So the Irish voted “yes” and barring any last minute grandstanding from Vaclav Klaus, we will finally get the Lisbon Treaty. The debate now is about who will get the big jobs, starting with the full-time Presidency of the Council. Tony Blair is the hot favourite and would, in my view, be excellent for the job.
Assuming he gets the job, though, he will find that being a Brit in Brussels is not always easy. The attitude to Brits from other nationalities is often a mixture of suspicion, admiration, hostility and respect. The good news is that we are seen as pragmatic, hard working and results orientated. As befitting a nation of small shopkeepers, we are renowned for focusing on the bottom line, asking how much a given objective will cost and what the legal steps are required to achieving it.
The bad news is that we are often seen as arrogant, convinced that ours is the only road to utopia and fond of lecturing others on their shortcomings. Our pragmatic nature as well as being our strength is also our weakness. We are seen as having limited vision, a weak sense of vocation, little overall direction, leading us to focus only on the short term. At the heart of it all we are believed to be very reluctant Europeans, not really committed to “the project”. This is obviously evidenced in our refusal to join the Euro or Schengen and in our constant snuggling up to the USA.
While there can be no denying the truth of much of that negative image, there is another story which frustratingly for a Brit in Brussels is rarely told. Every day we see countries which lecture us on our lack of Europeanism fail themselves to fulfill the basic requirements of the Union. Countries that fail to implement, let alone enforce legislation they have agreed to unless dragged into line by the European Commission. We witness member states that go it alone on trade deals or diplomatic initiatives. Member states who pontificate on solidarity when they really mean that Germany, the UK and the Netherlands should be putting more money into the pot which they draw out off. Even counties that have refused to open their borders to other European citizens.
Nowhere did I feel that frustration more keenly than in the Socialist Group in the Parliament. I am proud of what Labour has achieved since 1997. We have powerful Labour market policies which have created employment, made work pay and lifted families out of poverty. We have anti-discrimination and social integration policies which are second to none. Whenever I invited Socialist MEPs to the UK to look at our work they were genuinely impressed. Yet, within the Socialist Group we were constantly being lectured over our lack of social policy. Most stridently by the French whose social policy seems to me to be no more than a conspiracy by those in work against those out of work, hence the exodus of young talent to London.
This is not to say that we do not have support in the Group, we do – although it was often expressed after the meeting. It is just that life in the group is like a mirror image of the fable of the Emperor and his clothes. The Emperor really is wearing a fine suit but noisy elements in the crowd are trying to convince everybody that he is naked.
A lot of this, of course, is the rough and tumble of politics, but over time, it can have a damaging effect on the cohesion of the left. I once asked one of Tony Blair’s advisers why his attendance at Socialist Leaders Summits was becoming erratic. He replied that all that happened at these meetings was that Tony would be lectured at and he felt there were better uses of his time.
As Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been assiduous in his attendance at such meetings, but I suspect his patience has been tried at times such as when he was ambushed by French MEPs in Strasbourg over his support for Barroso as Commission President when other Socialist Leaders had already endorsed him.
So Tony, life for a Brit in Brussels can be difficult, sometimes deservedly so, often not. Your supporters will often keep quiet, your detractors will not. You will need to be so much better than anybody else, but probably will not get much credit for it. Nonetheless, the job is well worth doing. Greater European leadership and co-operation is essential if we are to meet the challenges ahead. The task now is to make the new Treaty work and the Brits will do their bit to make sure it does.
No related posts.
All Content
This in not democracy if it isn’t put to a vote of the people.
Hi Bronwen, please permit me to reply to your comment on the mechanism used to appoint the President of the European Council.
The method used to appoint the President of the European Council is outlined in Article 15 of the Lisbon Treaty.which states that s/he will be elected by the European Council of heads of state or government by qualified majority voting. The position is non-executive with responsibility only for convening and chairing meetings of the Council, co-ordinating and driving forward it’s work and acting as its spokesperson. While the post will have considerable influence, it is in reality a non-executive role, more akin to a president or chairperson of a legislative board or major committee. In such circumstances it is entirely right and democratic that the post should be elected by the European Council, who, themselves, are elected by the people.
If the post was directly elected by the people it would imbue the office-holder with immense political power similar to that held by an executive president, like in France or the USA. Europeans tend to prefer parliamentary systems, rather than presidential systems, and there is also considerable resistance in Europe to the creation of a federal EU or “super-state”. A directly-elected President of the European Council would be a step too far in the direction of centralising power in one office and one man/woman.
