The odd couple
She sits primly and listens, hands folded. He gestures expansibly and talks.
At last week's summit it was obvious that , which is meant to drive Europe, is not firing on all cylinders.
The political relationship between diplomats and civil servants is as strong as ever. But the leaders of the two countries do not get on. That means a paucity of common projects and new initiatives.
One experienced insider paints a fascinating picture. never opens her mouth without knowing what she is going to say. She has analysed every angle and decided on the best approach. Which she will express with moderation and caution.
, sitting in the chair opposite, can't keep still. He gestures with his hands, his arms, his whole body.
Ideas man
He fires off ideas, a dozen a minute. It's not just that he hasn't run them past officials: he's barely run them past his own brain, having just thought them up in the past few seconds.
I'm told Merkel has come to despise his habit of coming out of a meeting and telling the world that the person sitting opposite him has agreed with his latest wheeze, when all they have done is murmured polite interest.
She has poured public scorn on Sarkozy's , worried that it undermines the EU, and proposed, with a straight face, that Germany, despite its noticeable lack of Mediterranean coastline, should be part of the project.
They have taken their countries' foreign policy in different directions.
While she appears to have adopted what , lecturing China, and President Putin on democracy, , rings Putin on a regular basis and .
To the disappointment of Marxist historians, personality matters hugely in politics and diplomatic relations.
The Franco-German engine will not fail altogether but it drives a far more complex and diverse European Union than in the past.
And the personal touch is important. There is room for Gordon Brown to insert himself between the odd couple, but he doesn't appear to be about to take the opportunity.
I’m Mark Mardell, the Â鶹ԼÅÄ's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
Hold the phone! Hold the phone!
"They have taken their countries' foreign policy in different directions."
Five minutes ago everybody was talking about a European Foreign Policy whizbang superchief something or other and a common foreign policy. That was late last week in Lisbon. Now with the ink hardly dry the two biggest wheels on this bus want to steer in opposite directions? What gives? Every day there is another contradiction, another crisis. One day they talk about climate change and demand enforcable targets for reducing CO2 emissions, the next they are worried about where they are going to get enough gas and oil to heat their homes and run their factories or how they are going to expand Heathrow Airport to accomodate more planes, more flights to grow the market for their Airbuses. One day they are practically at swords point with Washington, the next day they run over there kissing up to "Mister Big" the lame duck President. What a soap opera folks, I tell ya you couldn't get away with writing fiction like this, not even Kafka could sell it.
Well that 250 page EU "treaty" must read like the Bible, whatever you are looking for, it's in there somewhere and it's undoubtedly ambiguous enough so that the words can be interpreted to mean whatever someone wants them to and if they can't find it in one language, then they surely will in one of the 26 others. Good thing they have a court to make the final decision. I wonder what language they speak in. Probably Eurobabble.
I don't think its a bad thing that Merkel and Sarkozy don't get along. Some of Sarkozy's ideas are a bit mental to be frank. Plus it allows for the EU (hopefully) to finally be able to digest everything and start focusing on its citizens a bit more.
Its far better when two leaders respect each other but maybe don't agree with everything the other one says/does. If only the Blair/Bush relationship had been the same as the Sarkozy/Merkel one.
Nice one, Mark.
It illustrates that the EU is a Union of independent states, not a state itself.
What amazes me is that Europhobes like Mark (#1) on the one hand criticise the "superstate", on the other they complain about these differences in political philosophies. What is it now? A "eurobabble" mess or a stalinist contraption? It cannot be both.
To capture the European political Zeitgeist it would make sense to have national elections around the same time. But we can't even get the UK to agree on a common voting day for the European Parliament elections. For them it has to be Thursdays (probably to keep the working class from voting), while all others vote on the following Sunday.
Having lived in the UK (I'm German) for almost 20 years, I can't remember the number of times a British PM could "insert himself between the odd couple". It never happened. What you perhaps don't understand even though you allude to it, is that the relationship between Chancellor and President sits at a top of a huge pyramid of constant contact and exchange. By the time any discussions are held at the top level, officials between the two countries have ironed out almost all the wrinkles and no matter who's sitting at the top table, this will continue. Any British PM "inserting himself" will always come up against this institutionalised co-operation.
