Having repeatedly called for renegotiation of our position within the EU, I don't think my Euroscepticism should be in any doubt. But we should not confuse believing that the world should be different with failing to make the best of the world as it is. And the way the world is is going to include a President of the EU. And, that being so, it simply must be in the UK's interests and, indeed, in the interests of the country called "Europe", that our President be Blair. It seems to me to be plain silly to be spiteful, and, in the name of some ill-judged personal revenge against Blair, oppose his candidature.
The advantages of having Blair as our President (if we must have a President) should be obvious. He is British, for a start. He is the giant amongst pygmies of the politicians of our age. He is charismatic, visionary, has natural leadership and a gift for uniting. He has a genuine and undoubted passion for opposing injustice and improving the lot of the oppressed. He has been more prepared than any other politician since the 1960s to see military power employed in the service of honour and in opposition to wickedness. He has not merely defeated his political opponents over his career - he has crushed and humiliated them. He is a man you definitely want on your side and definitely do not want against you. What objective observer could seriously want some dull Benelux functionary if she had the option of Blair?
Of course he has his many weaknesses. I have been an opponent of many of his policies. Amongst the most dangerous were his and his disciples' total disdain (to the point of incomprehension) regarding the merits of the traditional British constitution. But that is a battle I have lost and he won - today, almost every Conservative supports him in this and opposes me. His calamitous abdication of economic management to Brown has been a true disaster for the British economy. And at times he and his disciples have been so sure of their own righteousness that they felt that rules they would apply to others (such as the need to be truthful) did not apply to them. He achieved almost nothing in the end in terms of domestic policy, and his key legacy in terms of public service reform has been the effects his thought have had upon Cameron Conservative public service reform policy.
But so what? What significance, really, do any of these weaknesses have, compared to his strengths, when considering him as EU President? If we must have a President, surely we want a good, strong, exciting, British one?
