Europe: A financial giant and political dwarf.

[gate7ole]

The decision of the 8 prime ministers of European counties (UK, Spain, Italy, Posrtugal, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Chezh?) to support the imminent war of USA with Iraq showed once again that a common European route is impossible. Once again, the citizens of Europe were disappointed by the lack of dynamics among the European leaders.
I do not intend to speak about the war and its necessity or not. I would make the same comment even if the subject was an economic one. The conclusions of this action are that Europe is a political servant of USA. A few days after the infamous comments of (I think) an american senator against the antiwar statements of France and Germany, comes the “gang” of 8 leaders to betray everyone: their allies, their people, even their ministers. Everyone can understand the reasons of this move, and I believe none can deny that this action was disastrous for the future of European union.
And to finish, the protagonist behind this, is well known, Mr. Tony Blair.

[Gloer]

France and Germany have recently started promoting intergovernmental decision making in EU. decisions amongst the larger countries, the so called core (piece of **** idea) of the EU would take the lead and other (provinces) would follow. Germany and France in their dreams imagine that a president chosen byt htis core could "lead" the European Union foreign policy. HA!

I strongly support The Great Eight against the Franco-Teutonic dreams of glory and greatness. Those two have been marginalized in their eagerness to direct the European foreign policy and ignoring the community and the nations that they do not consider the "core".

At the momnet we must follow USA and try to influence it's decisions. USA is the power behind EU and the west.

If one wants to disagree with USA. Then one should create a federal Europe, common parliament, senate and government and army, then break the large nation state governments to avoid power struggle.

Paris and Berlin are the weakness of Europe.

[gate7ole]

So, what do you suggest? To reject the France-Germany alliance and follow USA? Become their puppets? Because that is what the Great Eight (as you named them) did. You don’t want to be a puppet of the French-Germans, though you don’t mind being a puppet of the Americans.
And I say if France and Germany won’t take the initiative for the foreign policy of EU who will? UK, always serving USA? Spain, always conservative? Italy, with a fascist prime minister? Whether we like it or not France and Germany respresent the two healthiest (economically and politically) countries of EU. Germany provides 1/3 of the money of EU. Do you think that Greece should be the leader? No, those two countries should lead.
But here this is not a question of leadership. The common foreign policy was decided to be a pacifistic one. We are supposed to be the voice of logic in this war. Do you want numbers? 82% of the European population is against war without the UN consent. 73% believe that oil is the major reason of war. The majority is against, yet the “Great Eight” come like saviors to lecture us that we must accept the war. They break the common route, by explicitly opposing to the others.
And don’t be fooled. This is not a great move of the Great Eight against the Franco-Teutonic dreams of glory. This is another direct attack of USA against EU stability and common policy, through of course its minion Blair. USA is not the power behind EU. It is the power against it. Why should USA want a healthy and strong EU? Why would they want another political and economical power so close to the sources of wealth (Middle-East)? Everyone who believes this is naïve. Of course I don’t believe that the French and Germans also do anything altruistically, but at least their purposes are decent and the lesser countries can have a share from the pie.

[Samweis]

The open letter of the 8 countries pro the Bush administration was really a big slap into the face of France and Germany.

From my point of view (I´m German) did Schröder some faults in his Iraq politics.

First he predetermine the German vote in the UN-Security Council before the the UN-inspectors have publish their report about Iraq. This is a contempt of the UN.

Second at the festivities Schröder and Chirac seemed to speak for the European Union except UK, but this wasn´t arranged with the other EU-members.

Now is the German administration in the situation, that they have no influence anymore.

On the other hand it seems to me that the Bush administration has decided the war against Iraq in last summer already - what is also a contempt of the UN.

The Bush administration has a problem with their credibility, because the US-goverment looks very carefully that the Iraq fulfilled the UN-resolution but didn´t care about the UN-resolution on Israel/Palestine.

I agree that Iraq has to fulfill the UN-resolution and has to be disarmed, but war has to be the last appliance.

[Eledhwen]

I would have more respect for my Prime Minister's stand with Mr Bush if it were consistent. Our leaders snarl at Mr Hussein and call him bad names. At the same time, white Zimbabwean farmers are queueing up for asylum in the UK while we are sending our national cricket team to Zimbabwe. There are many countries with human rights records equally as apalling as Iraq's; the difference is, of course, that these others don't have large oil reserves and tried to grab a bit of coastline along a key shipping route.

