On the last weekend of April, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder became Germany's third prominent public figure in less than a year to call for changes in the European Union's structure.

In May 2000, Germany's Foreign Minister Joshka Fischer had proposed a "two-tiered EU" with a core of nations moving toward full political integration within a greater EU, and in a speech before the European Parliament in March, German federal President Johannes Rau voiced his support for a strengthening of the parliament's legislative powers for the EU.

Mr. Schroeder proposed a more centralized European Union with a clearer division of responsibilities between EU institutions and the national governments of its member states.

Through its democratically elected representatives, the European Parliament would be given full budgetary control over all EU funds, including the often contentious agricultural subsidy budget, which makes up nearly half of the EU annual expenses.

In turn, the European Council of Ministers would become an "upper chamber" of sorts in a new supra-parliamentary arrangement, representing national governments and working in tandem with the European Parliament as the "lower house." The European Commission would retain its executive functions and see them strengthened in the new parliamentary arrangement.

By contrast, matters of purely national or local interest would be left to member states and/or their regional governments to decide. This issue is especially important for the governors of Germany's 16 federal states, who have viewed certain EU decisions as infringing upon their local jurisdiction.

Chancellor Schroeder's desire for progress within the EU reflects Germany's long-standing commitment to Europe, supported for decades by all major political parties in Germany. In January, Mr. Schroeder indicated that Germany would view full political integration within Europe as one of its major goals for the first decade of the new century. His comments then may have reflected Germany's dissatisfaction over the outcome of last year's EU summit meeting in Nice (France), where late night sessions failed to produce a major reform of EU decision-making processes. The reform of these processes-especially the single-nation veto power-is viewed as critical for the future functionality of a much larger EU in the coming years.

Schroeder proposal receives mixed reviews

As could be expected, the response within Germany was generally positive, with the opposition parties in the Bundestag commenting favorably on the new initiative. An editorial in the Süddeutsche Zeitung urged Schroeder to "Take charge, Chancellor! If the Chancellor realizes what he is undertaking with his proposal for a political Europe, he has a lot of courage. Then he also realizes that only Germany can get things moving in the present condition of political disarray. But Germany as Europe's savior? That's not a pleasant prospect for most Europeans or Germans. But that doesn't change anything, either-the Germans have to do it" (May 14, 2001).

Other observers pointed out that Schroeder's suggestions for EU reforms, like those of Foreign Minister Fischer nearly a year earlier, were not made in his official capacity as Germany's head of government. Instead, his outline is a proposed platform plank for discussion and ratification at the Social Democratic Party's (SPD) party convention in November 2001. It is assured a favorable reception, since Germany as the EU's most populous country would benefit the most by a strengthening of the European Parliament's powers.

Reaction within Europe to Schroeder's ideas was mixed. The Scandinavian countries generally were skeptical. Belgium's Prime Minister Verhofstadt described them as an "enormous shot in the arm" for supporters of an ambitious path of European integration. Austria's Chancellor Schüssel voiced cautious support for a transformed European parliamentary system but rejected any thought of a "European superstate."

On a French state radio station, France's Minister for European Affairs, Moscovici, termed Schroeder's initiative as "unbalanced" and as being "somewhat strongly influenced by the German spirit," "very federalistic" and therefore unsuited as a basis for a compromise on Europe.

Awkward situation for Prime Minister Blair

A spokesman for Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair, who apparently was not consulted in advance by Schroeder on the proposal, commented that some of the ideas were acceptable, others were not. In reality the timing of Schroeder's announcement most likely could not have been more inconvenient for the Labour politician, whose reelection campaign may now be more influenced by a debate over the future of the EU than Blair would like to see. For example, even though the Labour government continues to express its desire to see Britain eventually join the European Monetary Union, a recent survey by The Times shows 73 percent of Britons opposed to giving up their pound for the euro.

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported that "the more often Europe is discussed in public, the more antagonistic sentiment [in Britain] threatens to become.… The German suggestions came at the worst possible time, although there is never a good time [in Britain] for German suggestions about Europe" (May 3, 2001).

The reaction to Chancellor Schroeder's proposals reflects the impasse that the European Union has reached. Several EU members are content with the status quo of an unwieldy economic community that offers financial and trade advantages without the need to sacrifice national sovereignty in key areas. Other EU members, including Germany, wish to see EU decision-making processes streamlined to prevent the frequent last-minute "bargains" reached to "buy off" one or a minority of members-often the smaller EU countries—from using their single—vote veto power to prevent major agreements from being reached.

It is easy to say that one is for a "European superpower" but against a "European superstate," to quote the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. In reality, those European politicians who use such language are often the same ones who complain about the growing unwieldiness of European institutions and processes. "The truth is that a superpower also needs strong European institutions. As long as the EU is made up of more or less sovereign member states, all their efforts to be decisive and unified will be subject to national interests" (May 4, 2001).

Where in the Bible would we find reference to such events that are forming on today's world scene? How can we understand these events in a prophetic framework which helps us understand their real significance?

Compare "iron and clay" prophecy

The prophet Daniel described an end-time union that will oppose the return of Christ, a union apparently geographically within the confines of the former Roman Empire, the fourth world-ruling kingdom revealed to Nebuchadnezzar in his dream of a great human image in Daniel 2. That final union, pictured by the toes of the image, is composed partly of iron and partly of clay (Daniel 2:33). Miry clay and iron do not "mix" well; they will not be the basis for a strong union.

Some have wondered whether the miry clay and iron of the image's two feet could represent a throwback to the historical partition of the Roman Empire into eastern and western halves.

Certainly the 12 Eastern European nations currently knocking on the EU's door of membership (who will likely be admitted as members before the end of the decade), represent a state of economic development lagging well behind Western Europe's infrastructure. This continues despite the economic gains made since the end of Soviet domination in Eastern Europe.

However, the scenario that currently seems suited to fit the description given by Daniel would be a greater Europe unified in an economic zone with limited political oversight-similar to the current EU. Within this trading block, a smaller core of nations could advance voluntarily toward greater political union, including voluntarily relinquishing sovereignty in key areas like national currency autonomy (replaced by the euro). If the "core nations" were also the larger economic force within the entire economic zone, a clay and iron mix could easily be the result.

Even if many Europeans do not agree with the specifics of Chancellor Schroeder's initiative, his proposal nevertheless reflects the dissatisfaction felt by many toward the current state of EU institutions. Whether his ideas will be implemented remains to be seen. Together with the earlier speeches by Mr. Fischer and Mr. Rau, they do, however, send a clear signal concerning Germany's desire to see the word political added to the words European Union. WNP