name a historical parallel for that :-)

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 at 06:23:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How about the Inca Empire's growth by assimilation?

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 at 06:11:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
!? Wasn't that simple imperial conquest?

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 at 06:27:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Inca civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pachacuti would send spies to regions he had wanted in his empire. They would then report back on the political organization, military might, and wealth. The Sapa Inca would then send messages to the leaders of these lands, extolling the benefits of joining his empire. He offered gifts of luxury goods like high quality textiles, and promised that all living in those territories would be materially richer as subject rulers of the Inca. Most accepted the rule of the Inca as a fait accompli and acquiesced peacefully. The neighboring rulers' children would be brought to Cuzco to be taught about Inca administration systems, and then would return to rule their native lands. This allowed the Inca to indoctrinate the former rulers' children into the Inca nobility, and, with luck, marry their daughters into families at various corners of the empire.

It was traditional for the Inca's son to lead the army; Pachacuti's son Túpac Inca began conquests to the north in 1463, continuing them as Inca after Pachucuti's death in 1471. His most important conquest was the Kingdom of Chimor, the Inca's only serious rival for the coast of Peru. Túpac Inca's empire stretched north into modern day Ecuador and Colombia, and his son Huayna Cápac added significant territory to the south. At its height, Tawantinsuyu included Peru and Bolivia, most of what is now Ecuador, a large portion of modern-day Chile, and extended into corners of Argentina and Colombia.

Tawantinsuyu was a patchwork of languages, cultures and peoples. The components of the empire were not all uniformly loyal, nor were the local cultures all fully integrated. For example, the Chimú used money in their commerce, while the Inca empire as a whole had an economy based on exchange and taxation of luxury goods and labor. (It is said that Inca tax collectors would take the head lice of the lame and old as a symbolic tribute.) The portions of the Chachapoya that had been conquered were almost openly hostile to the Inca, and the Inca nobles rejected an offer of refuge in their kingdom after their troubles with the Spanish. They ended up being conquered by Francisco Pizarro.



The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 at 06:33:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So, Wikipedia claims that at least the starter of the Empire used soft power for conquest most of the time - interesting, even if what was left out of the picture, the ability to conduct massive forced resettlements, indicate superior military force behind the soft power.

However, Google-translating the much longer Spanish version of the article on Pachacuti, and on his son who was active as military leader under him, "most" doesn't seem justified -- there is plenty of military action described; plus damming rivers upstream from cities; and fooling the enemy with messengers bringing the fake news of a peace agreement, followed by takeover while the enemy foolishly celebrated.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 at 07:05:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The neighboring rulers' children would be brought to Cuzco to be taught about Inca administration systems, and then would return to rule their native lands. This allowed the Inca to indoctrinate the former rulers' children into the Inca nobility, and, with luck, marry their daughters into families at various corners of the empire.

So the Inca had their own School of the Americas too?  Just how much bad karma did they acquire in their short reign?

by santiago on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 at 05:36:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
More like Harvard or Oxbridge than the School of the Americas, I think.

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
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Aug 16th, 2009 at 03:43:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I would however rather argue that the modern concept of nation was not born until the late 18th century, and did not find traction in Germany until France abolished the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.

So well said!

BTW, the HRE got the "German Nation" tag after its loss of influence in Italy due to the Anjous, French kings and Northern Italian cities -- including, crucially, Rome itself. Then, I think it was a zombie at least from the start of the Seven Years War.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 06:13:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No.

And the position is not that of President of the EU, but of President of the Council.

I suggest that you read these two comments...

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 11:10:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you think there will be a big difference between President of the Council, and President of the EU, I think you're more naive than I thought.  That's why I've always opposed that position. Use another name, like chair or something, if you want a different outcome.
by santiago on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 01:27:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The first appointee will shape the post. That's why we don't need someone who wants to usurp both the attributions of the High Representative for the CFSP and of the Commissioner for trade; someone who doesn't rule by directoire of the few largest states, and someone who is able to broker agreement among the council.

