Charles Clarke: Don't give Tony Blair the post of EU President
His presence would revive past battles rather than inspire a fresh approach
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Once the Czech President comes to his senses the Treaty of Lisbon will finally be enacted. At that point the European Union must move fast to ensure that Europe is a far more effective and powerful voice in world affairs. It will not be easy but it will happen.
Meanwhile, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy are strengthening their alliance and there are reports that President Obama intends to convene an economic "G4", including the "eurozone" but excluding Britain. For the first time in decades the UK now faces a serious risk of moving towards the margins of European politics.
So at this time it is vital that the British Government has a more effective strategy to bolster our role in the EU than currently seems to be there. At the moment attention is focusing on three European appointments – the "President of the European Union", the "High Representative" (or European Foreign Secretary) and the new British Commissioner.
The only realistic British contender for President is Tony Blair, and it is not surprising that many people across Europe support him because of his qualities of leadership and communication. However, his appointment would not be best either for the EU or for the UK.
More than anything, the EU needs a President who will fashion common European positions on vital issues such as future enlargement, climate change, economic regulation and joint approaches to controlling migration and fighting organised crime.
Though some describe these difficult political tasks as "bureaucratic", the truth is that "crowd-stopping" international representation will achieve little unless the EU is coherent and united in these and other policy areas. Blair's great strengths are not what the EU most needs from this new Presidential office.
The UK's relationship with the EU is more shaky than for many years. Its decisions not to participate in the euro and the Schengen zone have taken us away from the centre of discussions on the economy, migration and international crime. Our pre-occupation with British "red lines" against perceived European "threats" sends the dominating signal that we hardly want to be involved at all. Meanwhile, the Conservatives' visceral opposition to everything European is given increased influence by the widespread expectation that they will form the next government.
The UK desperately needs to rebuild and repair its relationships with the EU. This means a commitment to a fresh start, not least in the minds of the British people. Blair's Presidency of the EU would make this more difficult to achieve. His presence would encourage the rerunning of past battles rather than enabling a new approach to be fashioned.
Whatever the merits or otherwise of this assessment, it remains very doubtful that Tony Blair will command the support he needs to secure this appointment and the UK should certainly not be putting all its eggs in the basket of winning the Presidency.
The EU's High Representative is less in the limelight but will be a role of great significance. It is well-suited to the UK, with its strong internationalist stance on matters from aid and trade to military commitment and expertise. A British contribution here would make the EU a weightier player in world affairs.
It seems that there is currently no front-runner for this role from other countries, whereas a number of Brits are well-respected internationally. They include Tony Blair (for whom this role would be far better suited), Peter Mandelson, David Miliband, George Robertson and Paddy Ashdown. Any of these would do the job very well, benefiting both Europe and the UK.
It would be a great failure if the UK secures neither the Presidency nor the High Representative role and it would then be essential for our national interest that the British Commissioner has a front-line portfolio. However, our absence from the eurozone and Schengen areas makes it difficult for us to secure economic or home affairs portfolios, other than trade. The continuing economic crisis reinforces the difficulties.
Moreover the appointment is complicated by the reported preference of the newly confirmed Commission President José Manuel Barroso that the UK continues to nominate a woman, for reasons of overall gender balance.
With the exception of Cathy Ashton, who has done a good job in the brief period that she has served as Commissioner, few names are being publicly discussed and there is little clarity about the portfolios the British Commissioner might expect.
The best strategy for the UK at this time is to abandon the campaign for a British President, to commit strongly to securing the post of High Representative, with one of the many possible strong UK candidates, and to specify the Commission portfolios we would seek.
The author is MP for Norwich South and was Home Secretary, 2004-06
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
... doesn't mean that Tony Blair didn't take every opportunity to betray this country for his own personal gain.
... doesn't mean that our evil ex.P.M. should become the puppet president of Europe continuing to serve only the corrupt rich.
On what possible basis can you make that statement?
An if Brown truly supports Blair for this post, then he (Brown) deserves all the bad press he has been receiving.
Is sanity nowhere to be found?
Sadly not truth_ will -out The inmates have taken over.
Have to agree also with many of the comments from ancientoneuk. I too think that the only half decent MP left standing is Charles Clarke, which is why he is out in the cold, this squalid, bent regime has no time for people who some times tell it like it is, with out the high revolution spin.
The Reid revelations are very interesting, the ex-political brawler " dark and sinister, and inherently nasty ", but surely, this applies to just about the entire cabinet, past, present, and probably future- if the electorate suffer som form of collective madness and re-elects the worst government ever inflicted on the UK -, just look at them, Blears, Becket, Balls, for starters.
