Perhaps there are civil servants somewhere in the depths of the
European commission's Berlaymont building in Brussels who remain
stubbornly more excited by the fine print of the Treaty of Lisbon
than by Nicolas Sarkozy's love affair with Carla Bruni. Across the
rest of Europe, though, it is no contest. The narcissistic French
president and his new partner are the biggest European story of
2008 by a mile - or by 1.6 km, indeed.
Yet the European political story is a good one too. While the
Lisbon treaty cannot compete with the way that Bruni wears her
designer jeans as a topic of conversation, it too needs our full
attention. All being well, the old political structures of Europe
will be reshaped a year from now. If the 27 European member states
can ratify the treaty - as Britain begins to do next week - the
European Union will at last be far better poised to play the role
in the world that so many wish it to play, and a foolish few still
fear.
Sarkozy may be in love, but his mind is clearly fixed on that
not so distant European political moment. The minds of the British
should be too. That's partly because the moment is inherently
significant, but it is also because it is now beyond doubt that the
French president is actively promoting Tony Blair as the first
full-time president of the reformed European council - a post
created by the treaty.
Blair's appearance in Paris last weekend to speak at a
conference of Sarkozy's UMP party was an unambiguous sign of the
French leader's intentions. Sarkozy first floated the idea of
President Blair last year. But the weekend promotion of the former
British premier was a declaration of more serious intent. You don't
invite a British politician to address a French political rally, or
a man of the centre-left to address a party of the centre-right,
merely as a caprice. You do it because you have a project. And
Sarkozy's is an updated version of the classic Gaullist dream - a
Europe, Blair in the chair, that shapes the world.
Whether Blair himself is up for the job is not so clear-cut. The
consensus seems to be that he is interested, but not yet committed.
He has a very full diary already. His interest would depend on the
content of the presidential role. If it was minimalist, mainly
concerned with chairing meetings, shuttling between EU capitals to
expedite lowest-common-denominator compromises and managing the
agenda, then forget it.
"Can you imagine him sitting there listening to the prime
minister of Slovenia setting out the nine reasons why he can't go
along with something?" says one longtime Blair ally. "No, nor can
I."
If the job comes with real power, on the other hand, then you
are talking. If the president is Europe's representative in the
world, with authority not just to manage but to set the agenda on
issues such as European defense and international trade, then Blair
would be seriously tempted. "Don't forget that when he was prime
minister he was the progenitor of this new role," another
experienced associate points out. "He has always wanted an EU that
acts strategically. He thinks that everything is possible."
But which job description will it be? The answer is not yet
clear. Most governments are still thinking more about getting the
treaty approved than getting it implemented. Sarkozy, though, is
thinking ahead. In the second half of this year, France will hold
the rotating EU presidency that the treaty will eventually replace,
and Sarkozy is aiming to write the presidential job spec
personally. If that happens, Blair will have to come off the
fence.
There is, though, the not insignificant matter of getting the
necessary support. Blair is a controversial figure in his own
right, mainly because of Iraq and the alliance with George Bush --
but also, in some quarters, because of his free-ranging political
instincts and because, in his 10 years as prime minister, he turned
out not to be the federalist that some had hoped. He also faces
problems simply because he is British. Smaller EU countries are
sensitive to key jobs being taken by leaders from any of the larger
countries, especially from one that is not part of the Eurozone or
the Schengen free-movement area, and that actively supports Turkish
membership.
On the assumption that the eventual job description is to
Blair's liking, it will all come down to winning support and the
strength of the competition. Apart from Blair, the two names most
often mentioned are the former Austrian chancellor Wolfgang
Schussel, who is being promoted by Germany, and the current
Luxembourg prime minister, Jean- Claude Juncker. Neither has
anything approaching the public profile of Blair in the rest of
Europe or in the wider world. In some eyes, though, this is an
attraction. In EU politics, to be the candidate of France and
Britain (always assuming that the present UK prime minister Gordon
Brown actually backs Blair) is no guarantee of ultimate success.
Europe is full of people who prefer a quiet life.
To get the job and to do it, Blair will sometimes need to curb
his "my way or the highway" instincts. If he doesn't, it could all
go horribly wrong. Yet even at this early stage, it is not hard to
see the battle for the presidency as a defining event. If the
member states prefer a business-as-usual EU, then the prime
minister of Luxembourg would seem an appropriate choice. If they
want the outward- rather than inward-looking EU that all Britain's
political parties will extol in the coming Commons debates, then
Blair, though not the only qualified candidate in the 27 nations,
is clearly a very strong one. If we want the influential EU that
Brown talked about this week then the finger points in Blair's
direction too.
As ever, European decision-making is like juggling a Rubik's
Cube. Many interests have to be balanced, and both Blair and the EU
have baggage. Sarkozy, eager to be Europe's kingmaker in 2009, no
doubt contemplates the possibility of being European Union
president himself when the job next becomes vacant in 2012. Yet in
the end it all comes down to whether we think that the long-term
interests of our 27 proud but small European nations are better
advanced and protected in the world by a strong and engaged EU or
by a weak one. In that context, the question that both the EU and
Blair must surely ask themselves is the same one: why not?
(China Daily January 22, 2008)