One of the peculiar things about the European Union is that all the elected politicians have to consider first and foremost how what they say will be reported in their own countries/constituencies. There is no relevant organ of media coverage for Europe as a whole (apart from Mark's blog, of course). That's a pity. It means that any real coming together in thinking about future directions for Europe has to be done in private.
:The Franco-German engine will not fail altogether but it drives a far more complex and diverse European Union than in the past.
And the personal touch is important. There is room for Gordon Brown to insert himself between the odd couple, but he doesn't appear to be about to take the opportunity."
Whereas it makes some common sense that the good old Germany-France, France-UK and UK-Germany axes sound needed to steer the EU even more now with 27 member than back in the old days of 12 or 15 members, I would like to propose the oxymoron, ie that these axes (as well as the 6 large member states "steering group") make less common sense in a 27+ members' EU and that they are not the way for the EU to move forward and that group dynamics theories offer many decision making and forward looking alternatives for the EU.
In addition, (I would like to propose) that the bridge role that Gordon may not want to play could be taken up by one of the leaders of the other 24 members.
To be blunt, the 3 axes mindset is as antiquated as the "Common Market only" mindset that many Britons still have re the EU.
Cheers!
How true is the picture made by Mark!
He has forgotten to add that to make all these "non decisions" there are regular meetings of various officials and politicians travelling left, right and center (often by private planes), enjoying somptuos banquets and setting up very expensive stages to meet and have the family photo! (Is it true that they had specially made silver pens to sign the New Constitution?).
All this while they tell us how to overcome waste, poverty and environmental damage! Not to mentioned the already covered farce of the monthly meeting in Strasbourg only to keep the French happy!
Mark,
what do you suggest would be Gordon Browns jop with that old engine: add some grease to the gearbox or just fill in some sand and bring it to a grinding halt?
Isn't it time that we stopped being the whingers or Europe and concentrate on making the EU the big success it can be with the UK at its heart
I like Nicolas Sarkozy because he's not Jacques Chrirac.
And I like Angela Merkel but she always has a look of polite bewilderment when surrounded by other world leaders - as if to suggest everyone else is a novice but her.
I think having Tony, sorry, Nicolas Sarkozy as leader of France is a great opportunity for Britain to get in on the act of being involved and getting stuff done in the EU. Sarkozy likes Britain and America and clearly wants to forge strong alliances with both countries.
I also get the impression that Merkel isn't as German as her predecessors. So this is a fantastic opportunity for Europe.
Unfortunatly, this political global warming may have improved the temprature in France and Germany but seems to have reversed the trend in Britain.
Now we have a Prime Minister who's too British. He doesn't want to be friends. He just wants to get the job done.
Don't get me wrong. I like our Gord and think the media did over-hype his not wanting to pose for a photograph.
But he does need to be more sociable. He also needs to get on the blower to Vlad because the Ruskies are getting upset.
This is a pretty transparent attempt to encourage Britain to get even more bogged down in the European project in order to pursue a vacuous goal of ‘splitting’ France & Germany. We can no more split France & Germany than they can split the US/UK alliance and we will only enslave ourselves all the more in the Brussels quicksand by trying (which is what those advocating such an approach actually want).
With the population & wealth of the English-speaking countries projected to rise strongly and that of Germany in steep decline a better approach would be to remove ourselves from the EU and give France & Germany time to recognise that they have no relevance in the 21st century except as part of a loose civilisation alliance of the Western world in which the English-speakers will increasingly play the leading roles.
Although i appreciate Sarkozy's energy and enthusiasm for new ideas, and his strong methods, i must say that his obsessive admiration for the states, at a time when even the usual allies of the US are having second thoughts, is somewhat of a joke.
as far as Merkel is concerned, i get the feeling her ways are a bit mild, but maybe that's me, i'm not too familiar with her politics
I've never understood why Britain couldn't promote itself ahead of France and become Germany's partner in driving the EU. Always seemed to me that Britain and Germany have more in common than either country has with France. A bad relationship between Germany and France can only be good for the greater Eu.
France's framing attitude to the EU is, in my mind immortalised by the Strasbourg parliament, and I was reminded again of this by the Lisbon treaty and the planting of x thousand trees to offset the carbon emissions of the ministers all travelling down to sign the treaty. Imagine how many trees it would need to offset the carbon imprint of the regular EU pointless transfer of MPs and documents to Strasbourg? France is only interested in driving EU policy when there's something in it for France at everyone elses expense.