If you think Tony Blair would be appropriate for the job you're saying what you want the job to be like. And I disagree.

Remember the President is supposed to coexist with the rotating national presidencies. The Lisbon Treaty can be construed as separating Solana's two current jobs (Secretary General of the Council, and HRCFSP) and giving the former role a higher internal profile. And I choose to construe it that way.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 08:43:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
why we don't need someone who wants to usurp both the attributions of the High Representative for the CFSP and of the Commissioner for trade; we need someone who doesn't rule by directoire of the few largest states, and someone who is able to broker agreement among the council.



The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 08:59:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Tut! Tut! Those people weren't elected.

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
by martingale on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 01:39:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Popes and the Holy Roman Emperors were, though through very European-like institutional elections instead of popular suffrage.
by santiago on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 10:14:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What?
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 03:54:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Santiago, stop troll-baiting. That's enough.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 04:17:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If you interpret my points as combative, that's your own fault, because it is not at all how I am presenting it.  

Is the EU really a break from history, or is it just the latest attempt at pan-European governance, a project that many have tried, and has even seen success, since the end of Roman power on the continent?  The Habsburg system was an elected means of providing for peace, trade, and mutual defense among European powers within it.  The Catholic Church provided an international governance structure by adjudicating questions succession and sovereignty in European principalities.  Both were actually elected positions, not much different from the institutional selection of an EU president that we witness today.  I think it is actually really important, if honesty is part of anything at all, to get away from the idea, much expressed in various forms in this forum, that history somehow began anew in Europe after WWII.  The major difference, since then, has been that a major part of sovereign responsibility -- military defense -- has been provided and governed by a power outside of Europe. It would be foolish to presume that that has no impact on European governance, just as it would be naive to presume that the model of statecraft in Europe is significantly different from the basic models provided by the political sciences, which began with Machiavelli's "The Prince."  

by santiago on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 06:35:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Both were actually elected positions, not much different from the institutional selection of an EU president that we witness today.

Both were relatively strong executive positions, elected by non-democratic rulers. The President of the European Council is not an executive position, nor strong (at least now), and the governments and heads of states at the table are elected. And the power of none of those two was counterbalanced by a parliament.

If you are not troll-baiting, then you ignore roughly 800 years of political development.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 06:43:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If paragraph 2 is what you want to say, then say it.

What you said was a deliberately provocative short-cut of the kind that doesn't produce dialogue. And it can be seen as flame-baiting, troll-baiting, trouble-making - I don't care what it's called, but please stop it.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 06:44:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why in the world would anyone look negatively upon the history of the Habsburgs or, even more so, upon the Roman Catholic Popes? The Economist magazine titles its section on the EU, "Charlemange" after all, and although we are to left of that periodical here, it's not supposed to be a negative.   That anyone would take what I said as provocative might say a lot more about the prejudices of this community than I hope it does. It simply never occurred to me that anyone here is actually embarrassed by those episodes of European history, instead of animated by it.  But I'll keep it in mind then for the future.  
by santiago on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 10:43:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Keep in mind for the future that we don't need concern trolls.

I've no more time to waste on your disruptive behaviour.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 01:58:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
on your diaries or comments then.  This is what I was responding to:  

Two reasons - to me he is a hypocrit and war criminal.

Hope that is not hyperbol - at least it doesn't feel like to me. :-)

A half-serious, half-playful response to a half serious comment.  I didn't realize that ET was just an anti-Blair mosh pit, with no sense of humor at all regarding European politics.  

 

by santiago on Mon Jul 20th, 2009 at 12:01:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
hah

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jul 20th, 2009 at 01:53:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The EU pretends to be a post-Enlightenment project, and you insist on saying it's an ancien régime project. Maybe you want to develop that point (that the EU is an ancien régime structure as opposed to a liberal democratic structure) in a diary so we can shoot it down properly.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 09:03:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The EU pretends to be a post-Enlightenment project, and you insist on saying it's an ancien régime project.

