Who will be President?

On Tuesday the Independent dedicated a page to the issue of the future President of the European Council, who is favourite for the job and what exactly they will have to do, should the treaty be ratified.

Tony Blair has of course been touted for the job, and is supposedly being backed for the role by Sarkozy, but I think it remains a bit of a longshot. First, would Blair be popular enough to win support Europe wide and second, would he want to do a job which involves, as the John Lichfield explains, "not an enormous amount"?

The job is not President of the EU, but simply the chairmanship of just one of its institutions - the one that only meets four times a year, namely the European Council of heads of government of the Member States. The job has no independent executive powers or own administration. The EU's executive remains the Commission, whose President will be elected by the European Parliament.

Indeed, the relationship between these two Presidents could be problematic if the European Council President has too high ambitions and seeks to develop the role beyond its original conception of preparing and managing the "summit" meetings. It may also be confusing for the wider public if Europe has two "presidents" with an ill-defined division of responsibilities.

Some have suggested that the two posts should be merged or at least given to the same person. This is unlikely in the immediate, but I have a solution: the current Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen is interested in being President of the European Council. His predecessor, Paul Nyrup Rasmussen, now leader of the Party of European Socialists, has been tipped as a suitable President of the Commission. Appoint both - then, for public opinion, the "President of Europe" would be a Dane called Rasmussen. He might look different from one photo to another, but what the heck, you age quickly in this job....

It is curious to see Tony Blair lambasted in Conservative and UKIP circles for having "sold out to Europe". In much of the rest of Europe he is considered to have done precisely the opposite!

To read the Belgian or Italian press, for instance, you would have thought that Blair had single-handedly prevented the rest of Europe from carrying out the modest reforms it sought to the current EU system - or where he was unable to do so to negotiate instead an opt-out for Britain. Blair is, along with the Dutch, blamed for killing off the notion of an EU constitution. He blocked certain changes from unanimity to qualified majority voting. He has an opt-out of the Charter of Rights and kept Britain out of the euro and Schengen. He even opposed a reference in the treaty to the long standing primacy of EU law. I could go on - and many of the criticisms are unjustified. But they do illustrate how the Eurosceptic attacks on Blair in Britain are, to put it mildly, somewhat one-sided in their analysis.

It's now been several days since the outline of an EU Reform Treaty was agreed at the European Council summit, and the Open Europe/Tory/UKIP campaign against it has got off to a bad start. Despite being loud and shrill it is clearly not convincing many people.

Although Open Europe are fond of claiming that British businesses are sceptical about the EU and the benefits of the internal market, this is not borne out by the evidence. A poll released by Business for New Europe showed that 52% of business leaders supported the new Treaty with just 31% opposed. The Confederation of European Business (Business Europe), which includes the CBI, is the latest organisation to welcome the proposed new treaty, saying that "the European Union comes out reinforced and reinvigorated".

Meanwhile, in the House of Commons, Tony Blair used his penultimate appearance as Prime Minister to demolish David Cameron in a debate over the new treaty. While the usual suspects on the Tory benches, led by Bill Cash and David Heathcoat-Amory, made their outlandish claims about 'Brussels' taking over Britain, Ken Clarke pointed out to his hapless 'leader' that the provision in the new treaty to increase the role of national parliaments in EU legislation was one of the recommendations made by the Conservative party's "Democracy Taskforce". Cameron could not produce a single substantive reason why a referendum should be held on the treaty and was, as Blair pointed out, just "going through the motions".

So, the deal has been done - in the early hours of this morning. Many of us in the Council building feared that Polish intransigence would last throughout the night and longer, but eventually they too compromised at about three a.m.. I've lost count of the number of interviews I've done for British, French, German, Dutch, Belgian and Luxembourg TV and radio throughout the long day and night, but hopefully there will be no need for another summit on these issues for many years to come.

The Constitutional Treaty has been replaced by a practical set of reforms to the current European Union. They will make it work more efficiently and will improve parliamentary scrutiny and democratic accountability. This is a result to be welcomed. Euro-obsessives that want Britain to leave Europe (and, presumably, become part of America) will try to scare people with their ususal froth, but any objective look at the agreement shows that their complaints are fibs or exaggerations. Indeed, UKIP leader Nigel Farage was looking distincly forlorn, not sure what he could complain about, when I debated with him on BBC this morning - he fell back on quoting an article that has been in the treaty since Maastricht, 15 years ago.