Desmond O’Toole
PES activists Dublin (personal capacity)
Blair is a Margaret Thatcher-George W. Bush fan, who would bring a Europe of war and privatization, not a “Social Europe”.
“Peace envoy” Blair cost lots of taxpayers’ money, but did not bring any peace to the Middle East. As one can see from the death and destruction in Gaza.
Like Blair only brought massive death, destruction, and torture to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Apparently, Blair is also not satisfied with his other jobs: teaching religion without any qualification. Money grabbing at JP Morgan’s bank. And advising the death squad Uribe regime in Colombia.
Scotkand Yard said that it was investigating a report alleging that MI5 and MI6 intelligence agents were complicit in the torture of British suspects both before and after September 11 2001.
See more, including hyperlinks, here.
No Tony Blair, he is a hyopocrite, right wing. He used the Labour Party to fulfill his own gains and become a millionaire and now he wants to do the same with Europe. Not under our watch. You are so called labour but the people of britain are tired of you, that’s why you are going to lose the next elections in the UK and thank god for that.
This CREEP has thought of nothing of taking advantige of his previos position & making LOADS of money without a thought of all the people he has killed with his ILLEGAL Wars.
The only president he should be is of a S**t house.
Where, in this parochial ramble about Brits in outer Europe, is there an argument in favour of Tony Blair’s candidacy?
Blair had ten years as UK PM to show his commitment to the EU. He chose the special relationship and the neocon view of the world, and in doing so he divided Europe and left it the butt of American jokes and bilateral manipulation. He failed to move Britain into EU core institutions like the euro (what a mistake that was for Britain too!). He showed arrogance and disdain towards other Europeans. His tendency towards autocracy and self-aggrandisement would be a disaster in a presidential post that calls for diplomacy.
To speak out against this disaster in the making, there’s an online petition StopBlair! at http://stopblair.eu
I was hoping for rather more from Gary in his article on why he thought Tony Blair would make a good President of the European Council. Instead Gary simply says that, “Tony Blair is the hot favourite and would, in my view, be excellent for the job.”
That has to be one of the weakest endorsements of a candidate I have ever seen. As if merely stating Blair is “excellent” is enough. There is nothing about Blair’s undoubted talents for communication, leadership skills and political success, but also no attempt to deal with, what for me are the debilitating aspects of Blair’s candidacy, i.e. his support for an illegal and monstrous war of aggression, his supine support for the exceptionally dangerous foreign policy objectives of the US Presidency under GW Bush and the involvement, tacit or otherwise, of his security services in a campaign of officially-sanctioned torture and illegal rendition.
Gary mentions in his article that British politicians are sometimes perceived as arrogant in Europe … well, Gary, thanks for providing direct evidence of the problem. It will take a lot more than your hailing Tony Blair as “excellent” to convince European socialists and social democrats, never mind Europeans generally, that Tony Blair is a fit candidate for high ofice in a European Union committed to international law, peace and human rights.
Desmond O’Toole
PES activists Dublin (personal capacity)
Tony Blair has shown himself to be dishonest and duplicitous in his planning of the 2003 Gulf War: he put the perceived wishes of the Ubited States above the national interest of his own country, and misled Parliament and the British people in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq. He presided over a government which has led the greatest peacetime assault on the liberties of the individual since the early nineteenth century. He is a dishonest and hypocritical figure, with dangerous delusions of self-righteousness, who is morally unfit to hold any public office.
is there anybody out there who thinks that Tony Blair would be a good choice?
Who else could do the job? I was surprised to read that such a high profile person like Blair (whatever you think of him) was tipped to be the favourite. Normally member state leaders don’t like European figures stealing their thunder and therefore put weak people in place (see Barroso).
Dominic,
1) Let’s be specific: who tipped Blair as the favourite? Methinks only his own supporters, who staged a media blitz in the last week.
2) Blair, high profile? So what? Berlusconi is ‘high profile’, too… However, while his supporters now claim he is the only candidate who would be able to see eye to eye with Obama or Putin, his record is the opposite: failure after failure at EU Council meetings, acting as Bush’s poodle during the Iraq War, and being a no-show as Middle East envoy.
3) That especially small member state leaders don’t want someone to steal their thunder is in fact a main reason that, contrary to the Blair party’s spin, he is NOT a favourite. My bet would be on Juncker or Balkenende.