Ironically, Chomsky examines these very narratives --"post-Enlightment" and "ancien régime"-- in Hegemony or Survival (of Yurp and the USA since, oh, 1900). I happen to be in my first reading of it at the moment.

Next is Dallek's Nixon and Kissinger. hehehe.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 08:44:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Santiago, please see the New User Guide for an explanation of ratings on ET.

Specifically:

Such ratings should never be used to indicate that you disagree with the comment.

Thank you.

by Sassafras on Mon Jul 20th, 2009 at 03:50:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't use it to mark disagreement with a comment.  I used it note that I consider the comment insulting and disruptive to my own honest participation in afew's dialogue.
by santiago on Mon Jul 20th, 2009 at 02:02:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
santiago:
It simply never occurred to me that anyone here is actually embarrassed by those episodes of European history, instead of animated by it.

hilarious...

charlemange sounds like a dog's skin infection.

oh, yes, animated is exactly the word one might use to describe reacting to the mercenary, bloodthirsty, creepily underhanded, morally reprehensible machinations of the vatican through european history.
'embarrassed' is very mild... may i suggest 'totally disgusted' as more appropriate?

very droll, you wag, you!

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do." Jim Hightower

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 01:56:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, and this

Is the EU really a break from history

...is called a strawman.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 06:45:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The European Council is not (until Lisbon is signed) an official part of the EU institutions and has no formal executive or legislative power. If the EU is a corporation, then basically the European Council represents the investors - the owners. And we know how that works out...

Tony Blair has some advantages to be titular head of the heads of 27 states: name recognition, spin experience, fully networked, and comes equipped with a team of heavies - among others. From the European Council internal management point of view, he's perfect, because he's a good salesman.

The problem is - and it is the very worst problem for all the citizens of Europe - that what he's selling is not a united, fair, democratic Europe. He sells power. Tony Blair is not interested in solutions, he's interested in how our problems can enrich him and his cronies. In that, he is no different from a majority of all politicians, ambulance-chasing lawyers or professional wrestlers. Tony Blair is the Hulk Hogan of international diplomacy.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 04:51:32 AM EST
outstanding summation, sven!

the main reason blair doesn't deserve the gig is that he is a mythomaniac.

his tenure as leader of the UK was a triumph of lies over honesty, spin over substance, phony charm over wisdom or reason, leaving the country way worse off than before, both economically and morally.

but his neocon murderousness was only the prelude to his current gig, being cloyingly unctuous and politically vapid, while raking in the shekels.

the ultimate example of a human zero, great talent and intelligence sold in a faustian deal with the devils of MIC and the City-bankster-mafia.

hell, special corner, etc...

but until then, the Hague will do fine.

there, that's not too ad hom, is it?

what Fran said, too!

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do." Jim Hightower

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 05:10:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have never been able to tell what is real and what is spin.

Ad astra per aspera
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 04:59:04 AM EST
The European Council needs a diplomat who can broker agreements among the 27 member states and who is committed both to European integration and to respect for the diversity among the member states.

Blair is a grandstanding self-promoter, and as PM he was an obstacle to deeper integration as well as promoting, like Sarkozy after him, rule by a petit comité of the few largest states member states.

Not to speak of his war criminal credentials.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 05:55:29 AM EST
Tony Blair split the EU at the first opportunity it had to present a united position on the world stage on any major foreign policy issue, because he wanted to have his own war. Tony Blair is a divider. Tony Blair is one of the main causes of the continued geopolitical irrelevance of the EU.

(he's also a liar, a crook, and eehm, a thief he may also be, just looking at his character)

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 05:56:09 AM EST
And a religious zealot, let's not forget.

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
by martingale on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 01:48:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The lesser reason for rejecting him is that as an avowed proponent of military interventionism, he is out of step with the vast majority of Europe's population (and the governments of several member states as well).

The greater reason of course is the audacious mendacity he displayed in leading Britain into the Iraq engagement in the full knowledge that the alleged causus belli was a complete crock.