As for Straw, words fail really, it turns my stomach every time I see him. Etched for ever on my mind is the image of him , with a broad grin, shaking hands with Mugabe, who had an even bigger grin on his face, and had not bothered even, to get out of his chair. At the time, I put this down to Straw not having his glasses on, and could not see what he was doing
Clarke may have had his moments but it did appear that he had a decent streak in there somewhere and he did battle against Blair and Brown on core issues which led to his demise, his worst sin was that of incoherence and incompetence, two things that helped delay ID cards and the NIR at least and it was said that he also sabotaged Blair's velvet coup in disrupting the LLRB which would have devolved all parliamentary power into Blair's hands and removed oversight from every aspect of British government.
Reid I surmise is a much nastier piece of work, notwithstanding Craig Murray's revelations of Reids time as a Communist party enforcer at universities and breaking arms and legs of students who dissented, there was something of the Machiavelli about Reid, something dark and sinister and inherently nasty that we can thank our stars that he is now out there in the wilderness at least.
Straw is a toad of the worst order, he exhibits a calm corruptness as well that seems to little bother Straw if called on it, he represents a large community of people that he has in the past supported the massacre of their brethren and gets away with it.
Having hijacked and used the Labour Party as a vehicle for his own person aggrandisement, he exited stage right, leaving Labour shattered.
No wonder the Tories joined the remaining NuLabour toadies in giving him a standing ovation. He did a better job of annihilating the Labour Party than the Tories could have hoped to accomplish.
Other than a guarantee of simpering and posturing to the press, what does Blair bring to the EU?
He steered clear of joining the euro, kept us out of Shengen, and generally danced to the Murdoch euro tune.
Quite apart from his lying to Parliament, the country and the world (and himself) in order to justify an illegal war, do we need an American puppet at the head of the EU?
Can this be the same EU who were insulted by him in 2003 when they refused to believe his fantasies about 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'?
Didn't they learn then what kind of person he is?
Fool the EU once, Mr. Blair, shame on you. Fool the EU twice.. shame on the EU
To help stop Tony Blair becoming EU president:
1. Sign the following petition: http://www.stopblair.eu/
2. Contact your MP and MEPs to enlist their support against him, via: http://www.writetothem.com/
3. Contact your friends by e-mail and ask them to do the same.
Thankfully with Brown backing him for European President, he's screwed.
Charles Clarke and the rest of his NuLaba cronies will soon be 'deleted from the pages of history' (to borrow a quote from the wdely misquoted Amadinejad). Whilst the centrist tories will undoubtedly pick up where the devil's spawn left off, they do at least offer some hope of not worsening the death-grip the political abortion that is the EU has on our British Sovereign Democracy by taking a a stance more inline with the people who will most likely elect them.
The EU shows how ruling elites seek to take away power from the people and concentrate it in their own hands. The EU Parliament is a fig leaf to hide the democratic deficit - all the decisions are made behind closed doors by unelected commissioners and prime ministers/presidents of EU countries without reference to their Parliaments and parliamentary majorities of placemen ram through EU legisaltion without scrutiny or understanding of long term consequences. The parallel with the Greek and Roman republics which ended swallowed up by empires run by unelected oligarchies is instructive.
Charles Clarke is a failed politician: none of his advice is worth a candle as it is not based on principle but expediency. The most prosperous countries in Europe are Norway and Switzerland, both outside the EU... draw your own conclusions.
Another big difference between us and certainly Norway - a country I have visited many times- is that Norway did not flog off all its fuel supplies, as Thatcher did with ours, and where did all that money go ? The impression I always get, is that the Norwegian government is run by people who have the best interests of its people at heart, not personal gain, as seems to be the case here, regardless of who is in power.
Of Switzerland I know rather less , having only been there once, but I do know they are struggling with their hydro-electric systems owing to diminishing quantities of snow.
I agree with you about the lack of integrity, what happened to the referendum on Europe for instance we were promised in the election manifesto ?
Wrong!
The EU needs to rebuild and repair its relationship with the UK.
The Leaders of the EUSSR Politburo conspired with the British Government to deny the British electorate a say in the future direction of the EU. Until that democratic deficit is corrected, the relationship is irretreviably damaged.
Oh go on!! I want a matched set - Tweedledum & Tweedledee, Blair I EU President, and Blair II (David Cameron) PM. What a bitch-fight that will be... and both as phoney as each other, with policies to match.
So what's the problem with that, Mr. Clarke? Switzerland and Norway seem to be doing just fine, don't they, without being in the EU.
http://gilly788.livejournal.com/1042.ht