• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Blair kicks off campaign to become EU President

Red_Dave said:
Blair kicks off campaign to become EU President | Special Reports | Guardian Unlimited Politics Lord help us all:doh
Click to expand...

Another miss leading headline by a british newspaper.. go figure!

The role is not EU President, but President of the European Council and its not even a new position. There is already a President of the European Council, and Blair has been it a few times. The difference between the present and what is being created, is that the position is 2 and half years and not defaulted to the leader of the nation that takes over the EU leadership every 6 months.

But again, another missleading headline.. at least this newspaper had the balls to print at least some of the facts in the text. If it had been a Murdoch paper, then the text would have attempted to prove the missleading headline I bet.
 
Do you guys know that in the Christain Right in America, Blair is considered one of the candidates to be the anti-christ, just look at a few of their websites. If he becomes the President of Europe, it will hit the nail on the head with these people. Since Europe is meant to be Anti-christ country lol lol. :roll:
 
I am sure, he is the anti-Christ - and I'm not even Christian :mrgreen:
 

Well you,ve got to remember that the E.U is essentially running under a new consitution so this is effectively a new role we,re talking about. This is the first time a president of the european council will be full time and the first time he wont be a current head of state so i dont see how its misleading.
 

The "old" president was full time too. The difference is that it is not the head of state of the country that leads the EU at the time.

The role of the President has always to be the leader of the European council, which meets a few times a year. As for the fine print on the new 2.5 year post of President of the European Commision, I have not read it. But from what I have read, I see no difference in the role from the present one.

So yes the headline was missleading, but the text cleared it up a bit.

As for Blair.. he dont got no chance in hell in getting the post.
 
I think Blair was a great Prime Minister and his only mistake was following Bush into his idiot neo-con adventures. Bill Clinton and Blair were BFF just like Reagan and Thathcer.
 
PeteEU said:
As for Blair.. he dont got no chance in hell in getting the post.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that?

He was a very pro-European PM, by UK standards anyways. Sarkozy and Merkel both like him. He has star quality and a good relationship with the US. He's been around and done it all and lots of people probably owe him favours.

Who else would be in contention?
 
new coup for you said:
...he's tainted by the demon aurora of Bush
Click to expand...

True, but the EU doesn't have an army so Bush couldn't get him to invade any countries while in this job. :mrgreen:

A controversial figure would be good for this post, if they give it to some German beaurocrat no ones ever heard of the post will just be another fancy title no one cares about.

Most people who hate Tony Blair will still listen to him.
 
I like Tony Blair alot and I'm not sure I'd vote for him because of Bush. And I'm American.

I know Blair isn't an idiot. I know that Britain didn't have the kind of coporate lobby for the war like the US did. So why would he indulge the idiot zealot child and the evil old man of greed?
 

Yes he is pro-european, and it would be "great" to have an englishman as head of the European Council, especially considering how EU sceptic the brits are in general. Not sure if Blair would be the right one for this, but who knows.

However I still believe Blair has rubbed the wrong people in his latter years. Its not only the stench of being Bush's poodle.

Sure Sarkozy likes him, but he will have political issues at home to think of too. Sarkozy is getting more and more unpopular in his own country, and at some point he will have to make compromises, and that could include pushing for a Frenchman for post. On top of the Poles will probally try to screw things up as they always do, although they did kick out the right wing wackos they elected a few years ago.

As for alternatives. Well there are some politicans with the political experience and background to take up the post. For example I could name 2 danes maybe 3 who could take up the role no problem, and they have the same experience as Blair if not more. I bet there are several Frenchmen, Spainards, Germans and so on, who all could be potential candidates. What Blair has speaking for him, is that he is a well known face. The question is what the EU countries see as the role of the President of the European Council.. a figurehead or actually someone who is suppose to do something.
 

Well I have two theories.

One is that he is actually that much of an idiot idealist and thought that Iraqi's would greet us as liberators etc, etc. He wrote an essay sounding far too much like a neo-con where he said something like that.

Foreign Affairs - A Battle for Global Values - Tony Blair

The other is a version of events claimed by among others Peter Mandelson. Mandelson was New Labour before New Labour existed and he's one of Blair's biggest influences and closest aides, so I take him very seriously. He basically said that Bush told Blair the US was going to invade Iraq no matter what. Blair thought the US doing it by herself would be a total disaster, but thought an international alliance like the one that dealt with Yugoslavia could work. So he spent months travelling all over Europe and the world trying to get everyone on board, except the other big two in Europe; France and Germany didn't want to be a part of it at all. He did get some success for example with Spain and Italy, he can't take much credit for Eastern Europe as America is still really popular over there so they'd have always followed. Eventually he decided the world would be better with the modest coaltion than none at all and made the decision.

I guess you could also combine the two theories a bit.
 
 
I hope he gets it cant think of better choice in terms of being known on the world stage.Under him there was 10 straight years of economic growth in the UK.He will be popular with the catholics now he has converted.Domestically he never ****ed up the country in any major way and they never pinned anything on him as illegal.
 
 
Even though Blair waged the Iraq war, I still, as a Northern Irish man can't bring myself to dislike him. He did alot of Northern Ireland. If the EU President has to fly round trying to sort out peace treaties I think Blair is the man personally.
 
Slainte said:
A controversial figure would be good for this post, if they give it to some German beaurocrat no ones ever heard of the post will just be another fancy title no one cares about.
Click to expand...
What? I have to check back with my campaign manager, yesterday he told me, I will get all the Scottish votes :mrgreen:
 
There is a country with the name America, where they actually ask the people about who should be the next President, can you believe this?
 
Volker said:
There is a country with the name America, where they actually ask the people about who should be the next President, can you believe this?
Click to expand...

They don't really "ask" the people. If they did Gore would have been President in 2000. He did win the popular vote.
 
Volker said:
There is a country with the name America, where they actually ask the people about who should be the next President, can you believe this?
Click to expand...

Actually there aint that big a difference between the election of the US president and that of the EU president of the European Council.

Both are not elected directly, both are not elected by popular vote. Both are infact elected by a small group of people who have been somewhat elected or told what to vote. But in the end it is still up to the people elected to make the final choice

Only real difference is that in the US there is an illusion of an election campaign where the people are lead to believe that thier vote actually matters and they are actually voting for a candidate.. which they are not.. at least directly. In the EU we dont get that vote yet, but we do get to vote directly the people who influence the policy of the EU.. and for the most part that election is a direct vote where the person with popular support wins.

Basicly both systems are just as stupid as the other.
 
Hatuey said:
They don't really "ask" the people. If they did Gore would have been President in 2000. He did win the popular vote.
Click to expand...
Hey, they kinda asked you. They only did something else then :mrgreen:
 
Saxony had four EU parliamentarians and last time I checked this was a party thing to nominate the candidates, big party, name on the list, bon jour, Strasbourg :mrgreen:
 
PeteEU said:
Yes he is pro-european, and it would be "great" to have an englishman as head of the European Council, especially considering how EU sceptic the brits are in general. Not sure if Blair would be the right one for this, but who knows.
Click to expand...

Hardly. I think for many people what you,ld be doing is mergeing two hate figures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…