Is Germany losing it's 'geo-political grip on the Eurozone?

I think that's a silly way to look at it. I would say rather that Europe's lack of political union is exposing it's faultlines in the current situation. 

---

Germany has always been very influential on the EU, never more so than in the 21st century when the project really took off with the expansion of the Union and the implementation of the Euro.

There is no doubt that German holds and will continue to hold a very big stick in all matters European. It's just....natural.

---

Some people resent that. But resentment doesn't mean much by itself in matters of political power.

---

But  talking about Germany's geo-political grip almost sounds like it's a matter of Germany dictating to the EU.

The EU doesn't works that way. It's far less efficient than that.

---

In the recent refugee crisis, many have accused Angela Merkel of setting European immigration policy almost unitlaterally but I think that's a misunderstanding of what is, well, just an old fashioned mess.

AS I understand things, this is how matters unfolded:

1. last year saw an influx of refugees entering the EU. They'd been coming for years and years, of course, from Africa and the Middle East, from Eastern Europe and Asia. But for some reason they came in mega-droves in 2015.
2. Most of them were making for Germany or Scandinavia.
3. Faced with the sudden reality of hundreds of thousands of immigrants/refugees/migrants who were already in Germany, Merkel made a decision that was dictated by reality. It was no good saying: No refugees in Germany--they were already there. It was also a logistical nightmare to ship them back to their countries where they'd entered(as was law) and it would inhumane and prohibitively expensive to put them back in their home countries, especially if their country was in the midst of war. It was above all a practical decision.
4. With her declaration of welcome, many countries bordering Germany or offering a path to Germany were confused. They'd signed a treaty saying that any refugees should be processed in  the country through which they entered the EU(I.e., Greece, Croatia, Italy.) What were they supposed to do?
5. Then Germany gave mixed signals, saying they weree going to continue supporting the treaty, then back tracking on it at least once if not twice.
6. Now alongside all of this lies a fear of multi-culturalism in the Eastern half o the EU, which, due to the Cold War effectively closing thier borders, tend to be much less multi-cultural than western ones. They look at events such as the French riots of 2005 or the riots in the UK in 2011 as being the direct results of tensions between two rival subcultures. (Arguable, but not completely without some basis).
7. Since Germany declared its own policy on the refugees, there was really no argument against other countries declaring their own policies.
8. This has obviously led to quite a lot of dissonance in the debate on how best to handle the EU refugee crisis.

---

Of course the debate tends to be seen in dramatic terms by Europeans, driven by a media with two opposing narratives that clash with each other and push the average European in different ways...:

There's the narrative of the hapless immigrant family, emphasizing the plight of women and children and playing upon European's sympathy:

...or the narrative  of angry young men from a radically different culture with a reputation for violence and bad treatment of women playing on European fears.

---

The fact is, nobody REALLY knows what to do.

And it touches on so many deep matters and raises so many questions, only some of which include:

• what is the EU's role as a perceived guiding light on the issue of human rights?
• how responsible is the West, including Europe, in the events unfolding in the middle east?
• it it better to try to take in lots of refugees or better to interfere in matters in a foreign country and culture?
• what can be done to harmonize the EU's, Russia's, the USA's, and even China's goals and policies in Syria and the Middle EAst?
• how can countries and their leaders and super-national organizations like the EU strike a balance between keeping their pledges of humane practices with the wishes of an electorate that is, at least in some countries, frankly, afraid?
• If a majority of a country support an anti-immigrant stance, should the parliaments of those countries be beholden to their voters or should they heed the directives of the EU, with their own political careers on the line?

These are questions I came up with relatively idly.

But the greatest question is how the EU is going to react to a crisis. This crisis, other crises down the road.

In a lot of ways that's an underlying issue here. Because there really isn't much precedent. And even less agreement.

And with the UK preparing a in-or-out referendum....

.... pressure from Russia on the Eastern borders upping the tension....

...wide disaffection with the Euro in some quarters...

...disgust with corrupt local political forces taking advantage of the  the wasteful and silly bureaucratic structure of the EU

--this question is very hard to answer.

---

Like I said, it's a mess.

---

In retrospect, I think it's clear that the EU should have worked out a lot of these questions a long time ago. Probably before they expanded in 2004.

But we're stuck with what we have and we can only hope that the ship navigates the increasingly choppy waters of global matters with some degree of competence and success.

It's hard when there's 27 pilots.

---

---

But at any rate, Germany will continue to be the most important player in Europe.

---

Written Jan 30