The odd couple have to stay together for the sake of the children. However, financial differences may ultimately force them apart as Angela's prudent lifestyle may prove incompatible with the extravagant spending of Nicolas, especially as they have a shared bank account.
There is also a problem with Gordon the lodger as he is constantly in arrears with the rent.
However, all is not lost. A regular meeting with the marriage counsellor is coming up and there are good prospects that a solution will be found, as Nicolas may gain control of his excessive spending, Gordon may start paying the rent (provided the animals in the backgarden, part of the good life as far as Nicolas is concerned) are removed.
Some of the older children, who have had to help out to meet the rent arrears, are also being consulted.
They is even talk of making available some living space for additional members of the extended family (although this could be a deal-breaker).
Sarkozy's extreme right wing and Racist Policies will cause a big big problem in Europe !
i still believe that this man is no good for Europe and no good for France !
In reply to John, post number 11.
That has to be one of the most outrageous statements I have ever read in the comments section. Your distaste for anything not of the anglophone sphere is clearly the motive behind your put downs of the French and German economies.
There is absolutely no evidence anywhere to sugest that non English speaking countries are going to decline simply because they don't speak English. For one thing China, India, Russia and possibly Brazil look more likely to shape the 21st century, far more so that Britain.
Britain today has as miniscule a role to play in global foreign diplomacy as do any of the old "great" European powers when they act alone. Only their relations with the US and as members of the EU can they have any influence. The defunct UN security council of which Britain and France have the "privilege" of being members has shown it impotent when dealing with international crisies, leaving Britains veto vote all but worthless.
Considering that both Gordon McClown and Sarko both got their hands on the reigns at about the same time I'm wondering which if not both have made the biggest mess of it. The French speakers I talk to over here think that they are both cuckoo and I have to agree. Anyone know of a suitable island that they can be deported to for the rest of their despicable lives, and in McClowns case his pension can be set as close to zero as possible in order to remind him what he has done to us.
Merkel and Sarkozy, or better say pest and cholera, I do not like neither the one nor the other. Both are conservatives and neo-liberals. In this week's edition of Der Spiegel we have a large report of how the poor are becoming poorer and the rich richer in Germany. I feel the situation has never been worse than now although our economy again starts to flourish. In my opinion a more distant relationship between both of them is better for Europe.
And for John, comment 11:
I think in the close future you will recognize that Germany does not want to be part of your english-speaker's led western world. All of our parties (except Merkel's one) are again heading to the left or extreme left. Germany has never been part of the western world except the last 4 or 5 decades (and in these days only Western Germany but not the DDR). Our strongest relationships have always been these to the Eastern European countries and Russia and from my point of view we share much more in common with them than with Britain or the USA.
Quo Vadis, Europa? The EU seems to be in more trouble than people think, with even the Franco German engine slowing down. I also do not understand how the EU can support an independent Kosovo. It makes no sense to me, as those Albanians haven't been there for long and only came as refugees. Now they want to cut of a piece from Serbia, while they are offered the best autonomy one could envision. Doesn't anyone see they are not out for compromise? Everyone always blames the Serbs, and the EU seems to follow this. Although very in favor of a common EU foreign policy, they are entirely wrong and should pressure Kosovo and Serbia to agree to an autonomy for Kosovo. Furthermore, today the EU voiced "concern" about Turkish raids in northern Iraq instead of supporting Turkey's right to defend itself. I'd rather have no EU foreign policy than one that tries to appease everyone.
today the EU voiced "concern" about Turkish raids in northern Iraq instead of supporting Turkey's right to defend itself.[#19]
Expressing concern doesn't cost the concerned anything, plus: it doesn't ruffle any feathers.
Hence it's a prefered response of cowards and appeasers to any problem which should be confronted head on.
In extremis they can always escalate by condemning something " in the strongest possible terms". ;-)
Post 18 - Torsten - along with the Eurosceptic Tendency that populates Mark's pages, do you not realise where the Anglo-Saxons came from? The roots of the English language are derived from German, and the people of England are essentially of German/Scandanvian origin...
Ronald Grünebaum #3
"What amazes me is that Europhobes like Mark (#1) on the one hand criticise the "superstate", on the other they complain about these differences in political philosophies. What is it now? A "eurobabble" mess or a stalinist contraption? It cannot be both."
