Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
You say, on balance, a No.

I say, on every single account, a big big NO!

I admire Frank's boldness to play contrarian, but what do you and he mean by Bliar's stature? That some Very Important Men think he is a Very Important Man? That just cuts to the core of Bliar's shallow mind, something that alone would make him unfit for any leadership post.

I should add that this 'stature' of Bliar in large owes to the fact that politicians in the rest of Europe don't think about the British political system, and are impressed by repeated wins with large parliamentary majorities -- that just wouldn't happen in their own systems. (Schröder lost in 2005 with barely less votes than Bliar won the same year...)

And what about the opinion of EUropeans (not to mention non-EUropeans!...) other than Very Important People?

FT.com / In depth - EU citizens want referendum on treaty

Tony Blair, the British prime minister, is also regarded by many Europeans as the wrong person to be EU president, if the job were created. Italy (27 per cent) was most supportive of Mr Blair as a possible candidate but only 16 per cent of French backed him - a disappointment to President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has proposed his candidacy to other European leaders.

I also note that Bliar wants the post himself, it's not like it's pushed on him, and the idea is not new.

Even apart from stature, Bliar would not promote Europe's best interests. He would push the Anglo Disease upon us instead.

Schröder may have sold himself to GAZPROM, but Bliar sold himself to Murdoch, Berlusconi, JP Morgan, dozens of campaign contributors, not to mention all acting US Governments. Which reminds me, the EU should cut itself independent from the US, because an alliance with it in its current state is not only a practical and moral bad decision, but no alliance really: more vassaldom. For Europe to have credibility with the rest of the world, it must act on its own.

Juncker may not be well-known to you, but I at least know him, he plays an important role at EU summits for years, and he is better suited than Bliar in every respect. If you want someone else better known, there is still former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer.

The Euro and Schengen are, on one hand, meant to eventually include all countries, on the other hand, both already involve the wide majority of the EU's population (and the absolute majority of EU member countries). Even most of those still outside weant in (new ex-East-Bloc members who aren't yet it), what's more, we could soon see a second Danish Euro referendum resulting in a Yes vote.

I most vigorously deny that Bliar can build consensus. What Bliar can do is build up a power base, and then run roughshod over opposition, to showe down things people's throats when he has a government bureaucracy and a propaganda war machine at hand. He has no clue how to get something done when he is not in control. That marks his entire history in the EU, trying to build power blocks which then always falter on just as determined opposition. He is NOT a clever strategist, NOT an excellent tactician, and most certainly NOT a political maverick.

Re Iraq, he not only has a disastrous legacy and a bad image, but he is a war criminal who would belong to Hague, not Brussels. Now would that be a way to build European credibility with people in the rest of the world...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 05:09:16 PM EST
Now that would be a smart choice - establishmenty enough to be palatable to the Serious People, but with good ideas in in his (at least past) mind...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 at 11:24:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
DoDo, What an opinion! Whoa! At first reading, one might be tempted to say, full of bias and lacks reasoning and fact that one cannot expect a reasoned debate but I understand your feelings against Tony Blair as I am wont to say the same things about both the man and the politician ... But allow me this bit of devil advocating: The fact that you know him so well proves it. You may not like him but does possess the stature. (So did Hitler.) You and I and many others here dislike him and even despise Blair but it IS a fact that many Europeans admire the British political system as do many others around the world, hence his stature. No one will get there who does not want it and doesn't campaign to get it. And Blair did that (Look at the US presidential campaigns -- how hard and low the candidates go to get "there" .) Re:" I also note that Bliar wants the post himself, it's not like it's pushed on him, and the idea is not new." There's no disagreement there. Hard to believe that he didn't tinker with the idea of prolonging his political life by way of the EU even before he moved out of Downing street. On your fear that Bliar would not promote Europe's best interests. There is indeed that risk... or that he would play the passive role when it comes to promoting Europe's best interests. But I have no doubt that whoever becomes permanent president will be forced by the Member States to push the will of the Member States - I don't think that any single nation or person, let alone Blair will bully or be allowed to bully the other 27. Re selling out: Blair took a salary from various companies after leaving office. Schroder signed a multi-billion dollar deal with GAZPROM while he was chancellor which cut across a European energy policy and then revealed his directorship days after he left office. Not the same thing! The Euro is a wild and runaway success. In time most member states will probably join. Not really an issue as far as this goes. Quite happy to see a Dane or an Irishman in the post - And going back to Frank S's suggestion, what about Bertie Ahern? On the whole, much as I regret it, because I do not admire or trust Blair as a person, I maintain that he is a brilliant strategist, tactician and politician. It is exactly those qualities that allowed someone WHO IS A RIGHT WING at heart to lead the UK left wing party for 10 years. That he leaves a disastrous legacy on many fronts is a given and for that we are on the same wavelength -- a big NO to his candidature.
by The3rdColumn on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 06:48:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What happened? My whole post became a cacophony of letters!
by The3rdColumn on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 06:49:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Is your comment formatting option set to "auto format" or "html formatted"? If the latter, you'd lose any line breaks.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 06:54:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks Migeru... Did just that and it worked like a charm.
by The3rdColumn on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 06:58:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
(OK, let me make that a bit more readable...)

