Mark, you wrote:

"Now I have to hear Michael's comments about the EU trade agreement with Syria. I thought France had 1 vote in the EU, not 15! How did Italy and Spain vote on this?"

Mark, since I have to get my quarterly VAT Declaration prepared and ready by tomorrow (otherwise I will get shot by the BFP, Belgian Fiscal Police), I must and will try to keep this entry short and precise.

Well, the mere fact that this EU-Syria Association Agreement has been reached – may I remind you, after five years – is just an illustration of the vast difference in policy between EU and USA, while both have basically the same goals. As you will find out here, the Association Agreement implies a.o. measures to guarantee basic human rights as well as enhancing free trade and liberalizing the Syrian economy, which is very much state-controlled. I don’t seriously think the US will be opposed to these goals.

The EU hopes to achieve them through embracing and kissing the Syrian government all over; the USA plays hardball to make them do it. It’s just a matter of policy but both America and the US have the same goals – Iraq all over again.

Now, being a rightwinger myself – btw, Mark, that was quite some confession from Lee C., Scott (not the one from Maine, that one from Oregon), CVS etc. yesterday on Omar’s blog - I generally have no problem denouncing the EU’s all too often “soft” approach. I, too, think that a much more straightforward course would yield better results. In this particular case, however, you have to understand that the talks were already well underway long before 9/11, in a time when the US itself was not yet up to go for it the Iraq way. 9/11 happened, but it happened in the US, and because of that the idea of pre-emptive strikes (Afghanistan, Iraq) and ballsy politics became acceptable for (the majority of) Americans. Through inertia and European complacence and, yeah, because the softies content is higher over here, Europe is not yet ready for the American way (it might change when an Airbus crashes in the Eiffeltower, God forbid). And that’s why after 9/11 these talks just continued with an Agreement now having been reached. We’ll see what comes out of it, but indeed, I’m not holding my breath.

You’ll like to hear it when I say that I expect more from the events in Iraq for Syria to change than from the EU’s Association Agreement. In a weird way both the EU’s and the USA’s moves don’t even have to be counterproductive in this particular case. You know, those Syrians sweating with 130,000 GI’s in their backyard but, nervously, not exactly knowing how to put oil on the waves without losing their face and then, miraculously, hey, there’s just in time this nice framework for political and economical reforms offered by the Europeans!

Well, on the voting system as agreed upon under the 2002 Nice Agreement, I’ll have to refer you to my earlier post. Don't fall asleep behind the keyboard.

I think the issue had to be agreed upon by the Council of Ministers through Unanimity Voting. Since it passed, all member states must have agreed. Note, however, the scheme you get presented under the link is the one envisaged for the 25-member EU due in May. Unanimity thing was already in place I guess.

One last note: thank you Tom for not so long ago recognizing the rationale behind the EU. The EU is not there because of leftists. If Europes politicians would have the same grit as their American counterparts (well… except for this particular Vermont variety - and you know I don’t mean Bremer), there would be a EU just as well. The vehicle is good. The driver could be better.

So much for being short. Hope at least it was precise.