To say that Blair simply lacks the principles necessary in a leadership role is perhaps dramatic; but I don't think it qualifies as hyperbole.

Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine - Patti Smith

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 07:14:59 AM EST
A President should surely uphold the rule of international law, not demand his legal experts invent spurious precedents out of thin air while having  neutral reports re-written to create a climate of support for driving a tank through the word and the spirit of said law.

Equally, having such a track record of law breaking and then lying about it to his own parliament isn't likely to inspire trust at european level. Especially when he himself has shown little enthusiasm for European political institutions when he was in a position to bolster them.

If politics is as much about the meaning of gestures as it is realpolitik, then placing a man like him at the heart of a project tells the world an awful lot of awful things about the priorities of european elites.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 08:09:33 AM EST
Tony Blair is, in my view, one of only two people who might have been able to stop the Iraq War.

Stop Blair.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 09:12:11 AM EST
Because the foundation that the entire European Union rests on is the notion that co-operation is far better and far more fruitful than conflict. With the Iraq debacle Blair chose the exact opposite of everything the EU should stand for; not only did he commit his country to a completely unnecessary military conflict in violation of international law with disastrous consequences, he chose to align himself with politically divisive elements that engaged in character assassinations, distortions and outright fabrications in order to manufacture justifications for war. He has through his actions shown himself to be woefully inadequate for any sort of role in European leadership.

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
by NordicStorm (michael<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 11:17:30 AM EST
tony toni blair is photogenic, charismatic, and trustworthy, which for a war criminal, is refreshing. His ability to rise above the prevarication so normal to the political class is refreshing. His ability to derive workable solutions to complex global problems without resorting to laser-guided technologies is refreshing. His ability to draw out reasoned compromises from adversarial positions, such as he accomplished as Mid-East whatever, is to be admired, and is refreshing.

That he was able to guide the City into becoming the global financial center now respected around the world shows his understanding of global economic issues, not to mention knowing upon which surface of the bread is to be buttered basically, and is refreshing.

tony toni's grasp of complex issues germane to the enflowerment of the European Union is second to, hold, phone's ringing... and is refreshing.

What's most compelling to this observer, hubristically, is the great power and depth of the man's faith.  For without faith, what politician could fathom Europe faithfully enough to a rebirth of faith which is so lacking in our faithless secular boardrooms and blogs. Fait accompli i always say anyway. Faith is by its very nature refreshing, much as in the way pixels on a screen continually renew themselves.

As tonito himself put it so faithfully, "No man is an island, nor a chameleon." How much more refreshing could Europe get?

(apologies to afew if this runs afoul of england's hyperbole laws, but i didn't have time to look it up.)

Skennah Kowa

by Crazy Horse on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 01:08:06 PM EST
A fundamental problem of the European Union is the (perceived) democratic deficit. The only lasting way to overcome this (perception) is through honest, open and substantial debate with the citizens of Europe about the policies of the European Union.

Appointing to a prominent EU position a man who possesses an inability (or a studied unwillingness) to tell a truthful story that is consistent from one day to the next is not going to help.

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 01:41:52 PM EST
I don't always appreciate Honor Mahony's journalism on EUObserver, but her blog post yesterday makes some good points:

Nominated too early? « Behind the Scenes

I cannot imagine that Tony Blair will get the job of EU president (a post created by the not-yet-ratified Lisbon Treaty).

He carries too much baggage. The Iraq war brought hundreds of thousands of Europeans to the streets in protest. It caused huge divisions among EU governments themselves, cleverly played upon by Washington at the time. To what good would it serve raking up this recent ugly past and then giving the (European) protagonist a major role in Europe?

And it will be a major role once a politician of Blair's calibre gets a hold of it.

The Lisbon treaty says the president should oversee the work of the regular EU leader meetings, but also externally represent the Union while not stepping on the toes of the EU foreign minister.  So there is plenty of room for manoeuvre.