In fact, Sweden’s PM and diplomats from the BeNeLux states already spoke out against a candidate from a great member state, while Germany also gave signs of disapproval. Even Sarkozy’s support, which was public a year ago, is nothing certain: he may truly favour Felipe González.
DoDo,
I agree. Juncker would be a good President in my view even though he is not a social democrat. And I’d have Joschka Fischer as High Rep for foreign affairs. I like Solana, but Fischer is more outspoken and could help Obama in the Middle East.
Who knows, he might even win the Nobel Peace Prize
You want to make Tony Blair for President of the European Council. Great, why not George W. Bush or the Twin brothers from Poland.
Did you forgot that without T. Blair there would be never or not so fast this Iraq Massacre with 500,000 civilian deaths and more.
Without T. Blair , Rumsfeld would never split Europe in the old European and New Europeans.
T. Blair is nothing else then Neoconservative behin a social or labour party.
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/comedy-of-terror-tony-blair-dick-cheney-and-donald-rumsfeld/4459200
The Right Honorable Illusionist Anthony Charles Lynton Blair
The Right Honorable Illusionist
Anthony Charles Lynton Blair
Anthony Charles Lynton Blair (born 6 May 1953) is a British Citizens, ex Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Blair tells Pope: Now I’m ready to become a Catholic(After his Warcrimes Periods)
‘If Tony Blair believes that the Roman Catholic Church could save him better then the Anglican Church from his sins and crimes, then again Tony Blair is wrong.’ Like all decisions he made during his political carrier.
“In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.”
Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821),
http://www.lulu.com/content/hardcover-book/the-right-honorable-illusionist-anthony-charles-lynton-blair/4359776
You really believe that T. Blair, Sarkozy, Merkel would turn the EU into a Social Europe?
I don’t!
Tony Blair his government should be arrested for Treason. He is not fit to represent the British people. We did not have a referendum to go into Europe we were frog marched. I will say again Tony Blair is not fit to lead that is the general view.
Bronwen, I seem to recall the people of Britain voting YES in a referendum in 1975 on remaining within what was then called the EEC … doesn’t sound like frog-marching to me.
Blair is only the “hot favourite” among the elite. And a small group within it too. No doubt you’re unfamiliar with his public record, Garry
The many I have spoken to say the same thing when I mention the referendum that did take place the comment I got back was ” That wasn’t a Referendum we call it a stitch up and believe it was fixed just as the one in Ireland was.” People have lost all repsect for a leader and his government ministers who have no moral compass which appears the norm for some countries leaders these day’s.
The referendum in Ireland was not “fixed” as you appear to allege, Bronwen. That is a claim that originated with Nigel Farrage of UKIP who compared Irish democracy unfavourably with elections in Zimbabwe and Afghanistan.
UKIP has a reputation for anti-Irish invective and managed to live down to that reputation with these outrageous accusations. I’m surprised to read them repeated here on the Social Europe journal.
Desmond O’Toole
PES activists Dublin (personal capacity)
No amount of blogging or pontificating will put it right. There should be a full public investigation.
Public investigation in what?
If you are anti-EU then state your reasons. I am frankly sick and tired of hearing lazy talk about “we didn’t have a referendum and surely would have voted no” (Parliament ratified the treaty which is a perfectly democratic procedure) or “The Irish voted yes because they were forced to” (this was a free vote and they decided to vote yes).
If Vaclav Klaus stops ignoring the democratic decision of both parliamentary chambers of his country the we can finally have the treaty.
And yes, people reading this journal and debating here want to make the EU more social. If you don’t then this is probably not the right place for you.
Christianity & Capitalism does not go hand in glove. If you knew anything about the bible you would know that Jesus was against capitalism. To those who had money who wanted to become disciples Jesus said give your wealth to the poor and follow me. Why do you think Jesus smashed the market place that had been set up in the Synagoge? The Pharisees Sadduceans were against Jesus for his stance on this matter. Jesus also hated Hypocrisy lies deciet which we have seen in Tony Blair’s reign along with his disciples of immoral discernment have brought Britain to it’s knees. Those who imagine Britain to be a democracy are deluded long since the man in the street has seen through the idolatry capitalism which has seen the working man decieved before the eyes of His and everyone elses God. If HRH The Queen was to disolve parliament and call for these jokers to be arrested for Treason every decision made would be reviewed under close scrutiny of men & women of honour & respect.