[gate7ole]

Eledhwen, I agree with you. But we shouldn't turn this discussion into another "war-thread". These things have been discussed over ang over many times.
The issue here is whether this open letter of the 8 is a direct threaten against the EU common policy and by whom it was directed. Gloer believes the opposite of me. Anyone else?

[FoolOfATook]

I think that European history is the biggest threat to the EU. I know that I'm just an American, but I can't help but think of Metternich's "Concert of Europe" whenever I hear about the EU. Just a thought.

[Samweis]

Originally posted by FoolOfATook
I think that European history is the biggest threat to the EU. I know that I'm just an American, but I can't help but think of Metternich's "Concert of Europe" whenever I hear about the EU. Just a thought.

You remark about "just be an American" should be out of the matter, because critical views are very important.

But you should consider, that the WWII is only 58 years ago, where the Europeans had fighted against each others. It takes some time to build up a "one-voice" politics in Europe.

And the war is not only 58 years ago, we have even lived in different countries for some centuries.


But you are right, if Europe wants to have influence on world-politics, we should learn to speak with "one-voice".

[Gloer]

If we want a strong European voice we have only one possibilety:

European comission takes over foreign policy matters from the member states.

That means stripping the utterly harmful influence France, Germany and UK have. Those large nations weaken Europe because they fail to realize how small they are.

Each had it's chance. 18th century saw England after the parliamentary revolution of 1688. Then came the hybris of Napoleonic France after 1792. And finally the German upheaval from 1870 til 1945.

EU should lead and I hope the French, British and German governments realize that they should give up foreign policy.

The British have done so already. But then they hae the common sense to understand that UK is pretty insignifficant withour USA and EU doesn't provide a strong stable solution yet. And lastly it is fatal to build European unity in foreing policy as anti-thesis of US power.

That is a seed for a confrontation that I do not want to see.

[Samweis]

Before we hand over the foreign-policy from the member states to the European commission, we have to democratise the institutions of the European Union.

[Eledhwen]

Originally posted by gate7ole
Eledhwen, I agree with you. But we shouldn't turn this discussion into another "war-thread". These things have been discussed over and over many times.
The issue here is whether this open letter of the 8 is a direct threaten against the EU common policy and by whom it was directed. Gloer believes the opposite of me. Anyone else? Personally, I've never been a European Unionist, so I'm not bothered if common policy is compromised, because it was never really all that common. The artificiality of European Union has once again been highlighted by the behaviour of a few. There is no common European agenda, because each nation (including my own) has its own hidden agenda, which rears its ugly head out of its cage every now and then. Expediency is the name of the game; they will all be round the same table again once the dust has settled.

[Gloer]

Originally posted by Samweis
Before we hand over the foreign-policy from the member states to the European commission, we have to democratise the institutions of the European Union.


You are right.
I theoretize over the posiiblety of following aim for developing EU bodies:

European comission president and comissioners are chosen by the European parliament (Not the council) and the comission aswerable to the Parliament.

Comission will be political.

European council will change all voting into single majority. Memberstates have one vote each.


In this way we will de facto have a democratically elected house of representatives, EuroParliament; a senate to represent member states, European council; and a political government, European Comission.
No president is needed. European nations have usually strong prime ministers which would give us in the President of the Comission the man whose phone number was long ago inquired by Henry Kissinger.

The real hurdle is the one vote per member rule that will strip Large national governments their power in European issues and hopefully grant it to the Comission that has democratic support from Parliament.

[gate7ole]

I think that European history is the biggest threat to the EU. I know that I'm just an American, but I can't help but think of Metternich's "Concert of Europe" whenever I hear about the EU. Just a thought.
I don’t think that there is any threat of the dogma of Metternich in the current EU. Those ages are long past. And the European history is also full of many proud moments that shouldn’t be considered as a threat to anyone.

