George Monbiot has an intriguing line on Blair's government-supported plot to get himself appointed (no elections in the new, more-democratic EU) President of the European Union. George reckons that Blair's guilty of war crimes (unprovoked invasion of Iraq without the justification of self-defence) and won't be prosecuted in the UK, whereas several Eu countries do have laws on their books which would do the job - and he couldn't refuse to visit them if he were EU president.
I've got some sympathy for this, but I'm seriously concerned about a Blair presidency. I listened to a Radio 4 discussion on the matter yesterday, in which both the Tory and Labour guests argued solely about 'the British interest' and were obsessed by the 'patriotic' need to have a UK citizen as president.
This worries me. It suggests that the British are fundamentally incapable of understanding the point of the EU - that large collectives work together for mutual interests, rather than scoring points and engaging in oneupmanship of this petty, nationalistic type.
Which is the Blair problem. As far as I can see, the motorcades Miliband mentioned are his prime motivation. He isn't a democrat (he always seemed to view actual voters and Parliament as an embarrassing roadblock) and he certainly isn't a European. He couldn't manage to get Britain into the Schengen Agreement on open borders, he refused to promote the idea that Britain join the Euro, most shamefully he removed Britain from every form of worker and employment protection he could, and he became the US's messenger boy, openly antagonising our European allies. This man is an enemy of the European ideal.
Why on earth would other nations respect an EU president who, while he ran his own country, blocked European initiatives and openly expressed his contempt for many Europeans? An EU president who, in power, blocked EU decisions at home and abroad! Won't they - and European governments - view him as simply a stooge for US and corporate interests? Could you see him defending and advocating the fair taxation regimes of the Scandinavians, or the employment legislation of the French? I just can't - he'd instigate a race to the bottom, whether we're talking about banking, taxation, employment, military action or the environment.
The arguments for Blair are that he's a 'big beast' - familiar with world leaders and able to knock heads together. It's overplayed. The British always think they're more important on the world stage than they are, rather than embracing a future more like the moral authority of Norway, Denmark or Sweden, comparable countries. The Americans use the UK as cover for unilateral policies. Blair's personal style is arrogant and evasive and his slavish devotion to Bush's illegal wars has closed as many doors to him internationally as it's opened.
The resistance starts here. Let's leave him to his millions and his weirdo religious obsessions. If he wants to represent anyone else, he can stand for election.
No comments:
Post a Comment