With respect I would love to have a world that was free. What if anything after all these years has the European market done to enhance the lives of those starving in the world whilst the fat cats get fatter the children sell their bodies to eat. The facade of goodness is what it is. A facade. Your Humble servant who only sees feels and knows that whilst the rich get richer from extorting money from those who believed they were bettering their lives for the future generati.ons of family are no longer taken in by spin lies & deiciet
I am from the Netherlands. And I know that Balkenende would be a very wrong choice to become President of the European Council.
In the Netherlands he has been absent in each and every crisis. Only when the opposition forces him to an opinion, he comes up with some kind of statement. He gives the impression of someone suffering from a clinical depression.
Beside this, he is a child! When he first met Bush jr., the former president of the USA, he behaved like a small boy that got a compliment of a headmaster. When he was patted on his shoulder by mister president, he was out of his wits from joy. In the Netherlands we made jokes about this, but we were extremely embarrassed. To please this Bush, he dragged us in an illegal war with Iraq. When the new coalition for his present government was formed, he demanded, that there would be no interrogation about this war. So we, the people, are not allowed to know what really let to this war.
A dutch soldier in Iraq fired his gun in the air during a riot. At that time an Iraqi male fell to the ground, apparently wounded or death, nobody knows. The same day an Iraqi male was buried. Maybe the same person, maybe another. The dutch soldier was arrested for murder by the dutch prosecutors office. Then there were endless trials against this soldier. In the end, each and every judge did acquit him from every charge and the dutch authorities had to pay him a great lot of money.
And now the big question. The Netherlands were in war with Iraq. During that war a soldier was attacked in the back by the dutch prosecutors office. Were was prime-minister Balkenende when this happened? This is of course a rhetorical question. He was were he is always when we need him: hiding in his tower, playing Harry Potter.
And now a question for the readers of this. And this question is NOT rhetorical.
Do you want such a person to be the leader of the European Union? Do you want Balkenende as your “president”?
I do not know if Blair would be a very good choice. But I have seen enough from Blair, that he would not abandon his own soldiers during a war that he himself choose for them. If you lead your soldiers into a war, you have to stand behind them, support them. As he once said:
“Backbone, not back down”.
Or in other words:
“Backbone, not back down, is what the European Union needs.”
There is no place in European government for a wimp and traitor like Balkenende. If his own soldiers can not rely on him, can we?
I agree with Andreas Firewolf that Balkenende should not be European Council president. Balkenende is complicit in the crimes of the Iraq war: against international law, based on lies about Iraq supposedly being involved in 9/11; about WMD, etc. A war with over 1,2 million dead civilians, over 4 million Iraqis made refugees. Bush’s “new Iraq” is now hell for trade unionists, women, gay people etc.
However, Balkenende was just a small time crook in the Iraq war case, compared to Tony Blair, George W. Bush’s poodle. So, it is very ilogical, if you are against Blair, to prefer the even bigger crook Blair to him: involved in massive torture and murder of Iraqis by British illegal occupiers. Of course, none should even consider that one of these two people should ever become president of anything, not even an urinal.
Correction in my above comment: “if you are against Blair” should be “if you are against Balkenende”..
Lety us hear what a Labour MP has to say about this.
By Jeremy Corbyn, British Labour Member of Parliament:
Thanks for positing Jeremy’s comments. It gives us an insight into the isolationist mindset adopted by Left oppositionalsts like Corbyn, which mirrors the positions taken by similar people on the hard Left in Ireland during the Lisbon Treaty referenda.
In both cases, their arguments rely on an extraordinary level of disinformation and a poor grasp of the actual situation. Jeremy is an honest man and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity. I’ve met him in Ireland before and know him by reputation from my time in the British Labour Party. But Jeremy is also spectacularly misinformed on the Lisbon Treaty and the role that we are discussing here on this thread.
1. There is no “President of Europe” as Jeremy claims, but a “president of the European Council”, a position that already exists but which becomes more permanent and enhanced under Lisbon. This basic error leads to the second mistake that Jeremy makes,
2. Jeremy claims that the postholder will be a “sort of executive head of the government of Euope”. This is plain wrong. The Lisbon Treaty, Article 15, is quite clear that the position has no executive reponsiblities or power whatsoever. Jeremy’s ignorance of this matter degrades the further arguments he makes, including the specious claim that there is a government of Europe. There is a Commission, a Council and a Parliament … but nowhere, outide of the wilder reaches of europhobia, could any of them be called a “government.” The EU is neither a federation nor a super-state, as the German Constitutional Court recently made very plain indeed.
