petrolinus said:
Very nice post, and welcome to the Escapist. Good to have some actual explanation on this post rather than simple "back off brussels!" or "argh, Blair" reactions.
While I agree with your assessment of why Europe would reject Blair (though frankly you could have stopped at his nationality), I do think he would make a very good President. Mainly is his charisma, there's nothing worse that a drab leader, it makes sound policies flounder for lack of interest (yes, you Ban Ki-Moon). Blair would provide a political nexus that could bring the EU into a greater international position.
Secondly, this (sort of):
Nickolai77 said:
If elected, i think Tony Blairs first priority should be to cut back on unnessary leglisation and beauracracy, and get another treaty passed through the EU parliment which draws a clear line between the powers of the EU and the powers of it's individual states. Hopefully this would set Europe on a firm foundation- and put to rest some of the fears of the British and other EU skeptic countries.
He's high profile enough to actually get through to people directly. The EU is corrupt because no one scrutinises, no one scrutinises it through general lack of diplomatic involvement. More people being involved would hopefully shed more light onto the workings of the system and clean it up a little. With more scrutiny, people would become better able to trust the EU more, and so scepticism would be reduced.
As an aside I don't think Blair would be the man to define powers between countries better. He is an individual that craves attention, and thrives off publicity. He was a fiercely independent leader as PM as that served his needs, and focussed power onto him. National independence (RE foreign policy) was largely a bi-product of this. As EU pres he would likely advocate greater EU control, centralising not out of ideology, but simply as it makes him the fulcrum of power yet again.
And there for the grace of mixed metaphors go I.