EU President Blair

Zuiderzee

In probably the worst kept secret in the EU, Tony Blair is being promoted for President of the European Union. Todays UK independent has an article on it

He has recieved Gordon Browns endorsement. There is no official list of contenders for a new Euro-job which will only exist if the Lisbon treaty is fully approved and ratified by all EU countries.

But Mrs Kinnock, visiting the European Parliament in Strasbourg, made clear the UK Government would be pushing him as the man to run Europe for up to five years under new treaty arrangements.

What galls me is the arrogance of these people, assuming the position will exist.
Presuming the Irish will do what their told to, and vote yes, is carts before horses.

This unelected post is still a new factor - and sorry, being selected is not being elected, I dont vote for county councillors to pick my TDs.

Mr. Blair has been endorsed by Gordon Brown, and was previously supported by Sarkozy. He is also very close to Berliosconi.

I for one do not like the idea of Mr. Blair acting in any capacity, titular or executive, as head of the EU.

This is a man who led his country to war on a lie, causing tens of thousands of deaths.
A man who kept up a charade allowing Israel to pulverise the civillian population of the Gaza strip far longer than was planned, blocking ceasefire agreements and resolutions.
A man who left the UKs labour party mired in sleaze, not least the halting of a corruption inquiry into the sale of fighter jets to a totalitarian regieme.

And on departure from No. 10 Downing Street, he set up a faith based initiative - too many messianic tendencies there for me to deal with.

One EU official said: "The difficulty is that no one has come up with a proper job description. People say the exact nature of the job will be shaped by whoever is appointed." [note - not 'elected' - so much for democracy]

Bear in mind a comment from another MP in the UK - William Hague (Con) the shadow Foreign Secretary, said the former prime minister should be let "nowhere near the job".
He said: "The creation of a new EU President could be enormously damaging for Europe. Any holder is likely to try to centralise power for themselves in Brussels and dominate national foreign policies.
In the hands of an operator as ambitious as Tony Blair, that is a near certainty."

FFS - vote No

dresden8

Vote No to Blair.

Zuiderzee

dresden8 wrote: »

Vote No to Blair.

Unless we stop the Lisbon Treaty, we wont have that right

bokspring71

dresden8 wrote: »

Vote No to Blair.

You won't have a vote. This is a political stitch up and us plebs are not allowed anything so common as a vote!

Can you imagine what someone of Tony Blairs political skill will make of the office if he is horse-traded into the job? The job will grow and grow in importance, influence and stature way beyond anything in the Lisbon treaty.

Scofflaw

What galls me is the arrogance of these people, assuming the position will exist.

If we vote Yes, the time to start a campaign is now. If we vote No, the time to start a campaign is still now, unless you happen to know that we will vote No. It's called "hedging your bets".

regards,
Scofflaw

Zuiderzee

If the treaty goes through, Blair will be the President.

As bokspring says Blairs political skill will make the job grow in importance, influence and stature way beyond anything in the Lisbon treaty.

Blair is a man who led his country to war on a lie, causing tens of thousands of deaths.
A man delayed a ceasefire causing slaughter of the civilian population of the Gaza strip.


I believe that faith is a personal issue, but I get very nervous when leaders make life and death decisions based on their personal consultations with God.

Apparently Blair believed strongly at the time, that intervention in Kosovo, Sierra Leone – Iraq too – were all part of the Christian Battle

On departure from No. 10 Downing Street, Tony became a Catholic in 2007.
He then decided - as always- the system was wrong and he had been sent to right it, and argued that it is time for a church he has just joined to "rethink" its views.

His new found religious fervour is expanding, he has set up the Tony Blair Faith Foundation!
Just about every public utterance he makes is now about “faith”.
The London Evening Standard reported that: “When Blair met Barack Obama at the annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, where the former PM was a principal speaker, Tony insisted that the President should kneel and pray with him before they talked.”
In the speech, Blair made 31 references to God.
In my opinion we are looking at a messianic complex.

A vote for Lisbon is an endorsement of a President Blair

wildsaffy

I see worse people shaping up to get that job. Blair is misguided but he is not the worse of that lot.

Zuiderzee

Your joking right!
What other European leader blindly followed Bush into Iraq on a pack of lies?
And that was not the worst aspect, check out the documentary Taking Liberties on Youtube

KyussBishop

If the EU president were to be democratically elected, he would not even bother applying for candidacy (the same with Bertie).

Mario007

Zuiderzee wrote: »

If the treaty goes through, Blair will be the President.

