Europe lets itself down (again)
by Max Wind-Cowie
It’s not just that they didn’t give it to Tony, disappointing as that is, it’s the sheer, crushing, repetitive lack of ambition that they’ve shown. ‘They’, by the way, are the great and the good of the European Council who yesterday appointed a little-known Belgian as the first President and an even less well-known British Peer as their foreign emissary.
This is the perfect example of the overwhelming inadequacy of the European structures that we have.
Faced with truly international problems, problems like terrorism, climate change and carbon crises that require a coalition of the willing to solve, Europe has remained devastatingly unable to respond dynamically. This should be Europe’s time; these are the very issues for which the founding members designed the Union in the first place.
But instead of uniting behind America in facing down fanatics, Europe bickered; instead of aggressively pursuing CO2 cuts, European states have negotiated behind one another’s backs; and instead of demanding that Russia play fair with what’s left of the world’s oil, European leaders stabbed one another in the back to secure their own supplies. We are a ‘family of nations’ only in the sense that we seem to secretly seethe with envy at one another, compete constantly and only reluctantly sit down together in the same room once every few months.
But, in the Treaty of Lisbon, this bickering cabal had the opportunity to forge a brighter path. Here they were presented with two new posts to fill, new posts that would present the face of Europe to the world and argue the case for Europeans in foreign capitals. The candidates list, whilst hardly exhilarating, contained a couple of genuinely good names. The battleaxe’s battleaxe, Vaira Vike-Freiberga - or the equally charismatic and high-powered Tony Blair – could have been President. Clinton-idol and uber-geek, David Milliband, might have been foreign representative. But no, any of those might have actually done their jobs, shaped their roles and produced effective outcomes – overshadowing (perhaps) the very members of the council that appointed them. So, instead, we have been lumped with two nobodies.
What’s the solution? Well, as the assorted European Prime Ministers and Presidents have shown that they are utterly incapable of appointing the competent (or at least the memorable) perhaps we should let the European citizenry decide instead.
I know this sounds like blasphemy from a Euro-sceptic but, if Europe is serious about being taken seriously, it is the only way; come on Europe, let’s let the people decide.
Skeptical European
I'm a bit skeptical - if we had been allowed to vote on it I can't see Europeans queuing up to elect Tony Blair anyway. It's probably better to have them appointed, that way you can be sure they're not Napolean wannabes!
Eleni
Tony needs to focus on sorting out the Middle East and actually doing something there, I'm glad Tony didn't get it. The fact that he is well known may very well have hindered his ability to get anything done. Who knows what the unknown duo may do for Europe.
Max Wind-Cowie
Thank you all for your comments. If you guys are representative of the average European citizen, I guess Tony would have stood even less chance of reaching the Presidency had we all been given a say. However, Blair or no Blair, I think the point stands. The European elite chose two people to lead them that are neither internationally known nor particularly popular (one of them has never been elected to any office whatsoever). If we want a strong and outward looking EU then we need leaders who reflect that; as democrats we are supposed to believe that the best way of selecting such people is through elections!
"Coalition of the willing?"
Where have seen the argument for "a coallition of the willing" before? There are more than a few worrying, Blairite sentiments in this piece, not least the concern that "they didn’t give it to Tony, disappointing as that is" or, much more disparingly, the call for a Europe united "behind America in facing down fanatics." I'm pretty certain that letting "the European citizenry decide" wouldn't result in anything remotely resembling those two outcomes. I do hope your progressive conservatism isn't Blair Mark II in its foreign policy, too.
PS - If the broadsheets are to be believed, memorable Milliband took himself out of the running for the post...
Fede
As long as the single member States will have different ideas of Europe, the question of nationality will matter.
If the UK does not want to accelarete the EU process of integration, then I must say that a British should not be the EU Foreign Policy Minister.
The role of President of the EU was more appropriate for a British.
Moreover Ashton and Van Rumpoy are completely unknow on the international arena. I think that Blair-D'Alema would have been a perfect choice for the EU.
This would have been satisfactory for the EU and for all those who believe in a strong Europe. A few apparently.
I have written an article called "Baroness Ashton will betray Victor Hugo's dream".
Jeff West
They didn't think much of that other Belgian, Hercule Poirot but just look at what he acheived!