Blair and his masters

In an essay in Prospect magazine last year, Timothy Garton Ash commented: "[T]he prospect of joining what is now the EU has encouraged country after country, from Spain and Portugal 30 years ago to Croatia and Turkey today, to transform its domestic politics, economy, law, media and society. The EU is one of the most successful engines of peaceful regime change ever. For decades, the struggle for freedom and what is emotively called the 'return to Europe' have gone arm in arm."

Garton Ash's judgement is in my view beyond serious dispute. It is the principal way the EU serves as a force for good in world affairs, and the main reason I favour closer European integration. One factor in my unhesitating Labour vote in the 2001 general election was the warning of the then Tory leader, now Shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague that: "Tony Blair has made his intentions clear. If he is re-elected, he will speed up the process of European integration." And it's partly because I desire the strengthening of European institutions that I think Tony Blair would be an apt choice for the new post of President of the EU Council.

Not everyone agrees. My friend Agnès Poirier believes, with some historical warrant, that "the election of Blair to this position would be highly ironic, if not tragic: an Englishman as Europe's first president!" But while Agnès is an informed analyst of European politics and diplomacy, she may - perhaps owing to that very specialism - have overlooked certain subterranean factors highlighted by other critics of Tony Blair. For example, one thought-provoking article also published on "Comment is Free" last month pointed to the unaccountable and covert influences working through the former PM: "Ever since he attended his first Bilderberg conference in 1993, Tony Blair has never disappointed his powerful masters."

If you follow the link the author provided in support of his contention, you'll arrive at a site that exposes numerous stories that the mainstream media fail to report: the Satanic world order uncovered by the 9/11 truth movement; the links between the Bilderberg Group and al-Qaeda; the "666 calculator machine" created from careful study of the Book of Revelation; the proof thereby derived of Prince Charles's identity as the antichrist; and the occult devotions practised by both President Bush and Senator John Kerry (as well, obviously, as the first President Bush and his father before him).

I recalled these points when reading an interview this week with the Belgian elder statesman Viscount Etienne Davignon concerning Blair's suitability for the EU role:

"The 75-year-old politician is known as ‘Mr Belgium’ and is internationally respected. He is a former aide of Paul-Henri Spaak, one of the EU’s founding fathers and, currently, a vice president with the Suez conglomerate. He added: 'Blair would need to command widespread support for his candidacy and this is something he lacks. All things considered, I believe there are better candidates for this very important job than Tony Blair.'"

Some of the criticisms ventured in the interview mirror Agnès's. (On one of those issues, though - the Schengen agreement on internal borders - I consider there are good reasons for the UK to be treated as a special case. We don't have identity cards, and we have a demonstrated problem with domestic terrorists receiving training abroad and then returning home.) But at the end of the interview I did a double take, for it revealed something I had not known and that is so counterintuitive that I have added emphasis: "Davignon, also chairman of the influential Bilderberg Group, believes Blair’s support for the war in Iraq would also count against him."

My friends, these people are ruthless in their cunning.

Comments

[Nicholas]

I wonder if Britain would have been able to join with American forces in the Iraq war if she was a province of a united states Europe? Surely there is a contradiction between supporting a war (the most potent act of national independence) which most EU states did not endorse and favouring greater decision-making powers being transferred to EU institutions? Perhaps the decision to wage war is not something you would contemplate being included in "the process of European integration"?

[Terry McCrann]

Oliver
I'm guessing, that you get an added kick from the quiet realisation that the sarcasm implicit and, dare I say, even explicit in this post, almost assuredly would pass straight over the heads of the very interlocuters to whom it is most directly addressed.

[Harry Barnes]

The problem with the European Union is its democratic deficit. I used to press him on the matter, but Blair always rejected the notion that we needed to move the EU in a social, federal and democratic direction. If he was at the centre of the EU, he would become part of the problem and not the solution.

[David Duff]

No man, caught taking a backhander on behalf of his, er, 'Brothers', and who says of himself with absolute seriousness, "Hey, everyone knows I'm a pretty straight sort of a guy" is fit to run a whelk stall.

[Arthur]

The way I see it, it's exactly because the EU has been a successful engine of peaceful (and positive) regime change, that we should not mess with it -- i.e. we should not enact the Lisbon Treaty.

I agree that Blair is probably the least bad candidate with a serious chance. But I'd much prefer Mart Laar as President.

[Anthony]

Nicholas,

Interestingly most EU states did endorse the Iraq war. At the time of the war:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030327-10.html

Existing EU members: 40% supported the war.

New members of EU: 70% supported the war.

Enlarged EU: 52% membership of Iraqi Freedom

So, there was a narrow (13 against 12) majority of European States supporting the action in Iraq at the time. If you add in the then applicant countries Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey, who all supported the coalition, then there was nearly 60% support for the action in Iraq.

[dirigible]

Since it will upset the technocrats if he gets in and upset him if he doesn't it's a win-win scenario.

As long as he concentrates on foreign policy and doesn't try to bring his ENRON-style economics to the rest of the EU he could be a net positive in the role.

[Conor Foley]

Oh good, for a while I thought that you were being serious when you promised to that you were going to stop tormenting poor Neil.

[DavidP]

There is widespread opposition in Europe to Blair becoming president of the
EU. This is Pierre Moscovici, a potential leader of the PS (Franc Parler on France Inter, 14 Jan - *):

[since the European president] also presides over the Eurogroup, I believe it would be extremely complicated if the European Union were presided over by a man who, whether you like it or not, represents a country that is not a member of the Euro: there we have a whole series of reasons why a British person, even if it's Tony Blair, cannot be president of the European Union.

On Anthony's point (that there was nearly 60% support among EU countries
for the action in Iraq), some of those  countries  - like Spain and Italy
- have changed their governments and therefore their positions on Iraq since 2003.

I also picked up from the French press some interesting comments on European
defence cooperation (they're a bit buried, towards the end of the second
link I give below.

http://davidp1.blogspot.com/2008/03/blair-en-fran.html
http://davidp1.blogspot.com/2008/03/fran.html

[Anthony]

On Anthony's point (that there was nearly 60% support among EU countries
for the action in Iraq), some of those countries - like Spain and Italy
- have changed their governments and therefore their positions on Iraq since 2003.

Since Nicholas was talking in the past tense, the point stands regardless.

[DavidP]

If you're talking about the past, ie 2003, then it's countries that weren't even part of the EU then, taking part in a decision on an (equally non-existent) common foreign policy.

If you're talking about the present and future, then you have to take into account the changed governments as well as the new states. But in any case, there still won't be a common foreign policy after Lisbon, except by unanimous consent.

On the face of it Gaza / Hamas 2008 seems quite similar to Lebanon / Hezbollah 2006 (the US avoiding the word "ceasefire"), but Brown hasn't faced anything like the criticism Blair took then.