As bokspring says Blairs political skill will make the job grow in importance, influence and stature way beyond anything in the Lisbon treaty.

Blair is a man who led his country to war on a lie, causing tens of thousands of deaths.
A man delayed a ceasefire causing slaughter of the civilian population of the Gaza strip.


I believe that faith is a personal issue, but I get very nervous when leaders make life and death decisions based on their personal consultations with God.

Apparently Blair believed strongly at the time, that intervention in Kosovo, Sierra Leone – Iraq too – were all part of the Christian Battle

On departure from No. 10 Downing Street, Tony became a Catholic in 2007.
He then decided - as always- the system was wrong and he had been sent to right it, and argued that it is time for a church he has just joined to "rethink" its views.

His new found religious fervour is expanding, he has set up the Tony Blair Faith Foundation!
Just about every public utterance he makes is now about “faith”.
The London Evening Standard reported that: “When Blair met Barack Obama at the annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, where the former PM was a principal speaker, Tony insisted that the President should kneel and pray with him before they talked.”
In the speech, Blair made 31 references to God.
In my opinion we are looking at a messianic complex.

A vote for Lisbon is an endorsement of a President Blair

haha brilliant, thumps up. so you can't find anything bad in the treaty itself and so you just go on and make a claim of 'what could happen, but is not certain at all...but it could...'. Firstly blair has been good up to the point of trying to follow bush everywhere(btw prodi did the same, and the previous french president as well, the czech government did the same, so did slovakian, polish and i could go on...)
While i am not supporting blair, but an eu president is elected(yes elected) by the heads of eu states with each having the power the veto. and lets be honest, if we are to work with presumptions, the vote on the president of the eu would be next year, when cameron is the PM in britain. do you really think he'll support blair?

BlitzKrieg

isnt this the glorified internal relations position we are talking about, the one with no executive powers, no voting power and its primary position is to facilitate communcation between the european council and parliament? Its foriegn influence is greatly hampered because it shares this role with the Commission President and the High Representative.

And on Blair getting the position, yes of course the UK are building him up, he's who labour are considering for the position. But like you said his past is questionable and considering the damage he did to EU/UK relations I doubt he'll get the german vote in the council at least.

Also Jean-Claude Juncker has just as much support as Blair for the position and his opinion on the role is that it should be as minimal as possible. Considering its QMV and there are 3 main candidates, Blair and Bertie are going after the same vote essentially, so Jean Claude might easily get through.

Also when will the first president be selected? If the talk of a UK general election proves true, even if its after the referendum then Blair could lose pretty much all the support he had.

I wouldnt want Blair to get the position purely because I rather he stayed unemployed or stick to the university circuit then take any other position in politics.

But as an issue to vote no to lisbon it is really scrapping the bottom of the barral.


though it would be entertaining to see the EU send back a garuntee that stated *Blair will have no political position in the EU*

Scofflaw

If the treaty goes through, Blair will be the President.

Ah no. There's nothing so definite about it at all. He's not the only possible candidate by several, and the UK is simply not a popular country in the EU.

Also, more generally, do I need to go dig up the list of the President's role under Lisbon?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zuiderzee

Mario - would you be happy with your local county councillors selecting your TD or the President?
I think if that is the case, then you and I have a different view on representitive democracy.
As for other issues, I have raised them in other posts - dont be so selective.

Blitz, as bokspring says, and I believe, this role would be very influential - and would involve a very small amount of people in a decision making process.

Blair is the prime candidate because of his recognition factor in the EU and his popularity in the US - he could be promoted as the peace envoy from the middle east - and friend of America, to patch up the US/EU relationship.
And as for the Germans - a deal will be cut to get Blair in - to be followed by Merkel.

BlitzKrieg

Blitz, as bokspring says, and I believe, this role would be very influential - and would involve a very small amount of people in a decision making process.

ughh no.

Its a glorified middle managment role, he has no voting power and no executive power, he doesnt make any decision making at all. His job is to be the face of the council internally and externally. Show me his powers if you so readily believe he has them.


And again Blair is only a candidate and Jean-Claude Juncker has just as much support as he does if not more.

EDIT

just because he already mentioned them

here is Scafflow's post on the president's powers http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60267349&postcount=5

If the European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, adopts by a simple majority a decision in favour of examining the proposed amendments, the President of the European Council shall convene a Convention composed of representatives of the national Parliaments, of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, of the European Parliament and of the Commission.

A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties. The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The President of the Council and the Commission shall report to the European Parliament on the results of multilateral surveillance. The President of the Council may be invited to appear before the competent committee of the European Parliament if the Council has made its recommendations public.

Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Union financial assistance to the Member State concerned. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decision taken.

As long as a Member State fails to comply with a decision taken in accordance with paragraph 9, the Council may decide to apply or, as the case may be, intensify one or more of the following measures.....The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decisions taken.

The Council shall, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Central Bank and the Committee referred to in this Article, lay down detailed provisions concerning the composition of the Economic and Financial Committee. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of such a decision.

The Council may, acting by a qualified majority either on a recommendation from the European Central Bank or on a recommendation from the Commission, and after consulting the European Central Bank, in an endeavour to reach a consensus consistent with the objective of price stability, adopt, adjust or abandon the central rates of the euro within the exchange-rate system. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the adoption, adjustment or abandonment of the euro central rates.

Where the European Council decides by vote, its President and the President of the Commission shall not take part in the vote.

The Council shall meet when convened by its President on his own initiative or at the request of one of its Members or of the Commission.

A vacancy caused by resignation, compulsory retirement or death shall be filled for the remainder of the member’s term of office by a new member of the same nationality appointed by the Council, by common accord with the President of the Commission, after consulting the European Parliament and in accordance with the criteria set out in the second subparagraph of Article 9d(3) of the Treaty on European Union

The Council may, acting unanimously on a proposal from the President of the Commission, decide that such a vacancy need not be filled, in particular when the remainder of the member’s term of office is short.

The President of the Council and a member of the Commission may participate, without having the right to vote, in meetings of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank. The President of the Council may submit a motion for deliberation to the Governing Council of the European Central Bank.

If, within three months of receiving the European Parliament’s amendments, the Council, acting by a qualified majority: (a) approves all those amendments, the act in question shall be deemed to have been adopted; (b) does not approve all the amendments, the President of the Council, in agreement with the President of the European Parliament, shall within six weeks convene a meeting of the Conciliation Committee.

Legislative acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure shall be signed by the President of the European Parliament and by the President of the Council.

If, within forty-two days of such communication, the European Parliament: (a) approves the position of the Council, the budget shall be adopted; (b) has not taken a decision, the budget shall be deemed to have been adopted; (c) adopts amendments by a majority of its component members, the amended draft shall be forwarded to the Council and to the Commission. The President of the European Parliament, in agreement with the President of the Council, shall immediately convene a meeting of the Conciliation Committee. However, if within ten days of the draft being forwarded the Council informs the European Parliament that it has approved all its amendments, the Conciliation Committee shall not meet.

Regular meetings between the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission shall be convened, on the initiative of the Commission, under the budgetary procedures referred to in this Chapter. The Presidents shall take all the necessary steps to promote consultation and the reconciliation of the positions of the institutions over which they preside in order to facilitate the implementation of this Title.

ixtlan

As others are saying this is a non-executive role. It is a formalisation of a role that already exists and rests with whoever is the leader of the state with the rotating presidency.

In the current situation we have zero influence on who has this job. It was Tony Blair several times already and Bertie, and several others who you might not have liked either.

For the first time ever we will have some say. A EU-wide election is not practical for several reasons.

1/ It would be a Eurovision-style farce.
2/ What could a candidate campaign on? This is a non-executive role. They cannot take any decisions, so they cannot make any promises, other than I will do a good job.

Also, I agree with the comments about Blairs likelihood of getting this job. It might happen but it's probably unlikely. Many of the other countries have serious issues with him. Ironically considering the apparent horror of several posters, Ireland probably would vote for him. It's the other states who will block it... Spain and others.

And I'll add that he's not really the ideal candidate. Bertie strangely would be far better. Affable, able to get along with others, good at diplomacy, not dogmatic, no strong personal goals. Willing to go along with whatever was the decision of the Council. He would have been far better suited to this than running Ireland, which he has left in a sorry state.

Ix.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Mario - would you be happy with your local county councillors selecting your TD or the President?

Are you unhappy that your TD's select your Taoiseach?

Not that the positions are that comparable, given that the position of Taoiseach is much more powerful than the position of President of the European Council.

Actually maybe Ceann Comhairle is a better comparison, are you unhappy that your TD's select the Ceann Comhairle, do you think it should be a directly elected position?

Dinner

KyussBishop wrote: »

If the EU president were to be democratically elected, he would not even bother applying for candidacy (the same with Bertie).

If the President of the Council was to be elected by popular vote, why would anyone but a German apply?

