The United States-led invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq in 2003 was to some observers a repulsive act, while to others it was a necessary one. Following weeks of debate between world leaders regarding whether or not Saddam Hussein's regime was hiding weapons of mass destruction, in March 2003 the United States, along with the so-called 'coalition of the willing', initiated a war with Iraq. Despite citizens' rallies around the world against the war, the regime in Iraq was eventually removed from power and replaced by an 'interim' government set up by the US.

When the United States President is called a cowboy, the implication is usually negative. However, this is not the case for George W. Bush. Indeed, Bush Jr. seems to revel in his status as America's cowboy president. This is obvious not only given his penchant for entertaining foreign dignitaries at his range in Crawford, Texas. It is also apparent in the mannerisms that he has adopted and that he believes reflect the wisdom of a simpler time.

Postcolonial studies is an interdisciplinary genre that takes colonialism as its point of departure for examining a range of processes that mark the postcolonial condition. It emerged in the early 1980s from 'Commonwealth literary studies' and has been associated with cultural studies and literature. Although also thought to have originated from development studies, it is avowedly distinct from that area owing to its generally non-materialist approach to globalisation, colonial and anti-colonial histories and theories of resistance.

Government officials and legal scholars broadly agree that the US-led war in Iraq had the blemish of being neither backed by a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) mandate nor by a broad multilateral coalition. As regards the offender, even legal scholars disagree, arguing either that a deadlocked UNSC failed and the US 'did indeed have all authority it needed' (Glennon, 2003), or that, in the absence of UNSC approval, US use of force amounted to 'a war of aggression' (International Commission of Jurists, 2003). Both conclusions are based on the assumption that the pursuit of power was the prime motivation for UNSC member states. In this article, I take a different stance.

For students of EU public policy, the Union's reaction during and after the Iraq War may represent the same story of impotence that has historically plagued Europe when trying to present a united front during major world crises. The EU had been divided over the Iraq sanctions issue for quite some time and the divisions became deeper as the US put increasing pressure on Saddam Hussein's regime. With the US pushing for decisive action against Iraq's perceived lack of compliance with UN resolutions, the EU froze and failed to promote an alternative strategy acceptable to the rest of the global community.

It is often claimed that the perspectives of the majority of citizens on foreign policy match those of politica elites since the implications of foreign policy issues are too complex for ordinary citizens to understand - with the result that they do not possess enough valid information to form independent, deeply-held opinIOns (Krippendorff, 1977; Blondel, Sinnott and Svensson, 1998; Lindberg and Scheingold, 1979). However, when analYSing public attitudes towards the Iraq crisis, this claim seems to be mistaken. For, not only were opinions deeply held, but in countries such as Italy and the UK, they diverged substantially from the views of politica elites.

Nowhere was opposition to war in Iraq more clearly expressed than in Spain. Demonstrations against the war were the largest in Europe, with more than two milion people marching in Madrid and Barcelona on 15 February 2003 - part of a co-ordinated campaign across 57 cities throughout Spain, including all provincial capitals. The Spanish public has long been suspicious of the US, a sentiment which dates back to the vita support given to the Franco regime in the early 1950s in return for establishing military bases on the Spanish mainland, and which was compounded by US policy in Central and South America during the 1970s and 1980s.

This article attempts to explain why, despite sharing many commonalties in terms of size, power and geopolitical position, Denmark and Ireland adopted different policies towards the US-led war in Iraq. Given their shared characteristics (both are small-states on the periphery of Europe) neo-realist theories of international relations would have led one to expect these countries to pursue similar policies. Instead, Ireland chose to follow the path that seemed to be endorsed by a majority in two international organisations, the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU), whereas Denmark gave its full support to the US-led coalition, thereby disregarding efforts to build consensus in the EU.

I have taught and researched about politics for what I now realise is a long time. I have never felt as strongly as I do now that our discipline needs a period of intellectual stocktaking and reflection on the problems and issues it should study. This does not mean ‘political studies’ is in crisis; quite the contrary. The discipline remains more relevant than ever, and, because this is so, we need to redirect ourselves so that we can cope with the reasons why and the potential dangers that arise from them.

Two events prompt me. The first was the 30th Anniversary of the Birkbeck School of Politics. Second, recently during interviews for a chair at another institution, I asked each of the candidates a stock question that I often ask to get people to respond outside their prepared answers: ‘what do you think the core agenda of political studies should be over the next decade?’

The concept of Europeanisation enjoys increasing popularity within the study of European integration. Although there is considerable disagreement with regard to what it actually is, the bulk of the literature speaks of Europeanisation when something in national political systems is affected by something European. Scholars study the administrative adaptation of national states to (future) membership of the European Union; the implementation of EU directives; and, from a wider perspective, change and resilience in the structures and identities of nation-states under pressure from developments at the European level. Hence, a working definition of Europeanisation might be domestic change caused by European integration.

The above quotation relates to a conversation about the threat to French cathedrals posed by the German bombing raids of the First World War. Substituting the concept ‘University’ for ‘Cathedral’ gives a good sense of the present day evisceration of university values. British universities are succumbing to a tsunami of rampant managerialism that has already devastated morale in such other public-sector institutions as the BBC and the National Health Service which are now riddled with one-dimensional managerialist thought. Satire becomes increasingly difficult in a climate where inherent banality is used as a defence against rational critique.

Umbach and Scholl's (2003) intervention on the benefits of a core curriculum in European Studies contains much of interest, particularly their emphasis on the need for EU studies to be interdisciplinary and international, an emphasis which is gaining increasing recognition. There are however two issues that we wish to raise. The first is the idea of a core curriculum, the need for which we resist strongly. The second is to point out that Umbach and Scholl suppose that no core curriculum exists at present in EU studies: this is incorrect.