Steve Richards: Blair is the only man for this job
As PM he never tired of Europe even if his pragmatism led him towards Washington
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Tony Blair's bid to be president of the European Council is one of those glorious stories that touch every highly charged emotion in British politics. The glory is heightened by the fact that each layer of the drama is misunderstood, from the suitability of Blair's qualifications to the likely reaction of Gordon Brown to facing "President Blair".
Those who argue passionately that Blair is disqualified for the post do so on the basis of a selective take on his performance as prime minister. This is the equivalent of deciding that Alex Ferguson would not be a good manager of a football club because of his record as a player in certain key matches. When Blair was prime minister he acted in the way he did because he was obsessed with winning elections, not an ignoble obsession for a party leader, although the objective led him to become a figure of theatrical caution rather than a challenger of orthodoxy.
For reasons of extreme insecurity and inexperience rather than overwhelming arrogance he took the basic view that the only way Labour could win in conservative England was to act conservatively. Having made a judgement for tactical reasons, he came to believe in the policies that arose from it with a conveniently principled passion that bordered on the sincere. Such a sequence will not apply if he gets the presidency. He will not be standing for election in conservative England. On the contrary he will be speaking for an army of leaders who will have won elections on their own.
The sequence of expedient judgement and subsequent conviction applied in Blair's attitude to Iraq, the main reason why critics claim he is disqualified for the new job. As a Labour leader haunted by his party's election defeats in the 1980s when it was perceived as "soft" on defence and anti-American, Blair chose to be the strongest ally of President Bush. His sincerity about the need to go to war followed that defensive pragmatic judgement. It led him to a series of traps from which he has not escaped, as the furore over his presidential aspirations demonstrate.
Like this newspaper, I was opposed to the war from the outset in contrast to a lot of the more strident critics now who were praising Blair for his boldness at the time. They could not have been more wrong then. Blair was being weak in taking what he regarded as the least risky course in the build up to Iraq. But all of this has no relevance in relation to the job of president.
That is partly because France and Germany did not stop the war in spite of their opposition. Chirac and Schroeder were impotent opponents. If Blair had joined them it would have made no difference. He would have been an important opponent too. Bush was determined to invade Iraq and would have done so if Britain had signed up with Germany and France.
If there had been a president of Europe then, and Blair had been the occupant, he would not have been able to support the conflict and would probably have not been inclined to do so. His role would have been to speak for a divided EU and his calculations would have been totally different from those that drove him timidly into the arms of President Bush as a Labour prime minister fearful of losing the support of Middle England and Rupert Murdoch's newspapers.
The only relevant questions now are whether Blair has the qualifications for this particular post and, more parochially, whether his appointment would be beneficial to Britain. The answers are straightforward.
As prime minister, Blair never tired of Europe even if his extreme pragmatism led him towards Washington. His stamina was unprecedented. Ted Heath might have shown the same tirelessness but had less than a year as prime minister when Britain was in Europe. Harold Wilson soon tired of Europe. Jim Callaghan was equivocal. Margaret Thatcher began as a supporter but famously turned. John Major was all over the place.
Blair was always up for the endless nocturnal summits and the negotiations that preceded them. He knew they were unavoidable and realised that the rewards were great in a world defined by big powers and not a maze of little ones. In Britain that amounts to a pro-European record of some significance even if the results were minimal.
As David Miliband has pointed out the closer parallel with Blair's prime ministerial record is not Iraq, but the Northern Ireland peace negotiations. If he takes the job Blair would be signing up to the equivalent of a permanent Northern Ireland peace negotiation, not the most glamorous job in the world and one in which fresh air will play little part.
Such a prospect highlights another myth about this saga. There is a widespread assumption that Gordon Brown is jealous that his old rival might become a president as he struggles to remain Prime Minister. Brown is worried about the political fallout of a Blair presidency as Euro-sceptics scream about the injustice. But he will not be tormented by the possibility that Blair has landed a dream job as he loses his.
For Brown the job would be a nightmare. When he was Chancellor he could barely last 10 minutes at a meeting of finance ministers. The idea of being in a never ending negotiation in Brussels would make him even more miserable than he is at the moment.
Instead David Cameron has cause for more concern. Stylistically Cameron plays the part of Blair, although not so well. He must be looking forward to prime ministerial press conferences where he makes the self-deprecating jokes and the photo calls at Chequers where he relaxes in jeans and an open necked shirt. Suddenly he faces the prospect of the original model returning in a high profile role and implicitly challenging him over the one policy area where the two of them have a fundamental disagreement: Europe.