Affable

I believe Sarkozy offered to help him get it. The deal was-get the British people on board for the EU, and I will help you get the presidency.

ixtlan

Affable wrote: »

I believe Sarkozy offered to help him get it. The deal was-get the British people on board for the EU, and I will help you get the presidency.

I don't think the French are so stupid as to think making Tony Blair president of the council will make the EU more popular in the UK. If anything it will make it less popular!

ix

Affable

ixtlan wrote: »

I don't think the French are so stupid as to think making Tony Blair president of the council will make the EU more popular in the UK. If anything it will make it less popular!

ix

No, I mean Sarkozy wanted to get them on board before that to help further integration, as did Blair. The presidency would come later, that itself was not offered to bring UK voters around to the EU as you suggest. It was a private deal. I think CNN ran the story.

ixtlan

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Actually maybe Ceann Comhairle is a better comparison, are you unhappy that your TD's select the Ceann Comhairle, do you think it should be a directly elected position?

Thanks! That is the best comparison I've heard so far. The Ceann Comhairle's role is to be completely impartial to all sides. How could such a candidate campaign? Any attempt to campaign and promise anything to one part of the public over another would immediately mark them as unsuitable. Indeed the Ceann Comhairle doesn't have to run for election in the next vote for exactly this reason. They leave their constituents behind, and hence cannot expect any vote.

Ix.

cps_goodbuy

Anyone else thinking that the only way to stop Blair is a "No" to Lisbon?
(considering us commoners probably won't have any other leverage)

Anyone else thinking "the ends justifies the means?"

ixtlan

Affable wrote: »

No, I mean Sarkozy wanted to get them on board before that to help further integration, as did Blair. The presidency would come later, that itself was not offered to bring UK voters around to the EU as you suggest. It was a private deal. I think CNN ran the story.

OK, I've read some of these comments. Really the suggestion seems to be that Sarkozy simply likes Tony Blair and saw him (at that time... 2 years ago) as the right guy for the job. If you think someone agrees with you you are going to tend to suport them.

The thing to bear in mind is that divisive figures are going to find it very difficult to get elected by the Council. There are now 27 states. France and Germany cannot decide even if they agreed, which apparently on Blair they do not. I see even Jean-Claude Juncker has enemies.

Would it horrify people if the Council gave up trying to find the "best" candidate, threw it's hands up in the air and said... well at least no one hates him (outside Ireland anyhow)... and offered the job to Bertie.

Ix

Affable

cps_goodbuy wrote: »

Anyone else thinking that the only way to stop Blair is a "No" to Lisbon?
(considering us commoners probably won't have any other leverage)

Anyone else thinking "the ends justifies the means?"

'Ends justify means' in what context? Iraq, or the 'No' to Lisbon?

Scofflaw

cps_goodbuy wrote: »

Anyone else thinking that the only way to stop Blair is a "No" to Lisbon?
(considering us commoners probably won't have any other leverage)

Anyone else thinking "the ends justifies the means?"

Undoubtedly some other people are, but it's possibly the saddest reason yet offered to vote No. The position is largely that of "EU spokesperson" - there are virtually no powers attached, and the idea that because Blair was able as Prime Minister of the UK to drag the UK into wars he will somehow be able to do the same to the EU from a ceremonial and temporary position is laughable. He won't be in charge of the EU - the EU will be in charge of him.

It's like asking people to vote No to the Irish Constitution because there's a possibility that Bono might be elected President of the Republic. Ridiculous.

regards,
Scofflaw

Affable

ixtlan wrote: »

OK, I've read some of these comments. Really the suggestion seems to be that Sarkozy simply likes Tony Blair and saw him (at that time... 2 years ago) as the right guy for the job. If you think someone agrees with you you are going to tend to suport them.

The thing to bear in mind is that divisive figures are going to find it very difficult to get elected by the Council. There are now 27 states. France and Germany cannot decide even if they agreed, which apparently on Blair they do not. I see even Jean-Claude Juncker has enemies.

Would it horrify people if the Council gave up trying to find the "best" candidate, threw it's hands up in the air and said... well at least no one hates him (outside Ireland anyhow)... and offered the job to Bertie.

Ix

But Bertie was just as on board for Iraq right? That's what causes the resentment in those who dislike Blair.

ixtlan

cps_goodbuy wrote: »

Anyone else thinking that the only way to stop Blair is a "No" to Lisbon?
(considering us commoners probably won't have any other leverage)

Anyone else thinking "the ends justifies the means?"

