Every time I have visited Britain in recent years, things have seemed the same in at least one respect. Of the 20 major newspapers,19 are loudly proclaiming that Tony Blair is a complete idiot and that his reign is on the verge of coming to an ignominious end. Think I’m exaggerating? Here’s the headline on last week’s column by Simon Jenkins of The Times: this parody of a banana republic led by a monkey.

The day before, William Rees-Mogg’s column was titled: blair simply hasn’t the brains for it. Then comes the next poll, or by-election, or general election, and Blair strides on to greater success and power.

"This time it’s different," people tell me. But I'm not sure it is. Certainly some of the froth and fury seems unlikely to last. The public might be tiring of Blair but, given his long tenure, he is remarkably secure, powerful and agile. And he has no serious opposition--except the press. Most of the current complaints--rushed constitutional reforms, a hasty reshuffle--are unlikely to stick. But the barrage of criticism that he misled the public on Iraq has hurt him. What gives this issue much greater potency in Britain than in America is that the vast majority of Britons were against the war. The postmortem allows them to vent their frustration about being (in their eyes) bullied into it. And the press is now delighting in pounding Blair on his credibility. All of a sudden columnists who had been panting for war against Iraq, detailing the horrors of Saddam Hussein, are declaring that the only reason they were for it was due to the eloquent presentations of Tony Blair--the monkey.

If Blair's credibility is tarnished, it will lessen his influence in Europe. Most Europeans were dismayed by his support of George W. Bush; Blair's standing in Europe, once sky-high, has fallen. In recent polls Jacques Chirac got much higher approval ratings than did Blair through much of the Continent. This will be Europe' s loss. Blair's vision of the European Union is the best course for it; it is, in fact, the only practical one.

Blair is naturally European, comfortable with the idea of a close connection between Britain and the Continent. But he wants a Europe of nation-states, playing a role on the world stage in partnership with the United States. Chirac, by his own admission, wants a Europe that acts as a check on American power, helping to create a multipolar world.

Monsieur Chirac has a fantasy, not a strategy. He wants a multipolar world, and I want to be a billionaire. Neither is likely in the foreseeable future. Europe is not and cannot be a rival to the United States. First, it is not united in the military-political realm--and never will be. The president of France will never subcontract the decision to send French troops into North Africa to some Brussels bureaucrat. The newly proposed constitution of Europe, as Harvard's Andrew Moravcsik points out, has brushed aside every dream that Euro-federalists had: no majority voting on foreign and defense policy; no new authority for Brussels on fiscal and social policy; no elimination of national vetoes; no directly elected European president. It has reasserted the dominance of the nation-state. With the EU, what you see is what you will get: an economic and regulatory union with coordination between governments on other issues. No superstate.

Besides, even a more unified Europe would never be able to even approximate American military power. The EU promised that this year it would field a rapid-reaction force of 60,000 troops. All there is to show for it is a Finnish general with 150 aides who are sitting around in Brussels ungainfully employed. And even if such a force ever came into being, it couldn't actually get anywhere without a lift from Washington. The American armed forces have more than 500 C-130 transport planes that can take troops and equipment to and from places like the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan. Europe has four.

Of course Europe does have power; it provides massive economic aid, skilled peacekeeping troops, experience in nation-building. But it has never used its power to shape the world, except in offering membership to countries. Outside of its borders, Europe has been a hapless, status quo power. But in a world of terror, failed states and nuclear, chemical and biological proliferation, passivity may not be enough. Blair's vision for Europe is of a far more purposeful, active Continent that uses its strengths not to compete with America but to act as a partner. It is not only Blair's vision; many others are coming around to this view. Last week in Greece, Javier Solana, the EU's foreign-policy czar, suggested a similar approach in a highly intelligent and important paper. But Blair is the obvious leader of such a strategy: a world figure, master politician, secure at home, deeply European, and yet utterly trusted throughout the United States. He could make Europe a real player. It would be a tragedy for the Continent if his voice were to lose its resonance when it is most needed.