Those in Britain who despair about the prospect of another Tory government battling it out over Europe and the signals it sends to other countries about the state of Britain should keep their fingers crossed that Blair secures the post. From the external perspective, evidently Europe cannot do better and could do a lot worse.
Blair is the obvious choice for president which means he probably does not have a chance.
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
So thats OK then is it? Blair joined in with Bush on the massacre of Iraq because it would have happened anyway. What a complete load of tosh. Its a bit like the old robbers argument "well if I hadnt mugged the old lady then someone else would done er"
What the heck is going on with the Independent printing this utter garbage?
Tony Blair is a war criminal and should be up at the Hague on war crimes charges, along with Bush and Netanyahu.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/200
I see
"This is the equivalent of deciding that Alex Ferguson would not be a good manager of a football club because of his record as a player in certain key matches."
OR
Hitlers view of a new European Union was dogged by those who kept going on about the Jews, after all nobody is perfect. Look at the roads and the nice uniforms, a man of vision just like Blair, misunderstood by us morons with morals and no political insight.
"As a Labour leader haunted by his party's election defeats in the 1980s when it was perceived as "soft" on defence and anti-American, Blair chose to be the strongest ally of President Bush. His sincerity about the need to go to war followed that defensive pragmatic judgement. It led him to a series of traps from which he has not escaped"
So it was the Labour Party of the 80's that caused Blair to go to war.
"In Britain that amounts to a pro-European record of some significance even if the results were minimal."
Max credit for doing little, good point.
"As David Miliband has pointed out the closer parallel with Blair's prime ministerial record is not Iraq, but the Northern Ireland peace negotiations. If he takes the job Blair would be signing up to the equivalent of a permanent Northern Ireland peace negotiation, not the most glamorous job in the world and one in which fresh air will play little part"
What does that mean?
"Those in Britain who despair about the prospect of another Tory government battling it out over Europe and the signals it sends to other countries about the state of Britain should keep their fingers crossed that Blair secures the post"
What about the rest of europe?
"From the external perspective, evidently Europe cannot do better and could do a lot worse. "
I see from an external perspective, so you are not European.
BTW who would be worse and why?
A very impressive argument.
Satan was in heaven amongst the angels, but then he disobeyed and transgressed against God and was cast out of heaven for that single act - Blair is now world famous for the crimes against humanity for his part in creating illegal invasions. Any good that he may have done are as irrelevant as is Satan's time in heaven.
The world spits (or throws shoes) at Blair. Because of him, the UK has a bad image around the world. That would be his gift to Europe if he became president.
I have read your journalism for more than a decade. I think you one of the best political writers of your generation. Whether I agree with you or disagree with you, you always make me think.
That said, the above article disappoints.
Blair neither merits, deserves or is the appropriate figure to be President of the European Council. The post requires an administrator, a manager, a builder of consensus and someone capable of speaking for the whole of Europe - not just Britain, France and Germany.
Blair has no skills in any of the above. He never displayed such skills as PM. Apart from the unique needs of N.Ireland, he showed no understanding or interest in Scotland, Wales or any of the English regions.
In ten years of power, he did nothing to alter Britain's place in Europe. He failed to make the argument to join the Euro, he refused to include Britain in Schengen and sought opt outs on the Charter of Rights by watering down rights of the lowest paid to Social Europe.
As your colleague, Adrian Hamilton points out below, neither Labour nor Conservatives have a coherent policy to Europe. Much to the detriment of our politics, economic well being or the future wealth of our children.
It is not clear either Miliband or Ashton should become High Representative. We are not reliable members of the Union any more than the Southern Confederate States were reliable members of the USA.
Blair pandered to the Little England chauvanists, Empire nostalgics and racists so that he could maintain the support of Murdoch who gave up his Australian nationality so that he could build a media empire that supports extreme right wing racist Republicans.
Semi detached Britain doesn't deserve respect in the Chancellories of Europe. We haven't earned it and Blair destroyed any residual respect we had in 1997.
Blair was the ultimate EuroChicken.
And did he not, early on in his presidency, ask Margaret Thatcher how to deal with Europe? He might as well have asked Rupert Murdoch. Oh, perhaps he did.
Spit.
''But all of this has no relevance in relation to the job of president.''
Don't you understand that people have an almost self-destructive loathing for Blair and want to see him punished however often you repeat the Blair Camp mantra of ''It's all behind us now, let's move on.''
This article has to be a wind up.
Blair should go to jail, then straight to hell, for the cover up of the truth about 9/11 and 7/7 and the INSIDE JOBS that they both are, for turning this country into an Orwellian police state on the back of these lies, because we can't let those terrorists win can we.....