Now, all things that were heard about a theoretic approach of the political European unity are interesting, but IMO unpractical.
We cannot expect the democratization of the European institutions in terms of one vote per member. There is no logic in it. Especially the weaker countries would be used by “outsiders” with destructive effects. A more practical system like strengthened analogy (correct term?), would work better. But I don’t disagree that either system would have some effects.
Yet, would this solve the problems? I do not think so. The hurdle is not the commission, but its acceptance by the prime ministers. Because, judging by the move of the 8, many countries do not respect the decisions taken by the EU. For their personal reasons they decide to change side.
With the current situation, even if laws were voted obliging the members to accord with the commission and its decisions, some countries would not hesitate to keep a different course of action every now and then. Why? Because no country (or group of countries) inside EU has the political guts to confront the other. And if the punisher is powerless, then the offender can act freely (as history showed with Germany during the two wars).
The only solution to this dead end is that all countries realize the necessity to loyalty to the common policy. Those that don’t, should themselves withdraw. And I’m sorry to say that since UK has shown enough times such a reluctance, then it should be better if they took their own road.

[Arvedui]

IMO, you are all forgetting one very simple fact here: The European Union cannot be compared to the United States, as long as the EU consists of a number of independant countries!
As long as this state of affairs exist, one cannot altogether demand a common foreign policy, can we?.
On the western shores of the Atlantic, there are some 250 million people who speake the same language. One the eastern shore, there are a number of different countries, each with their own language, and also their own history and culture.
gate comes from a country whose culture is ancient, other EU member states haven't even been independant states for a century. And some of those countries who will be joining shortly, have been independant for little more than a century.

These things take some time.

From gate7ole:
And don’t be fooled. This is not a great move of the Great Eight against the Franco-Teutonic dreams of glory. This is another direct attack of USA against EU stability and common policy, through of course its minion Blair. USA is not the power behind EU. It is the power against it. Why should USA want a healthy and strong EU? Why would they want another political and economical power so close to the sources of wealth (Middle-East)? Everyone who believes this is naïve. Of course I don’t believe that the French and Germans also do anything altruistically, but at least their purposes are decent and the lesser countries can have a share from the pie.

Imagine a United States of Europe (which IMO is where the EU should be heading) with Russia among its members. Of course this is what the US are afraid of. Not only an equal force and business partner, but a superior one.

This ended up as a looong ramble I'm afraid. Forgive..

[Gloer]

Originally posted by gate7ole
I don’t think that there is any threat of the dogma of Metternich in the current EU. Those ages are long past. And the European history is also full of many proud moments that shouldn’t be considered as a threat to anyone.


Long past? I am sorry hae you forgotten how natural it was for the other European goernments to interfere in the forming of the Austrian government when the freedom party joined it. It is not long past, it's present. Metternich is alive and well I am afraid.


Originally posted by gate7ole

Now, all things that were heard about a theoretic approach of the political European unity are interesting, but IMO unpractical.
We cannot expect the democratization of the European institutions in terms of one vote per member. There is no logic in it. Especially the weaker countries would be used by “outsiders” with destructive effects.


Why should German nationality and culture have more than one vote? German nation is one nation. Danish nation is one nation. One vote for nation. And one vote for each citizen. Yhat is the only way to oust national agenda from EU decisions. Governments should give the EU parliament the power to represent the population and council should only represent what it at best does: nations with one vote each.

Originally posted by gate7ole

A more practical system like strengthened analogy (correct term?), would work better. But I don’t disagree that either system would have some effects.
Yet, would this solve the problems? I do not think so. The hurdle is not the commission, but its acceptance by the prime ministers. Because, judging by the move of the 8, many countries do not respect the decisions taken by the EU. For their personal reasons they decide to change side.


Decisions made by EU differ from the decisions of the eight? I think those eight represent the governments of the majority of population in EU. :D
BTW This is another example of how a popular vote for parliament and comission would better reflect the sentiment. I agree that polls show the population favouring France and German approach. Unfortunately france and germany do not have legitimacy to represent Europeans any more than UK, Italy and Spain.
Originally posted by gate7ole


With the current situation, even if laws were voted obliging the members to accord with the commission and its decisions, some countries would not hesitate to keep a different course of action every now and then. Why? Because no country (or group of countries) inside EU has the political guts to confront the other. And if the punisher is powerless, then the offender can act freely (as history showed with Germany during the two wars).
The only solution to this dead end is that all countries realize the necessity to loyalty to the common policy. Those that don’t, should themselves withdraw. And I’m sorry to say that since UK has shown enough times such a reluctance, then it should be better if they took their own road.

