Showing posts with label Tony Blair. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tony Blair. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Yes to Europe means No to Tony

As of this morning, the Czech Supreme Court has cleared the way for Czech president Vaclav Klaus to sign the Lisbon Treaty, completing its ratification. Hopefully he will do so forthwith.

Of course, this leads to the immediate question: who will be the first president of the new Europe?

Personally, I feel that the president should come from among those countries that have demonstrated themselves to be committed to the project of continental integration. Tony Blair should not be in the running, as he hails from a nation that is not among those ranks.

Imagine instead the UK were integrating with not the EU, but the US, and the British were saying, "Oh, yes, we'll happily take full, unfettered access to your markets and offer you the same. But we won't accept to be tried in your courts or by your laws; and we don't want your Bill of Rights or certain articles of the US Constitution to apply to us; and we expect even people coming from the US to present their passports when they come here; and we won't agree to use the dollar. You see, while we're happy to move freely in your country and live, work, and learn as we please, we don't want you beastly people interfering in our lovely country. Oh, and please make sure your next president is one of us." What do you think the US would say? I think once they stopped laughing they'd be hard-pressed not to push the Button. It's gallingly insulting. Or maybe "de Gaulle-ingly" puts it better.

I guess it's fine for the British to cut the best deal they can, and play it the way they feel it, if the rest of Europe's willing to accommodate that. But there's no way the British, with all these tepid opt-outs and refusals to commit, should expect or even hope that one of their number should have the top job in an association they don't even fully participate in on so many levels. Frankly, I think there should be a tacit, or even explicit, disqualification for citizens of members that remain outside the eurozone, Schengen Agreement, and other crucial hallmarks of a continental home, from the presidency of the European Union.

N.B. Later, same day — Vaclav Klaus signed the treaty a couple of hours ago. Finally. Well, it took him far too long, but at least once the writing was on the wall, he put the writing on the treaty, too, and quick-smart. Alka Seltzer should work so fast. Congrats to the EU; the Lisbon Treaty is ratified at last!

Sunday, July 10, 2005

My sentiments exactly

Robert Fisk at CounterPunch is almost always the very voice of reason to me. Here's what he had to say on the London bombings...

"If you bomb our cities," Osama bin Laden said in a recent videotape, "we will bomb yours."' It was clear Britain would be a target ever since British Prime Minister Tony Blair decided to join President Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. We had, as they say, been warned. The G-8 summit was obviously chosen, well in advance, as Attack Day.

It's no use Blair telling us, "They will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear." They are not trying to destroy "what we hold dear." They are trying to get public opinion to force Blair to withdraw from Iraq, out of his alliance with the United States, out of his adherence to Bush's policies in the Middle East. The Spanish paid the price for their support for Bush -- and Spain's subsequent retreat from Iraq proved that the Madrid bombings achieved their objectives -- while the Australians were made to suffer in Bali.

It is easy for Blair to call yesterday's bombings "barbaric"' -- they were -- but what were the civilian deaths of the Anglo American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the children torn apart by cluster bombs, the innocent Iraqis gunned down at American military checkpoints. When they die, it is "collateral damage"; when "we" die it is "barbaric terrorism."

If we are fighting insurgency in Iraq what makes us believe insurgency won't come to us? One thing is certain: If Blair really believes that by "fighting terrorism"' in Iraq we could more efficiently protect Britain, this argument is no longer valid.

Read the rest here.

Read, also:

Talking in London: Collateral Damage By STEPHEN WINSPEAR

Blowback Hits Britain: Londoners Pay Heavy Price for Blair's Deception By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Blaming Galloway: Rhetoric vs. Reality in London By SHELDON RAMPTON