re: "Divide and conquer"

EURSOC pointed out what ought to be obvious.

Money quote(s):

"(W)ithout "radical change" of the sort that only a European Winston Churchill could envision and command, Europe will become a sideshow on the world stage dominated by rising powers in the developing world. To be taken seriously, we need serious reform. We also need serious international leadership.

We've been here before. What good is "punching above our weight" with our fellow Europeans if we are arguing a line we as a nation disagree with? There are many things that the governments of powerful European nations can agree on: If France, Britain and Germany can agree to form a united front on issues of international interest, the leaders of China and the USA (never mind Brazil and South Africa) will pay attention. There is certainly an argument for doing so more often.

But it is next-to-impossible to unite European nations under common cause for any substantive issue. Russia? The Germans want to secure a gas supplies; the Eastern Europeans want freedom from bullying; the French want whatever they can get - and we'd all happily stab one another in the back to secure them. But as Europeans, we can only agree we want "human rights" for Russia - an issue Moscow treats with contempt, not least because the Russians see how human rights fundamentalism has damaged the fight against terror in the west.

We Europeans want human rights for China too. That would be nice! But France wants its businessmen to stop sacking French workers and relocating to China, Italy wants limits on Chinese imports in order to save its clothing manufacturing industries and Britain wants to make sure its citizens can continue to buy five pairs of children's socks for a pound in Primark."

&

"Outside the fuzzy drought, famine, rights and polar bears stuff, we don't really agree on much at all. There is only national interest. And why sacrifice national viewpoints just to give more clout to Brussels? This is power-crazed.

What purpose is served by having a British Foreign Secretary for the EU negotiating for cheaper underwear from China when southern Europeans (presumably having been voted down by their northern European neighbours) simmer with resentment that such a deal sends their domestic manufacturers down the pan? Would any European feel that having his voice stifled on issues of national interest is a price worth paying for enhanced EU presence on the world stage?"