Eurosceptic Telegraph's bizarre claim of the dominance of Berlin and Paris

I rarely write something positive about any political leader from a right-wing party, but today, I praise and admire Angela Merkel, a German Chancellor from centre-right Christian Democrats, for her efforts and success for the EU "mini-treaty" for which EU leaders reached an agreement today. It is one small step for the EU, but one giant leap stepping close to the just world; the creation of the new Superpower that truly embraces the values of human rights, social democracy, environment and poverty reduction, and that restrains the excess of current, unilateral Superpower, is desperately needed (the EU has larger area, population and GDP than the US).

It was a result of tough compromise, finally realised by Merkel's diplomacy. Britain won the concessions everything it wanted. I think that Britain should be committed to the European Charter on Human Rights, one of the best human rights instruments in the world; but that Blair agreed to the mini-treaty is a positive step. However, considering the concessions Britain was awarded, the claim of the Telegraph article that "the Franco-German alliance" dominates the new EU is bizarre. It seems that the sole purpose of the article is to frighten the British public away from the EU. If not, why does it have to emphasise that "Both leaders (Merkel and Sarkozy) checked into the Amigo Hotel"? Hinting the existence of conspiracy between Berlin and Paris, it claims that "a new division of labour emerged" that Merkel using a carrot and Sarkozy a stick to deal with Poland. The problem here is, according to the Independent, that "Germany, which holds the EU's rotating presidency, threatened to press ahead without Poland". But it offers no evidence of the perceived Continental dominance except friendship between Merkel and Sarkozy (which is a normal relationship for leaders of allied countries).

The Telegraph fears (or or wants to incite fear) that Britain will be left out of the EU decision-making process. It concludes that "Mr Brown, who steps into the prime ministerial shoes next Wednesday, will lack this experience and will not have his EU summit debut until October". Well, a new Prime Minister (by definition!) lacks Prime Ministerial experience, but he has served as Chancellor for a decade. If Brown is unexperienced, who would the Telegraph want for a new Prime Minister? David Cameron, who wasn't even an MP when Brown assumed the Chancellorship? And has the writer forgotten that Sarkozy sworn in as President just a month ago? This paragraph is neither a proper criticism against Brown, nor against the EU; that Brown won't have his EU summit until October has nothing to do with his alienation from the EU; October's just four months away! If the EU held summit every month in Brussels, I'm confident that the Telegraph would surely slam it as waste of money or excessive control of the EU over individual member states.

No matter how much the EU is portrayed by conservative or populist media as a bunch of aloof bureaucrats in Brussels, the EU has created the tolerant, peaceful and prosperous postwar Europe. Probably for the first time in European history, Europe hasn't had a war for more than six decades, and even less likely, almost implausible to have one in future under the EU. The project of the EU, that has led the world in human rights, social justice and environment continues on, and though not being a European myself, I'm excited to follow this grand project of the 21st century.