Blair for EU President? Unlikely, but nauseating nonetheless

Civitas, 22 July 2009

‘The person for Henry Kissinger to call if he wants to speak to Europe’ is just one of the ways that the potential post of President of the European Council is being described, writes Nicola Di Luzio (with the emphasis on ‘potential’ – since the new post is a part of the Lisbon Treaty, which must first be ratified by all 27 EU member states).

In fact, the notion of Tony Blair as the EU President is not only uncertain because the post is only a ‘potential.’ Despite Glennys Kinnock’s (UK Minister for Europe) statement this week that the British government would be supporting his candidacy, many have pointed out that the first names mentioned for an EU post are rarely those who actually get it. Early announcements tend to leave the opposition more time to rally their counter-campaigns.

This can surely be nothing other than a good thing. Blair’s reputation may be more or less intact internationally, but in Britain the memory of his last cling to power is still sore and he remains unpopular. For this reason, many will oppose the principle that would allow the figurehead for the European Union to be chosen without citizens’ approval. Unfortunately, this would be shocking if it were not so characteristic of the way that Europe is run. The New Statesman has a valid point when it says that “he has no democratic mandate at all – and neither will any of the other contenders for the post.” Felipe Gonzalez, former Prime Minister of Spain, is one of these other contenders. Yet the problem remains that he too is a former Prime Minister, and thus currently holds no mandate to represent Europe. Nor will the post be ratified by the EP, the only directly elected body in the EU.

Even more worrying is that no-one seems to have any idea of exactly what the EU president will do. In a speech to the Commons last year, William Hague criticised “the naivety of ministers who think that by signing this treaty they are agreeing to a static constitutional position”. He went on to compare the expansion of the role of the UK’s Chancellor of the Exchequer (particularly under Gordon Brown’s watch) to the possible future expansion of powers of the EU president – the role being as yet undefined.

Nonetheless, I do not want to give a false impression. Countless news commentators refer to the new position as ‘EU President’ without ever clarifying that this Presidency is of the European Council (Council of Ministers), not the entire EU. Nor do they make any attempt to explain the role. Let us therefore examine the reference to the post in the Lisbon Treaty. Firstly, it is important to clarify that the President of the European Council is not in itself a new post; it is already in existence, held by the leader of the country holding the rotating six-month EU presidency, currently Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt. However, many feel the current rotating Presidency results in a lack of continuity. The new president would therefore be full-time, elected with Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) by the European Council for a two-and-half year term. The treaty states three roles for the president: to chair and drive forward the Council’s work; to ensure its preparation and continuity in co-operation with the president of the commission; and to endeavour to facilitate cohesion and consensus within the European Council. The president will also “ensure the external representation of the EU on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy.” In general the Presidency has been interpreted as a largely administrative role, but the problem is that the terms are vague – meaning that its scope is likely to be determined by the personality of the inaugural president.

So why Tony Blair?  He is viewed as a competent politician, he already has a high profile on the world stage, and according to French newspaper Le Figaro, an “atlantiste” such as Blair for EU Council President might even encourage Czech President Klaus and Polish Prime Minister Kacynski to “overcome their allergy to the Lisbon treaty”. However, the paper also highlighted his failure to take Britain into the euro despite his professed desire to place Britain “at the heart of Europe”, and others predict that the position he took over the Iraq War – invoking the displeasure of France by siding with the US – will continue to plague him. Nonetheless, Le Figaro acknowledges that facing the prospect of a euro-sceptic Britain under David Cameron (and the obstacles to further integration this would cause), a pro-European Briton in an EU position of power might be useful.

Opinion at home is, in contrast, less positive.  A Populus poll for the Times claimed in May that 63% of British voters do not want Blair to be EU President, and at the time of announcing his departure from the last elected post he held –that of UK Prime Minister- his approval rating was hovering around the 30% mark.

To return to Hague’s speech of 2008: “we can all picture the scene at a European council […] Picture the face of our prime minister as the name of Blair is placed in nomination by one president and prime minister after another. The look of gloom on his face. The nauseating, glutinating praise oozing from every head of government […] the awful moment when the motorcade of the President of Europe sweeps up to Downing Street.” His comments were aimed at embarrassing Gordon Brown, but another group may find seeing Tony Blair as EU President just as hard to stomach– the British public.