3. The election of the president of the European Council is not by simle majority of the council members as Jeremy claims but by qualified majoriy voting (QMV) which sets a higher bar for a successful candidate to pass. Again, Jeremy makes a basic error in his understanding of this position.
4. Jeremy claims that Lisbon requries the member states “to subscribe to a common foreign and defence policy”. It does not, Jeremy. The Lisbon Treaty is quite clear that the unanimous consent of ALL member states is required before a common foreign and security policy (CFSP) can be adopted and even then decisions made under that policy require unanimity. In other words, ALL member states, including neutrals like Ireland, retain a veto on the establishment of a CFSP as well as over its application if it were to be adopted.
5. Jeremy finally claims that the president of the Council and the High Representative will have “enormous and largely unaccountable powers”. Once more, Jeremy displays a profound ignorance of the Lisbon Treaty. The president of the European Council’s powers are limited by the Treaty and s/he is directly accountable to the council for how they carry out their work. Their is no independent power of policy initiative open to the president under the Treaties. Secondly, the High Rep is accountable to the directly-elected parliament. S/he is a member of the European Commission, is subject to a confirmatory vote by the parliament along with other members of the Commission, and can be removed from office by the parliament should it so decide. It is quite false to claim that either position is unaccountable or that they will possess “enormous power.” Jeremy has allowed his europhobic rhetoric to outstrip his knowledge of the EU’s institutions.
The remainder of Jeremy’s comments make the same mistake that others on the oppositionalist Left make in that he confuses institutions with policy. The reason we have minimalist social and economic policies from the EU’s institutions at the moment is because the right-wing are in the ascendency.
PES-aligned parties are in power in only about a third of the EU member states and unsurprisingly, given that the EU is a creature of the member states and not independent of them, the policies adopted by the EU’s institutions reflect that political dynamic. The way to change this policy direction at European level is to win power at national level and in future European Parliament elections. The oppositionalism of people like Jeremy undermines this prospect and makes the continuation of a market-oriented, Atlanticist EU all the more likely. But then protest rather than power is the perenial obsession of the oppositionalist Left.
Desmond O’Toole
PES activists Dublin (personal capacity)
Commenting on Desmond O’Toole: this is not a thread about the Lisbon treaty, but about Tony Blair’s candidacy. I am glad that basically no-one of the commenters here really supports that candidacy. That includes Desmond O’Toole, who correctly points out Blair’s role in the Iraq bloodbath etc.
Still, re the Lisbon treaty: first, there were the constitutional treaty proposals. Voted down very clearly by the voters in France and the Netherlands. Let us compare them to the constitution of the USA, often seen as the most capitalist country in the world. Well, that US constitution does not say which economic system there should be. While the EU constitutional treaty proposals made the “market economy” sacrosanct. Basically, making someone who says that capitalism should be replaced by socialism, a “Verfassungsfeind” (enemy of the constitution, in German), criminalizing that person.
Also, the draft constitution said that military expenses should rise. Something that is not in the US constitution, or, for that matter, in the EU member states’ constitutions.
After the draft constitution had been rejected by the voters came the Lisbon treaty. It stopped mentioning the European flag and anthem. However, it did not scrap the points on the “market erconomy”, military expenses, NATO, etc.
Desmond O’Toole will agree that, if the Irish voters would have accepted the Lisbon treaty during the first referendum, there would never have been a second referendum. Which says something about (lack of) democracy and fairness.
“The reason we have minimalist social and economic policies from the EU’s institutions at the moment is because the right-wing are in the ascendency.” It is not that simple. About ten years ago, social democratic parties were in government in most EU member states. Why did they lose so many votes since then? Basically, because their governmental policies were infected with Thatcherist-Reaganist economics and militarism. That made many traditional social democrat voters stay at home. Or even think: “let us vote for the (conservative) original instead of the leftist (in theory, but not in practice) carbon copy”.
Desmond O’Toole: “protest rather than power is the perenial obsession of the oppositionalist Left.”. Reality is more paradoxical than that. Let us take the example of someone who definitely is not oppositionalist; and not Leftist either: Tony Blair. Spin doctors’ tricks helped his party to ten years of government power. Not just those tricks: people correctly hated the previous Conservative government. Blair also got much help from infighting in the Conservative party (and in the Liberal Democrats, the Socialist Alliance, etc.)
