President Tony Blair?

[arctangent]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6857807.ece

So if I'm understanding this right, the EU will soon have a President, the President will be appointed rather than elected, and Tony Blair is apparently in line to be appointed.


So why does the EU need a President (as opposed to a PM or an emperor or a king or a First Executive) ? Why is this President not elected? Why Tony Blair?

[Kalle]

In principle I'm EU-positive. In practice, the EU is such a top-heavy, beaurocratic, undemocratic colossus that everything good about is countered by complete bullshit, here seen in the guise of Tony Blair.

[cliffski]

I can't even begin to think about the idea of that lying hypocritical self-obsessed megalomaniac tool being president. You will note that we humble peasants do not get to vote.

[lesslucid]

I assume the logic behind having an appointment rather than an election is that it makes it clear the position is primarily ceremonial. Since Ban Ki-Moon was appointed head of the UN, for example, we all know he's not really "President of the World". Once you have an election, the winner has a mandate to challenge the decisions of other people whose only qualification is that they also won an election...

[Tim Partlett]

Presidents usually only get elected in countries where they have power, like the US. In countries where they are mostly just a figurehead, they usually get selected by a political body, like a parliament. For example in Germany the president has few powers, and is elected by a body selected from the Bundestag, the German parliament.

[cliffski]

if he will have no power, lets save all our taxes and just not bother?
its not like he is hard up for a job, apparently he is middle-east peace envoy. I hear he's doing a GREAT job.

[mixuk]

So why does the EU need a President (as opposed to a PM or an emperor or a king or a First Executive) ? Why is this President not elected? Why Tony Blair?

Because it's not "President of the EU" but President of the European Council, and he/she would really have no formal power.

[arctangent]

Aha, I see, the Council of the European Union and the European Council are not the same and the President discussed here is not the President of the European Commission. Or something like that. I'm confused.

[JD]

Cliff et al are far more qualified to judge Blair's domestic policy, but I think he should not be allowed to represent anything or anyone anymore for having beaten the war drums as he did along with Bush. Regardless of whether he'd have any formal power or not.

[Chris Nahr]

But we need an expert to supervise our European death panels!

[sam and the firefly]

Cliff et al are far more qualified to judge Blair's domestic policy, but I think he should not be allowed to represent anything or anyone anymore for having beaten the war drums as he did along with Bush. Regardless of whether he'd have any formal power or not.

As someone who thinks he generally did a pretty good job domestically, I completely agree. It's absolutely reason enough to make him a bad choice for the post, whatever the post even is.

[Nellie]

Iraq justifiably overshadows anything else he managed to get right. I'm actually surprised that the rest of Europe is even considering it.

[JD]

So am I.

[Chris Nahr]

I'm not. Tony Blair sending British troops to Iraq sucks for Britain but why should the rest of Europe care, or especially the EU leadership? I think it's much more important to them that a president who is also a former PM might act as the EU's public image in Britain and stop the rising separatist sentiment there. They've got reason to worry now that the Tories have left the mainstream conservative group in the European parliament and teamed up with Eastern European eurosceptics.

[Janster]

Isn't he like super religious....

And he's dabbling in the middle east....I wonder why they call us crusaders down there....

[Nellie]

Tony Blair sending British troops to Iraq sucks for Britain but why should the rest of Europe care, or especially the EU leadership?
Making the guy that basically told the rest of Europe to suck it over Iraq the figurehead of the EU makes no sense. And especially not if it's supposed to be some kind of gesture to the idiots over here currently forming partnerships with Eastern European parties with views far more objetionable than euroscepticism.

If you want a British figurehead who's pro-Europe, that people actually like and might listen to, can I suggest Eddie Izzard?

[Chris Nahr]

Making the guy that basically told the rest of Europe to suck it over Iraq the figurehead of the EU makes no sense.

Huh? Joining the Iraq war was not a question of EU policy but a decision that each country made for itself, and Blair's decision to go along with America didn't really affect the rest of Europe one way or another.

Now whether Blair is too unpopular in Britain to make a good figurehead is a different question... but it seems he's the only British top politician on offer at the moment.

[Nellie]

Hence Europe rather than EU, my bad should have been more explicit in my meaning.

If the aim of making Blair the figurehead is to try and knock some sense into Britain over EU membership then it's a waste of time. Otherwise I guess it's no more bizarre a decision than making him peace envoy to the middle east

[cliffski]

I don't know anyone in the UK that even wants the role to exist, let alone Blair for it