Europe needs a neoconservative President. Somebody who’ll put the willies up our feckless, isolationist, craven chums.

I like this line of thought, though.

“He’s *only* a war criminal. He’s only guilty of one of the worst crimes imaginable for the left. Surely that can’t be more important than perhaps pissing off a few Tories?”

Ahh, I see we’re plagued with humourless right-whingers again who can’t even deal with a bit of humour.

You’re right about the ‘neo-con’ bit though – Blair fits right in.

@Sunny H:

I have a sense of humour, though perhaps too finely attuned. I’m not convinced the OP is joking, by any means.

I’m still hoping for President Mandy.

Making a Brit the closest thing Europe’s had to a single leader since Theodosius snuffed it

That was the Yes Minister gag wasn’t it? About the Napoleon Prize being awarded to the statesman who’s made the biggest contribution to European unity since Napoleon. “That is, if you don’t count Hitler”

I’m half joking. If we’re going to have an EU President I think Blair’s far from the worst option.

But I recognize that this is sick and wrong and am seeking treatment.

I’m still wishing Mary Robinson wanted the job…

7 – I loved the WSJ’s description of her:

Whatever her expertise, she remains, at best, the second person the world thinks of when they hear the words “Mrs. Robinson.”

I have a sense of humour, though perhaps too finely attuned. I’m not convinced the OP is joking, by any means.

I wasn’t sure at first, but then I noticed the “Humour” tag… So I assume that it was intended to be humorous, even if the prospect of President Blair is less funny than infected haemorrhoids.

I’m half joking. If we’re going to have an EU President I think Blair’s far from the worst option.

Fair enough, but I don’t think Nadine is in the running, I’m pretty sure Josef Fritzl is otherwise occupied, and I doubt Nasty Nick would want the job anyway.

1. If the new Council President is to represent Europe on the world stage then whoever gets the position will become a “big hitter” by virtue of having got the position. The idea that Obama and Hu Jintao will ignore Europe because the European representative hasn’t got a high enough personal profile is kind of silly.

2. Will it really end Britain’s semi-detached relationship with Europe? Most of the British people I know — right across the political spectrum — hold Blair in some contempt. Has Britain become more engaged with the Middle East Peace Process since Blair was made envoy? Or has the Peace Process simply become the butt of some obvious jokes?

3. Fair point. But you can probably round up several million people who, given the opportunity, would be both funnier and more offensive towards Farage.

4. Blair certainly had a significant part to play in the Northern Ireland Peace Process, and I will never take that away from him. But so did Bertie Ahern. And so did both Sinn Féin and the Unionists (who arguably did far more than any of the mediators to achieve their still fragile agreement). If Northern Ireland was Blair’s only legacy, then the point becomes valid, but as it sits like an island atop an ocean of broken promises and dead bodies I’m not sure it’ll suffice to paint him as a great consensus-broker.

5. Another fair point. But like most non-British Europeans I’m aware that the very fact that we even exist seems to piss off the tories. We don’t need a President Blair in order to annoy British conservatives.

On a deadly serious note though, I think President Blair would be a disaster. The War Criminal thing pretty much overshadows everything else. If Obama and Hu are impressed by Blair then more fool them. The rest of the world would view his appointment the same way we’d view an Obama decision to bring back Dubya Bush as his Secretary of State. Absurd, and frankly in very bad taste.

@8 – went to find that article and read it… they call us lilliputs!! There’s nowt wrong with being boring and small….

I’d agree with you if I could really believe point 2. Blair is the main who left us out of the euro and out of Schengen, behind an increasingly tight border that keeps us isolated. He doesn’t understand the idea of European unity.

If Blair was made President, it would make it even more imperative for Cameron to get back from the EU powers which shouldn’t have been handed over in the first place. It will make the country more Eurosceptic, not less.

@10 I wasn’t being entirely serious (or I probably wouldn’t have ended on that line). Re your first two specific points:

1. Not true. The candidate will largely define the job. If it’s Juncker, the job will be small and weak – the Council’s hall monitor, rather than a global political figure. In that situation it’s hard to see why they’d be of any more global importance than the Commission President (e.g. considerable, but not top flight). Which is fine – I’m just questioning whether it’s what we want. I think Blair’s the only serious candidate who could play at that level.

2. Point taken, but I meant as much in terms of how the continent sees Britain as vice versa. The occasional French implications that Britain doesn’t really count would become absurd.

@14 Jonn, I was aware that it was slightly tongue-in-cheek. My “straight-faced” comment was merely responding in kind. Hence points 3 & 5.

I still think the position will define the holder rather than vice versa, but as an Irish voter (and therefore someone who studied the Lisbon Treaty more closely than most Europeans) I’m aware that the position isn’t actually intended to be a high profile Statesman / woman. And that’s probably a good thing all in all.

And I believe my serious point (final paragraph of my intial comment) undercuts your statement about how Europe would see Britain. It may surprise you to learn (actually I doubt it will) that Blair isn’t actually seen as a great ambassador for Britain around the world. He’s seen as an insincere toady of US neo-conservatism. Shallow and not nearly as charismatic and eloquent as he sees himself.

I think he’d be a disaster for Europe in general. And probably for Britain individually. Europe needs a Council President without the kind of baggage he’d bring to the table.

“Can you really imagine President Juncker getting a three-way meeting with Barack Obama and Hu Jintao?”

This is such a myth — the idea that you can judge how someone will act in a post based on their perceived “personality” prior to their being appointed to it.

It’s been proved wrong in the past, it’ll be proved wrong again.

“because his main legacy is Iraq, which was about as consensual as burglary”

Understatement here or was this one of the jokes?

“5) Best of all, perhaps, it would really, really piss off the Tories.”
That might be a good short-term thing, but look at it from a bigger perspective:
1. The Tory Eurosceptic faction is powerful enough to influence Cameron into “cast-iron guarantees” (even if he DOES break them, still influential)
2. The British public aren’t unanimous behind Europe.
3. The British public aren’t unanimous behind Blair. (understatement)
Combining the three pits a EU headed by Blair against a Tory Britain that is unfriendly to the EU and unfriendly to Blair. Surely this would provoke a backlash by the Tories threatening our European position? Do we need a showdown like this?

The really interesting question IMO is about why there is so little support among the great and the good across the EU for Blair as President of the Council of Ministers.

We can only speculate as to why. I suspect part of the answer is to be found in this recent feature in the FT, titled Blair Inc.:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/68949294-c4d7-11de-8d54-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1

Blair incorporates too many conflicts of interest – too many folks feel unsure in any context as to precisely whose interests Blair is promoting.

President Miliband, anyone?

Stop laughing at the back.

“Is it really worth giving all that up, just because he’s a war criminal?”

Uh, well, yes. Is there any other answer to this question?

“Is it really worth giving all that up, just because he’s a war criminal?”

Ok, I must admit you had me taken in until that last line. Good one.

In all seriousness though, Blair should be facing trial. I would go so far as to say that it would be the single greatest leap forward in the cause of securing a more peaceful world if someone like Blair were to face a war crimes trial. Unfortunately, while it is a sign of progress that the issue is even discussed (albeit not yet in the mainstream media) I think we are still a long way from such an event occurring.

C’mon. Wouldn’t it placate you if Blair had Alastair Campbell as his “communications officer”?

Seriously, I’m surprised Blair doesn’t hand himself into the ICC at the Hague and request an indictment and trial to sort out once and for all these allegations that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, as these eminent teachers of international law claimed in a letter to the Guardian shortly before the war started:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,909275,00.html