Indeed, of the issues that the Eurosceptics focussed on, almost all have disappeared or been neutralized:

* The term "constitution" has been abandoned.

* On the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a new clause says "In particular, for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in title 4 of the Charter creates justiciable rights applicable to the United Kingdom."

* On the Foreign Minister, the role stays as High Representative, as it is called already now, and EU foreign policy will be decided by "The European Council and the Council acting unanimously", without the European Courts having a say over it. It is specified that none of this will effect the "existing legal basis, responsibilities, and powers of each member state,"

* In the field of justice and home affairs, where there is a switch from unanimity to majority voting, there are opt-outs for Britain.

Curiously, two items which Eurosceptics continue to criticise are things that, if they thought about them for a few seconds, they might appreciate.

* One is the longer-term president of the European Council (30 months instead of six months). This could lead to a strengthening of the intergovernmental European Council presidency at the expense of the Commission presidency. That is certainly why the anti-federalist French support it.

* The other is the "External Action Service". At present, EU external representations across the globe are run by the Commission. This change is designeed to give Council (i.e. national governments) a say in running and staffing them. Another step away from, rather than towards, a federal system.

However, Tory and UKIP critics just don't want to know and are simply focussed on finding fault with any change.

On the other side, federalists will be disappointed. The Italian and Belgian governments are muttering about too much having been sacrificed to placate the Brits, the Dutch, the Poles and the French. The European Parliament will be unhappy, as will the 22 countries who wished to retain the Constitutional Treaty intact.

BBC Europe chief and blogger Mark Mardell's assessment is interesting. Although BBC impartiality means he has to treat the Eurosceptics seriously and give them coverage they don't deserve, he clearly proclaims a victory for the government, saying: "Tony Blair can claim that he has won all his red lines. Of course, many will feel this was utterly predictable and of course Conservatives and other will say that there is plenty here that deserves a referendum. But Mr Blair has made their job that much harder."

Indeed a referendum seems hard to justify. Britain has never had a referendum to ratify an international treaty, and it would be odd to start with a minor one. We similarly have never had a referendum on issues that are far more important and that really interest the public, like the creation of the national health service, compulsory education, university fees, the death penalty, the monarchy. We are a parliamentary democracy - a British tradition we are generally proud of. To argue that a referendum is justified because the president of the European Council will have a 30-month instead of 6-month term of office is ludicrous.

But I predict that it won't stop the Torygraph, the Mail, the Sun, the Express UKIP, the Conservative party and the BNP demanding one!

Three assesssments of Blair's European legacy in today's press

The FT has a leader which refers to "Blair's eleventh hour championing of EU". It cliams that "The attempt to win over domestic opinion, to argue the pragmatic case (let alone with passionate conviction) why it serves British citizens to pool a small part of their sovereignty to meet the cross-border challenges of the era of globalisation, was all but abandoned. That is dereliction of political duty - and inexplicable. Britons have never been more familiarised and at ease with their European neighbours and many policy arguments inside the EU have tilted Britain's way. If Mr Blair had given half the time he devoted to Iraq to Europe, the position might be different. His belated attempt to resolve the constitutional mess might be more credible, his claim to be a champion of Europe less self-ascribed."


The Independent, also in a leader, refers to "a terrible failure to make the case for Europe". It says: "Mr Blair should not be trying to conceal what he is doing on Britain’s behalf in Europe. He should be up-front about it. If this institutional reorganisation is good for Britain, he should come out and say so unambiguously. His persistent failure to make the case for Europe has allowed popular prejudice and ignorance surrounding the EU to go unchallenged. The damage this does should not be underestimated. When it comes to the major challenges of our times such as climate change, peacekeeping and trade reform, Europe is indispensable. The unchecked growth of an anti-European mindset in Britain is diminishing our power to help to shape the world for the better."