Usually when people start talking about ends and means it ends badly. Have you reviewed the presidency rotation here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_the_Council_of_the_European_Union#2007_onwards_.28Trio_Presidencies.29

Decided whether you are happy with the leaders of these states? Of course there's no guarantee that they will be in power when they take over so really you don't know who will be the president of the Council if Lisbon fails, just as you don't know who will be president if Lisbon passes. You will however have more influence if Lisbon passes. You can petition your TDs, and start a national campaign.

I would humbly suggest that people should take a big picture view of Lisbon. I take your point that it concerns you but 1/ It may not happen 2/ A No vote will not be understood to be a no vote to Blair.

Ix

ixtlan

Affable wrote: »

But Bertie was just as on board for Iraq right? That's what causes the resentment in those who dislike Blair.

Has Bertie ever been onboard for anything that he perceived as unpopular? He was walking the classic political tightrope, saying here he was against it while not standing in the way and probably telling Blair that he understood.

Which is why he could end up being the lowest common demoninator compromise candidate. I'll bet that in EU meetings he never expressed support for the war, and never expressed full opposition.

Other leaders may dislike him for being weak, but that could be an advantage in this role.

ix

cps_goodbuy

No, I wasn't refering to Iraq,

and yes, it is a very sad situation that some people are taking this view

Edit:

Ixtlan : Yes, I agree in terms of the wider scope of the Lisbon Treaty, I was making a comment regarding the view that anti-blairs are taking

Many people are uninformed/misinformed regarding the treaty and I for one am still undecided as I need to learn more.

dresden8

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Unless we stop the Lisbon Treaty, we wont have that right

Jesus H. Chrimminy, that's what I meant!

KINGVictor

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah no. There's nothing so definite about it at all. He's not the only possible candidate by several, and the UK is simply not a popular country in the EU.

Also, more generally, do I need to go dig up the list of the President's role under Lisbon?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Agreed...the Uk is not much loved in the EU political stream but they are a very important and pivotal country...and with the unpopularity,also comes with respect.

View

KINGVictor wrote: »

Agreed...the Uk is not much loved in the EU political stream but they are a very important and pivotal country...and with the unpopularity,also comes with respect.

It does? Then I'd guess if we looked at the existing EU institutions we'd see that there were lots of British EU Commission Presidents and EU Parliament Presidents, right?

Oddly enough, there weren't - British citizens have held each office exactly once (the Commission Presidency in the 70's, the Parliament Presidency in the late 80's).

Given that an Irish citizen - Pat Cox - was EU Parliament President once, does that mean Ireland is a pivotal country in the EU?

KINGVictor

View wrote: »

It does? Then I'd guess if we looked at the existing EU institutions we'd see that there were lots of British EU Commission Presidents and EU Parliament Presidents, right?

Oddly enough, there weren't - British citizens have held each office exactly once (the Commission Presidency in the 70's, the Parliament Presidency in the late 80's).

Given that an Irish citizen - Pat Cox - was EU Parliament President once, does that mean Ireland is a pivotal country in the EU?

I wasn,t exactly replying to whether Blair should/would be the EU president(honestly...I couldn't care less)...my post was in responce to the statement about the British being unpopular in the EU...

The Eu Commission president under the current system is more or less a figure head-just a step above what the queen is to Canada and also a fantastic salary/benefits attached with it.

After the lisbon treaty is passed...if it does,it becomes the EU president a position which would hold a large measure of power.That is why a lot of folks would be disinclined with a Tony Blair getting a first shot at it.

Hitman Actual

KINGVictor wrote: »

I wasn,t exactly replying to whether Blair should/would be the EU president(honestly...I couldn't care less)...my post was in responce to the statement about the British being unpopular in the EU...

The Eu Commission president under the current system is more or less a figure head-just a step above what the queen is to Canada and also a fantastic salary/benefits attached with it.

After the lisbon treaty is passed...if it does,it becomes the EU president a position which would hold a large measure of power.That is why a lot of folks would be disinclined with a Tony Blair getting a first shot at it.

Can you show us where, in the Treaties or whatever, this power is going to come from? As already posted by Blitzkrieg, there doesn't appear to be much in the role to worry about the president running amok with this new found power.

Zuiderzee

KINGVictor wrote: »

I wasn,t exactly replying to whether Blair should/would be the EU president(honestly...I couldn't care less)...my post was in responce to the statement about the British being unpopular in the EU...

The Eu Commission president under the current system is more or less a figure head-just a step above what the queen is to Canada and also a fantastic salary/benefits attached with it.

After the lisbon treaty is passed...if it does,it becomes the EU president a position which would hold a large measure of power.That is why a lot of folks would be disinclined with a Tony Blair getting a first shot at it.