Well if a Europhobe is someone who detests Europe I'm only too willing to plead guilty. Having lived there and studied it fairly more I'd say than most other Americans I've gotten to know it rather well. I think I have a good feel for the sense of the place. But if you mean an opponent of the EU superstate, you could hardly be more wrong. I am only too glad to see that at least in part, the competition is in such a confused befuddled mess working at cross purposes and pulling in at least 27 different directions, it is going nowhere. I'm just always amazed and puzzled at how so many people can simply accept so many self contradictions, inherent inconsistencies, clear gaping chasms but then among other things, "doublethink" was also invented by a European. These are not just differences of opinion, they are entirely different philosophies of what government ought to be and how it should work. Consider me as you would a rubbernecker on the highway amazedly gawking at a car crash in progress, the drivers and passengers of the cars involved not even aware of what is happening.
Eurobabble is an example of this inconsistency, a doctrine which says that words mean whatever you want them to at any given time and can be used or ignored as the political expediency of the moment dictates. Take for example the Growth and Stability pact in Maastrict. At the time it was demanded by Germany and France, it was clear that they were concerned about government deficits running out of control, a fear based on historical experience in Germany after the first world war. But when it was clear that neither nation could implement the policy because they could not satisfy their domestic political demands within its confines, they simply ignored it racking up far greater deficits year after year than was allowed. And when it was brought to the EU Court for adjudication because they hadn't paid one Euro of the billions in fines they owed, they convinced the corrupt court that the whole idea was obsolete and should be discarded. Another is Kyoto where only 2 of 27 EU nations which signed will meet their committed to targets by 2012. In other words, they lied. They might have had good intentions when they signed it but when reality came knocking at the door, they threw their high minded promises and principles to the wind and went with what was expedient. So when Europeans talk, sign treaties, make agreements, they can never be counted on to keep their word. And what better nation for someone who challenges this notion that you have to keep your promises to have come from, Germany where the Nazis couldn't even keep their deal with the Russians not to attack each other, the Nazis knowing all along that they would eventually invade Russia and Russia claiming afterwards it only signed the pact to buy them time (while they carved up Poland.) Still it came as a complete surprise to Stalin when Hitler invaded. All this only goes to show the truth of the old adage that there is no honor among thieves, then or now.
Mark#1 wrote it:
"Hold the phone! Hold the phone!
"They have taken their countries' foreign policy in different directions."
Five minutes ago everybody was talking about a European Foreign Policy whizbang superchief something or other and a common foreign policy. That was late last week in Lisbon. Now with the ink hardly dry the two biggest wheels on this bus want to steer in opposite directions? What gives? Every day there is another contradiction, another crisis. One day they talk about climate change and demand enforcable targets for reducing CO2 emissions, the next they are worried about where they are going to get enough gas and oil to heat their homes and run their factories or how they are going to expand Heathrow Airport to accomodate more planes, more flights to grow the market for their Airbuses. One day they are practically at swords point with Washington, the next day they run over there kissing up to "Mister Big" the lame duck President. What a soap opera folks, I tell ya you couldn't get away with writing fiction like this, not even Kafka could sell it.
Well that 250 page EU "treaty" must read like the Bible, whatever you are looking for, it's in there somewhere and it's undoubtedly ambiguous enough so that the words can be interpreted to mean whatever someone wants them to and if they can't find it in one language, then they surely will in one of the 26 others. Good thing they have a court to make the final decision. I wonder what language they speak in. Probably Eurobabble."
Ummm it's called decision-making, pal - it's a process which includes everything from inter-personal differences and stupid little bureaucratic paper-pushing to history-changing actions. You make deals everywhere: you give something to get something - no more bad blood, no more standouts, no more war, remember?
I know it's hard to grasp for silly & grumpy Europhobes who - apparently - would love to see some lunatic mixture of hard-lined 'common' dictatorship and largely independent countries (hilariously illogical and idiotic, isn't it?) but alas, there's no better way. Pull those EU-blinders off of your head, pal and you will see the 'real' world instead of your fuzzy nightmares.
But hey, reading ignorant Europhobic babbling always cheers me up...
John#11 wrote it:
"With the population & wealth of the English-speaking countries projected to rise strongly and that of Germany in steep decline a better approach would be to remove ourselves from the EU and give France & Germany time to recognise that they have no relevance in the 21st century except as part of a loose civilisation alliance of the Western world in which the English-speakers will increasingly play the leading roles."
