Monday, April 26, 2004
11:07 pm
Scratching My Head in Disbelief
The temptation to write about Blair's momentous decision as it happened, with all its confusing twists and turns, was very strong. The lure of the pint proved even stronger. The delay was probably for the best since it is easier to separate political crowing from some grains of truth.
The first myth that has arisen is Blair's cave-in to public pressure for a referendum, as orchestrated by the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph. This exaggerates their role and fundamentally ignores Blair's belief that he will do what is right, no matter what the public thinks. Nor is there a sufficient number of rebels on the backbenches to cause a bill on the Constitution more than a rough ride. Tuition fees are of more concern to Old Labour than a piece of paper they do not understand.
We can never know what passed through Blair's mind when he made this decision until memoirs and papers pass into the public domain years from now. There are some signposts that do clarify the choice of the referendum and what it says about the current state of this administration. We know that Blair had not made a firm moral or political decision on the European Constitution or the Euro, unlike the war in Iraq.
The issue of Europe has always been subordinated to domestic political concerns, a stance that ties Blair in with the historical relationship between the British political class and the European Union. More recent events cannot have endeared the European Union to Blair, since the Member States and integrating institutions, actively worked to undermine his attempts to internationalise the war effort before the Iraqi invasion. The war and its outcome may have predisposed Blair to reevaluate Britain's role in Europe with a more sceptical eye.
The political context within which Blair made this decision was his weakened reputation within the Labour party and his tendency to make policy through cabals. This was utilised by (we are told) Brown and Straw to persuade Blair that a referendum was the best method of defusing the political uncertainties surrounding the Constitution. Simon Heffer in the Daily Mail today pointed out parallels with the similar backroom decision decided by Thatcher, to join the Exchange rate mechanism, that only signposted her weakness and eventual downfall. Blair has found that his own cabinet divided over this decision. It has opened up European divisions that have gradually emerged over the last few years, as integration has run apace.
The referendum was not chosen to give the British people a say but as a tool to accentuate the divisions within Cabinet and increase the influence of a particular faction, whose members include Brown and Straw. Blair holds the ring in these battles and may have decided, whilst under political pressure, to give in and at the same time, cut the feet out from under Chirac. Perhaps the simplest of motives, revenge, explains this strange and spontaneous choice.
(23.09, 26th April 2004)
The temptation to write about Blair's momentous decision as it happened, with all its confusing twists and turns, was very strong. The lure of the pint proved even stronger. The delay was probably for the best since it is easier to separate political crowing from some grains of truth.
The first myth that has arisen is Blair's cave-in to public pressure for a referendum, as orchestrated by the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph. This exaggerates their role and fundamentally ignores Blair's belief that he will do what is right, no matter what the public thinks. Nor is there a sufficient number of rebels on the backbenches to cause a bill on the Constitution more than a rough ride. Tuition fees are of more concern to Old Labour than a piece of paper they do not understand.
We can never know what passed through Blair's mind when he made this decision until memoirs and papers pass into the public domain years from now. There are some signposts that do clarify the choice of the referendum and what it says about the current state of this administration. We know that Blair had not made a firm moral or political decision on the European Constitution or the Euro, unlike the war in Iraq.
The issue of Europe has always been subordinated to domestic political concerns, a stance that ties Blair in with the historical relationship between the British political class and the European Union. More recent events cannot have endeared the European Union to Blair, since the Member States and integrating institutions, actively worked to undermine his attempts to internationalise the war effort before the Iraqi invasion. The war and its outcome may have predisposed Blair to reevaluate Britain's role in Europe with a more sceptical eye.
The political context within which Blair made this decision was his weakened reputation within the Labour party and his tendency to make policy through cabals. This was utilised by (we are told) Brown and Straw to persuade Blair that a referendum was the best method of defusing the political uncertainties surrounding the Constitution. Simon Heffer in the Daily Mail today pointed out parallels with the similar backroom decision decided by Thatcher, to join the Exchange rate mechanism, that only signposted her weakness and eventual downfall. Blair has found that his own cabinet divided over this decision. It has opened up European divisions that have gradually emerged over the last few years, as integration has run apace.
The referendum was not chosen to give the British people a say but as a tool to accentuate the divisions within Cabinet and increase the influence of a particular faction, whose members include Brown and Straw. Blair holds the ring in these battles and may have decided, whilst under political pressure, to give in and at the same time, cut the feet out from under Chirac. Perhaps the simplest of motives, revenge, explains this strange and spontaneous choice.
(23.09, 26th April 2004)
Links
- Ishtar Talking
- Korea Life Blog
- Toothing
- Academic Secret
- Genius Duck
- Hairstyles and Nails
- Home Tips
- Health Talk and You
- Beadle Beads
- Glass Beads Supplies
- Paquet Full of Glass
- Native American Jewelry
- Blogopoly
- Second String Swap
- Work at Home News
- Bashhh
- Click Here
- Click Here
- Just Another Opinion Blog
- Dip Dot
- Awryt
- Zacquisha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2004
(246)
-
▼
April
(19)
- Say something positive Giscard D'Estaing appeared...
- Scratching My Head in Disbelief The temptation to...
- Not So Hot One of the recent reports, issued by t...
- Chills the Blood One of the mysteries of the age ...
- Will Russia join OPEC? The Russian Federation is ...
- Reinforcement or Withdrawal This may be the optio...
- Blair Assumes the Usual Position For once the Gua...
- Will Europe take the Truce? Osama (you know, the ...
- What Crisis? An absolutely brilliant piece by Fre...
- Four More Years Although it is a rare day that Ai...
- The Curious Thoughts of Chairman Portillo In the ...
- A Post-Modern Army? What is a post-modern army? I...
- Disengagement and Withdrawal Over the long term, ...
- What are the options for Iraq? Looking beyond the...
- Feet to the Fire Don't be fooled by the idea that...
- Is this the Shia kick off? With the uprising of t...
- Power comes out of the payload of a bomb If Georg...
- Official: Tories obtain sympathetic media The Eur...
- Two Cultures An article by Martin Wollacott in th...
-
▼
April
(19)
0 comments:
Post a Comment