EUobserver.com

EUOBSERVER / COMMENT - The euro, it seems, is ten years old. I had thought that the commemoration and review would have been on 1 January 2009, ten years after the euro entered the world, rather than on the anniversary of its conception - the relevant decision by the European Council in June 1998. But there we are. Perhaps the champagne will flow again on 1 January.

I remember that morning, nine and a half years ago, rather well. I was in Austria, spending, as it turned out, Austrian schillings for the last time. The first of January was a calm, snowy day, with occasional sunshine breaking through. The arrival of the euro seemed then such a tremendous event, akin to the millennium which it was upstaging by a year, that I half-expected something physical to happen. Europe would never be the same again, I thought dramatically. Nothing did happen, of course, and Europe has gone on pretty much exactly the same ever since.

In a sense this was the conclusion of the Commission's, slightly downbeat, ten year review. Although the currency has established itself securely (after an initial shaky start) and is now a major reserve currency; although monetary union has helped to keep prices stable and interest rates low; although the currency has helped the Union's internal trade - which in turn has created large numbers of jobs (16 million say the Commission) the review still leaves you with the feeling that the currency was expected to do more - to wit redressing somehow the imbalance between the Union's economic might and its political pusillanimity. This, it seems to me, is grossly unfair.

There were, indeed, still are, people on both sides of the argument - European enthusiasts and sceptics alike - who argue that the euro's primary purpose is, or should be, or will be if we are not careful, political. Those in favour of the political purpose see the euro as a driver of European integration, as the deliverer of increasingly harmonized economies and of single political representation in world financial circles. All of which are precisely the reasons that many people, in Britain especially, have reservations about it.

This is a pity for the consequences of Britain's short-term decision not to participate in the euro from the outset when the country's economy was in shape to do so, are now becoming apparent.

The credit crunch, the decline on oil revenues, an over-reliance on financial services and debt and now the rapid rise in commodity prices have left the pound sterling in a weak position. It has already fallen by some 20 per cent against the euro, even if it remains strong against the enfeebled dollar. Inflationary pressures are building; interest rates may again have to rise. This has led to calls to re-open the single currency debate.

Britain might indeed have joined and been there at the 1999 launch if then Prime Minister, Tony Blair had had a different Chancellor and had not decided to give priority to referenda on devolution to Scotland and Wales, over one on the euro.

Nevertheless, ten years ago, most Britons accepted, reluctantly or not, that we would be joining the euro at some point. There was little question that an early referendum could have been won. A grand political coalition was assembled, embracing all the major parties, and plans were unveiled to press and public in a giant cinema complex on the south bank of the Thames. From that high point the prospects of British membership have receded into the dimmest and most distant future.

Had Tony Blair been more single-minded, more ruthless, he might have got his way. As it is the aspiration to make his mark on Britain's relations with the European Union looks to have foundered. Even the post of European President, for which a few months ago he was deemed a front-runner, is now slipping from his grasp. There are plenty of reasons, after all, not to want as European President someone who appears closer to the Washington than to Brussels and who split the Union over Iraq, trampling on international law in the process. Now the backing that Mr Sarkozy, the French President, gave Blair in January has been withdrawn; a new alliance has been opened with the Luxembourg Prime Minister, Mr Juncker.

We still don't know what the European President will be expected to do. Indeed, until after June 12, when the Irish will vote on the Lisbon Treaty, we can't be sure that there will be a European Presidency post at all. Only then will a job description be discussed. Though the idea that you can make someone President and then give them a ‘job description' seems to me fatuous.

But, assuming the Lisbon Treaty is ratified and there were a European President in place today, what we should expect him - or her - to be doing? Would he (or she) not be attempting to press the Burmese Junta to let in Europe's humanitarian aid? Or be leaning on Southern Africa to get rid of Mugabe? Or be speaking powerfully to China about their own dealings with regimes that abuse human rights? Or be paving the way for a new international climate change treaty? Or be pouring oil on the troubled waters of the Balkans and the troubled sands of the Middle East? Or be establishing close and personal ties with the new Russian President, Mr Medvedev and with the next US President?

It is hard to imagine that someone called European President not doing these things. Though in that case what will be left to Europe's Foreign Minister or High Representative? And who then should be organising the business in the Council? Perhaps the Foreign Minister should be upgraded to ‘President,' with a vice-President organising the Council.

But the important point here, surely, is that it is no use bewailing that ‘Europe punches below its weight;' or is an ‘economic giant but a political pigmy,' and then turning the role of European President into a shuffler of paper. Europe needs someone who can act credibly and with charisma on the international stage, projecting the European view with appropriate political force. The role of President requires someone of stature, someone who can project. For all his manifest faults, Blair should not be ruled out yet.

The author is editor of EuropaWorld

[Comment] Despite his faults, Blair should not be ruled out