You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Britain
Blair warns Chirac on the future of Europe
2003-04-28
This is the FT's own synopsis of an interview it held with Tony Blair. Though long, the full interview is available online and is penetrating and wll worth a read.
Tony Blair has issued a direct challenge to France's Jacques Chirac over the future of the transatlantic relationship by warning that the French president's vision of Europe as a rival to the US is dangerously destabilising. In a wide-ranging interview with the Financial Times, the prime minister foreshadows a continuing Anglo-French struggle about Europe's relationship with Washington. Mr Blair seeks to keep alive the prospect of British entry to the euro but he disavows any personal ambition to become president of the European Union.
The sooner you hold that Euro referendum, Tony, the sooner we can start forgetting about it.
Though his personal relationship with Mr Chirac has improved since the bitter row over France's veto of a second United Nations resolution, Mr Blair is clear that the strategic divide that opened over Iraq has not been bridged. Meanwhile a new MORI poll for the FT reveals that 55 per cent of Britons regard France as the UK's least reliable ally, while 73 per cent view the US as the country's most reliable.
Har! Confusion to the French!
The prime minister disassociated himself from those in Washington who have said that France should be "punished" for its opposition to the war with Iraq. He drew the limits of his own alliance with Washington by rejecting military intervention to halt the development of weapons of mass destruction in countries such as North Korea and Syria.
That's because both problems are still amenable to diplomatic (or other) means of solution. Still lotsa options open...
He was equally determined, though, that Europe has to face up to divisions in the alliance exposed by the US-led invasion. Spelling out the damage that would be inflicted by Mr Chirac's vision of a "multipolar" world, he said: "I am not really interested in talk about punishing countries, but I think there is an issue that we have to resolve here between America and Europe and within Europe about Europe's attitude towards the transatlantic alliance. I don't want Europe setting itself up in opposition to America . . . I think it will be dangerous and destabilising." France wanted a multipolar world with different centres of power, he said, but "I believe that they will very quickly develop into rival centres of power". The result would be that "you end up reawakening some of the problems that we had in the cold war with countries playing different centres of power off each other". Rather than seek to gloss over the divide it was better "to have it out in the open".
Ahh, France: Defender of the United Nations; Champion of National Disunity.

Rather than a Cold War model, I think the Frenchies are looking further back through the dustbin of history, to the ententes (cordiale and otherwise) of the late 19th century. Most of these were the result of or in response to French diplomacy — French, recall, used to be the language of diplomacy. France was Britain's bitter colonial rival, while the Spanish, Belgians, and Dutch had their own colonial operations. And they had Austria-Hungary as a non-colonial power in Central Europe, and Russia as protector of the Slavs. Our grandparents and great-grandparents saw how well that turned out in 1914.
Posted by:Bulldog

#6  I can't help but recall the poor grocer who was arrested and fined for selling his produce in pounds and ounces instead of kilos and grams. Wouldn't any loyal Brit vote against this madness and reject the Euro?
Posted by: tbn   2003-04-29 01:07:19  

#5  Bulldog and Tony: (1) I have said kind things about Blair and do not retract them. He gave his word and stuck to it, which is rare for a politican of any nationality. (2) While I have not seen a full draft, I have read bits and pieces of the D'Estaing draft, and it is what Merkins would call a "Lawyers' and Bureaucrats' Relief Act", possibly the greatest of all time. But I'm sure the sophisticated French can explain to my simple Merkin self what a "shared competence" will mean in practice. (3) Even assuming the drafting issues can be worked out, one can't draft around basic distrust, and the current French government is about as trustworthy as Baghdad Bob (but less amusing.) (4) The unspoken premise seems to be that the UK can't go it alone. Not to confuse military matters with economic ones, but the Royal Marines, paras and SAS just proved otherwise (again.) (5) As for what might have happened had a conservative British government been at the helm, my mind simply goes into overload at the thought of a three-way debate including DeVillepin, Rumsfeld and Maggie Thatcher. Trafalgar would have looked like a French triumph by comparison.
Posted by: Matt   2003-04-28 20:40:27  

#4  Matt,
There's a few things likely to be make-or-break for the UK in the next few months to year or two.

Blair might go for a snap referendum on joining the Euro based on his increased popularity from GWII. This would be a disaster for our economy.

Secondly, there is the more odious 'constitution' being bandied around by Giscard d'Estaing (sp?) which Blair is quite keen on. This would mean the end of British sovereignty as we know it.

The combination of these events would mean the end of the UK as we currently understand it. The thing is, that a lot of people in this country wouldn't realise that it had happened until years later.

I've seen (and appreciated) American sentiments about our involvements, and there has been a lot of support for Blair personally in this. However, what seems to be missed is that he is very pro-European and very left-wing. Not the usual ally for a Republican president.

He's gambled a lot, and its paid off - so far. He's now endangering all that though for some ridiculous vision of 'unity' with the European continent, and this when the relationship with the US has the best chance in decades of becoming something a little more tangible than a 'special relationship' (maybe even NAFTA membership).

It's rapidly coming up to 'make your mind up time' - look to the East (France, Germany etc) or to the West (well, you all know who's over there). This idea of Britain being 'European' when the rest of the world is embracing globalisation is simply ridiculous (very few people here consider themselves 'European').

Put it this way, this government is very left-wing. He got the vote for war with a lot of dissent from his own backbenches, and there was talk of 'payback' afterwards (I'm dreading to hear what deals have been made).

Can you imagine what would have happened if we had a right-wing government in place...we'd have probably told France to get stuffed, Germany to swivel and started the bombing runs without you! :)
Posted by: Tony   2003-04-28 18:44:17  

#3  Matt, British governments have been handing motes of sovereignty over to Europe for decades. Churchill and Hitler would be reacting very differently, I think.
Posted by: Bulldog   2003-04-28 16:34:23  

#2  Bulldog: Does the great British nation seriously intend to surrender one mote of its sovereignty to the EU? Churchill must be spinning like a top.
Posted by: Matt   2003-04-28 12:03:52  

#1  Agreed: stay the hell away from the Euro, Tony.
It's goin' DOWN, baby...
Posted by: mojo   2003-04-28 11:16:08  

00:00