This must be the most ignorant post ever on this board - have you ever seen any recent statistics?
Without the influx of immigrants most Western countries would come to a halt in 20-30 years time and the best example of this are your "English-speakers": UK, US and to some extent Australia too. I don't live in the UK so I can only rely on my friends there but I live in the US and I know how ridiculous is your statement. Your post shows the classic utter ignorance of Joe "Europhobe" Sixpack - in fact big or upcoming players are all non-English countries and being a native English speaker usually translates to monolinguistic speakers...
The Uk is losing out so much by not joining Europe fully.
Ireland is rich due to Europe now.
Even with the monopoly type money the Euro's are the UK needs to join fast.
Mark, why are you not on This Week anymore?
I miss you when drinking my bottle of Blue Nun on Thursday nights!
One of the best quotes ever concerning the Franco-German relation:
"I have always thought that the split of the empire in 843 was a big mistake." (Jacques Lang)
Some French thinkers claim that France had historically more problems with England than with Germany. It's probably true.
Counting the Franco-German axis out is just delusional, as most EC -related thinking in the UK since 1973.
WWI may still have huge importance in England - most of the others are over it by now.
Mark, I agree that the Franco-German couple doesn't seem to fare very well under Sarkozy (and I also would agree with your analysis that he is probably mainly responsible for it). Everyone in the comments has expressed mild joy or satisfaction about that.
I personally think that a weak relationship between French and German leaders is a dangerous thing. Thank god this relationship is, as has been said, institutionalised. Ministers call their counterpart accross the rhine at least once a week. That's a lot of close cooperation, especially when they go to a council of minsiters in brussels and set out a common position. Coming from the two biggest countries in the bloc, I do think that's very important.
Which is why I don't think Britain should get into this. Also, Gordon Brown is the wrong person for this. He could get along well enough with Merkel, I suppose, but that's not the point. The point is he has kept Britain at the fringe of Europe once more. By opting out of the Charter of FR and negociating an opt-in in Justice and Â鶹ԼÅÄ Affairs. By not being there for the family photograph. This prime minister has so little credibility with his colleagues in the European Council that he couldn't slip in between Merkel and Sarkozy in a thousand years.
But surely the real joke is that both Merkel and Sarkozy are (in their own little way) trying to "modernise" (old) Europe to make it look more like (bankrupt) America.
Indeed, this must surely prove that the EU is not a monolithic stalinist state.... but perhaps (after recovering from the horrors of Blair and the Polish pair) it does show the danger of putting too much faith (and power) into the hands of local politicians -as the opponents of the EU seem to desire.
Surely, the conclusion is that Europe needs to grow up -to stop being an outpost of the American empire -and get itself a trully pan-European democratic structure which cannot be sidetracked by pouting national politicians, whatever flavour they have.....
Hey Lucas,
Why dont you try and change the mind of your government in Serbia. They owe everybody an appology for mass murdering their neighbours. Than you can lecture Europe about what they think on many issues.
It's also worth mentioning that Sarkozy and Merkel converse in English as neither has mastered the other's language. One would imagine that the dominance of English as the principal working language of the EU would play in the UK's favour. But no, with leaders of divided parties lacking in vision like Wilson, Brown, Blair and Thatcher, we remain on the fringes of Europe, achieving very little in the way of turning the EU to our advantage.
Reply to John (no. 11)
"We can no more split France & Germany than they can split the US/UK alliance"
What US/UK alliance? Oh, you mean the so-called "special relationship" which has us at the beck and call of the worst US administration since Nixon. I think we can safely say that there is only a "relationship" as and when the US needs something from us, i.e. the sort of alliance this country can do without.
Noboby seems to get it. Germany and France are so cosy because they are each others largest trading partners. Its all about the cash. The French and German economies are interwoven. They are an odd couple. Everyone thinks the French are snobs and everyone remembers Germany's dark past. They deserve each other. Two arrogant countries that everyone hates or fears. Sorry Britain, America is seriously bankrupt and in decline. Britain's trade deficit is the highest in Europe. The French export more than the English. The Germans are the economic leader in Europe. blah blah blah. Europe's only hope is to unite to be able to compete with Asia. All this European infighting means nothing. The British, Germans, and French should cooperate TOGETHER otherwise we will all be speaking Mandarin Chinese in 2150. Airbus is a fantastic success story when Europeans work together.
