"at present the European Union, for all of its supranational characteristics, remains an ordinary international organization."

This is certainly true in some policy areas, but it is certainly false in others. The EU now sets consumption tax levels for all member states. In regulatory policy, for instance, the EU is more centralized than the U.S. Decisions by qualified majority vote that become the law of the land and an elected parliament with codecision powers on many issues are hardly characteristics of an international organization. But of course you are right on those policy issues where integration has not (yet?) gone as far.

BTW, for those who won't click through, here's my more nuanced addendum in response:

"(That France is more likely to abide by its commitments in treaties involving the United States) is undoubtably true—and I was being just a tad hyperbolic. Nonetheless, if France wants to be taken seriously as a negotiating partner in international agreements where (a) the U.S. already has serious reservations about signing on and (b) France has a self-declared national interest in getting the U.S. to participate (as applies in the cases of both the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court), it might want to consider whether handing a loaded gun to its most fierce critics in the United States is going to be effective. When a hypothetical President Dean sends those treaties back to a Senate already skeptical about the motivations of France and other signatories, it's not going to look very good when critics point out that France has already violated commitments to its closest neighbors and trading partners."

However stupid the rules that France broke may be, they, along with Germany arethe one who insisted on its inclusion during the 90's boom era.

I say the rule should stand.. but instead of fines as punishment there should be automatic (ie, not pending a vote) sanctions. These sanctions should be something along the lines of restricting trade with other members in certain non-essential areas. Y'all can elaborate from there.

And if I keep hearing how "ironic" the situation is... damn I know already!

France has intl import ONLY because of its veto at the UNSC.

In ALL other respects France is nothing more than a second rate power, with a third rate economy, a fourth rate army, saddled with a reactioanry attitude that depends on statism, elitism, and mortal relativism to defend its limted hegemony, its limted language, and its moribund culture.

Some people here got no sense of historical perspective. Once upon a time, Germany and France as well as Japan used to be the terrors of the world. The remnants of their struggles were what created WWI and WWII. The UN was created as much to defang them and to keep them docile as it was to provide a counterweight to the resurgent power of Russia and later the rising power of China.

In other words, the UN veto was the bribe to keep France happy and sipping wine and eating bree rather than starting another world-war. Of course with the old system getting rattled around, everything may go back more or less to how it used to work.

Oh and btw, France and Germany are still important for another reason. They still basically control the reins of power and set the agenda for the EU. As far as picking allies go, "new Europe" and Britainia are on the weaker side of the ledger.

Oldman is a little off in saying that Japan, France and Germany were once terrors of the world, and "the remnants of their struggles were what created WW1 and WW2." Japan wasn't a power in any sense before the late 19th century; I'd argue it only really got great power status with the Sino-Japanese war in 1894. And it had certainly had no significant "struggles" with any European power in its entire history before then. Nor was Japan involved in the start of WW1. It joined the war, but, key point here, on the side of the Allies.
And as for the UN being created to provide a counterweight for the rising power of China: this is very, very far off beam indeed. If he can come up with any backing for this, I'd be interested to see it.
The reference to France "starting" another world war is just bizarre. Please explain how France started WW2.
As for the UN veto being a bribe to keep the French peaceful - again, like the "rising China" remark, I have no idea how he can come up with this interpretation of events. The prospect of France launching aggressive war on the European continent after 1945 was so remote as to be laughable.

And it's spelt "Brie", not "bree."