It is neccessary to have a common policy. Maybe france and germany should fall back in line? Those two have increasingly shown reluctance to adhere the Comissions regulation or European Central Bank rules. They also badly interfere the work of the Conent by suggesting a stupid puppet extra-president to head the council of governments that has no democratic legitimacy. What is that? schroeder and Chirac are not the EU or Europe. They are as good in representing EU as Blair and Berlusconi are. this is the major folly: When a politician is elected to be the head of one European nation state, he automatically thinks he is in the position to determine common european policies.

[faila]

REally i could care less if europe was for it or against it. The war would happen eiher way, and it would prove the UN/European union are both usele. (america would go to war agisnt the UN's wishes and england against the European Union.)

[Arvedui]

Does the US go to war to show that the EU/UN are useless? Thats a new angle...
I suppose it is your opinion that all who oppose a war in Iraq, are useless. I wish you good luck!

[gate7ole]

posted by Arvedui
IMO, you are all forgetting one very simple fact here: The European Union cannot be compared to the United States, as long as the EU consists of a number of independant countries!
As long as this state of affairs exist, one cannot altogether demand a common foreign policy, can we?.
On the western shores of the Atlantic, there are some 250 million people who speake the same language. One the eastern shore, there are a number of different countries, each with their own language, and also their own history and culture.
gate comes from a country whose culture is ancient, other EU member states haven't even been independant states for a century. And some of those countries who will be joining shortly, have been independant for little more than a century.
You are definitely right. We cannot become another Unites States. And I don’t want it too, as well as most Europeans who want to keep their cultural identity. But a political convergence can and should be reached. Every country has its own needs, its special problems to attend, each traditions to preserve. Yet, due to the universalization of the world, most of the modern problems are common and therefore could be dealt in common. A future European parliament does not need only wars to show its necessity (without entering into cultural and local problems).
The cultural differences among the countries aren’t IMO a great obstacle. They seem to me another excuse to avoid a political union.

from Gloer
Why should German nationality and culture have more than one vote? German nation is one nation. Danish nation is one nation. One vote for nation. And one vote for each citizen. Yhat is the only way to oust national agenda from EU decisions. Governments should give the EU parliament the power to represent the population and council should only represent what it at best does: nations with one vote each.
I guess your point is that for the council, every nation should have an equal voice with the others. Well, it depends on what are its jurisdictions. If it’s role is a decisive one (that decides whether proposed actions/laws by other organs will be activated or not), then this scheme would work. I don’t want to be involved in such discussions since I don’t know exactly how is the current situation of the European organs.

from Gloer
It is neccessary to have a common policy. Maybe france and germany should fall back in line? Those two have increasingly shown reluctance to adhere the Comissions regulation or European Central Bank rules. They also badly interfere the work of the Conent by suggesting a stupid puppet extra-president to head the council of governments that has no democratic legitimacy. What is that? schroeder and Chirac are not the EU or Europe. They are as good in representing EU as Blair and Berlusconi are. this is the major folly: When a politician is elected to be the head of one European nation state, he automatically thinks he is in the position to determine common european policies.
Right. And as you said before, England and the 8 did well to join the USA side. I don’t say that France and Germany are saints. But they have at least taken the side of the population. And the EU under legal procedures chose a pacifistic course. This none can deny. Then why did the 8 decide to disagree if not to oppose to the France-Germany front? And why haven’t we discussed until now the other EU countries that don’t belong to either group? Weren’t they betrayed by the 8? France and Germany, sure want to control EU, but so do the major countries of the 8, though they chose to do it by the care of USA.

from faila
REally i could care less if europe was for it or against it. The war would happen eiher way, and it would prove the UN/European union are both usele. (america would go to war agisnt the UN's wishes and england against the European Union.)
Nothing is useless. And at least to know that the European citizens and (some of) their leaders are still sensitive enough to reject war is a great relief.
I don’t blame the American citizens for being ignorant. They haven’t experienced so many wars in their homes, like the Europeans have. So, it is natural that we are more sensitive than them.