Finally, with a different take, the Express, which claims that "Throughout his decade in Downing Street this Prime Minister has studiously avoided the verdict of the British people on the European Union. It can only be concluded that Mr Blair has failed to give the people a voice on Europe because he knows what that voice would say: no to greater integration, no to ridiculous European regulations and yes to a transfer of sovereignty away from Brussels and back to Britain. So it is disturbing to learn that in the few weeks before he quits office, Mr Blair is proposing to sign more powers away to the EU and will not give the British people a vote to either endorse or, much more likely, reject his proposals"

One would expect the Express to make such claims, but the other two are being a bit simplistic. Blair has frequently made keynote speeches on Europe (in addition to his Commons speeches at least four times a year after each European Council). Those Cardiff, Warsaw, and Brussels spring to mind, but there have been more), but they are simply not reported on very much in the press, nor, unfortunately, taken up much by others. Many of our newspapers give ample space to shrill Eurosceptic and xenophobic comments, but are reluctant to give space to the less exciting explanations of why the European Union is so vital.

The Royal Institute for Foreign Affairs (Chatham House) has published an interesting paper written by its outgoing director Professor Victor Bulmer-Thomas, which reviews Tony Blair's record on Foreign and European Affairs.

The paper argues that Labour’s first term, but not so much its second, should be judged as a success. A key factor in this was Blair’s first term ability to demonstrate Britain’s European credentials while forging a close working relationship with President Clinton. By contrast, the second term decision to invade a Iraq was a ‘terrible mistake’.

One of Labour's first acts in government was to sign the Amsterdam Treaty. Prof Bulmer-Thomas cites this as demonstrating that Britain was prepared to play a ‘constructive role in the European Union’ (and, I would add, in reforming it) while simultaneously offering the prospect of Britain joining the single currency. Similarly, he describes the decision in 1998 to incorporate the European Charter of Human Rights (albeit non-EU) into UK law as a positive step in showing that Britain was ‘at the heart of Europe’, and he comments favourably on Blair’s role in the St Malo summit with President Chirac, which put the foundations of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) on the basis of Anglo-French military cooperation.

The intervention alongside the USA in Iraq, just when Britain shied away from joining the Eurozone, turned the tide, with ‘Brussels’ sometimes 'portrayed as part of the problem rather than as part of the solution’.

Although he praises Blair’s empathy with the US, he describes Blair’s ‘failure to try to coordinate a European response’ in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks as ‘regrettable’. This, he contends, led to divisions within the EU over policy towards the US and gave the impression that Europe was:

‘Incapable of forming a geo-strategic view, that bilateral relations were the only ones that counted and that the Bush administration could count on British support no matter what policy it adopted’.

The European dimension of Blair’s foreign policy has also been effected by the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty, which Britain supported, by France and the Netherlands. This, together with the decline in public support for enlargement, the placing on hold of British accession to the euro, and a failure to persuade European leaders to take the ESDP seriously has, he says, put Blair’s European policy on the defensive, with the 2005 British Presidency of the EU Council being ‘essentially.... damage limitation’.

He adds that while Blair can taken credit for the fact that Britain is no longer the European ‘outsider’, its influence is limited while the ‘British public is still uncomfortable in its European skin’.

For the future, Bulmer-Thomas calls for a closer relationship with the rest of Europe, arguing that it is a requirement of British foreign policy and is likely to be urged on Britain by the next US president. He opines that a governing party such as Law and Justice in Poland does not help the US by ‘combining a strong Atlanticist streak with Europhobia’.

Furthermore, he claims that:

‘What US governments want is a European Union that can make a real contribution to the international political and security agenda, and any European government with the diplomatic skills to deliver EU support will be hugely appreciated’.

In the light of this, he says that for Britain to play this role as a power broker with the US, and to be taken seriously by its European partners, it must ‘revisit its opposition to joining both the Schengen agreement and the Eurozone’.

He worries that the most likely candidates to replace Blair are 'strongly Atlanticist’, uncomfortable with a closer relationship with the EU, whereas what Britain needs is less unconditional support for US foreign policy initiatives and better balance of UK foreign policy between Europe and the US.