Europeans worst enemies are themselves.
Mark (31), much as I hate to agree with a professed Europe-hater, you are in essence correct!
As for the poor deluded chaps like John (11) who fantasize about an economic as well as cultural Anglosphere, has it ever occurred to you that we, the former colonials (Canadian in my case), might not be so keen to play? Economically speaking, Britain is important to us as a gateway to the 300 million + consumers of Europe. The last thing we want or need is Britain out of the EU. If it ever comes to that, back to the end of the line you go. Sorry, but preferential trading arrangements with "the mother country" are so 19th century.
Those of you who want to drive a wedge between Germany and France: sure, let's sow the seeds for another war on the continent. Sounds like fun, more than 60 years of peace and prosperity has been getting kind of stale. I agree that the relationship could use more balance vis a vis the rest of Europe, and the involvement of the UK would certainly help towards that end, but to want to disrupt the core Franco-German relationship is at best ignorant and at worst psychotic.
Finally Torsten, you also need a history lesson. Do you realize how many Britons travelled to and studied in Germany up til World War I? Do you realize where the Royal Family comes from? Kaiser Wilhelm II and George V were cousins! Wishful thinking on your part (got your party card from Die Linke yet?) -- far from not being part of the Western world, Germany created many of its foundations in science, culture and so on!
To Mark Richard (31):If the EU was all about cash then nothing more would be needed beyond the common market. The quest for political union is driven by darker motives that drive some on the Continent to favour sacrificing the basic principles of representative democracy on the alter of Anti-Americanism and a doomed bid for world power. While such people are in a small minority in every European country they include a majority of the political elites of some Old European states who fail to distinguish between their legitimate role as representatives of a people and their personal lust to have a greater bearing on world events than the size of their nation would indicate is possible.
That this Continental lust for power will be stillborn is shown by the economic and demographic predictions for the next 50 years. French & German GDP/person is 30% below that of the USA and – hindered by EU over-regulation – is dropping further behind each year. The population of the whole of Continental Europe is in decline with Russia and Germany falling the most. The German population is expected to drop from 82m in 2000 to 74m in 2050, and that of Italy from 57.7m to 54.6 in the same period. Of the ‘large’ Continental countries only France is projected to see a population increase (to 68m) in the first half of this century.
In contrast the population of each of the main English-speaking countries is growing strongly. The UN projects the UK population rising from 58.8m in 2000 to 69m in 2050, that of the USA from 284m to 402m, Canada from 30.6m to 42.7m, Australia from 19m to 28m and New Zealand from 3.8m to 5.2m by 2050. Indeed the population INCEASE in the 1st half of this century in these 5 countries alone is estimated at 170m; not far short of the ENTIRE estimate (195m) for the combined populations of France, Germany and Italy in 2050.
Given these trends and the natural bonds that exist between the English-speaking peoples of the world – which see us react naturally as One to major world events - it would be madness in the extreme for the UK to voluntarily sacrifice its liberty & democracy in favour of an unnatural political union with Continental countries motivated by the lust of their political elites for an influence on world affairs which their stagnant economies and declining demographics indicate is unachievable anyway.
Commenter #1 (Mark),
while your honesty about your Europhobia is refreshing (better than the 'I love Europe but hate the EU' weasel words of many), your grasp of European politics is depressingly simplistic.
Energy security and climate change policies are not inconsistent - they're interconnected.
You seem to think that being born American means you have escaped history, but it ain't so. Your complacency is misplaced - we're not 'the competition', 1 billion Chinese and 1 billion Indians will see to that.
Be careful about rubber necking while driving - one of these days you'll crash...
MERKEL from Germany ;
Christian-Right Wing, Religious Conservativism ???
SARKOZY from France ;
Mr French Right Wing...some says His Opinions and policies are Extremly Racist !
altough Merkel is a Christian Right-Wing, She seems more Liberal and Democrat than Sarkozy !
Sarkozy is a Danger for Europe and France.
Future is not orange with Sarkozy and Merkel !!!!!!!!!
If you want to see a truly odd couple look at pictures of Sarko and Qaddafi walking hand in hand into a sunset.
[Pics of Schroeder and Gasputin in a warm embrace don't qualify 'cause those two fit each other like hand and glove]