Three reasons why Blair should not be sent to Brussels

There are three reasons why Tony Blair should not be appointed as president of the European Union's Council of Ministers, a position that is incorrectly but probably irreversibly being dubbed "President of Europe". The most important has to do with Britain's place in Europe.

The other two have to do with Blair himself.

First, his scoffing at international law and cuddling up to George Bush -- clearly a man with no love of internationalism -- should disqualify him for any prestigious position representing a group of countries. Indeed, a case could be made that he should be sent to The Hague to face war crime charges rather than Brussels to be feted. The war in Iraq was unwanted in Europe (including Britain), probably illegal and fought based on lies. He should not be rewarded for this.

Second, Blair the European was always a con. He promised much but delivered next to nothing. We are no closer -- indeed, may be further away -- from joining the euro than we were when he took office. Our role as a "third" power with France and Germany is laughable. Given the chance to lead Britain into Europe, he caved in and promised a referendum on the ill-fated EU constitution, knowing that Britons would have rejected it out of hand.

In short, he is not qualified for the job.

Now comes the main reason. The British people only need a small push to send the country out of the EU, a disastrous prospect for our economy, society and place in the world. It is not their fault -- they have been subject to decades of lies from newspapers and politicians stirring up false notions of nationalism. No one -- least of all supposedly pro-European politicians like Blair -- ever defends it. They tend, rather, to blame their own shortcomings on it.

So here is the prospect of an intensely divisive and in some areas despised man being touted for a leading position that is being created by a treaty that rightly or wrongly most Britons are suspicious of. The disgust is already palpable.

It would do untold damage to Briton's already shaky relationship with Europe and play directly into the hands of eurosceptic politicians ready to drum up the (false) spectre of Brussels undemocratically running British lives.

For the sake of Britain in Europe if nothing else, this should not be allowed to happen.

Poor Britannia

Voters often complain that they like none of the candidates presented to them. It is a luxury enjoyed by those of us who live in democracies. At least we get to whinge about it.

Having said that, Britain has a major problem at the moment as a general election next year gets closer. We have three choices outside regional or fringe parties - tired authoritarians, untrustworthy anti-Europeans or ineffective outsiders. Here is the problem:

Labour: First, This is the party that blew its chances for greatness when Tony Blair sacrificed it to George Bush's wars. Second, Gordon Brown has proven incapable of transferring years of wanting to be the leader into actually being one. Probably a decent man -- and certainly not given enough credit for encouraging a global response to the financial crisis -- he has become intensely unpopular and probably reached the point of no return.

More importantly, Labour is arrogantly authoritarian. It is often assumed that left-of-centre parties are liberal, but this is not the case. Old socialist tendencies along with years of being in power have created a party of control freaks. All they can talk about is cracking down on this or that, or forcing society to move in one direction or another that it may not want to go.

Time they were gone.

Tories: Anyone watching David Cameron on today's Andrew Marr show can see the problem. They want to be new and improved but they don't have it in their DNA. Cameron couldn't answer the simplest questions for fear of stirring up either rage within his own party (Europe) or among voters (public service cuts).

Europe is their poisoned chalice. They have already begun swaggering around telling other EU leaders how things should be done and the scepticism within their ranks is dangerously close to separatism from the EU. Even Cameron knows what a disaster that would be for Britain's role in the world and its economy. He just can't say it.

A key element of their Europe policy is to get Britain out of some of the EU's social agenda. These are things such as retirement age, maternity leave, health and safety, job security -- in short the best things that Europe has to offer its citizens. All the Tories want is a free trade zone.

If the Tories get in -- and it does seem likely -- we have years ahead of us of clashing with our EU partners, laws aimed at making life easier for the richer among us, and a nod and a wink to business to keep doing what it has been doing.

They don't deserve a chance.

Liberal Democrats: Almost not worth mentioning because they cannot and will not win. Too many things are stacked against them, mainly in terms of the voting system, but also in their choice of leader. Nick Clegg is decent enough, but essentially a poor man's Cameron.

The LibDem policies appeal to me. They are pro-Europe, green, not averse to a modest bit of wealth distribution, anti-war, and good on compassion. But so was Gandhi and he has as much of a chance of being next prime minister as Clegg, even if he is dead.

Worth supporting, but its like kissing your grandmother.

So, poor Britannia. But at least we are allowed to whinge.

Telling the truth about Euroscepticism

It is one of the irritations of being a pro-European Briton that no one ever stands up for the EU in this country. The nearest you get is some barely known Liberal Democrat on a television programme like Question Time arguing that without it the UK would be in worse shape. Other than that it is Eurocrats this, crazy regulations that, we won the war etc. 

So it is with a degree of pleasure that I recently came upon a paper from Simon Tilford, chief economist at the rather thoughtful British think tank, the Centre for European Reform. Tilford does not exactly defend the EU, but he does attack those who attack it, saying they are not telling the truth. British Eurosceptics, he says, are not being honest about what retreat from full membership of the European Union would mean. 

A newly 'emancipated' Britain would not remain part of the EU's single market, at least not on the terms the Eurosceptics claim. It would not reduce the regulatory and compliance costs facing UK business and it would end our ability to shape the EU's single market.

Essentially, Tilford argues that Britain's anti-EUers -- who range from idiots who talk about independence, to tabloid nationalists and Tories who yearn for an England long gone -- would give up any say in their own affairs in exchange for being able to say that they were not actually in the EU.

