Europe: How Realistic Is A Blair Presidency?
One of the big questions of British politics in recent years (aside from who will win the 2010 general election, of course) is quite what former Prime Minister Tony Blair will do next. Still just 56, Blair has so far filled his time with a number of high-profile appointments and lucrative business deals. In the international sphere, he is the special envoy to the Middle East; he is also an academic at Yale; and in the business world he is busy with speaking tours, and advising a couple of banking groups.
However, none of these roles has proved very substantial and now Blair’s name is being linked with the new EU role of President of the European Council. The post is to be created by the Lisbon Treaty (which is still yet to be ratified by all member states, but that is another story), and Blair is even being named as the frontrunner at 2/1 by UK bookmakers William Hill and Ladbrokes. So, is it going to happen?
Leaving aside the issue of eventual Czech ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, Blair’s candidacy poses a number of major obstacles.
First, there are the pay and conditions. Will Blair, who is earning millions of pounds, dollars and euros a year in the private sector want to head back into the public arena? He would almost certainly enjoy being back in the limelight, but can he afford to?
Second, there is Blair himself. After his pro-Iraq War stance he is hardly the most popular politician in Western Europe, and is widely being talked about as a divisive rather than unifying figure in national capitals. His European credentials have also come into question.
Third, his nationality is likely to work against him. Britain remains outside of the euro and the Schengen passport union, and it remains among the most eurosceptic of countries in Europe.
Against this backdrop, a lower profile Western European politician might attract more support. Long-serving Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker is a possibility (7/2 with William Hill), as is former Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schussel (10/1). Both countries have adopted the euro, are members of Schengen, and are not widely considered to be divisive. They also represent an emerging view in the smaller EU states that appointing a high-profile politician from a large country would lead to a greater consolidation of power in the new President’s hands.
So if Blair is far from a shoe-in, why all the talk? Well, regardless of any criticisms of his credentials for this role, he is one of the few politicians of real global rank to come from Europe in recent years. Many others are unsuitable for a variety of reasons ranging from age to impending criminal trials. Blair’s political divisiveness also makes good newspaper headlines, and there is certainly a good measure of party politics at play.
For British Prime Minister Gordon Brown (his long-time associate-cum-political rival), it allows him to promote the installation of a Labour politician in Brussels, just as his party looks set to lose power in Britain. Not only would this be a domestic issue, but it could appeal to some in Europe as well, as a means to contain the anti-European sentiments of the opposition Conservatives in Britain. The Tories have done their best to whip up feeling at home and abroad (read: Poland and the Czech Republic) over the Lisbon Treaty, and withdrawn from the main centre-right European Parliament grouping. Some might see a Blair presidency as pay-back for the British Conservatives, but other considerations will almost certainly prevail.
