Blair wants EU top job

[CyberRose]

Sorry I'd checked and edited my post while you were writing yours France required either a super majority OR a referendum either would have been binding, but necessary in order to amend the French constituion could not legally coexist under the proposed EU constitution. Had Britian held its referendum then we are talking the sort of numbers in the propsoed Orange card system.

You confuse elected members of political parties with countries.

Glad you agree it is entirely a matter of French national law

 

[CyberRose]

According to this, the job description of the new role of president has not been written yet. It will not be discussed and decided until after the treaty has been ratified.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/09/weu109.xml

Not sure what they are referring to but this is what it says in the Treaty of Lisbon:

Article 9 B

1. The European Council shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development and shall define the general political directions and priorities thereof. It shall not exercise legislative functions.

2. The European Council shall consist of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, together with its President and the President of the Commission. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shall take part in its work.

3. The European Council shall meet twice every six months, convened by its President. When the agenda so requires, the members of the European Council may decide each to be assisted by a minister and, in the case of the President of the Commission, by a member of the Commission. When the situation so requires, the President shall convene a special meeting of the European Council.

4. Except where the Treaties provide otherwise, decisions of the European Council shall be taken by consensus.

5. The European Council shall elect its President, by a qualified majority, for a term of two and a half years, renewable once. In the event of an impediment or serious misconduct, the European Council can end the President's term of office in accordance with the same procedure.

6. The President of the European Council:

(a) shall chair it and drive forward its work;

(b) shall ensure the preparation and continuity of the work of the European Council in cooperation with the President of the Commission, and on the basis of the work of the General Affairs Council;

(c) shall endeavour to facilitate cohesion and consensus within the European Council;

(d) shall present a report to the European Parliament after each of the meetings of the European Council.

The President of the European Council shall, at his level and in that capacity, ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy, without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

The President of the European Council shall not hold a national office.

Obviously the Telegraph is the biggest opponent of the EU along with the Sun, so it is quite possible they are simply telling outright lies, as the far right tend to do when commenting on the EU...

 

[gosub]

Glad you agree it is entirely a matter of French national law

It is utterly irrelevent to the point I was making though.
Regardless of how an objection may be arrived at, there cannot be a reasonable expectation that the wishes of a country with an minority view that stands in the way of a unanimous decision will be respected.

 

[DexterTCN]

I think it's a testament to his indefatigability (sic). I think his only European ally - apart from Brown - is Sarko.

And Brown hates him. Sarko...dunno, does Murdoch have any French newspapers? Sarko is painting himself as pro-US so Blair is his ideal rentboy.

I suppose there would have to be a lot of lobbying if it was serious.

 

[CyberRose]

It is utterly irrelevent to the point I was making though.
Regardless of how an objection may be arrived at, there cannot be a reasonable expectation that the wishes of a country with an minority view that stands in the way of a unanimous decision will be respected.

You were implying that foreign policy in the Council will be bulldozed through even tho decisions are taken unanimously because you were under the mistaken belief that the French and Dutch referendums counted as France and Netherland's votes in the Council. They didn't. The means by which nation states come to decisions when voting in the Council is purely a matter of national sovereignty and the EU laws and structures have no control over them...

 

[CyberRose]

And Brown hates him. Sarko...dunno, does Murdoch have any French newspapers? Sarko is painting himself as pro-US so Blair is his ideal rentboy.

I suppose there would have to be a lot of lobbying if it was serious.

Well the "US" might be completely different after the elections? You can't seriously think that whoever gets this job is going to be opposed to relations with the US do you?! And whatever you think of Blair you cannot say he is ideologically identical to the Republicans in America whatsoever (which, I assume is what you mean when you show fear that the President might be "pro-US")

Anyway, the Council will have to agree on a President and if he turns out to be "pro-US" (however you define that) then that's what all 27 EU governments are happy with.

Besides, look at the job spec of the President I posted above, whatever their political opinions they won't be able to dictate policy (indeed, that's not their job, their job is simply the cohesion of the Council and mediate between member states)

 

[gosub]

I just listened to Derek Scott vs Andrew Slaughter on Today in Parliament (Friday edition) they are as bad as this..

 

[gosub]

Mark Mardell covers Blair and the EU presidency
from that : "Mr Blair feels that while it’s flattering to be considered, there is no hurry: indeed it’s too early in the process to make a decision. He wants to wait and see how the job is fleshed out as meat is put on the bones of the Lisbon Treaty.

