The rift with the British is widening (Maj)

(BRUSSELS2) There had been the postponement of the Franco-British summit between Sarkozy and Cameron, scheduled for December 2. There is today - with the agreement reached overnight at the European summit - the Franco-German desire to move forward with economic integration.

UK in the corner

A treaty that is not at 17+ as it has been elegantly said. But at 27 -. It is, indeed, the resolute opposition of the United Kingdom which was the element of fracture. Sweden and the Czech Republic were reluctant and wanted to consult their parliament beforehand. And Hungary seemed to follow, but mainly for questions of political expediency. For the two countries of Eastern Europe, it is probable that this "exit" could not survive more than a few years when these two countries want to knock on the door of the euro or quite simply change leaders.

(Shift 13 p.m.) The first Hungarian Victor Orban backtracked this morning, speaking of a misunderstanding. Hungary is not against the Treaty in absolute terms but must "consult Parliament". " I had a mandate from Parliament for two aspects: resolving the euro crisis at 27 or if there was no agreement to let the eurozone settle the issue he explained during a press conference. However, here, it is a question of joining the countries of the eurozone. It must therefore be discussed with Parliament. It will be " electric he promised. Because we touch on the sovereignty " from the country. However, he wanted to distance himself from the United Kingdom, believing that Hungary could not side with him. “The British have an opt-out refusal to join the eurozone. We want to join the Euro, it's not a question of choice, it's an obligation he explained.

A little in, a little out

For the United Kingdom, it is for the moment a personal defeat for D. Cameron. He has not fully realized the changing mood among Europeans. Usually, they did everything to keep the United Kingdom on board, even if it meant granting it one or two opt-outs, as was done with previous treaties (from Maastricht to Lisbon via Amsterdam). The United Kingdom is thus always a little inside, a little outside. The exclusion of the United Kingdom from the social protocol responded to a very political objective which was not unfavorable to British interests; the same applies to the non-participation in the Schengen agreement which responded to a much more physical notion - the United Kingdom having no land borders obviously does not have the same interest in sharing border control with the countries continentals. This time around, the Europeans seemed determined to "overboard" the UK and not give in to its claims to be able to benefit without participating, the usual British tactic. However, not all difficulties have been resolved, because here we touch on the heart of the community system, economic integration and institutional functioning. It is not entirely clear that the United Kingdom is not looking to come back out the window, either by negotiating an ad hoc association agreement or simply by challenging this agreement before the European Court of Justice. The British also have excellent lawyers...

Text approved at the Summit tonight: in the B2 docs

Defense projects are slipping

In defence, we know that current projects are slipping, at least on the industrial side. Apart from nuclear cooperation, which is the subject of a treaty written in stone, and corresponds to a real convergence of interests (the United Kingdom and France are the only European countries to have nuclear deterrent weapons) , the other projects are still in the pipeline. In addition to the usual difficulties of cooperation with several people - slower to set up than a solo project - there are factors of quasi-political divergence. The two governments do not have the same approach to European defense industrial policy. For France, this means protecting its national and possibly European champion. For the United Kingdom, this still remains an industrial backing to American industries. In legal terms, this translates, for the first, into the desire for a call for tenders restricted to the European market (NB: which excludes the USA) - as permitted by the defense directive -, for the second, into the desire an open call for tenders (NB: in the USA).