But now? In the recent European elections, Labour got 8% of the vote in South East England. Labour now is far worse off than under Michael Foot, who in the 1980s got so many attacks for supposedly being more interested in socialist principles than in power for power’s sake.
Look also at Ireland, where the Green party prefered power to its environmental principles. And lost its European Parliament representation. And will propably die soon, like the Irish “Progressive Democrats” before them, unless a miracle happens. See more here.
It is not just a Blair, or British isles, problem. In Germany, the SPD-Green coalition declared war on poor people with the “Harz IV” measures. The government had these measures concocted by Volkswagen boss Harz, since convicted as a fraud.
If “protest” is based on sound principles, then it is certainly preferable to power for power’s sake, hardly, if at all, distinguishable from the political Right.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my coments, dearkitty. You are right, this thread is not about the Lisbon Treaty but about the Blair candidacy. That’s why my response to the posted statement by Jeremy Corbyn dealt primarilly with what the Lisbon Treaty had to say about the role of president of the European Council.
I don’t really want to open up a discussion on the wider Lisbon Treaty on this thread, but would just like to briefly respond to the points dearkitty raises if I may:
1. You mention that the Constitutional Treaty (forerunner to Lisbon) was voted down in France and the Netherlands, but neglect to mention the votes in Spain and Luxembourg. This a common approach of those opposed to the Lisbon Treaty. If you take a look at all votes cast for these two treaties the result is quite conclusively in favour of the Constitutional and Lisbon Treaties, i.e. FOR 28.64 million, AGAINST 24.14 million. This is perhaps why the other votes are rarely mentioned by NO advocates.
2. I don’t know why you are comparing the Lisbon or Constitutional Treaties with the US Constitution. The USA is a federal national state, not a free association of nation states as the EU is. One issue will demonstrate how inappropriate the US model is for examining the EU model, namely, the fact that under Lisbon there is an explicit mechanism for member states to exit the EU, a right which in a previous century led to a civil war in the US. You are not comparing apples with apples, I’m afraid.
3. The Lisbon Treaty does not mandate an increase in military expenditure (Article 42.3 refers). This is one of the misleading claims that was prevalent from Left oppositionalists in the Irish referendum campaigns.
4. Your claim that the mention of the market in the Lisbon Treaty will lead to the criminalisation of opponents of these provisions is a little bizarre and entirely misplaced.
5. I’m sorry to say that your comments on the democratic nature of the second referendum in Ireland betrays an ignorance of Irish constitutional practice. In Ireland, we have a long tradition of repeat referenda (on the voting system, divorce, abortion, the Nice and Lisbon Treaties). Our constitution places no restrictions on the people’s right to determine national policy in a referendum and no restrictions on how often or when a matter may be put to the people. I do wish those who attack Irish democracy would do us the courtesy of informing themselves on how our constitution works before they make these attacks.
6. You also have it wrong on the Green Party’s entry into a coalition government. The Green Party lost their only MEP in Ireland in the 2004 elections, long before the Greens went into coalition with Fianna Fáil. Also, your reference to the “British Isles”, by which I assume you include Ireland, causes great irritation amongst Irish people. This term harkens back to an imperial relationship between Britain and Ireland, which the Irish people have firmly rejected.
Your other points about why the mainstream Left are so weak across Europe at the moment. are fair observations, although I’m sure we’d have some debate about them, and if this thread was about that wider issue I would have been more comprehensive in my original comment. However, it isn’t and I wasn’t.
Desmond O’Toole
PES activists Dublin (personal capacity)
Re Desmond O’Toole: first, I apologize for using the term “British isles”. I intended it purely as a geographical description, not in any political sense as support for British imperialism which I oppose. If I use the term “Iberian peninsula” I also hope that no-one interprets that as favouring Spain conquering Portugal as happened in the 16th century.
Re #1: the European constitutional referenda: Luxembourg is not really representative, being a) really the only country where many jobs are directly dependent on the European Union b) small c) a having a strong conservative Roman Catholic (Christian Democrats, a pro treaty party) tradition especially in the North. So, if the supporters of the treaty would lose here, they would lose anywhere. Still, opponents of the treaty got over 40% of the vote.