The trouble is that nothing of importance will be decided until after the Irish referendum, on a date yet to be announced, for fear of frightening the voters with potentially controversial decisions."

I would also take issue with cyberose calling the Telegraph "the far right". i have been reading quite a lot around the scandals engulfing mainstream politics at the moment, where a number of respected politicos are saying that mainstream debasing itself can only be good for extremists. Whilst I'm sure I'm not the only one who has learnt to suspend disbelief when reading cyberose's postings there is a difference between the far right and the daily telegraph it may suit his short sighted aims, I don't think it is helpful.

 

[Dhimmi]

The EU's consistently undemocratic, and quite happy to get into bed with just about anyone. Oil trading in Euro's with Saddam Hussein explains the bulk of their opposition to anything linked with the invasion of Iraq.

I'd sign the petition if I thought it'd do a thing, but sadly I don't think it will. The slimy bastid Blair is already a peace envoy to the middle east and I don't imagine the off the wall titles will stop there...

 

[nino_savatte]

And Brown hates him. Sarko...dunno, does Murdoch have any French newspapers? Sarko is painting himself as pro-US so Blair is his ideal rentboy.

I suppose there would have to be a lot of lobbying if it was serious.

Murdoch doesn't own any French titles but Sarko has been trying to reposition France as a staunch US ally since he became President. The only real beneficiaries if Blair became EU president would be the US. The US has always wanted some leverage on the EU. Indeed, Britain often acts as the US representative at the EU.

 

[CyberRose]

The EU's consistently undemocratic, and quite happy to get into bed with just about anyone. Oil trading in Euro's with Saddam Hussein explains the bulk of their opposition to anything linked with the invasion of Iraq.

Yawn. How is the EU undemocratic?

 

[CyberRose]

The only real beneficiaries if Blair became EU president would be the US.

And this type of opinion is why I've spent most of this thread trying to discuss the actual roles of what the President of the Council will be. You don't even know what role Blair is being pimped for (you say "EU president") so how are you in any position to comment on who stands to benefit from an individual being appointed the Council's President?

The President of the Council cannot dictate policy. They will be the chairman of the Council and do a chairman's job. The President of the Parliament cannot dictate policy to MEPs, so why do you think that the Council's President will be any different?

The Council will do what the Council wants to do, the President's job is to try and get as much agreement as possible between 27 different governments...

 

[nino_savatte]

I just found this. Even Brown doesn't want him in the role.

Senior allies of Gordon Brown are plotting to wreck Tony Blair's ambition to become the first permanent President of Europe amid fears that his appointment would reignite old divisions in the Labour Party.

The Brown camp is determined to enlist high-powered support within the EU to prevent a Blair bandwagon, backed by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, gathering pace.

The Daily Telegraph has established that Mr Blair is taking a serious and growing interest in the £200,000-a-year post, which would thrust him back to the centre of the international stage.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/28/nbrown128.xml

Denis MacShane (another Blairite and member of the Henry 'Scoop' Jackson society) thinks otherwise...as one might expect.

Yet for all that, Mr Blair remains the biggest leader Europe has produced since the era of Thatcher, Mitterrand, Kohl and Delors. He speaks French. Americans listen to him. He is still young.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6db6b9b2-d845-11dc-98f7-0000779fd2ac.html

 

[butchersapron]

I just found this. Even Brown doesn't want him in the role.

That's the funniest thing i've read on here all day.

Stunning news.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

That's the funniest thing i've read on here all day.

Stunning news.

Try this:
Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[poster342002]

I can only guess the amount of blame future generations across Europe will place on the British Labour Party for first spewing this man to prominance to begin with.

 

[CyberRose]

Can those who have strong feelings about who should and who should not be the President of the Council (which is what it's called, despite nino's attempts to use right-wing sources to claim otherwise) tell me what qualities and skills the person nominated to that position should possess? And does anyone have any good candadites in mind they think would perform the role of Council President efficiently?

 

[butchersapron]

Try this:
Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Nasty

And even Hague gets the basic point about the roles future expansion and the naivity of the euro-pimps.

 

[CyberRose]

Nasty

And even Hague gets the basic point about the roles future expansion and the naivity of the euro-pimps.

Do you share William Hague's concerns about the EU?

 

[butchersapron]

Do you share William Hague's concerns about the EU?

Yes. My record shows that i'm a right wing nut-job.