DoDo,

What an opinion! Whoa! At first reading, one might be tempted to say, full of bias and lacks reasoning or that one cannot expect a reasoned debate but I understand your feelings against Tony Blair as I am wont to say the same things about both the man and the politician ...

But allow me this bit of devil advocating: The fact that you know him so well proves it. You may not like him but does possess the stature. (So did Hitler.) You and I and many others here dislike him and even despise Blair but it IS a fact that many Europeans admire the British political system as do many others around the world, hence his stature. No one will get there who does not want it and doesn't campaign to get it. And Blair did that (Look at the US presidential campaigns -- how hard and low the candidates go to get "there" .)

Re:" I also note that Bliar wants the post himself, it's not like it's pushed on him, and the idea is not new." There's no disagreement there. Hard to believe that he didn't tinker with the idea of prolonging his political life by way of the EU even before he moved out of Downing street.

On your fear that "Bliar would not promote Europe's best interests." There is indeed that risk... or that he would play the passive role when it comes to promoting Europe's best interests. But I have no doubt that whoever becomes permanent president will be forced by the Member States to push the will of the Member States - I don't think that any single nation or person, let alone Blair will bully or be allowed to bully the other 27.

Re: "I also note that Bliar wants the post himself, it's not like it's pushed on him, and the idea is not new." There's no disagreement there. Hard to believe that he didn't tinker with the idea of prolonging his political life by way of the EU even before he moved out of Downing street.

The Euro is a wild and runaway success. In time most member states will probably join. Not really an issue as far as this goes. Quite happy to see a Dane or an Irishman in the post - And going back to Frank S's suggestion, what about Bertie Ahern?

On the whole, much as I regret it, because I do not admire or trust Blair as a person, I maintain that he is a brilliant strategist, tactician and politician. It is exactly those qualities that allowed someone WHO IS A RIGHT WING at heart to lead the UK left wing party for 10 years. That he leaves a disastrous legacy on many fronts is a given and for that we are on the same wavelength -- a big NO to his candidature.

by The3rdColumn on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 06:55:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Repost it as a direct reply to DoDo and I'll hide the rest.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 06:59:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Dodo,

(Missed out this one during the cut and paste:)

Re selling out: Blair took a salary from various companies after leaving office. Schroder signed a multi-billion dollar deal with GAZPROM while he was chancellor which cut across a European energy policy and then revealed his directorship days after he left office.

by The3rdColumn on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 08:14:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
DoDo,

One last thing: Re "Which reminds me, the EU should cut itself independent from the US, because an alliance with it in its current state is not only a practical and moral bad decision, but no alliance really: more vassaldom. "

Aren't you missing the key point?

This is the last thing any wants to happen. All very well to want to cut the EU loose for the US but like it or not the US is the biggest economy in the world and the motor for innovation and growth. We may not like some things about them, but cutting ourselves off would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. They are our biggest and strongest ally. Any national leader worth his salt in the EU will recognize this fact.

by The3rdColumn on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 08:30:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the US is the biggest economy in the world and the motor for innovation and growth

That's the propaganda line. In actuality, the EU is now a bigger economy, it is a motor for innovation, international comparisons of growth suffer from several apples-and-oranges problems thematised on ET in the past (hedonic pricing, different accounting, totals vs. per capita), and has been fuelled by the unsustainable financial bubble-boosting which Jérôme calls Anglo Disease. (That, in effect, is a tax on the economies of the rest of the world, too.) At any rate, I don't see how the size of the economy can be a rationale for alliance or vassaldom. We don't need to be allied to or be vassals to China, either.

They are our biggest and strongest ally.