However, more importantly: according to European Union rules, the treaty would only pass if ALL countries would agree with it. So, if just France, or just the Netherlands, or just Luxembourg, or any other country, would have voted against, that would have meant that the draft constitution could not become law.
Re #2 : I mentioned the United States constitution, I might have mentioned the EU member states’ constitutions as well (which I did). My point is that these constitutions, different from the draft treaty, did not make the “free market” mandatory.
Re #3: NATO is still mentioned in the Lisbon treaty.
Re#4: “Your claim that the mention of the market in the Lisbon Treaty will lead to the criminalisation of opponents of these provisions is a little bizarre and entirely misplaced”. In the Czech Republic, the Young Communist League was banned for opposing “the market” (very recently, this was rescinded after an international campaign and an appeal).
During the referendum campaign in the Netherlands, the VVD party (a bit comparable to the Irish “Progressive Democrats”, but bigger and then a government party) showed on TV in its referendum spot footage of Jews being herded into cattle trains headed for the death camp Auschwitz. The VVD voiceover said: “Either you vote for this draft constitution …. or we will get Auschwitz!” Saying that the Dutch opponents of the treaty (as turned out, two thirds of the electorate) in any way supported Auschwitz, is of course considering them criminals. And not just considering them petty thieves, as Hitler’s murderers were the worst criminals in history.
Re #5: I did not deny that there have been other repeat referenda in Ireland. I just noted that there was one now that the electorate had voted No. While, in all probability, the electorate would not have had another chance of voting No, if they would have voted Yes first.
Re #6: before joining the coalition with Fianna Fail, the Irish Greens used to manage to get enough votes for some seats in parliament and local authorities. If the recent European election would have been an election for the Dail or local authorities, those Green seats would have been all lost. In the 2004 Euro elections, the Greens still had 4,3%. In 2009, 1,9%.
So, back to Tony Blair’s candidacy now. But it seems that issue is basically settled, as no commenter here genuinely supports it.
Tony who? This fool who has been Bush’s British puppet? This corrupt fool who ‘sold’ British Passport to the Russian Mafia to get their fund into Britain?
This fool who splitter with Donald Rumsfeld and the Polish twins and his special friend Aznar Europe into two blocks?
This peoples who think to get this man as EU President to does not want a Europe of Citizens a Europe where peoples are free and united , this peoples wants build a copy of the failed Soviet Union or ex Yugoslavia which ended all in civil war and atrocities.
Already to bring this man into discussion show that the leading brains in the so called Mickey Mouse Union ‘European Union what ever it maybe under all legal consideration’ are degenerated.
Let’s go back to the EEC, let’s peoples keep their leaders, president, Kings, house, vegetable, Oil, bred, food and home, currency in their nation and lets look forward to a peaceful EEC where we can then easy include even Turkey and many other nations to expand our common economy.
We do not need for any reason a block of nations into ‘one nation’ only to compete against the USA or Russia or Asia.
But the ‘EU’ idea is nothing else.
The machinery in Brussels cost billions each year to keep technocrats without fatherland alive. With the same money we could create million of new jobs even in mor fare away nations, build long need cheap housing, support national job an learning centres and much more.
On other point is the fact that no one ever since Gerhard Schroeder helped ex President Chirac with the referendum in France has aver mentioned the word: ‘Europe of Citizens’! Madam Merkel in power since years never did, because the EU as Europe of citizen as a social Europe is DEATH!
VIVA THE NEW GERMAN FRENCH NEOCONSERVATIVE EUROPEAN UNION OF CORRUPTION, SCANDALS AND B2B!
http://stores.lulu.com/duthel
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/heinz-duthel-no-a-la-decadence/4552805
Heinz Duthel
No a la Decadence
La Constitution sans le people
There is a better way. Trade and co-operation between European countries is perfectly possible without having to pass ever more decisions over our lives to remote EU institutions in Brussels. Trade between countries existed long before the EU and the idea that we would “say goodbye” to trade if the EU did not exist is irresponsible scare-mongering.
Countries that have decided not to join the EU like Norway, Switzerland and Iceland successfully trade and co-operate with those countries that are EU members. More importantly, they can look beyond the EU to greater opportunities worldwide.
dearkitty wrote:
“However, Balkenende was just a small time crook in the Iraq war case, compared to Tony Blair, George W. Bush’s poodle. So, it is very ilogical, if you are against Blair, to prefer the even bigger crook Blair to him: involved in massive torture and murder of Iraqis by British illegal occupiers.”
