So brazen was Mr Blair in announcing a referendum on Europe's constitution, that he did not utter the "R" word, writes Frank Millar, LondonEditor
The many faces of Tony Blair were on display this week. Blair the warrior statesman, faithful ally, stout friend; scourge of terrorists and seeker after truth; man of action and unbending principle. But then, too, Blair the chameleon and chancer; the politicians' politician and ultimate pragmatist; shameless seeker after the populist position; the man to turn past commitments on their head while maintaining he hasn't changed at all, effecting the most spectacular of U-turns while proclaiming - and maybe even believing - he has no such thing as a reverse gear.
For Labour's anti-war party (and, in truth, for many others who supported him over Iraq - some now through gritted teeth) there was a particularly stomach-wrenching moment during Mr Blair's visit to Washington last Friday. The US president was paying the prime minister the highest compliment he knew when he described him in Texan-terms as "a stand-up kinda guy".
New Labourites, too, will have winced at this reminder of the extraordinary strength of an alliance with the right-wing Republican president they could never have imagined would come to define the Blair project. And even on the old Labour left there must have been a hankering for the days when Gordon Brown, Peter Mandelson, and the other pioneers jetted back and forth across the Atlantic to discuss Triangulation and the Third Way with Bill Clinton's New Democrats.
Yet from Mr Blair came not a hint of embarrassment.
Nor, likewise, back in the Commons on Tuesday, when the "stand-up kinda guy" lay down, rolled over, and announced that there would, after all, be a British referendum on the proposed European constitution.
Not even his friends sought to challenge or correct the description of the prime minister's performance as utterly shameless. To the contrary, one of them laughed along: "That's my boy." Indeed so brazen was Mr Blair that he managed to get through his formal statement to MPs announcing a referendum without actually uttering the "R" word.
It was only during the subsequent exchanges that we could be absolutely certain Mr Blair had in fact delivered the volte-face for which days of advance leaks and "spin" had prepared us.
And even then the great helmsman was unrepentant, insisting that he really hadn't changed his views about any of the fundamentals whatsoever.
Peter Hain, the Former Europe Minister and now Commons Leader, had famously described the proposed constitution for the enlarged European Union as "a tidying-up operation" when he advised those demanding a referendum to fold their placards and go home.
Now here was Mr Blair explaining that the government's view remained the same: he would negotiate his "red lines" maintaining the national veto over key policy issues before signing a treaty which would not fundamentally change the relationship between nation states and the European Union.
So why then have a referendum, having previously asserted, like John Major and Margaret Thatcher (and Michael Howard) before him, that parliament was the place to decide such an issue?
Well, actually, Mr Blair explained, it was largely down to the Tories. The constitution might not pose a threat to Britain's national interest but Mr Howard - in his reckless opposition not just to this but to any constitution - would most certainly alter the terms of Britain's relationship with the other 24.
Indeed over subsequent days Mr Blair would explain that he had changed his mind in order to wreck a Tory conspiracy to force a crisis within the Union which would reduce Britain to "associate membership" of the European club.
Warming to the task of explaining himself, Mr Blair's best answer on Tuesday came when he told the Rev Ian Paisley he had come to the realisation that the Tories would have him spend the next year arguing about a referendum - about process rather than substance - with the risk that the British people might end up thinking they'd been conned.
And by Thursday Mr Blair and his aides had honed and polished their about-turn into a new opportunity to win the British debate about Europe, having finally realised (after almost seven years in power) that they had managed to lose it.
"What I have changed is my view that you can take this process forward without having an open, genuine debate with the people," Mr Blair said, while adding it was right and proper for politicians to be prepared to change their position, particularly where this involved no change of belief.
There is nothing necessarily daft about this Downing Street calculation, notwithstanding the current state of the opinion polls. Having failed to avail of the favourable climate post his first election victory in 1997, Mr Blair - with all the power of initiative available to the government of the day - might reasonably hope to "make the weather" following a predicted third Labour victory in the summer of next year. By then the shenanigans of the past week will have been forgotten while Mr Blair will hope to see vindication in Iraq and some consequent restoration in his reputation for "trust".
However, that still leaves unresolved questions about this week's remarkable turnaround - and the very real possibility that it could end in defeat. Horrified pro-European Tories - most notably Lord Heseltine and former chancellor Kenneth Clarke - are chief amongst those who think Mr Blair has quite simply capitulated to the Murdoch press. The Sun "Wot Won It" is clearly not going to dispel the suspicion that Mr Blair backed down for fear of losing its endorsement in the general election, although Downing Street maintains no such discussion or trade was entered into.
Few, frankly, will believe Mr Blair's protestation that this was not at least a major factor in his decision. Another factor, though, was the disposition of Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, Chancellor Gordon Brown and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. Mr Brown wants the election - which he hopes will be followed by his succession to the top job - dominated by the economy rather than arguments about Europe.
Battered by the war, Mr Straw reputedly saw little merit in fighting public opinion on a second front. Mr Prescott would have a sure political instinct on finding the government digging itself into a hole.
The Irish Times also understands that the Health Secretary, Dr John Reid, was influential in persuading Mr Blair that the argument (over the referendum) was being lost.
More base calculations apart, such counsel will also have combined with Mr Blair's own pragmatic instinct to see "a change of tactics" as a means to renewal of the grand but failing project to put Britain "at the heart of Europe". On Tuesday Mr Blair declared: "It is time to resolve once and for all whether this country, Britain, wants to be at the centre of Europe and heart of European decision-making or not; time to decide whether our destiny lies as a leading partner and ally of Europe or on its margins."
Time, too, he said to meet "head-on" what he described as "an unrelenting" and "partially, at least, successful" campaign "to persuade Britain that Europe is a conspiracy aimed at us rather than a partnership designed for us and others to pursue our national interest properly in a modern, interdependent world."
"The battle" this time surely is joined. There can be no turning back, as a third term beckons, and, with it, inevitable and legitimate questions about Mr Blair's durability. "President" Blair likes living dangerously.