According to todays UK Independent one EU official said: "The difficulty is that no one has come up with a proper job description. People say the exact nature of the job will be shaped by whoever is appointed."

William Hague (Con) the UK's shadow Foreign Secretary, said the former PM should be let "nowhere near the job" and "Any holder is likely to try to centralise power for themselves in Brussels and dominate national foreign policies. In the hands of an operator as ambitious as Tony Blair, that is a near certainty"

Hitman Actual

Zuiderzee wrote: »

According to todays UK Independent one EU official said: "The difficulty is that no one has come up with a proper job description. People say the exact nature of the job will be shaped by whoever is appointed."

But surely the "power" of the job can only come from what has been granted through the Treaties? And that has been summarised very well in Scofflaw's (Blitzkriegs) post earlier in this thread. Also, the role is going to be very closely monitored by the heads of state of 27 nations- the president will have little scope to do anything outside the remit given to him/her by the member states.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

William Hague (Con) the UK's shadow Foreign Secretary, said the former PM should be let "nowhere near the job" and "Any holder is likely to try to centralise power for themselves in Brussels and dominate national foreign policies. In the hands of an operator as ambitious as Tony Blair, that is a near certainty"

I personally wouldn't take too seriously anything that William Hague says in an attack on Tony Blair. It's just internal politicking. And to say that any one person would be able to dominate national foreign policies in a role where they don't have any real powers, and under the scrutiny of 27 member states, is a fair stretch of the imagination.

Edit to add: Another thing about that UK Independent Article- Sarkozy and Merkel apparently are not that keen on Blair at all:

wrote:

Other potential candidates include Felipe Gonzalez, the veteran former Spanish prime minister. He is said to be favoured by the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, who initially championed Mr Blair. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, is thought to be lukewarm about the idea of "President Blair".

Zuiderzee

With a self ammending treaty, I am wary of how the power of the presidency will develop?

Dont underestimate the political ability of Mr. Blair, he is a very able dealer, and - internal politiking or not - I fear Hague is right in his assesment.

Other candidates may be there, but in terms of political connections, pan-European and US profile, Blair is in the top 4 or 5.
The only others are Sarkozy, Chirac, Merkel and - for all the wrong reasons - Silvio B

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

With a self ammending treaty, I am wary of how the power of the presidency will develop?

Dont underestimate the political ability of Mr. Blair, he is a very able dealer, and - internal politiking or not - I fear Hague is right in his assesment.

Other candidates may be there, but in terms of political connections, pan-European and US profile, Blair is in the top 4 or 5.
The only others are Sarkozy, Chirac, Merkel and - for all the wrong reasons - Silvio B

The power to amend the treaties remains subject to ratification by the member states - the same member states who wrote the treaty in the first place, and gave the President no power. Why do you think that having decided not to give the position any power over them, they would suddenly decide to do so, and their parliaments happily ratify such a decision? Or are you perhaps under the mistaken impression that the EU writes the EU treaties?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hitman Actual

Zuiderzee wrote: »

With a self ammending treaty, I am wary of how the power of the presidency will develop?

It's not self-amending, though. Everyone knows that by now (I hope!).

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Dont underestimate the political ability of Mr. Blair, he is a very able dealer, and - internal politiking or not - I fear Hague is right in his assesment.

Well, my contention is that he has to do the power-grabbing under the noses of 27 other member states, so I'm not worried about it at all, tbh.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Other candidates may be there, but in terms of political connections, pan-European and US profile, Blair is in the top 4 or 5.
The only others are Sarkozy, Chirac, Merkel and - for all the wrong reasons - Silvio B

Sarkozy, Merkel and Silvio Berlusconi wouldn't be candidates as they are currently in power.

BlitzKrieg

With a self ammending treaty, I am wary of how the power of the presidency will develop?

the old self amending treaty = bad issue. Any transfer of power requires national ratification, so I doubt Blair will be able to hide *give me executive powers*

The only others are Sarkozy, Chirac, Merkel and - for all the wrong reasons - Silvio B

where the hell did you get this? You cant hold 2 offices while eu president so seeing as both sarkozy and merkel are still in office for the moment they are not even considered (though Merkel might finish up by the end of the year) Chirac has shown no interest in the position and I'll say again Jean-Claude Juncker has as much support as Blair if not more if you consider Germany has shown signs of supporting him, aswell as Holland, thats equal with blairs UK (might change with general election) and France (though Sarkozy keeps flipping back and forth)

Zuiderzee

The reference to Sarkozy, Chirac, Merkel and Silvio B was to do with their profile, how recognisable they are etc.