And to finish, the action of 8 showed one more thing. How powerful the media have become and how the governments how total control over them. The whole procedure of the open letter was organised and executed by the Times (working under the exact commands of Bush).

[Gloer]

"And the EU under legal procedures chose a pacifistic course. "

What do you mean?

European Union as far as I know has taken no stand in this matter and that there is no agreement between the member states over this matter either. Not in the Council or between them nor in NATO. What then is the pacifistic course?

Certainly EU is not excluding the use of force as a tool in internationla politics. On the contrary, Eu sees this as a major developement area. In this respect EU is on the course to have some sort of military power.

If you refer to the grand idea and aim of the integration as a tool against conflicts that can escalate to war, then you are partially right. But then as we can clearly see this is European integration that excludes non-europeans such as Iraq.

As a general principle economical integration as a tool against war is used by European Union but only in Europe. It is European integration. It is peace in Europe.

[Hirila]

One vote for nation. And one vote for each citizen. Yhat is the only way to oust national agenda from EU decisions. Governments should give the EU parliament the power to represent the population and council should only represent what it at best does: nations with one vote each.
The only way of solving THIS problem is creating a bicameral system: a House of Representatives where the countries are represented by number of citizens and a House of whatever you call it (Senate, Bundesrat) wher each country has one vote.


Imagine a United States of Europe (which IMO is where the EU should be heading) with Russia among its members.
This surely is not going to happen for the next 100 years. Though it IS the final goal anyone could wish. Except perhaps the Russian membership, I doubt if that could ever happen. Much has to happen first.
Now let Poland and these countries become members of the EU first. We will have to cope with them before we can think of expanding further.
One issue we have to cope with is the will of the new members (they will join in 2004) to become equal not only economically but also politically. Mich will be decided over there heads before they are taken serious, you can be sure. But instead of working for it and gain respect they go and join the mighty USA. You can be sure that the US will help them as much as possible in confronting the "mighty core EU" in whatever OPPOSES US policies. But this is not the way that leads to a United States of Europe. The new members have separated from the core before having joined! Imagine that! Affronting before even being proper member!

Now of course they have the right to say whatever they want. But the way they did it was completely wrong. Of course the "old" members Italy and Spain were equally wrong in signing that letter. I could now open a new chapter and tell everyone where Italy and Spain would be if it wasn't for the economies of France and Germany (in the gutter of world economics) but that is not the issue here. It was simply not the right way of telling friends that you don't like their position.

Great Britain is yet another matter. They often showed the world that the distance across the Atlantic was much less than across the Channel. They, too, have the right to join the US' position. But then they should reconsider their position within the EU. No, good God, please don't leave the Union. But please think about what you can have from the EU and what from the US. Do you choose peace of do you choose war? (I'm talking of the European and American people.)

I wouldn't want to be responsible for a war. Never.

[Gloer]

Originally posted by Hirila

Now of course they have the right to say whatever they want. But the way they did it was completely wrong. Of course the "old" members Italy and Spain were equally wrong in signing that letter. I could now open a new chapter and tell everyone where Italy and Spain would be if it wasn't for the economies of France and Germany (in the gutter of world economics) but that is not the issue here. It was simply not the right way of telling friends that you don't like their position.


Interesting point of view.

I would agree if you stated that the way Germany and France presented their view was totally wrong. That would be true.

Germany and France stated a mighty show of grandeur. they wanted to speak for the Europe as the two nations "primus inter pares", best among equals. That is the way Augustus was called princeps - the first citizen.

I am very sorry for that delusion. All that France and German governments achiee by negotiating together behind the backs of the rest is exclusion from EU decision making.

It is outrageous isn't it.

[gate7ole]

European Union as far as I know has taken no stand in this matter and that there is no agreement between the member states over this matter either. Not in the Council or between them nor in NATO. What then is the pacifistic course?
I'm with the impression that the council of ministers decided during their last meeting to keep a pacifistic course, not accepting the war without the UN consent.

But honestly Gloer, I don't understand your empathy towards France and Germany. Do you prefer the cowardice of the other countries that followed "mother-USA"?

