Migeru:

this was clearly the gut reaction. Then it has been rationalised in all ways

That is entirely your interpretation.

I guess both Colman and I are in the minority here. But I'll add I didn't like this one bit.

Migeru:

Whenever I have spoken for the Stop Blair! campaign I was careful to stress that it was not an anti-British campaign but an anti-Blair campaign. Maybe I was wrong.

Jerome a Paris:

You were not wrong (none / 0) It was an anti-Blair campaign, and not an anti-Brit campaign.

But what do you think of the large scale campaign mounted by Britain to get one of the two jobs, and do you think that it's amongst the first countries we should look to for a candidate for these EU-wide jobs? Why did the "no one from the big countries" somehow did not apply to the UK?

And can you not admit that for some people, it was also legitimately about him being a anti-EU Brit, even if we agreed to downplay this?

Actually, I didn't like to see the amount of generic anti-British (not anti-Blair) animosity among the Stop Blair! signatories' comments. We basically got 20 thousand Eurosceptic little Englanders who hated Blair more than the EU, and 20 thousand anti-Brit people. It was not fun to read. As I put it,

It's not that he was an anti-EU Brit. It's that being a Brit he proved he was anti-EU by failing to make the case for the EU to his fellow citizens when he enjoyed an immense amount of political capital.

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

"As for the others, they are based on Ashton as an official representative of the United Kingdom in the EU. Not on her Britishness as a person."

Absolutely! I am a Frenchman who moved to the UK when it would be clear that I would not be getting any better career prospects from the move (quite the contrary in fact) and am about to go to the pub to meet a bunch of friends who, when I met them, had the reaction that I seemed British to them. I'll spend Christmas in Cheddar. I was, before moving to London, and ICC qualified cricket umpire. I have read more words in English than French since I turned 14. There is nothing in me against Brits per se -and I'm sure it's the same with the other people being quoted.

Maybe some signatures in the Stop Blair campaign came from people who genuinely hate the Brits (I'd guess it's actually directed more against the English btw), but we are not responsible for them.

Symbols and context do matter in politics. The campaign by the UK to have at all cost one of the two positions was ungainly. And as for the symbol, I may quote myself:

"For those who claim that this is being anti-Brit on sight, how do you think the UK would have reacted to seeing the command of operations in Irak given to a French general? Even a competent one mind you. Then, add to that that France would have demanded it be given the position."

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

It's okay, Jérôme himself said clearly it is legitimate to be anti-Brit even if you agree to downplay it. I'm clearly out of line here.

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

The only personalised anti-Brit comments I have seen have been Vladimir's on Ashton's appearance - a poor attempt at a joke - and Migs' comment on Blair's teeth.  All other comments have been couched in terms of "why allocate one of the top posts to a nominee from the UK given their history of opposing the European Project" or queries as to whether Ashton's lack of high level electoral, foreign policy, or indeed European experience qualified her for the job when there seemed to be other more qualified candidates or potential candidates around.

As Jerome has stated, the brief was to find a female, at least nominally left wing candidate to complement the appointment of Van Rompuy and two other centre right men to key European posts.  In the end she had to be British as well to get Brown to ditch Blair.

To criticise her appointment or query her qualifications is not to be sexist, extreme leftwing, or anti- British.  It is to query why the price of not appointing Blair had to be the appointment of another British candidate (there are 25 other member states in the EU all with legitimate claims to push their nominees).  

If she turns out to be a nuLabour Atlanticist are we to be labelled anti-Brit, sexist, extreme socialists for criticising her?  If she turns out to be not very good at developing and projecting a coherent EU foreign policy around the world or achieving public support for same, are we to be debarred from pointing out that well, actually, she never had senior prior foreign policy experience, never did more than inherit an already well developed trade negotiating brief, and never led a public election campaign to achieve popular endorsement for any particular policy agenda?

Is it not elitist and contemptuous of democratic politics and absurdly racist to discount the claims of 25 other member states to the post on the grounds that it has to be a Brit who is not particularly well qualified for the post and who has never seen fit to seek a popular mandate for anything?  This is politics we are talking about here, not administration, and ultimately what the citizens of Europe think and feel and believe and perceive IS important even if some intellectuals want to tell them they are all ignorant and wrong and have no right to disagree with their expert analysis.

notes from no w here