 

[CyberRose]

Yes. My record shows that i'm a right wing nut-job.

But can't you see the contradiction there is when "right wing nut-jobs" oppose membership of the EU, and you also oppose the EU?

Do you know why the Tories and UKIP oppose membership of the EU?

Clue: It ties in to your misconception that the EU is only about free trade, and always has...

 

[butchersapron]

Eh?

 

[butchersapron]

But can't you see the contradiction there is when "right wing nut-jobs" oppose membership of the EU, and you also oppose the EU?

What contradiction?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

But can't you see the contradiction there is when "right wing nut-jobs" oppose membership of the EU, and you also oppose the EU?

Do you know why the Tories and UKIP oppose membership of the EU?

Clue: It ties in to your misconception that the EU is only about free trade, and always has...

Are you saying that the Tory critique of the EU is the only one available?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[CyberRose]

Are you saying that the Tory critique of the EU is the only one available?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

No of course not!

I'm saying two groups, from completely opposite ends of the political spectrum both want to be out of the EU. Not only should that tell you something about the nature of the EU itself (to both set of groups) but it should also start big fuck off alarm bells ringing in your heads about what kind of economic system and society we'd be walking into should we leave the EU!

If we leave the EU, one of the anti-EU groups will be in power, and it certainly won't be those on the left...

 

[CyberRose]

Eh?

You think the EU is purely about free trade. Well that's wrong. While the "EU" (ie the 27 governments of the EU) will agree that free trade is positive for the economy, the more conservative elements of our societies (the most notiable of which are our own Torys) believe that this is all the EU should be about, nothing more, nothing less. It is actually this ideology you argue against when you analyse the EU. But that is not the reality and never has been. The EU has been about regulating the "free" market and implementing mass civil and workers rights, something we in this country would not enjoy were it not for the EU. The Torys opted out of the Social Charter because that is the area of EU law that grants workers all the rights we take for granted today. All those opposed to the EU from the right will repeal all those workers rights should they win power in the future (or take us out of the EU all together to set up a purely free trade agreement).

That is why there's a contradiction. Political groups that share your ideology will never win power in this country, that is why Labour were unelectable throughout Thatchers reign and after until they moved to the centre. If we leave the EU, or oppose the efforts it makes, we will not be helping any left-wing causes because should that happen, it will only be the right that are in a political position to benefit from such an outcome.

I know that's hard for you to swallow and to be honest, I expect you to disagree with me, but until the left is in a position to win power then opposing the EU (because you are under false pretenses of its exact nature) is a very dangerous policy to follow.

My advice for the left would not be to oppose the EU but to support change in the EU to better suit their principles, there is, after all, a fairly decent sized Communist grouping in the Parliament

http://www.guengl.org/showPage.jsp?ID=1

 

[Louis MacNeice]

No of course not!

I'm saying two groups, from completely opposite ends of the political spectrum both want to be out of the EU. Not only should that tell you something about the nature of the EU itself (to both set of groups) but it should also start big fuck off alarm bells ringing in your heads about what kind of economic system and society we'd be walking into should we leave the EU!

If we leave the EU, one of the anti-EU groups will be in power, and it certainly won't be those on the left...

So there is no contradiction as you stated earlier. Rather you think that right wing nationalistic arguements would win out over left wing ones re. economic democracy; furthermore you extrapolate from that that anti-EU arguments coming from the left shouldn't be made. Interesting stuff given that such arguments are also attacks on your prefered position.All of which means you are quite happy to use the nationalistic right wing bogey man as a tool close down debate...now that is a genuinely contradictory alliance.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[CyberRose]

So there is no contradiction as you stated earlier. Rather you think that right wing nationalistic arguements would win out over left wing ones re. economic democracy; furthermore you extrapolate from that that anti-EU arguments coming from the left shouldn't be made. Interesting stuff given that such arguments are also attacks on your prefered position.All of which means you are quite happy to use the nationalistic right wing bogey man as a tool close down debate...now that is a genuinely contradictory alliance.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

You can call it whatever you want but I called it a contradiction because if we did leave the EU we couldn't simultaneously implement the left wing vision and the right wing vision could we?

And yes, I don't think the left should advocate leaving the EU unless they were in a position to win power and implement their own policies. As I don't believe it is possible in a parliamentary (liberal) democracy for them to achieve that, I think they should concentrate on shaping the EU with their own ideals

(Unless you meant that I think the left should not criticise the current state of the EU at all, which would be absurd)