A European Diversion - Blair for President?

As the debate rumbles on in Washington over the economy, health care reform and the military strategy in Afghanistan, a controversy of a different kind is brewing "across the pond".  Who will become the first "President of Europe"?  A leading contender, though of course he claims not to be actively seeking the office, is former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.  In addition to the British Government, his principal backer appears to be his old friend and ally, the scandal-plagued lothario Silvio Berlusconi.  They say that you can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps. If that's true, then the support of the right wing and increasingly erratic Italian Prime Minister should be grounds enough to rule Blair out of contention.  Bu there are other more serious reasons why Blair is the wrong man for the job.

First of all, some context. The post, technically "President of the European Council" is an new one, created by the Lisbon Treaty, which now awaits only the ratification of Czechoslovakia if it is to enter into effect as planned on January 1, 2010.  The President would be appointed by the Council of Member States (i.e., in effect, by their heads of government) for a term of 30 month.  This would replace the existing system under which the Presidency of the Council rotates among Member States for periods of 6 months at a time.  There is no requirement that the appointment be approved by the European Parliament, and a President could be removed only by the Council of Ministers.  Officially, the role of the President is largely administrative: to chair meetings of the Council and report on those proceedings to the European Parliament.  In addition, however, together with the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (a position also created by the Lisbon Treaty), the President would represent Europe on the international stage.  And it is in the area of foreign policy that the role of President will largely be shaped.

So why is Blair a bad choice?   Lord Owen, who served as Foreign Secretary under Jim Callaghan's Labour government, summed it up perfectly.  Quoted recently in the Guardian newspaper, he had this to say:

"Lord Butler on 22 February 2007 [in his report into the origins of war in Iraq] made devastatingly clear why Tony Blair is not a fit and proper person to preside over Council meetings of European heads of government. Butler used the word 'disingenuous' to describe how Blair was told by the UK intelligence community 'we know little about Iraq's chemical and biological weapons work since late 1988' and yet told parliament just over a month later that the picture painted by our intelligence services was 'extensive, detailed and authoritative'. Like contempt of court, contempt of parliament should always be a disqualification for holding high office."  

I differ from David Own only in my view that Blair's contempt of parliament - or, perhaps better put,  contempt for parliament - was not limited to the events leading up to the Iraq War, but was a pervasive characteristic of his term in office.  The greatest British Prime Ministers, from William Pitt to Winston Churchill, were first and foremost parliamentarians.  (Persons of the Conservative persuasion may include Baroness Thatcher in the "greatest" list; I would disagree with that, but would concur as to her stature as a parliamentarian.)  They understood and respected the fact that under the British system Parliament is the supreme authority in the land.  They understood and respected the principle of cabinet government and the role of the Prime Minister as "primus inter pares" - first among equals.  They understood and respected the fact that the Prime Minister's foremost responsibility is to account fully and truthfully to Parliament for his or her government's actions.  Above all, they understood and respected the fact that the powers of the Prime Minister are circumscribed not so much by statute as by the respect that the holder of the office has for the British constitution and traditions of government.

Blair, by contrast, neither understood nor respected any of this.

Professor George Jones, Emeritus Professor of Government at the London School of Economics, has commented that Blair  "had been used to working with a small number of like-minded cronies" and "almost seemed to despise collective decision making".  From the start, Blair adopted not just a Presidential style, but a Presidential style of the worst possible order.  He surrounded himself with a coterie of PR consultants and "spin doctors".  Policy announcements were leaked to favored journalists, rather than unveiled in Westminster.   His use of patronage to appoint political friends and party contributors to public offices led to the coining of the term "Tony's Cronies" and to a major "Cash for Honors" scandal involving "New Labour" fundraiser Lord Levy or, as he was better known among the party faithful,  "Lord Cashpoint".  Blair tinkered needlessly with British constitution, reducing the independence of the Judiciary, and pushed through controversial legislation banning political demonstrations within one kilometre of Westminster Square - an unprecedented restriction on freedom of speech and peaceful dissent directed primarily at anti-war protesters.  In place of traditional Cabinet government, where decisions are reached through consensus, Blair opted for what came to be known as "sofa government", in which key Cabinet members were "persuaded" to Blair's way of thinking over tea and biscuits in his den, before decisions were rubber-stamped by the Cabinet.    The enquiry into the Iraq War headed by Lord Butler, to which Lord Owen was referring in the remarks quoted above, criticized the "informality" of Blair's syle, noting that ministers were frequently not even provided with key documents in advance of meetings at which they were expected to take decisions for which they were expected to assume collective responsibility.  And in a country with an established church but a decidedly secular tradition of government, Blair too often let his personal religious views intrude into public life, causing the satirical magazine Private Eye to nickname him "the Vicar".

There is every reason why the post should not go to a British candidate, whether Blair or anyone else for that matter.  Britain has never fully embraced the concept of a united Europe.  It has periodically (albeit not without some justification) found itself at odds with its European partners over key domestic policy issues such as the Common Agricultural Policy and the U.K.'s contribution to the community budget.  It opted out of certain key provisions of the Maastricht and Lisbon Treaties and it is not a member of the European Monetary Union.  Gordon Brown's decision to deny British voters a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was perceived by many as reflecting a concern  that the Treaty would go down to defeat.  David Cameron, who looks set to replace Gordon Brown as Prime Minister at some point within the next eight months, has acknowledged urging Czech President Vaclav Klaus to delay ratification of the Treaty until his Conservative party takes office, in order that a referendum can be held in Britain.  (If that strategy works, and Britons have a opportunity to vote, the possibility of the broadly unpopular Blair assuming the Presidency of the European Council would inevitably become a lightning rod for anti-European sentiment - a potentially disastrous result for Britain.)

If Blair does get the job, it will likely be by default.  True, there are other possible candidates.  Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Junker has announced his interest.  His Dutch counterpart Jan Peter Balkenende has also been mentioned as a possible contender, as has former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez.  However, Blair will be doubtless be touted as the man who can give Europe the greatest clout on the international scene - even though his close association with the disastrous foreign policy of George W. Bush would almost certainly prove an impediment to European diplomacy, especially in the Arab world.   However, European leaders would do well to heed Lord Owen's warning and consider long and hard the record of arrogance and personal ambition evident in Blair's approach to governance, as they assess his suitability for a position with such ill-defined powers and so little accountability.