That's the propaganda line. In actuality, the EU is now a bigger economy, it is a motor for innovation, international comparisons of growth suffer from several apples-and-oranges problems thematised on ET in the past (hedonic pricing, different accounting, totals vs. per capita), and has been fuelled by the unsustainable financial bubble-boosting which Jérôme calls Anglo Disease. (That, in effect, is a tax on the economies of the rest of the world, too.) At any rate, I don't see how the size of the economy can be a rationale for alliance or vassaldom. We don't need to be allied to or be vassals to China, either.

They are our biggest and strongest ally.

Ally in what? I just don't understand what benefits you see in vassaldom to the USA, nor those national leaders. (We asked Atlanticists on ET before, but never got a real answer.) And for the record, being idependent doesn't mean cutting off. We aren't cut off from China, Japan, Russia or Australia, either.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

DoDo, Stretching things a bit too far there... I don't believe there's a mention of stature as advocacy. Citing Hitler's stature on the same footing is a recognition that Blair's stature simply is just that -- stature, if you like name recognition, name recall, etc.,

If you remember, I delved in Blair's qualifications and stature is one of them just as I delved in his 'non-qualifications'. You may be twisting and stretching my arguments according to your feelings, i.e., hatred for Blair but I must repeat, I am not advocating for Blair becoming president of EU. Read post again.

Re: "But from your diary, it appeared to me that this whole Bliar for President thing is new for you, and you think it's Sarko's idea."

Looks like you're confused by the overall tenor of the following line in my post intro: "After all the idea of a Blair EU presidency had been vaguely dangled to him even before he moved out 10 Downing Street."

Goes to show that while I haven't actually been tracking every step of Blair, I knew that Blair for president had been in the works.

Re: "(What's more, even from an EU Council President, I'd expect the pursuit of pan-European interests, rather than the vbarious governments' interests.)" Agree! That would be pretty much in my concluding message.

Re: "You give too much credit to a single man -- and underestimate the power putential of stupid people."

"Giving credit" to a single man who led Labour and was UK PM for 10 years? But where's the problem? It IS a fact. Everything you said about Blair smacks of truth -- not disputing those, but you gotta admit the fact is to "give" Blair "credit" for, if you like, having conned the UK for 10 years can't be off the mark at all.

At the end of the day, who should deserve that "credit"? Sure there's the entire Labour machinery but we are talking of Blair here and it's a question of who was head of Labour and PM for 10 years? Blair! Couldn't be Cherrie now, could it?

DoDo, if you believe I have not been very adversarial vis a vis Blair in my post, not much I can do there -- but you are doing a good job of it so why complain?

I'll let you in on a secret: During Blair's PMship, I was rabidly anti-Blair (and still am) and wanted him out of the way as my numerous posts in the weblogs of Charles Bremner's, Michael Smith's in The Times will show (as well as in my own blog)... that doesn't mean I've completely lost sight of him, proof is right here! I wrote a post on the risk that Blair is getting a second life right here in ET and advocating for a NO vote.

Got you going too and that's a victory! (Heh!)

The bottom line here is that I'm in agreement with most of what you say and that my no vote is here to stay.

I'm not in the mood for splitting hairs and so would rather leave things, however if you really want to rant on, be my guest but I suggest you focus on Blair.