EU President Blair

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.

Zuiderzee

Dinner wrote: »

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.

All a bit of a dogs dinner, no one seems happy with it except the politicos

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

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.

If you're saying that you've PM'd me, I can only say I have received no PM from you, and am still waiting for an explanation.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

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

There is no problem as long as you're prepared to stick to the facts, but it's a forum for discussion, not for regurgitating posts from politics.ie and repetitively asking innuendo-laden questions. You had an answer from Generation Yes, replying in the negative to your question, but you went on asking it. That's not debate, and I think you know it.

moderately,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Zuiderzee wrote: »

P - in fairness - the Dutch, Irish and French rejected the last version of Lisbon, or did I get that wrong.

You got that wrong, and I think you know that you got that wrong, because this matter has arisen here often.

There have been minor changes, but we are the only ones who get to vote this time on what is fundamentaly the same document.

Jaysus! Not that one again! 95%, is it? So it's different, and it's different because of the things that the French and the Dutch and some others did not like, particularly some of the symbolism.

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

You're taking liberties with the facts, a liberty that amounts to a great distortion.

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

Questions? I tackled you on a statement, not a question. And I'm tackling other wrong statements here. Do those who would have us vote no need a free pass on truth and accuracy in order to have scope to make a case?

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

That's a scare tactic!

Zuiderzee

Firstly - apology due to Scoff, messed up on PM system, and it had not cont through properly. I have clarified the points he has raised with me by PM as best I can.

I do regret the title used in posting at p.ie, I should just have pasted as a new topic.

This forum is the place I posed a question as successive emails to GY and have not been answered, that simple.

And still no clear answer from GY??


Now P -

With the Dutch voted No by Referenum to the Lisbon Constitution.
By changing the title to 'Treaty' it was ratified by their parliament - not by their people - and they are pretty pissed off about it.
Liberals are now even voting for people like Verdonk and Wilders out of frustration.

The French Government got a few changes, bigger country in EU of course, in order to push ratification through via parliament, to bypass a referendum.

We have been given assurances that amount to nothing, as they do not relate to what is in the treaty - promises about nothing, IMO, mean nothing.

In terms of taking liberties - I think thats more your area, when it suits the Yes agenda - the gaurantees are great - when they do not, They dont matter anyway.

If you are saying the FF/Gn Gov is still credable! Do you still believe what Cowen and his cabal tell you? You actually still trust that band of muppets?
The Greens, they actually disgust me when they go against everything they stood for in the past, and promote this treaty.
At least we always knew that FF/FG would put power and profits before people, but I expected more from the Greens.

Your so called tackling of statements instead of trying to provide answers is becoming increasingly personal small minded waffle fudge - with the assistance of a few others - but that tendency has been building for a while.

As for the issue this posting is about - Blair being the first Selected EU president - if and when the position ever comes about - Its not a scare tactic, its a probability.
And if you get your way, an eventuality

storinius

Zuiderzee wrote: »

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

A vote for Lisbon is an endorsement of a President Blair

Do you honestly think that Tony Blair could win an election to that position?

I mean, he has made just a few enemies in Europe after all. To be honest I think that Peter Sutherland would have a fairly good shot at getting the job, though I think he was blocked by the Spanish the last time he was trying to get the President of the Commission job. Could be wrong on that though.

Dinner

Zuiderzee wrote: »

With the Dutch voted No by Referenum to the Lisbon Constitution.
By changing the title to 'Treaty' it was ratified by their parliament - not by their people - and they are pretty pissed off about it.

It wasn't a case of changing the name of it. By Dutch law it is illegal to have a binding referendum. So the Dutch government had a non binding one. But the Dutch courts ruled that the referendum actually was binding. But they are illegal. So they ratified Lisbon in parliment according to their constitution.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

in order to push ratification through via parliament, to bypass a referendum.

Something that the French population were fully aware of when they elected Sarkozy.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

We have been given assurances that amount to nothing, as they do not relate to what is in the treaty - promises about nothing, IMO, mean nothing.

But they were some of the concerns. It's not the governments fault that some people were concerned about things that weren't in the treaty. So the government sorted out their concerns anyway.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

If you are saying the FF/Gn Gov is still credable!

I don't think you'd catch anyone here saying that!

Zuiderzee wrote: »

As for the issue this posting is about - Blair being the first Selected EU president - if and when the position ever comes about - Its not a scare tactic, its a probability.
And if you get your way, an eventuality

Can you please stop calling the position 'EU President'? You know that is wrong yet you insist on using it because it sounds more sensationalist.

storinius

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Firstly - apology due to Scoff, messed up on PM system, and it had not cont through properly. I have clarified the points he has raised with me by PM as best I can.

I do regret the title used in posting at p.ie, I should just have pasted as a new topic.

This forum is the place I posed a question as successive emails to GY and have not been answered, that simple.

And still no clear answer from GY??

Been away for a while, had a Gen YES event in Cork last week, which went really well actually.

I thought I had answered the questions about our funding. We raise all our own money, are essentially a volunteer organisation so don't need massive amounts of cash, and can't take money from the government.

As for Brendan Halligan, its weird to see the unhealthy fascination with him here. He didn't set up Generation YES, he hasn't attended any Generation YES meetings, nor are CIPA or the IIEA funding our organisation in any way.

That clear enough?