Jyoti Basu, the 93 year old elder statesmen of the communist party of India (and a former Chief Minister of Western Bengal), has announced that he would like to step down from his position – only to be told by his Party that he has to carry on until at least 2008. Despite reports that he is “unamused”, his party members and beyond continue to beg for him to stay even longer.

Perhaps Tony Blair's advisers should give him a ring and ask for some tips!

The following is an extract of an email I recently received from a prominent Labour councillor in my constituency:

"Some good comments on your blog about Tony Blair and the continual demands for a Blair to go now.

I'm perfectly happy for MPs to have whatever views they wish in private, and will be quite happy to see Tony replaced by Gordon Brown, John Reid or any other potential replacement (I would draw the line at John McDonnell, I have to say) .....

But why can't we have any of our arguments in private?

Meanwhile, we seem to want to allow the public to sleepwalk into the idea that all the achievements of the last eight years - full employment, investment in health and education, the pledge to eradicate child poverty, help for working families, real regeneration of our inner cities and urban areas, etc, etc, - will just carry on without concern if we let Cameron and his Tories in."

Sentiments I echo heartily.

I am in Ramallah on the day of what could be a historic breakthrough in the Middle East peace process, and there is a palpable sense of excitement in the air.

Since the election victory of Hamas, the international community has refused to deal with the Palestinian government as Hamas refuses to even to recognise the right of Israel to exist. For some time, it has been suggested that a government of national unity would be a way around the deadlock, but until now negotiations between the main Palestinian parties had failed to produce agreement, partly as there was doubt that such a step would be sufficient for the international community to re-engage.

Tony Blair had arrived here one day ahead of us. I had fully expected to spend the next few days repeating his argument that, if they established a government of national unity, the international community would talk to it. In the event, within hours of his statement, such a government was agreed. The Palestinian legislators I met, including Hamas, had great expectations of this breakthrough, which includes an implicit recognition by Hamas of Israel.

Israel’s reaction is inevitably cautious and they are in the middle of an acute bout of self-doubt following the Lebanon conflict. But within hours, they released a number of Palestinian prisoners.

One curious aspect of all this from a British perspective is the very high esteem that both the Israelis and Palestinians have for Tony Blair. What a contrast with some people back home!

If Tony Blair goes in May next year, then it will be his successor who represents Britain at the crucial EU summit next June on the future of the constitutional treaty, which, one way or the other, will determine the pattern of EU politics for the next few years.

This has so far attracted little comment in the media, but it is of potentially crucial importance for the future of Europe.

Blair has been a consistent supporter of Britain playing a constructive role in Europe and he has continued to support the constitutional treaty when some cabinet ministers were luke-warm or even hostile (despite Labour's manifesto commitment to campaign enthusiastically for it). Blair has grasped that the issue is not dead and buried, as British commentators are all too quick to proclaim, and that even if the text of the treaty does eventually die a death, then (1) it is important that Britain is not blamed for killing it off (when there are others who are all too keen to blame the Brits) and (2) the issues the treaty was intended to solve have not conveniently gone away, but remain on the table.

If Brown is there, then he will have to get to grips very quickly with issues that he has sometimes shown a disdain for. He will have to overcome suspicions from our European partners that he is a closet Eurosceptic, who rarely attends the "Ecofin" council meetings and, when he does, has a reputation of lecturing other finance ministers on how much better the British economy is doing under his stewardship (which particularly irks those who are doing better or as well, including the Finns, the Irish and the Dutch who Britain considers to be natural allies in EU discussions). He also seems, for a socialist, to be overly gushing in his admiration of US labour market deregulation and lack of social protection. And of course many see him, rightly or wrongly, as the man who thwarted Blair on bringing Britain into the euro.

The discussion on the constitutional treaty will force Brown, if it is him, to come clean on where he stands. If he takes the view (which is the easy option in terms of the short run in domestic politics) that treaty reform is dead and the enlarged EU should simply muddle through with the old treaties, then he will have both made the wrong choice in favour of a downgraded EU and he will have alienated the majority of our EU partners. He will also have kicked the British objective of further enlargement of the EU into the long grass.