Do not think that Balkenende is the lesser crook. You should know this:
10/27 2005 there was a fire in a prison for persons seeking asylum. One asylum-seeker smoked a cigarette and the building burned down. Eleven people burned to death, many were severely burned. The person who smoked a cigarette was prosecuted for murder and found guilty. But who was to blame? The fire brigade previously tried to close down the facility because it was a fire-hazard. The council of the town were it was located agreed and made a decision to close it down. This council decision then was overruled by the minister of justice, Piet Hein Donner. For this, he had to resign and new elections were held. In the next government Balkenende choose this same Donner as minister of social affairs.
It is quite easy to put all the blame on a person seeking asylum. He can not defend himself and it is easy to kick him around. But the truth is: Piet Hein Donner is guilty of eleven counts of burn-murder. He should be in jail. But in the Netherlands he is minister of Social Affairs. With many thanks to his associate Balkenende.
The first cabinet of Balkenende was a gathering of thugs and thieves. One of his State Secretaries (somekind of sub-minister) was in bed with Desi Bouterse (at that time leader of Surinam) when the december-murders were committed. She has the world-record of getting fired from a cabinet: within a few hours. The leader of the party that was part of this coalition stated in public about the other members of parliament representing his own party (the LPF): “They are all thugs!” (In Dutch he said: “Allemaal gajes!”)
Balkenende scared away many voters, they seek refuge with political extremists. After the murder on Pim Fortuyn we nearly had civil war.
At this moment we have a situation like Germany in 1932. Voters run away from the traditional parties and flee to extremists. On one hand, we have the Socialistic Party (a new breed of communists), on the other hand we have Geert Wilders. Wilders is extremely anti-Islamic, like Hitler was extremely anti-Semitic. I do not believe that Wilders is psychotic like Hitler, and the Netherlands is only a small country, unlike Germany. So we should not equal Hitler and Wilders.
There are two dangerous paths to the future:
1. Another left-wing extremist murders Wilders. In that case we will have civil war. Every person accused of left-wing extremism will have to run for his/her life.
2. In the next election the Socialist Party and Wilders will get so many votes, that it becomes impossible to form a government without both of them. In the most likely scenario, the Christian Democrats will support Wilders and make him prime-minister. Like the Christian Democrats in Germany 1933 supported Hitler.
In both scenarios the Netherlands is not a place to be. Not if you are a reasonable person. And certainly not if you are a Muslim.
Will I stay? In 2004 I moved to the extreme north-east of the Netherlands, at the German border. I plan emigration in the next two years.
My advise to Muslims: If you live elsewhere, do not go near the Netherlands. If you live in the Netherlands, plan your emigration.
My advise to foreign investors: Cut your losses, sell and leave. The establishment has ruined the country. The Netherlands is no longer a society. It is an aggregate of people looking for opportunities, without social cohesion. People in the Netherlands only laugh when another person goes down. That is an opportunity. You do not find this in newspapers. They are controlled by the establishment. But you do find it if you talk to the people.
About 10% of the dutch population is Muslim. What do you think will happen when Geert Wilders becomes prime-minister?
After reading this, can anyone in his right mind, support “Balkenende for president”? He is the leader of the establishment that caused this mess. Personally I like Balkenende to stay as the Dutch prime-minister as long as possible. When he leaves, there will be elections. After the elections: chaos. If we can postpone the elections for another year, I might have time to flee the country. The previous sentence is not a joke.
RE: Andreas Firewolf: unfortunately, your comment is very unbalanced. The Socialist Party, the biggest Dutch opposition party, and the only party in Dutch parliament to oppose the Afghan and Iraq wars right from the start until now, should in no way be equated to the racist Wilders as “extremist”.
Where should Muslims, and you, flee to from the Netherlands? To Germany, where recently a woman was murdered in a courtroom just for wearing a headscarf? To Germany, where recently banker Thilo Sarrazin (a Social Democrat, I am sorry to have to say) spouted racism against Turks and Jews? Racism supported by German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk?
Or to England, where the BBC gives TV time to nazi fuehrer Nick Griffin?
I note that you have stopped saying anything favourable about war criminal Blair, the man who managed to make Labour from first party to third or fourth party now. That, at least, is progress.
From Dutch NOS TV: