Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Tony Blair Talks Europe

by RogueTrooper Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 12:19:06 PM EST

Tony Blair gave a speech on Europe, and the European Union last night. It is quite an interesting speech; meant mostly for domestic consumption. It packs a puch


Herein lies Britain's - and Europe's - opportunity.  The British problem with our membership of the EU may derive from the curious and tortured circumstances of its birth.  But long since, it has taken on a unique life of its own.  The dilemma of a British Prime Minister over Europe is acute to the point of the ridiculous.  Basically you have a choice: co-operate in Europe and you betray Britain; be unreasonable in Europe, be praised back home, and be utterly without influence in Europe.  It's sort of: isolation or treason.

More from the silver tongued devil after the break


In the speech he breifly touches on the Constitution


Worse, there became a growing mood amongst European people, that Europe, unable to solve its actual problems, took to solving imaginary ones: by regulation no-one wanted, implemented in ways everyone hated.

This finally took grip when France and Holland voted no.  The evening of the French result, I remember being in Italy with friends, and someone saying, in despair at the vote:  "what's wrong with them?" meaning those who voted 'no'.  I said "I'm afraid the question is: "what's wrong with us?" meaning "us" the collective political leadership of Europe.


And what should happen next with the constitution; and possibly as small admonishment to the Austrians.

No, the issue at present is not the long term vision, but the short term strategy to re-align today's reality with it.  Let me explain.  I accept we will need to return to the issues around the European Constitution.  A European Union of 25 cannot function properly with today's rules of governance.  Having spent

6 months as EU President, I am a good witness to that.

But, right now, I say: discuss the way forward by all means, but don't let us get drawn back into making this debate the focus of our activities.  If we do so, we will damage the very vision the constitution was supposed to embody.


Finally, he ends his speech by listing a new agenda for the EU.

1.  Economic reform.  We all say we want it.  We all know it is important.  Our people need it.  Let's do it.  The Services Directive.  The Commission De-regulation Initiative.  The 2008 Budget Review.  University Reform.  R&D.  Science and Technology.

 2.  Security.  All of us are under threat from terrorism.  It can only be tackled together.  Illegal immigration has to be confronted.  Organised crime is on our streets.  Let us take the measures to fight it, including on the policing of our borders, the use of biometric visas and much greater co-operation across Europe on targeting, disrupting and convicting the criminal gangs who menace us.

  1.  Energy.  Both for reasons of climate change and energy security, the informal summit of EU heads at Hampton Court last autumn put this on the agenda and not a moment too soon.  Energy is becoming an instrument of leverage and in some cases, intimidation the world over.  Yet as President Chirac said recently, we in Europe have no clear common policy to define our own needs and interests.  Let us get one.  Get a functioning internal market in place; complete a common EU infrastructure and make energy policy a priority in external relations.

  2.  Defence and Foreign Policy.  From global poverty and development to the MEPP and peacekeeping and common defence policy.  Europe has a strong common imperative to make our presence, values, and objectives felt.  Let us re-invigorate it.

An interesting speech and worth reading.

Display:
Thanks for posting this. I don't understand Blair enough to truly understand what his agenda is in this, even though there are some things he says that are interesting...

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
by whataboutbob on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 12:24:43 PM EST
Good to see his focus on the social aspects of the EU. I love this:
Worse, there became a growing mood amongst European people, that Europe, unable to solve its actual problems, took to solving imaginary ones: by regulation no-one wanted, implemented in ways everyone hated.
The European people as represented by the Murdoch press?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 02:00:16 PM EST
he silver tongued devil

Loved that :-)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 03:54:44 PM EST
I haven't time to read the full speech right now, but my feeling from the extracts is that this represents well the tragedy of Tony Blair.

He says lots of good things, but doesn't transform his words into action.

Two ways to view this then:

a) He is at heart a vision person, without the resources inside himself to create practical policy. (The big failing here is to identify, trust and work with people who can do the practical side of things.)

b) He is either unaware of, or simply lacking the backbone to admit/confront the hard work necessary to turn visions into reality.

The biggest failing is that he had, at one time, the popularity to take on the Europe issue and draw the poison of the Murdoch press, to stop co-operating in Europe being classed as treason. But, he didn't.

Likewise, foreign policy could have been much further along by now, if he had realised it needed him to show some courage in dealing with the US, to build a common European position, rather than joining the movement to split Europe over Iraq.

Energy? Well, all mouth and no trousers there for a long time.

Economic reform? Well, there's some in there that is essentially uncontroversial and could have been pushed forward a while back (e.g. R&D, Science and Technology). But that would have meant recognising that some of the other stuff was controversial (e.g. de-regulation) and instead of tying it all into one big bundle, in an attempt to blackmail people into accepting the whole package, actually getting the good that could be done, done. But no, no compromise, in the hollowest way, is Tony's motto. Courage, but in all the wrong places.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 04:36:07 PM EST
Blair is quite possibly the best British politician of his generation, and as a speaker (in public and in Parliament) he may be second to none. But from the point of view of the left he has been an immense disappointment. I can remember the excitement that was felt in 1997 when he won his first term in office. Then in 2000, after achieving very little for progressive politics, he turned into Aznar's best friend. Where did Blair go wrong? Or did he? Has it just been smoke and mirrors from the beginning?

I don't think it's for lack of exposure that Brown seems like he won't be able to be a strong prime minister, if he is even able to win an election.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 04:42:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
to me, he has always been all smoke and mirrors; all spin and no substance. I didn't vote for him in 97 and have always felt very suspicious of him.
by Boudicca (badgerval at hotmail dot com) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 04:57:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I still have some small hope that if Brown wins an election he will at least speak less and do more.

Whether or not he is actually any more left-leaning than Blair remains to be seen. As for Blair, he doesn't seem to have an identifiable core. This is of course the frustration, is it smoke and mirrors? Was he just swayed by advisors who scared him with visions of being painted as a "dirty leftist"? Or in the end, was he just an anomaly, a natural centre-rightist who ended up at the head of the Labour party?

In the end, I see most of New Labour as victims of the Right Wing Noise Machine on Economics. Once you concede the Laffer curve, etc. even if only slightly in the back of your mind, you will end up drifting to the right. And that drift will be in every sphere as the "neoliberal" ideology of economics actually has implications and tentacles in all sorts of social policy too.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 04:58:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My view of Bliar is a dangerous combination of both. A man of visions and faith (in himself) who will lie for his policies, and also change his visions if hitting opposition (in the elites and the yellow press and the White House rather than his party or public opinion or EU partners) - and who will always convince himself later that his lies and changes of opinion were the truth resp. no change at all.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 05:21:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

this represents well the tragedy of Tony Blair.

He says lots of good things, but doesn't transform his words into action.

(...)

The biggest failing is that he had, at one time, the popularity to take on the Europe issue and draw the poison of the Murdoch press, to stop co-operating in Europe being classed as treason. But, he didn't.

Absolutely spot on. That's my biggest beef with him. He was genuinely popular, and he said all the right things about Europe, and he could indeed have brought in a sea change to the debate about, and to attitudes towards, europe if he had tried ot .

Instrad, he dithered, always waiting for a better opportunity that never came. And now it's too late.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 05:46:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]