If, on the other hand, he were to embrace the view that Britain is constructively committed to building a more effective, accountable EU and is still supportive of the reforms contained in the constitutional treaty, then he would both maximise British influence and give a sporting chance to the reforms that the EU genuinely needs.

Of course, there are many who would wish to see him lay his cards on the table before the summit - indeed before they would be prepared to vote for him as Labour leader. There is still a strongly pro-Europe sentiment running through the Labour party and many members, including ministers and former ministers, MPs and MEPs, trade unionists and others, for whom the issue of Europe will be a litmus test of their willingness to back him or to seek an alternative.

I – and many of my colleagues – are getting increasingly fed up with the antics of some in the Westminster village about the date of Tony Blair’s departure.

Come the 2009/2010 General Election, who will be fussed about whether Tony handed over power in 2007 or 2008? The focus will be entirely on the new leader and the election.

Those who are convinced that an early handover date is better than a later one, should realise that the damage caused by the arguments about it far outweigh any possible gain from an early departure.

But I am anyway not convinced that an early handover would do us any good. The relentless media onslaught on Tony Blair would simply switch to his successor who, in a few months, would be in the same position.

Tony Blair promised the electorate to serve a full third term. He should keep his promise and hand over a few months before the next election so that his successor goes to the country during his honeymoon period.

Don't just take it from me: even the Lib Dems concede that Tony Blair's presidency of the European Council was a success! So says Andrew Duff MEP:

Credit to Blair for a successful presidency

"…The prime minister’s most admirable performance came not at the start of his presidency but at the end, on December 20, when he reported back to MEPs after the critical meeting of the European Council the previous week.

"On this occasion Blair had to explain and justify the agreement on the EU’s multi-annual financial framework for the period 2007-13. For Blair it was much more than a public relations outing because the parliament has the power to approve or reject the package proposed by the European Council and, within certain parameters, to adjust figures between headings.

"His presentation – which skilfully mixed confidence and contrition - was admirable, not just for its content, but also for the way in which he bashed ‘reactionaries’ and derided ‘commentators’."

Today's Independent has a leading article on Europe that is well worth reading:

Just the previous day, Mr Blair had appeared before members of the European Parliament in Brussels. Confident, combative, uninhibited, the Prime Minister seemed to be in his element. It was a pleasure to hear a British politician speaking so unapologetically as a European. His exchanges with Nigel Farage of UKIP were especially choice. Although he sat "with our country's flag", Mr Blair scolded him, "you do not represent our country's interests". He followed up with the curt rebuke: "This is 2005, not 1945."

Tony Blair's report to the European Parliament on the budget deal went quite well. It was the UKIP MEPs who made fools of themselves, by their childish antics of coming in early to bag the second row of seats all to themselves, decorate them with large Union Jack flags and stage a walk-out just before the end of the debate on the grounds that only two of their MEPs had been called to speak. For the record, among the British parties, three Conservatives were called, three Labour (including me), two UKIP, two Liberal and one Scottish Nationalist - hardly unfair towards UKIP, given the numbers of MEPs from each party!

Anyone interested in reading a full summary of the debate should click here.

So we have a budget deal! Or, at least, a negotiating position that the Council of Ministers can take to the negotiations with the European Parliament in order to decide the final outcome. (This is an aspect that most newspapers seem to have overlooked!)

Even before the deal was clinched, I had to defend the government's position on the BBC's Newsnight programme and on Radio 5, against Tory accusations that it was a sell-out. A "sell-out" that will see the size of the UK rebate increase over the coming years, and the overall size of the EU budget as a proportion of GDP remaining well below what it has been in recent years, despite enlargement! Frankly, nobody else in Europe believes that the UK has been lax in defending its interests - rather the contrary, that it has been too successful.

In fact, Tony Blair had a thankless task in trying to reach an agreement on the budget. He had to reconcile the six countries who wanted to limit EU spending to 1% of GDP with those who wanted a much larger budget. He had to deal with Mr Chirac, who wanted to ring-fence all agricultural spending. He had to deal with the expectations of the new member states, who understandably want the kind of assistance to poorer countries that the EU has provided in the past. He also had to deal with the frankly rather less defensible demands of some long-standing members seeking to preserve their privileges – such as Spain wanting to remain a net beneficiary to a greater extent than the much poorer central European countries, and Luxembourg which, in per capita terms, is both the richest member state and the biggest net beneficiary! He had to deal with all those who thought that a cost-free way (for them!) to increase resources was to eliminate the British rebate. So it is a tribute to his negotiating skills that he secured a deal at all!