If EU leaders give Blair the job it would be tantamount to saying they want an over-arching president who would represent member states to the world. This is not what small member states want and, for all his talk of "set[ting] the bar high and not aim[ing] for the lowest common denominator" I cannot see that this is what French president Nicolas Sarkozy, lover of the limelight, wants either.  Or London.

In addition, the Brussels apparatus is already acutely disconnected from EU citizens. Putting Blair, a supporter of a thoroughly unpopular war in the post, would only serve to underline this.

Perhaps EU leaders - most have changed since 2003 - will not pay too much attention to the Iraq war when and if it comes to the haggling of Lisbon Treaty posts.   The negotiations do not tend to be based on high principles.

But wheter or not Iraq would feature, I reckon London has done for his chances anyway. Giving Blair public backing so early in the game means his name is likely to get trampled down by opponents well before EU leaders get to formally discussing candidates for the post. A cunning ploy by Gordon Brown?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 04:05:24 PM EST
The Iraq war brought hundreds of thousands of Europeans to the streets in protest.

Hmm, a couple million in each of London, Madrid and Rome if I remember correctly.

But what is an order of magnitude updown or down among friends?

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 11:08:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It would be interesting to do a test of what people think is more impressive.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 10:41:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I can't name a single main reason. I can give a chain of reasons:

  1. The Council needs someone able to arbitrate between 27, soon 29 governments, for a compromise solution. In his time as political leader, both domestically and on the European stage, Tony showed his complete inability to seek coalitions and compromise, and instead sought to marginalise opponents and to strengthen top-down power. In his time as emissary and negotiator, Tony was a no-show.

  2. What the EU does not need is a President amassing even more power to the European Council he heads and himself. Thus, Tony's "brand recognition" and "international stature" and so on is the last thing we need in a President.

  3. Furthermore, the right place for Tony is the International Criminal Court. A top EU official represents the EU not only in the eyes of colleagues and Beltway people in the US, but the eyes of both EU citizens and citizens of the rest of the world; and we don't need a widely resented war criminal there.

  4. With his history of loyalty an insubordination to the US, to the extent of provoking a break within the EU, Tony can't be trusted to represent the interests of the EU, in any post (not just President of the EC; would they want to give the foreign affairs commissioner post or, heaven forbid, the President of the Commission post to him instead).

  5. Tony's history of blocking important EU legislation and closer integration is no recommendation for any EU post either.

  6. We don't need any more EU officials who are failed politicians domestically, either. Just see his record on the economy.


*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 01:52:33 PM EST
DoDo:
an insubordination

did you p'raps mean 'subordination'?

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do." Jim Hightower

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 08:14:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Heh, yes.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 02:38:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Jonathan Fryer: Blair should not be EU President (19th July, 2009)
According to a YouGov poll in the Sunday Times, only 28% of people interviewed thought it would be good for Britain if Tony Blair got the EU presidential job, whereas 54% believed that it would be mainly good for Tony Blair, not the country. John Rentoul, writing in the Independent on Sunday, is right to note that the polling question was pretty loaded. Nonetheless, from soundings I have been taking, the message is clear: most Britons do not want to see Tony Blair in the post. It's not just that they haven't forgiven him for Iraq. It's also because he seems to be collecting titles and positions and fat salaries and fees galore without achieving great results in any one field. I was always sceptical that he could deliver anything significant in the cause of Middle East peace, on behalf of the Quartet, or that he would be perceived as an impartial mediator there, but even I have been suprised just how invisible his impact has been in the region. Meanwhile, he has been raking in the millions with lecturing and publishing deals. Let him get on with that and keep him out of the EU presidency. Blair in that job would harm not just Britain's interests, but the interests of the whole EU.
Fryer was the Liberal Democrats' #2 candidate on the list for the London Region. He came very close to gaining an EP seat in the 2004 election.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 09:47:49 AM EST
OpEdNews » Tony Blair for EU President? No, Thanks!
What the European Union needs is a truly pro-Unionist new President who has the credentials to contribute effectively to the proper function of the Treaty of Lisbon. That person is definitely not Tony Blair.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 03:19:52 PM EST
As the Lisbon treaty includes basic human rights at the EU level as one its good news, it would be good if the president of the more powerful legislative chamber has shown respect for such rights in his or her previous legislative work. And Blair has not.