After a probable Blair presidency, I recon it would be Sarko or Merkel after that

PopeBuckfastXVI

Zuiderzee wrote: »

The reference to Sarkozy, Chirac, Merkel and Silvio B was to do with their profile, how recognisable they are etc.

Well that's the great thing about the electorate for the position being the Council itself, the right person for the job, and indeed the person who gets it won't necessarily have to have a Europe wide public profile, or indeed be recognisable.

wheels of ire

If you are happy with a bunch of pro-US states formerly attached to the Soviet empire being in a position to elect another stooge, Cheesy-Grin Blair, to be in charge of even my mousetrap cheese, fine.
Me, I just don't trust him. And it is a gift to the No side: we little folk are just not rational.

View

wheels of ire wrote: »

If you are happy with a bunch of pro-US states formerly attached to the Soviet empire being in a position to elect another stooge, Cheesy-Grin Blair, to be in charge of even my mousetrap cheese, fine.
Me, I just don't trust him. And it is a gift to the No side: we little folk are just not rational.

All that has happened is that the British government has said they would support Tony Blair for the position. That doesn't mean that even one other government would do so.

You could just as easily speculate on lots of other EU politicians for the position. I'd personally guess that the politician selected will come from a mid-sized or small EU state, as such a person would be seen as a compromise candidate and would avoid more than one of the larger EU states from "losing face" in the process.

Scofflaw

A worthwhile reminder from Julien Frisch:

[Updated] There will be no President of the European Union - not even with Tony Blair!

Sorry, Le Monde, but even if you write it in the title and again in the first paragraph:

Tony Blair has not been proposed for the post of President of the European Union but for the post of the President of the European Council, which under the Lisbon Treaty still is the gathering of the heads of states and governments meeting four times a year. [See update.]

So even if Tony Blair will be elected into this position, he will just be the president of one of the organs of the European Union, not the President of the Union itself!

PS: Thank you, old-school media, for trying to be correct when talking about the European Union - the effort is not that big...!

Update: In fact, if Charlemagne is right, the news that Blair has been nominated as candidate for the European Council presidency is a canard...

And a good post on the subject from The European Citizen:

should the post of President of the European Council be a weak or strong one? A weak one would be a "chairman" role, where the president merely organises the agenda and the meetings/summits and represents the positions that the Council makes to the world and the other institutions. A strong president would have more input in agenda-setting and he or she would have a more decisive role in setting the EU's agenda as a whole.

Do we want a strong presidency? We shouldn't. A strong presidency would strengthen the most intergovernmental institution of the EU while simultaneously weakening the intergovernmental flavour of the politics in the Council. Such a president may be able to give some good and strong leadership, but he or she would be less legitimate than the Commission: the president of the European Council will not be subject to the scrutiny of the European Parliament, so if this office becomes the leading office of the EU, accountability and transparency will suffer. For small states, a strong president would weaken their position in the same way that strengthening the Council tends towards weakening the smaller states: if you make a forum where state interests are the focus, and where the power of those state interests have the weight of their states behind them, then the bigger states will strengthen their position versus the smaller ones and can seek more privileged positions. Where positions and policies are debated and set along ideological right-left lines and states cannot get privileges due to their size, the set up is more equal.

At the same time, it's hard to see how a strong presidency would be possible. The president can't promise what the Council won't give him/her, and the president would have few political weapons to force the Council his/her way - political skill and reputation would be the most obvious weapon, but it weakens as things stop going exactly their way in the Council. The power of the president will be based on the Council, so there is little the president can do to counter the Council if it refuses to play along. So even with a strong candidate as president, they can only do what their office permits them to do. They will not be able to bestride the world stage like the US president or even the Russian president and the Chinese and Indian premiers. There may be moments when the president can provide Europe with a loud voice - but it will only be when, and if, the Council is united. The president won't be able to unite the Council because the presidency won't have the institutional power or democratic or political legitimacy to bludgeon the Council into following.

The European Council needs a permanent president who can provide a focus and organisational coherence that the Council has lacked for years. Having a president will strengthen the tendency to argue along the left-right dividing line and will make debate within the Council more "normal" in political terms (the need for more openness and transparency will be as great as ever). These are good changes. But we should not expect nor want a strong president in the Council. I don't think that it's remotely politically possible though - this is the same organisation that picked Barroso, after all.