[faila]

Originally posted by Arvedui
Does the US go to war to show that the EU/UN are useless? Thats a new angle...
I suppose it is your opinion that all who oppose a war in Iraq, are useless. I wish you good luck! thats not really the way i meant it. If we go to war against iraq against the wishes of the UN that it shows the that the UN is a useles organization.

And if England goes to war against the wishes of EU it proves that the EU is pointless.

[gate7ole]

Originally posted by faila
And if England goes to war against the wishes of EU it proves that the EU is pointless.

No, this is exactly my point. If England decides to oppose to the other EU countries, which means that they don't want a common foreign policy, then they can leave the rest alone.
This will not prove that EU is pointless. I will prove that it is still powerless but that's another subject. It will also prove that EU is still far and the countries that will comprise it must be willing to respect its decisions.

[Gloer]

Originally posted by gate7ole
I'm with the impression that the council of ministers decided during their last meeting to keep a pacifistic course, not accepting the war without the UN consent.

But honestly Gloer, I don't understand your empathy towards France and Germany. Do you prefer the cowardice of the other countries that followed "mother-USA"?


You must mean something else than empathy since I am not very much backing those two and their method.

Separated from the substance matter of Iraq question there is the underlieing question of method and process of decision making in EU.

When France and Germany agree in EU things seem to get done. When they disagree things get stuck. This has led those two countries to assume that if they agree it is enough.

It is not enough. And because these bilateral deals are agreed and settled already when they are presented to other EU members they must be rejected for neglecting the due process in which all members have a say.

This celebration of the Versailles entente was a good example of expecting to be recognized as European leadership when in fact there is none if it is not the Comission or the ECB.

[Eledhwen]

I think the non-Europeans might need to know that the people we Europeans elect to represent us in the Euro Parliament (MEPs - Members of the European Parliament) are not the ones who make the decisions in Europe - that is done by the non-elected European Commissioners - political appointees. It's a bit like swapping the House of Lords with the House of Commons.

Because of this, the wishes of (e.g.) the British people are not necessarily reflected in the decisions (eg: shall we bomb Sadam?)made by their 'representatives' in Europe.

[gate7ole]

Right. The parliament as it exists right now is more or less useless. It has very little power although it is elected by people. Its role must be augmented, since it represents the majority of the European population.

[Hirila]

Originally posted by Gloer
When France and Germany agree in EU things seem to get done. When they disagree things get stuck. This has led those two countries to assume that if they agree it is enough.

It is not enough. And because these bilateral deals are agreed and settled already when they are presented to other EU members they must be rejected for neglecting the due process in which all members have a say.
Is it Germany's and France's fault if no other member pressed a decision when France and Germany disagreed in the past. They could not but get the impression that their position was the lead position in Europe. As far as I know no really important decision has ever been made without the two agreeing. But is this their fault? The other members could have done more to shown themselves much oftener on the political stage.

And yes, the EP has less power than it deserves. But it has actual political power. It COULD overthrow decisions made by the comission or the council. The question is why it doesn't act according to this.
I think it is because parties in the EP are just as divided as they are in national parliaments. It is proven that MEPs vote according to party-membership.

So in my opinion one of the most important problems in the EU is that the parties in the different memberstates do not have the same ideology. Socialists in GB are different that those in Italy or Germany. Just as French conservatives follow other goals than those in Spain. The only party with an at least common core are the green parties. But this is no real help.
Make the parties come to better shared opinions and I think the Ep could take more real power and use this power.

[Lantalasse]

Let me begin by saying that i totally agree that the European Parliament should have more power over decision making and also agree that the parties are as divided as in national parliaments.
the European Parliament should not consist of parties, we should be able to elect MP's that have a common approach to European and world affairs.