Examples are plentiful, the Terrorism Act of 2006 is one of the more famous.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Mon Jul 20th, 2009 at 05:49:59 AM EST
The most tragic thing about Tony Blair is that one of the first things he did when he came into power is have the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)
An Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights; to make provision with respect to holders of certain judicial offices who become judges of the European Court of Human Rights; and for connected purposes.

[9th November 1998]

Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:--

He and his party then spent the better part of the next 10 years undermining it. Specifically, he lobbied strongly to prevent the European Union's bill of right from baing included in the normative part of the Lisbon Treaty.

He has no principles.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jul 20th, 2009 at 05:58:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A puppet of Murdoch, financial elites and a neocon the "president" of EU?
by kjr63 on Mon Jul 20th, 2009 at 09:24:31 AM EST
FT.com / Columnists / Wolfgang Munchau - Blair and Barroso: Europe's team from hell

the combination of Mr Blair and Mr Barroso in the EU's top two positions would be extraordinary. First, they both actively supported the invasion of Iraq, as did Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former Danish prime minister who is about to take over as secretary-general of Nato. To say that this combination of European leaders does not truly reflect the diversity of European opinion would be an understatement.

Second - and for me this is a more important argument - Mr Blair is not the kind of politician who can act as a counterbalance to Mr Barroso, who has been unable to fill the EU's leadership vacuum. Mr Blair, for all his political qualities and purportedly pro-European views, has never been a comfortable operator on the EU stage. The European Council, the grouping of 27 heads of state and government, is a hugely complex political construction that a Metternich or a Talleyrand would struggle to deal with. Mr Blair is not a politician who relishes the nitty-gritty of technical disputes in areas such as fishing quotas.

Nor is he a man who could be relied upon to provide leadership during a European crisis. On a normal day, the council is a well-oiled machine that can run even without politicians. But not so during a big crisis. I wonder what Mr Blair would have done had he been in charge last autumn, when the global financial crisis erupted? In the absence of leadership from the European Commission, the turmoil brought out the worst in European leaders as they withdrew into national, unco-ordinated and often inconsistent policy responses, causing damage to the single European market in the process. This is exactly the situation in which you could expect a politically astute council president to make a difference. Would Mr Blair have really stood up against the eruption of nationalism or would he have accentuated the divisions?

Mr Blair's undisputed communication skills and his political star qualities are no doubt an asset, but the EU's leadership problem is not primarily one of communication or perception. It is for real. You need someone in that job willing and capable of banging heads together. Surely, this is not Mr Blair. Who else might fit the bill among Europe's former centre-left prime ministers? I have heard that Paavo Lipponen, the former prime minister of Finland, has been approached by some of his political friends. He could be a better choice.

Third, the job of council president might be very different from what Mr Blair imagines it to be. It does not currently exist. The Lisbon treaty does not define the role in detail. It will depend greatly on what the successful candidate makes of it. Foreign policy is not an explicit part of the brief: that will be the responsibility of a yet-to-be-appointed High Representative. So if and when someone outside Europe searches for that telephone number, it is not at all clear that it will be Mr Blair's.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jul 20th, 2009 at 10:27:23 AM EST
On a normal day, the council is a well-oiled machine that can run even without politicians.

Heh, even Mr. Münchau is not clear about the separation of the Council of the EU and the European Council.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Mon Jul 20th, 2009 at 12:43:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
  1.  His policies have FAIL stamped all over them.

  2.  He is, at best, a weak supporter of the EU 'project.'

  3.  He has never taken a political risk to support the EU.

  4.  His public statements places him outside the EU 'consensus.'


No one could have predicted
by ATinNM on Sun Aug 16th, 2009 at 10:46:24 AM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]