Both of those are worth taking on board. There's not much I can add except to say that I agree with the second one strongly - we don't want a strong President of the Council, we don't want too weak a President, but either way, there is no chance of someone riding roughshod over the member states as is apparently the fear of some. There will be no "President of Europe".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zuiderzee

Scoff, what you want and what we get are two different things.

I wanted to ask (still unanswered) questions here at boards about and get a clear answers about the funding and links of Generation Yes, but that was not to be.

Look at the last referendum, we voted No - as they did in France and Holland - the pro Lisbon grouping lost - and rather than deal with it, reflect on the problems and give us a treaty that related to people and not power - and are sent back to do it again.

The first President will help shape the office.

Also, the arrogance of the Politicians already discussing this when the position does not exist, until the democratic process has (re) run its course.

Nice II set a dangerous precident, and that is being repeated in Lisbon II
A Government can run seemingly run endless referenda until the desired result is achieved.

P. Breathnach

Zuiderzee wrote: »

... Look at the last referendum, we voted No - as they did in France and Holland ...

You are taking liberties with the facts.

Hitman Actual

Zuiderzee wrote: »

I wanted to ask (still unanswered) questions here at boards about and get a clear answers about the funding and links of Generation Yes, but that was not to be.

And a lot of us are waiting with interest on the outcome of this post (well, I'm intrigued anyway), particularly:

wrote:

If people are going to use this forum for political messaging, we have a right to know. If it's not transparent, we reserve the right to ban the perpetrator. And this looks like either political messaging, or spam.

Perhaps Zuiderzee would like to explain himself by PM. In the meantime, I'm not happy about this thread, which increasingly looks to me like some form of innuendo campaign - with the addition of the politics.ie material, that seems rather more likely than less.

You do understand that your credibility isn't particularly sterling since that thread?

Zuiderzee

P - in fairness - the Dutch, Irish and French rejected the last version of Lisbon, or did I get that wrong.
There have been minor changes, but we are the only ones who get to vote this time on what is fundamentaly the same document.

But its OK - we have garuantees from a discredited Taoseach which are related to nothing that is actually in the treaty.

As for my credibility - I asked a question about Generation Yes Funding, not unlike questions quite rightly asked here about COIR and Libertas who have been linked with groups like SPUC.
There was no innuendo, I quoted an article from pheonix and edited a synopsis from politics.ie on the same issue.

A PM was sent in relation to this, but no response has been recieved as yet.

Anyway, this 'forum' is becoming so biased towards a Yes Vote, its hardly worth posting questions in opposition anymore.

Look, the thread is about Blair - and I really think he wil be the first EU president if we say yes to the Lisbon II treaty

Dinner

Zuiderzee wrote: »

P - in fairness - the Dutch, Irish and French rejected the last version of Lisbon, or did I get that wrong.
There have been minor changes, but we are the only ones who get to vote this time on what is fundamentaly the same document.

But its OK - we have garuantees from a discredited Taoseach which are related to nothing that is actually in the treaty.

The French and Dutch rejected the European Constitution primarily because of issues that were actually in the document. Because of this, the Constitution was scrapped and most of the amendments were instead put into the Lisbon treaty (without the bits that the French didn't like). The EU addressed the concerns of the voters by removing the parts they objected to.

The Irish then rejected Lisbon because of issues that were not in the document. However, the EU decided to sort out any concerns that the voters had, even though they had nothing to do with the treaty. That is where the protocols come from. And because they were reassuring Irish voters on issues that are not in the Treaty, the Treaty itself did not have to be amended.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Look, the thread is about Blair - and I really think he wil be the first EU president if we say yes to the Lisbon II treaty

Do you think such a position will be created within a time frame where Tony Blair is still a relevant figure?

It was roughly a decade between Nice and Lisbon, assuming it'll be roughly the same before more significant Institutional reform (if ever), and assuming such a position would be created, what makes you think Tony Blair would get the job? There's a good chance the Conservatives or even the Lib Dems would be in Government then, why would they support him. Surely Gordon Brown won't last another election anyway. By the time the position of EU president is created, Tony Blair would surely just be a distant memory in the eyes of even the Labour party? It'd be like claiming that Margeret Thatcher is a likely candidate for the European Council President created by Lisbon.

And more to the point, what makes you think that such a position could not be created absent of Lisbon. I would think it more likely an EU President position would be created within a timeframe that would make Blair a possible candidate if we don't ratify Lisbon, as we don't know what the resultant negotiations of that would be.

But then it's all idle speculation, when it comes to predicting who will get a job that doesn't exist, and isn't planned to exist.