expat girl wrote:

Ok, we are at serious risk of my supper seeing the light of day again. if there is any politician that brings out the homicidal maniac in me, it is Bliar. Just a few of my objections: all spin and no substance, warmonger, in charge during cash-for-honours, passports for sale to wealthy foreigners, and, worst of all, the BAE-prince Bandar 1 bn Stg to buy 24 bn fighter jets fiasco. If that man is appointed as EU president, I will be joining Libertas, Coir and Sinn Fein all at once

I had to put up with 5 years of that man's misrule in the UK and I NEVER want to see him in a position of power again.

Auuughhhhh

The idea of appointing someone widely loathed into a figurehead position is odd. Can you think of any precedents?

I think if they did it, the question I would ask is; what does Brussels desperately need British good will for

Mind you, a few years ago, they mentioned Bliar, our very own Bert, and Jean Claude Juncker of Luxembourg for this job. When someone mentioned Judge Mahon's little investigation as being a hindrance to Berts candidacy, some Eurocrat apparently said... ah, zis ees nothing, feefty percent of our members are under investigation for somesink or ozzer.....or similar.

Hilarious.... but I'd still prefer to see Bert in that post than Bliar, by a long shot....

expat girl wrote:

I think if they did it, the question I would ask is; what does Brussels desperately need British good will for

Mind you, a few years ago, they mentioned Bliar, our very own Bert, and Jean Claude Juncker of Luxembourg for this job. When someone mentioned Judge Mahon's little investigation as being a hindrance to Berts candidacy, some Eurocrat apparently said... ah, zis ees nothing, feefty percent of our members are under investigation for somesink or ozzer.....or similar.

Hilarious.... but I'd still prefer to see Bert in that post than Bliar, by a long shot....

Strange that now, I think Blair is a decent man who has suffered much at the hands of the English chattering classes. Never lived there or had any direct experience of him, but he always struck me as a sincere man, trying to do his best.

I am prompted to wonder about those who may have longer term interests in the position. I have searched in vain for the transcript of a speech Declan Ganley gave in Washington last July where, among the repetitious and familiar statements about unaccountable elites he talks of visiting Mount Vernon, near Washington, five or six times. That, as we all remember with a prompt, was the home of George Washington first elected President of the United States of America. He even managed to bring in the phrase 'the audacity of hope' into this paragraph of the speech. (I will find it I promise, Cookie) It would appear that his ambition is to create and then fill the post of President of the United States of Europe. That this is fading with the Czech decision is a good thing, not a bad one but he is only 40, there's lots of time. I have no personal animus whatever, only a political one. I look forward to the publication of policies by Libertas; I am curious as to what a pan-european party would be like and how the seemingly laissez-faire capitalism, anti-islamicism and pro-life statements can translate into something that Europeans of the 21st century, even a minority, can support.

No, sorry, I lived through 5 years of his misrule. He stayed there as long as he did because he gave that impression, but I don't know how. They called him Teflon Tony for a reason. He deserved impeachment for the Iraq war; the dodgy dossier was directly assembled by his "kitchen cabinet", including Alisdair Campbell... main sources were a 12 year old PhD thesis and Jane's defence magazine. Just watch the British economy for the next 2 years and tell me he did a good job. He told Parliament for a year and a half that no decisions had been made on iraq when it was obvious from certain reports that he and Dubya had already made all necessary decisions to go ahead. The spin, targets and statistical book cooking all started on his watch. Not exactly what the 1997 voter had in mind when they went looking for change

I call him Bliar for a reason. He's as slick as on olive oil salesman on testosterone.

Bush just awarded Blair, John Howard and Uribe the "Medal of Freedom" as one of the final acts of his presidency.

The four of them, beaming in a row.

candide wrote:

I am prompted to wonder about those who may have longer term interests in the position. I have searched in vain for the transcript of a speech Declan Ganley gave in Washington last July where, among the repetitious and familiar statements about unaccountable elites he talks of visiting Mount Vernon, near Washington, five or six times. That, as we all remember with a prompt, was the home of George Washington first elected President of the United States of America. He even managed to bring in the phrase 'the audacity of hope' into this paragraph of the speech. (I will find it I promise, Cookie) It would appear that his ambition is to create and then fill the post of President of the United States of Europe. That this is fading with the Czech decision is a good thing, not a bad one but he is only 40, there's lots of time. I have no personal animus whatever, only a political one. I look forward to the publication of policies by Libertas; I am curious as to what a pan-european party would be like and how the seemingly laissez-faire capitalism, anti-islamicism and pro-life statements can translate into something that Europeans of the 21st century, even a minority, can support.

I am one of those who supports a federal Europe with pan-european parties. What galls me though is that an anti-eruopean party is the one to have sprung up first.

Its a bit like the internet; its a brilliant idea and concept; its just a pity that the porn industry seems to have seized on its potential first.

My original point was that if we cannot have direct presedential elections then we should seriously consider whether we should have a president at all. If there is no demos then there is no real accountability.The proposed selection of president by counting the votes of the heads of state might be preferable for small countries but it does nothing to improve the legitamacy of the post. Granted, the national premier was voted by the people and so is accountable to them, but given that he/she was voted into office for 4-5 years on very broad platform of policies, ideologies, promises and local concerns, does not mean that the decision is effectively representative of the peoples wishes.
The sovereign people remember - and they need to be included in some way, otherwise the system will not have popular support and will collapse....or simply linger on powerlessly.

A better compromise system would be for the people in each state to vote for a delegate or two which would be sent to vote for the president. This could then be ratified by the parliament.

We do need to decide however whether we want a real president or whether we simply want to make a new institution with another big fat salary. There is a real disconnect between the people and the elite. It really is the same old faces. Blair, Sarkozy etc. Europe needs a bit more. We need real people who are not "up there" but down here with the rest us.

I agree. Don't think Sarko necessarily deserves to be put in the same box as Bliar though; he's been a pretty good EU president for the last 6 months and seems to be trying stuff re Gaza. Despite the fact that it is Bliar who is officially the Middle East Envoy

Cactus, I don't wanna see that picture or my lunch will be back in the light of day again

Next Tuesday cannot come soon enough.

Well Blair is not an independent envoy, he will only have a mandate to speak where he has permission to do so from his employer - not that you could ever get them all to agree anyway. I am quite sure Blair agrees with the US Foreign Policy in relation to Israel but even if he didn't he wouldn't be allowed speak out and retain his job - same goes for any diplomat.

Sarko is a populist. We can talk all we want about his galavanting around the place trying to bolster his image but how is he any better than the rest of them when you consider France's role in many conflicts in Africa such as that in Chad.

Sarko was great during the Russian/ Georgian crisis. He may be a bit hyper-active but I think that's a good thing, compare it to our lads on their months holidays during the worst recession in decades.