Furthermore, in this debate everyone seems to be talking about hte EU as if it was only comprised of the wealthiest and most populated nations. well it's not. "smaller" members are equally important. Greece is Europe's connecting point with Asia/Middle East, and Eastern Africa. it also enriches the Union's cultural inheritance and is gradually becoming a major power in the Balcans. the Netherlands and Sweden are equally important for bringing forth very liberal politics and opinions and are also strong economies. Portugal is also very important for it still has connections with countries like Brazil(and other south american ones). Ireland is beginning to play a very very important role as it is becoming a computer software colossus. Dublin is practically a Mecca for computing etc. all these are just examples of other countries in the EU. and they are just some examples of how important smaller countries are.

the decision made by Italy and Spain was wrong. The Franco-German decision was right but was portrayed wrongly.
what we need is a common policy on war matters, everything else can and should differ from country to country but our foreign policy should remain the same. it's like a choir: lots of different voices singing the same song.
the EU should never become like the United States. you see, in Europe we have strong cultural identities and it would be foolish to compromise in the light of globalisation. we can play a very significant role in the world culturally, economically, politically.

for the record, i feel very lucky for living in the EU.
i consider our history to be an advantage. we have influenced the world since 1500 BC (and even before that) and we still can.
oh and to answer the initial thread question i don't think the EU is a political dwarf. Maybe if Blair was a bit more actually "Labour" and had a more common approach with other EU nations we could stop a war. this doesn't mean that i count Britain as being more powerful, it's just that it's the US's only supporter on this matter.
anyway i think i've begun rambling so i'll stop.
i hope my points were clear, it's a bit late and i'm sleepy.

"Europe is like a symphonic orchestra. Every instrument with it's unique sound joining with the others to create a symphony."

[gate7ole]

Lantalasse, your point is very logical and true.
We have limited our discussion to the major and wealthy countries – although I come from a small country too.
But look what happened here. Greece is the current president of EU and it doesn’t have the political powers to press the 4 EU-countries that “rebelled”. Would they have done so, if e.g. France was the president? Maybe yes, maybe no. But still, small countries have mostly “topical” roles (like Greece in the Balcans) and their contribution can only be measured in such terms. Yet, I don’t believe that EU has underestimated the roles of the smaller countries. They have a theoretically equal place inside EU, though the decisions are mostly based on the opinions of the larger ones – which is inevitable for any capitalistic system.
And for the record too, we all feel lucky for living in the EU. But still, EU is IMO a political dwarf as long as a common policy is not accepted by everyone. Until then, the internal controversies will keep us from having political influence to the world.

[Gloer]

That is the attitude that really undermines Europe.

For example if there was a European president it would mort like be a dutch person.

Not french and not even a german.

Majority of Europeans would vote for a man from a small "topically signifficant nation" rather than the larger nations.

France and Germany need to keep quiet and think. If those two truly want common policy they must accept that it will seem very weak and follow the line UK is taking.

Especially German government has unfortunately drien itself to a corner where Europe does not want to follow.

[Hirila]

Originally posted by Gloer
For example if there was a European president it would mort like be a dutch person.

Not french and not even a german.
Majority of Europeans would vote for a man from a small "topically signifficant nation" rather than the larger nations.
And I would vote for such a man. Because he doesn't come from one of the leading (and unfortunately conflicting) countries he would be a perfect mediator between them. With a strong interest to have things settled, enough power as a member of the EU. Teh only thing he would miss would be economical power. And this is also a major factor.

France and Germany need to keep quiet and think. If those two truly want common policy they must accept that it will seem very weak and follow the line UK is taking.

Especially German government has unfortunately drien itself to a corner where Europe does not want to follow.
Germany (and the UK) are the only countries that have done what they have said. From the very beginning. These are the policies we need. Consistent decisions. Tell the people what you want to do and do it. That way you make successful politics.
Unfortunately these are the points where I agree with you, Gloer.

Because I think that UK does not have the best strategy. War is never a solution. It may be that neither France nor Germany nor any other pacifist has a better strategy of solving the "Iraq-problem". But war surely is not the best way.

Now look at the second resolution that is coming in the UN. France still has the option to vote yes for the war. They never announced their anti-war positionas open as Germany did.
It was very diplomatic. If it comes hard to hard they are able to turn in without seeming too weak. But it IS weak. If it comes to pro-US or contra-US I am not sure how France will decide. Germany has to say no. But France could say yes. And if they did, if they really joined GB now, it would be fatal for the political development of Europe and the EU for the next, let's say, 10 years. Neither Germany nor the other smaller member states could trust France.
We do trust GB, because they stand for the position. But noone would stand for a changeling.