Ally in what? I just don't understand what benefits you see in vassaldom to the USA, nor those national leaders. (We asked Atlanticists on ET before, but never got a real answer.) And for the record, being idependent doesn't mean cutting off. We aren't cut off from China, Japan, Russia or Australia, either.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 12:10:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Admittedly with the faltering US economy, the EU is now a bigger economy but that doesn't alter the fact that the US is the motor for innovation and growth -- you only have to look around you: America sneezed, the world caught cold, Black Monday, Black Tuesday, etc. Who speaks of "vassaldom to the USA,"? If you translates being ally into "vassaldom", we have a problem... suggest consult dictionary. Being an ally doesnt entail dependence.
by The3rdColumn on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 12:56:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the US is the motor for innovation and growth

Please substantiate.

you only have to look around you

I don't see many US products. From mobile phones through efficient electric and car motors, vehicles, kitchen appliances, power plants, etc., I see products of European innovation.

Who speaks of "vassaldom to the USA,"?

For example, Brzezinski:

"To put it in a terminology that harkens back to a more brutal age of ancient empires," he writes, "the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together."

But in what sense do you think European countries' relationship with the US is NOT vassaldom? When has the US bent to more than symbolic European demands in NATO, as opposed to the other way around? I ask again, what benefit does Europe draw from an 'alliance'?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 01:08:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No. Schröder didn't sign any agreement, he was only present along with Putin when Russian company Gazprom and German companies E.on and BASF signed the multi-billion deal, (what Schröder's government did was giving an easy loan of 1 billio to Gazprom), and Schröder got a directorship after he left office, just like Bliar at JP Morgan.  How it cuts across EUropean energy policy, I don't know (especially with Schröder's Christian Democrat successors also favoring the pipeline deal -- and the loan too); but you better debate that with Jérôme.

I also note that Schröder would have got €0.25 million annually, Bliar gets $5 million. And most of the other scandals mentioned happened during Bliar's PM-ship.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 11:56:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You may not like him but does possess the stature. (So did Hitler.)

That you consider advocacy?

it IS a fact that many Europeans admire the British political system

What do you mean? I don't get your point. We spoke about Bliar. I showed a poll showing that Europeans admiring Bliar are at most a fourth of them. I brought up the British politican system as something people do not understand/know, not to speak of admiring: many people have no clue that Britain has a proportional election system, one that to boot is currently skewed towards Labour in its precint distribution.

No one will get there who does not want it

That wasn't in dispute. But from your diary, it appeared to me that this whole Bliar for President thing is new for you, and you think it's Sarko's idea. In fact, his intentions are known at least since his failed push for an EU Directorium made up of the biggest EU member states.

what about Bertie Ahern?

Same as with Barroso: getting into the EU just after failing at home. (Barroso's legacy as PM of Portugal was a reform programme that failed to repair the budget, and fudged reports of budget deficit towards the EU. I leave Ahern's list of bad moves to Colman and Frank.)

I have no doubt that whoever becomes permanent president will be forced by the Member States to push the will of the Member States

Doing some things reluctantly against one's own will is quite different from actively pursuing the right policies. (What's more, even from an EU Council President, I'd expect the pursuit of pan-European interests, rather than the vbarious governments' interests.)

It is exactly those qualities that allowed someone WHO IS A RIGHT WING at heart to lead the UK left wing party for 10 years.