And the million dead Iraqis, mainly women and children, and dead troops.....
He'll stop the traffic though will he.....Let him drive near my house....
I'll stop the traffic for him.
Disgusting man, who sold his soul a long time ago.
Get praying to that God you profess to believe in Blira, you will need to.
He can stand in the dock with Radovan.
In case you hadn't noticed, the appointment will never happen as France and Germany have indicated - who else counts in Europe?
So without further ado, go and dump that big batch of "Tony for EU President" badges you had produced and move on to a real, important topic for discussion.
Of course, many of us now understand that the entire system is corrupt and the greater the covert criminality, the higher the rewards.
Probably to show potential advertisers,how many punters the online edition gets.
When did this get posted?When the editorial staff were in the pub?
avarice; a mass murderer of Arabs; an ardent adherent of Zionism; a maternal grandmother, Sarah Lipsett, of German Jewish descent (making Blair Jewish) - to be president of…Israel
Rubbish.
I think you are trying to hijack this blog for ulterior motives.
In other words Steve the people of Europe don't want him and they are the ones that count. And in any case it's over now. Blair is out. Or was he ever in? Who knows, Certainly this has been one of the great non stories of the year.
Here are some of Steve's choice phrases why Blair is or was the best choice - 'extreme pragmatism led him towards Washington'. Well, that's a new way of saying he lied to us to invade Iraq! And where is the logic is saying Blair was deeply involved in Europe but preferred Washington? Doesn't make sense Steve.
And this - 'each layer of the drama is misunderstood'. there I have to agree that Steve and supporters of Blair have totally misunderstood this affair. Their only concern is the closed shop of other politicians. This post is about putting a face to Europe, which means filling the democratic deficit, which means Blair must be accepted not by his peers but by the ordinary hard working people of Europe to borrow a favourite Brown phrase. Stunningly, Steve ignores this fact: the people reject Blair wholeheartedly.
Here's another - 'Those who argue passionately that Blair is disqualified for the post do so on the basis of a selective take on his performance as prime minister.' Which Steve promptly proceeds to do himself.
And - 'he acted in the way he did because he was obsessed with winning elections, not an ignoble obsession for a party leader,' Steve, you really mean that the ends justify the means? Think again, see me.
It gets worse - 'For reasons of extreme insecurity and inexperience rather than overwhelming arrogance he took the basic view that the only way Labour could win in conservative England was to act conservatively.' Ah, so stealing your opponents clothes is fine. Principles don't count. Hardly praise Steve, methinks.
Here's Steve on Blair getting results - 'In Britain that amounts to a pro-European record of some significance even if the results were minimal'. So actually Steve Blair was pretty ineffectual during thos long nocturnal nights of discussion?
It could be that I have got Steve wrong. He is actually written a clever article telling all the reasons why Europe should avooid Blair like pig flu.
The lesson to learn from the humiliation of Blair and this horribly pompous campaign reflected in the xenophobic tone of much of the support from British commentators, is that this is a rejection of Britain by Europe. It's payback time for the arrogance of Brown the madness of Cameron and the wickedness that is Blair. Europe has had enough of the British telling it how to runs its affairs.
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.
Thx, done it.
The only trip to Europe Bliar should be contemplating is an appearance in The Hague
Neither could back a winner in a one-horse race.
Which is worst: endorsement by Jonah Brown or being sucked up to by fawning Richards.
Once a 'bad 'n', always a 'bad 'un', and once a liar, always a liar. Mr Richards should read some of the work of his colleagues, Rawnsley, Kampfner, Oborne, Hitchens, (either brother), or even cuddly Martin Bell in "The Truth That Sticks".The weight of their combined approbrium for Blair as a character would sink a fleet.
Wake up Mr Richards and smell the doo-doo!
Even Broon is reportedly 'on side', which is a lot more than astonishing: it smacks of puppet master Mandelson pulling the strings. ('Get on side Gordon, or you're toast')
The Dacre - with ill concealed glee - reports that Broon had a going over from Martin Schulz when he attended a Socialist meeting.
(Brown at a Socialist meeting?!!)
However, this morning's Grauniad reports, sadly, that it's all gone tits-up.
My only regret is that we will be denied the spectacle of the Pres. Blair motorcade rolling into Downing Street to be greeted by Broon with fixed rictus grin on his face.
It's a small sacrifice to make in a worthy cause.
Blair for The Hague anyone? He and the current encumbent would deserve each other.
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/i