Britain needs to step up its involvement in the EU, not leave the playing field in a huff. It needs to strive to ensure that EU financial regulation is -- as far as possible -- proportionate and reconcilable with the UK approach. More generally, it needs to make common cause with other economically liberal member-states to ensure that the EU evolves in a direction that serves British interests.

Tilford unfortunately thinks in terms of what Britain can get out of the EU rather than what the EU can achieve as a body. He also focuses too much on financial matters (but, then again, he is the CER's chief economist).

But at least there is someone with a bit of intellect out there trying to tell Britons that the EU is more than just a faceless body that demands that all bananas be straight and that it would be a unmitigated disaster for Britain to disengage.

We need more of this kind of argument. Britons must not be allowed to slide out of the EU in a state of blissful ignorance created by lazy journalists and ignorant politicians.

The sorry state of EU Britain

I can't speak for what is happening in the rest of the European Union, but Britons are about to make some terrible mistakes. They will go into next month's European Parliament elections focused on just about everything other than what it is all about -- Europe. 

Some of this is not new. We British are among the most ignorant members of the EU when it comes to understanding what it is about, what it really does and what are the benefits of being in it.  At one level there is a steady drumbeat of made up or misinterpreted nonsense from the newspapers -- EU want your bananas to be straight, EU says you can't say Miss or Mrs anymore, Lollipop Ladies to be banned etc. On the other there are the politicians, either having a Victorian hallucination about what Britain is in the modern world or using the EU as a nice excuse for anything they want to do but know will upset their voters.

The result is the European Parliament elections are never about the EU unless is it someone demanding that we get out. Take a look at Labour's TV commercials (which don't even mention Europe) or even the misleading handouts of the pro-EU Liberal Democrats as brought to light here by blogger Adrian Short. 

It is even worse this time because of the unbelievable scandal over MP's expenses. Labour, already unpopular because of the recession and whatever number of years it is of fairly appalling management, is going to get thumped. But the Tories are by no means shining in this scandal and have just reminded voters who they are by claiming expenses for things like moat cleaning. The LibDems have unfortunately gone back to being ineffectual.

This means that very few British voters will even consider Europe when they vote and may turn to the likes of the secessionist UKIP and -- horribly -- the far right BNP to punish the bounders who run this place.

In the old days, this might not have mattered beyond being embarrassing. That was when the European Parliament was a powerless talking shop. But it isn't any more. It has real clout and shares many legislative powers with other EU institutions. More importantly, it oversees these institutions and it the only directly democratic body the EU has. 

It is no place to send people because you want to punish someone else or because you don't think it is important. Please don't.

Boris Johnson and the U.S. quarterback

Back in the 1980s a Senate seat was opening up in the U.S. state of Texas. Of the names bandied around at the time for Republican candidate (and likely winner) was one Roger Staubach, the retired quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys. Problem was, nobody was sure whether a) he was interested b) he could think about anything other than throwing a football or c) that he was even Republican. In the event, he did not run, answering at least questions a) and b).

The issue, of course, was that Staubach was a name, and in a political system which rewards fame rather than achievement he was the first on many Texan lips. But being famous does not automatically mean you are politically capable (see many, many examples in U.S. Congress).

Parliamentary democracies, which choose leaders from a pack of legislators, tend to have avoided this problem. Hard to imagine someone as unphotogenic and dour as Gordon Brown being elected to anything much in America, for example. But few would deny that he has the intellect and ability needed in a politician whether you agree with him or not.

Britain however has done its usual and adopted one of the worst aspects of U.S. culture (eschewing a lot of the good stuff). London has a directly elected mayor and it is fast becoming a celebrity contest. Boris Johnson, the current incumbent, has many things going for him -- intellect, wit, a comic touch and charisma that is not always to every one's taste. But does becoming famous for bumbling about, making gaffes, dropping the odd Latin phrase into conversations, and appearing on quiz show, make him qualified as chief executive of one of the world's greatest cities. Clearly, no.

The Evening Standard newspaper recently reported that Alan Sugar, a business man currently made super-celeb by hosting The Apprentice on UK television, is a name being bandied about to run for London mayor next time.

Here we go. How long will it be before Tories/Labour/LibDem backroom strategists reckon David Beckham, Jordan, or JK Rowling have just what it takes to win?

It won't happen, but London should go back to picking its mayor from among the relative nonentities that make up its council. Enough with I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Elected

Head-bashing, G20-style

Britain is still being rocked by the G20 demonstrations of a few weeks ago. It is all a bit 1970s with police brutality at the core. A man died of a heart attack sometime after being pushed over by a policeman; in another case a young, small woman was roughed up. All this has been captured on film via mobile phone etc. In that sense, I suppose, it is not very 1970s at all.

Is recession-hit, unemployed Britain about to see the return of thuggish, Thatcherite-style policing? Short answer, no. For one thing, Britain is a changed nation and would not put up with it. More importantly, however, the police are different. The police perpetrators of the G20 incidents are clearly outliers, acting suddenly and without the support of their colleagues around them. Bit like bouncers who lose it on a Saturday night and go over the top.

Not that this excuses anything. There is also a big question of discipline. Why did these types get into the force in the first place. And why did sergeants and the like allow some police officers to cover their identification numbers.

All stuff for the government and police authorities to deal with. But not a sign of the good-old-head-bashing days returning. YouTube wouldn't let it happen, anyway.