The Guardian has a piece about Blair and the EU presidency.
Our Tone might face some obstacles…
These are: a petition, which has so far attracted 41,326 signatures saying that it would be wrong to appoint a man who allegedly violated international law in the Iraq war; the implacable opposition of the Tories, who have warned EU leaders that appointing Blair would be seen as a hostile act in Britain; strong opposition from smaller EU member states, who fear that such a high profile figure would eclipse them; and a concern across the EU that it would be wrong to appoint someone from the most reluctant member of the EU.
But is still considered, by many, the favourite. Although he isn’t making life easy for himself by refuse to campaign. This refusal, the article says, is because he is worried about getting a humiliating slap down and also…
“It will be decided in horse trading over the coming weeks,” one Blair ally said. “This will all take place behind closed doors.”
Blair believes this is why it would be wrong to campaign. “This is a very odd election,” one ally said. “It will be decided by 27 people. This is not something that can be won by running a campaign.”
Not really an election, is it? More of an appointment, wouldn’t you say?
Is it really too much to ask for a little bit of democracy and, if we must have a president, let the people decide who it should be?
But it’s not about democracy, is it? I’m buggered if I know what it is about, but democracy it isn’t.
Word comes from Craig Murray that the British embassies in the EU are to start getting support for Tony Blair to be the made the first permanent president of the EU.
Maybe I should’ve used the proper word there: appointed. ‘Made’ could mean elected by the people he would be president of.
As Craig eloquently puts it…
For anyone to occupy the position of President without a popular election would be very, very wrong. But Tony Blair? It is simply an appalling thought.
Why would anyone want a war criminal as president?
Horrifyingly, it appears that Blair may well be able to get a majority of EU member governments prepared to support him. That is despite his record as Bush’s poodle in launching illegal war, as one of the chief architects of the banking bubble economic disaster, and as the Middle East Peace Envoy who held the ring for Israel’s murderous assaults on Lebanon and Gaza.
I’m in two minds about the EU. It could be good, but at the moment the unaccountability and the bureaucracy, well, it seems like it is being run for the commissioners and the MEPs benefit, not the citizens of the EU.
In typical EU fashion, even the term is a bit ambigous: Permanent President.
Do they mean ‘for life’? Would they do that? What other meaning could the EU mean? The presidency at the moment is on a 6 month rotating basis, with the national leaders taking up the role. The occupant of the new style post of president would be full-time, rather than part-time, but still not permanent. Surely?
Either way, for the EU to have Blair as an unelected permanent El Presidente would lose what little credibility it has. And that isn’t a lot.