In the absence of an immediate new cut in agricultural spending, there will be no change either to the UK rebate, which remains intact, other than the adjustment in favour of the new member states mentioned above. But the absence of a new cut to agriculture should not blind us to the major changes to the CAP that have already been achieved - see my blog entry for 15 December. If I have one criticism of the government, it is that it fails to make people aware of this (and its other) achievements in the EU.

Watching Tony Blair appear on BBC's Football Focus was interesting (direct link to BBC online video here). Will the press pick up on his tongue-in-cheek references the fact that Alan Shearer announced his retirement at the end of last season but has since persuaded to stay on, which he has done to great acclaim? Or will the newspaper’s lobby correspondents consider football programmes to be beneath them, thereby missing this potentially telling analogy?

They will also have missed the BBC digging out of their archives the full original interview with Blair, from ten years or so ago, following which he was pilloried for having claimed to remember watching Jackie Milburn play for Newcastle when he was a kid. The press claimed this was an outrageous example of spin, as Blair was too young to remember that - only four when Milburn retired. Well, it now turns out that what Blair actually said was that he started watching Newcastle play as a kid after the Milburn era. He had never made the claims quoted in the press at all! So, far from this being a casebook example of political spin, it was in fact a casebook example of media distortion…

Blair's visit to Parliament today once again managed to set the cat among the pigeons. Conservative MEPs actually asked to have a private meeting with him, while the Lib Dems didn't and organised what appeared to be some sort of demonstration instead. The Tories' meeting left several of them muttering audibly about how none of their leadership contenders could ever match him for ability. Others wondered what the point of their meeting was (as, no doubt, did Blair) and speculated that Tim Kirkhope, their leader in the European Parliament, was after a peerage!

Meanwhile, Blair's speech to Parliament had to be seen to be believed - just like last time, you certainly wouldn't know who to believe in the press! Remarkably, even Eurosceptic newspapers with the same ownership couldn't agree on how to handle it: the Sun said he was “heckled and booed” whereas the Times reported that his speech was “punctuated by frequent applause”. Take your pick...

Off to London for a seminar to mark the mid point of the British Presidency of the EU Council. Denis McShane, the previous Minister for Europe, and myself were invited to speak.

Of course, we agreed on much: the Presidency is right to focus on major issues of concern (economic reform, the future of the European social model, the medium-term budget, CAP reform etc) rather than trying, at this stage, to pre-empt the 'period of reflection' on the constitution by proposing to renegotiate the text. Tony Blair's speech to the European Parliament at the start of the presidency was extremely successful in refocusing the agenda.

We also agreed that the presidency affords only limited opportunities. It's not an executive office, but merely the chairmanship of one of the EU institutions for a short period with a largely inherited agenda. One of its pitfalls is exaggerated expectations of it.

To liven things up, we did our best to disagree on details! Denis couldn't resist a few populist digs at MEPs, moaning that a few “out of touch” MEPs consider the EU constitution to be still a live issue - in which case a fair number of national governments must also be out of touch!

He also raised yet again an idea that failed to get any support in previous discussions on EU reform, namely that a 'second chamber' be added to the European Parliament composed of delegations from national parliaments. When I pointed out that we already have a two-chamber system in that EU legislation has to go through up to three readings in both Parliament and the Council, he says that there is no way Tony Blair would consider himself to be a mere senator!

No doubt - and as Prime Minister, Tony is a member of the key EU strategic decision-taking body, the European Council. But ordinary departmental ministers dealing with routine legislation in the normal Council are indeed part of a bicameral legislature in that legislation must be approved both by the Council and the European Parliament. To change that into a complex three-chamber system, with a new body composed of national parliamentarians, would scarcely make EU decision-taking procedures easier or clearer. Many people already now find the system too complex, so what it would be like with a three institutions having to agree, heaven only knows.

