Silence is Golden... Except on President Blair

So, the Conservative Party conference has kicked off in Manchester and, as easily predicted, attention has turned to David Cameron's policy stance on the Lisbon Treaty following the confirmation of Ireland's "yes" vote yesterday. The furiously Eurosceptic wing of the Party is demanding a referendum on the Treaty in the UK regardless of whether or not all 27 member-states have ratified it by the time of the general election. Boris Johnson - always the political stirrer - has even come out publicly declaring there should be a referendum regardless of the situation in May, a move that must have infuriated Cameron. And of course, William Hague has also hinted of a referendum no matter what the eventual outcome.

Cameron has quickly reiterated that there will be no new discussion of Europe at the party conference and that "we cannot have more than one policy" - he is standing by his pledge that only IF the Treaty hasn't been fully ratified will the British be asked to reject it in a referendum. His reasoning, he has tried to assure the press and his own party is that he does not want to potentially influence the outcome of the ratification processes in the Czech Republic and Poland. However, the emergence of news that he has secretly written to the Czech President outlining his views on Lisbon just smacks of dirty politics and hypocrisy.

I reiterate what I wrote yesterday - that Cameron must remain pragmatic and his best option at present is to wait and see what happens in Warsaw and Prague (and not write secretive, shady letters to the Heads of State of those countries that one may prsume is interfering in their domestic politics). Already, he must be very careful with what he says and implies, for the risk of making very real enemies in Paris, Berlin and throughout the Union before he's even elected Prime Minister. Obviously, another prime factor in his thinking must be the memories of recent history and how the Conservative Party tore itself apart in the 1990s over the Maastricht Treaty - he will be desperate to ensure Party unity at all costs at least until after the election.

In contrast, one European issue I'm very happy for the Party to kick up a fuss about is the very real prospect of a "President Blair" of the European Union. This is rather a populist term for the post - in reality, the man (or woman) appointed to this post would only be President of the Council of Ministers and the it would be primarily a ceremonial position with few powers attached. The easy rationale here is that the President of the Council would not be a Head of State or Government of one of the member-states, unlike the other members of the Council and thus will not even be a man (or woman) among equals, but will be merely a secondary figure, with the real authority remaining with the Head of States/Government.

The rationale for a President Blair is also easy to understand - on the surface. Blair is a very prominent and recognisable former world leader. He would give an easily recognisable face to a Union which often causes confusion at important diplomatic summits due to the number of officials claiming to be representing Europe. And, not only that, but he would be also be easily recognisable to most of the 400 million European citizens, most of whom have very little idea of what the European Union actually does.

However, Blair's ability to be easily recognised is for completely the wrong reasons - first, Blair was responsible for the biggest political fallout in recent European history due to his unwavering support for the Iraq War. OK, other European leaders did support the war as well, but Blair was the main ringleader. Many European citizens (and governments for that matter) still deeply resent his support of a war which was seen as illegal, unnecessary and deeply flawed. They will not want him to be their symbolic representative of the EU and EU interests on the international stage. Blair is also seen by many European leaders as a failure in making the British pro-European and as William Hague pointed out, appointing Blair would cause deep resentment among the British public who had come to rejoice when Blair left office in 2007 and would not assist in selling the European project to the most Eurosceptic population in the entire Union.

Instead, the post should go to a true European statesman, who has worked hard to consolidate, strengthen and further the European project - I personally would allow the position to go to the long-term Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Jean-Claude Junker. Alas, his only fallback is that he doesn't have the international profile of Blair and would be a relative unknown to absolutely every EU citizen who isn't from Luxembourg (and that's most of them). 

Maybe though, after looking at Blair's less-than-perfect record, that isn't a bad thing...