L'Europe puissance - the key question

Many years ago I read an article comparing the prevailing visions of Europe in France, Germany and UK (divided among their respective political parties). The main conclusion was that French tend to think about Intergovernmental Confederation (which guarantees respect of their nation-etat and is a vehicle of their interests), Germans about a Federal State (with clear delineation of power between different government levels) and the Britts about a Free Trade Union (reducing internal barriers for trade and competition, with limited central powers).

But I am afraid that many of these divisions disappear when people start to talk about spreading European values and L'Europe puissance (Europe as a political power). Recently I came across another article where the author complains that EU has concentrated too much on 'regulation', abandoning the political project as such. I cite his words:
Ce n’est pas la régulation qui est un objectif en soi, c’est le projet politique qui est l’objectif. (It is not the regulation which is an objective as such, the political project is the objective).

This small innocent phrase which follows on the speeches of many so called 'founding fathers',made me think about value of thinking small against thinking big. I am afraid that whenever we start to talk about 'projet politique' there is a tendency to think in terms of the traditional nation state which has been the major political project of XIXth - XXth century (unification of Italy and Germany, the emergence of nation states in Central Europe following the I world war etc.). And with own its merits (declaratory equality of citizens, social protection, concept of demos), a nation state has been probably one of the biggest oppressor and source of violence in the international realm (wars 1914-1945), postcolonial conflicts in Africa. So if we think about EU in these terms, there is a risk of creating a new imperial structure which will repeat the nation-state experience in the larger intercontinental context. But it will not change the rules of the game, which have proved to be so dangerous for the humankind.

I think that we should accept the European project as precisely rather a regulation of relations between states than creation of a new political entity which will finally make the 'European' voice heard. It does not need to go any further. Europe should be a big think-tank, regulator and place for discussion/peaceful confrontation among different actors. It does not need to go much further but make all the internal actors play according to the rules of the game.

And precisely the French reflex of talking about 'l'Europe puissance' is dangerous in this context. We need much more moderation in our approach to foreign policy. EU should behave rather like inward looking China who tries to prevent external threats but does not have this intervention reflex that we so painfully experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan. Europe will not be a better, more efficient France. We cannot expect that by giving money, sending troops or negotiating trade deals we can fundamentally change the reality of countries in Africa, Asia or Latin America. We can support positive tendencies, help in sharing good practices but our influence will always remain limited.

I think that if we continue to talk about Europe as a sort of 'better, bigger nation state' we shall only bring back the imperialist thinking which partly lead to the second world war. There is tention between the 'Europe as a project to guarantee peace' and the 'Europe puissance' megalomania. I hope that this is what meant Schuman, Monnet, Spinnelli, Spaak and Adenauer. Moderation should become the major spice of European foreign policy.