You give too much credit to a single man -- and underestimate the power putential of stupid people. But that's not really the issue. My point was that Bliar built/inherited a power base within the Labour leadership (and the British government bureaucracy) that he could use to crush weak opposition, in the form of the parliamentary whip, the top-down selection of MP candidates, media campaigns. But meanwhile, he just didn't dare to take on some more difficult opponents, and almost all his dealings with significant independent power bases ended in dismal failure -- be it his attempts to get Dubya do something on climate change, Africa or the I/P conflict, or his attempts at EU structural reform. Thus he does not have the strategic, tactical and political brilliance to correctly deal with acting heads of states in the EU Council.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 12:32:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
DoDo, Stretching things a bit too far there... I don't believe there's a mention of stature as advocacy. Citing Hitler's stature on the same footing is a recognition that Blair's stature simply is just that -- stature, if you like name recognition, name recall, etc., If you remember, I delved in Blair's qualifications and stature is one of them just as I delved in his 'non-qualifications'. You may be twisting and stretching my arguments according to your feelings, i.e., hatred for Blair but I must repeat, I am not advocating for Blair becoming president of EU. Read post again. Re: "But from your diary, it appeared to me that this whole Bliar for President thing is new for you, and you think it's Sarko's idea." Looks like you're confused by the overall tenor of the following line in my post intro: "After all the idea of a Blair EU presidency had been vaguely dangled to him even before he moved out 10 Downing Street." Goes to show that while I haven't actually been tracking every step of Blair, I knew that Blair for president had been in the works. Re: "(What's more, even from an EU Council President, I'd expect the pursuit of pan-European interests, rather than the vbarious governments' interests.)" Agree! That would be pretty much in my concluding message. Re: "You give too much credit to a single man -- and underestimate the power putential of stupid people." "Giving credit" to a single man who led Labour and was UK PM for 10 years? But where's the problem? It IS a fact. Everything you said about Blair smacks of truth -- not disputing those, but you gotta admit the fact is to "give" Blair "credit" for, if you like, having conned the UK for 10 years can't be off the mark at all. At the end of the day, who should deserve that "credit"? Sure there's the entire Labour machinery but we are talking of Blair here and it's a question of who was head of Labour and PM for 10 years? Blair! Couldn't be Cherrie now, could it? DoDo, if you believe I have not been very adversarial vis a vis Blair in my post, not much I can do there -- but you are doing a good job of it so why complain? I'll let you in on a secret: During Blair's PMship, I was rabidly anti-Blair (and still am) and wanted him out of the way as my numerous posts in the weblogs of Charles Bremner's, Michael Smith's in The Times will show (as well as in my own blog)... that doesn't mean I've lost sight of him, proof is right here! I wrote a post on the risk that Blair is getting a second life right here in ET and advocating for a no vote. Got you going too and that's a victory! (Heh!) The bottom line here is that I'm in agreement with most of what you say and that my no vote is here to stay. I'm not in the mood for splitting hairs and so would rather leave things, however if you really want to rant on, be my guest but I suggest you focus on Blair.
by The3rdColumn on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 01:40:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't believe it -- there's my post going cacophonious again... I'll re-post it:

DoDo, Stretching things a bit too far there... I don't believe there's a mention of stature as advocacy. Citing Hitler's stature on the same footing is a recognition that Blair's stature simply is just that -- stature, if you like name recognition, name recall, etc.,

If you remember, I delved in Blair's qualifications and stature is one of them just as I delved in his 'non-qualifications'. You may be twisting and stretching my arguments according to your feelings, i.e., hatred for Blair but I must repeat, I am not advocating for Blair becoming president of EU. Read post again.

Re: "But from your diary, it appeared to me that this whole Bliar for President thing is new for you, and you think it's Sarko's idea."

Looks like you're confused by the overall tenor of the following line in my post intro: "After all the idea of a Blair EU presidency had been vaguely dangled to him even before he moved out 10 Downing Street."

Goes to show that while I haven't actually been tracking every step of Blair, I knew that Blair for president had been in the works.

Re: "(What's more, even from an EU Council President, I'd expect the pursuit of pan-European interests, rather than the vbarious governments' interests.)" Agree! That would be pretty much in my concluding message.

Re: "You give too much credit to a single man -- and underestimate the power putential of stupid people."

"Giving credit" to a single man who led Labour and was UK PM for 10 years? But where's the problem? It IS a fact. Everything you said about Blair smacks of truth -- not disputing those, but you gotta admit the fact is to "give" Blair "credit" for, if you like, having conned the UK for 10 years can't be off the mark at all.

At the end of the day, who should deserve that "credit"? Sure there's the entire Labour machinery but we are talking of Blair here and it's a question of who was head of Labour and PM for 10 years? Blair! Couldn't be Cherrie now, could it?

DoDo, if you believe I have not been very adversarial vis a vis Blair in my post, not much I can do there -- but you are doing a good job of it so why complain?

I'll let you in on a secret: During Blair's PMship, I was rabidly anti-Blair (and still am) and wanted him out of the way as my numerous posts in the weblogs of Charles Bremner's, Michael Smith's in The Times will show (as well as in my own blog)... that doesn't mean I've completely lost sight of him, proof is right here! I wrote a post on the risk that Blair is getting a second life right here in ET and advocating for a NO vote.

Got you going too and that's a victory! (Heh!)

The bottom line here is that I'm in agreement with most of what you say and that my no vote is here to stay.

I'm not in the mood for splitting hairs and so would rather leave things, however if you really want to rant on, be my guest but I suggest you focus on Blair.

by The3rdColumn on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 01:44:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The fact that you know him so well proves it.

I know a lot of politicians rather well. Though it is true that I consider Bliar an extra-sized disaster.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 12:35:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series