Besides, the pre-1979 European Parliament was composed of delegations from national parliaments - and it didn't work! The MPs found they couldn't do two full time jobs simultaneously, and majorities depended on which national delegation was missing due to a key vote in their national parliament. That is why the original European Parliament was changed into a full-time elected Parliament.

There is no doubt that the institutional structure of the EU will need revisiting. But this is one idea that won't float!

It must have been a painful dilemma for Eurosceptic newspaper editors when they were faced with a choice between having a go at the EU and having a go at Tony Blair. When the Prime Minister made a slip in an otherwise excellent speech and said that a seesaw had been dismantled because of spurious EU regulations, there was no clear line from the right-wing press about how to report the error.

The Evening Standard went one way, sacrificing accuracy at the altar of reactionary Euroscepticism:

"Tony Blair today launched an unprecedented attack on Brussels… [Mr Blair] raised the case of a Cotswold village required to pull up a seesaw because it was judged a danger under an EU directive on outside playgrounds."

Meanwhile, you can almost hear the teeth grinding in the editor's office as the Telegraph decides to point the mistake:

"Tony Blair was caught out yesterday for falsely claiming that a European Union directive had forced a Cotswolds village to rip out its playground seesaw - when no such directive exists. Playgrounds are, in fact, not regulated by the EU."

Fortunately, the European Commission is on hand to break the deadlock.

"This little tale first surfaced in 2000 and found a home in a number of newspapers willing to peddle it. Now the Evening Standard has jumped on the merry-go-round [boom, boom] of blaming non-existent EU rules for depriving children of their seesaws, while the prime minister appears to have, albeit unintentionally, recycled an old euromyth.

"There is no EU Directive on Playground Equipment for Outside Use. No village in the Cotswolds has been forced to take down its seesaws, or swings or slides.

"The prime minister may have been referring to European Standard EN 1176-5, drawn up by the European Committee for Standardisation. This is a non-EU body made up of standards institutions from 28 European countries, including the British Standards Institution. It sets guidelines for products in order to improve consumer safety. But these guidelines are entirely voluntary."

Yesterday, Tony Blair appeared before the European Parliament to outline his priorities for the UK’s presidency of the European Council, which starts on 1 July. His speech was excellent (the full text is here) and he maintained a refreshingly positive tone. The British presidency will be a great opportunity to address current challenges in the EU.

Back in Yorkshire today, I was astonished by the media’s wide range of interpretations of the Prime Minister’s reception at Parliament. Were they at the same debate?!

Financial Times:

"Tony Blair, prime minister, won unexpected support in Brussels yesterday with his vision of a revitalised European Union that could embrace free markets and face up to the challenges of globalisation… Mr Blair was praised by EU MPs for a passionate speech which sought to chart a route out of the continent's political malaise… [His] speech was consensual in tone and received applause from a parliament that had been expected to give him a rough ride."

and:

"As a political performance it was brilliant; as an argument, compelling. Watching Tony Blair speak to the European Parliament in Brussels yesterday was to remember why this British prime minister is Europe's most successful leader."

Independent:

"Mr Blair escaped unscathed from a debate in the European Parliament… [Y]esterday most Euro-MPs seemed won over by a speech in which Mr Blair described himself as a 'passionate pro-European' while making a powerful plea for reform to deal with the forces of globalisation."

Times:

"It was a vintage performance… the clapping became more and more frequent."

Sun:

"He won new allies as they applauded him 15 times during the 30-minute keynote address."

Le Monde:

"The new strongman of Europe"

Then, on the other hand, Guardian:

"His speech… prompted a few jeers and catcalls from MEPs."

Telegraph:

"BLAIR DOES A THATCHER TO THE EU, ONLY RUDER

…He was met with scattered applause, some heckling and long periods of sullen silence from MEPs."

Finally, somehow the Daily Express manages to come up with an utterly inverted analysis, reporting on the performance of the self-proclaimed ‘passionate pro-European’ as follows:

"Tony Blair took his new Eurosceptic agenda into hostile territory yesterday as he unleashed a devastating attack on the European Union."