The British prime minister and the President elect of the European Commission are apparently talking to each other and saying helpful things, in the tradition of consensus democracy, after a bitter personal contest. It has never seemed to this blog too significant who was in charge of what in Europe. What matters is what institutions are they working in, and what is the mission statement of them? Even the Germans, having got their way on Junker, are saying things which envisage shrinking powers for Brussels. This is music to Cameron’s British ears, but it strikes a discordant note in some of the capitals of the smaller, poorer EU members. Having spent generations or even centuries under the domination of leading European powers at different times in their history, they see merit in an impartial bureaucracy in which all member states are represented, as a brake on the freedom of the major powers to have it all go their way.
This contradiction is one of the many discussed in previous posts, which Junker has to balance and which Cameron has to change. Essentially the British have always been primarily interested in trade. All the other founding members were primarily interested in peace being secured on a continent previously repeatedly torn by wars in which tens of millions had died. Trade was to be the first element in bringing harmony, a common currency the second, federalization the third. Whichever approach you take and whatever your priority, all threads now lead not to Brussels or Strasbourg, but to Berlin, for it is here that the true power of the European Union lies, especially since German re-unification and the introduction of the Euro. The counter-weight to Berlin is London.
Another lesson of history: When Britain and Germany are united Europe holds together, but when they confront each other Europe falls apart.
best place to buy cialis online reviews[/url]
brand name cialis online[/url]