{"id":66337,"date":"2005-04-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-04-18T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2005\/04\/18\/if-france-votes-no-it-is-a-problem-for-europe\/"},"modified":"2005-04-18T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2005-04-18T00:00:00","slug":"if-france-votes-no-it-is-a-problem-for-europe","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2005\/04\/18\/if-france-votes-no-it-is-a-problem-for-europe\/","title":{"rendered":"\u00ab If France votes no, it is a problem for Europe \u00bb"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>Le <em>Guardian<\/em> de ce matin indique que, <a href=\"http:\/\/politics.guardian.co.uk\/election\/story\/0,15803,1462256,00.html\" class=\"gen\">par la voix de son secr\u00e9taire au Foreign Office<\/a>, Tony Blair a fait indirectement savoir qu&rsquo;un non fran\u00e7ais au r\u00e9f\u00e9rendum sur la Constitution europ\u00e9enne conduirait \u00e9ventuellement le Royaume-Uni \u00e0 abandonner son propre r\u00e9f\u00e9rendum sur le sujet. Dans tous les cas, le gouvernement britannique consid\u00e8re qu&rsquo;un tel \u00e9v\u00e9nement changerait toutes les donn\u00e9es du probl\u00e8me. Comme le remarque assez justement une source proche du conseil des ministres: \u00ab <em>If Britain alone votes no, it is a problem for Britain. If France votes no, it is a problem for Europe. We would wait to see what the French had to say, but it is inconceivable that the constitution could go ahead.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tLe <em>Guardian<\/em> rapporte ceci d&rsquo;un d\u00e9bat t\u00e9l\u00e9vis\u00e9 de ce week-end: \u00ab <em>Mr Straw said a rejection by France would have to be put to a meeting of EU heads of state. He said he could not predict what would happen. Asked on ITV&rsquo;s Jonathan Dimbleby programme if the UK referendum would go ahead, Mr Straw said: It all depends &#8230; I&rsquo;ve no idea what is going to happen.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tDans ce domaine,  une fois n&rsquo;est pas coutume,  le jugement britannique est assez objectif dans la mesure o\u00f9 il \u00e9vite le parti-pris parce que balanc\u00e9 entre la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 de se rapprocher de l&rsquo;Europe et la crainte d&rsquo;une \u00e9volution europ\u00e9enne vers une formule int\u00e9gr\u00e9e. Les Britanniques observent le d\u00e9bat sur la Constitution sans la moindre passion favorable, mais avec \u00e0 l&rsquo;esprit un calcul raisonnable d&rsquo;une proximit\u00e9 n\u00e9cessaire. Il ont parfaitement saisi l&rsquo;essence du probl\u00e8me : \u00ab <em>If Britain alone votes no, it is a problem for Britain. If France votes no, it is a problem for Europe.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tL&rsquo;\u00e9volution britannique indique <em>de facto<\/em> la vacuit\u00e9 et la nature artificiellement dramatis\u00e9e de l&rsquo;argument selon lequel un non fran\u00e7ais isolerait la France,  ou encore (selon un mot d&rsquo;une source europ\u00e9enne rapport\u00e9e par <em>Le Figaro<\/em>): \u00ab <em>C&rsquo;est en France qu&rsquo;il y aura une crise. Pas \u00e0 Bruxelles.<\/em> \u00bb C&rsquo;est tout le contraire: le non fran\u00e7ais bouleverserait la situation europ\u00e9enne et forcerait \u00e0 une compl\u00e8te reconsid\u00e9ration du probl\u00e8me europ\u00e9en. C&rsquo;est \u00e0 Bruxelles que la crise s&rsquo;installerait. (A Paris, elle existe d&rsquo;ores et d\u00e9j\u00e0, au moins depuis la mi-mars et les premiers sondages pour le non.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><p>\tMis en ligne le 18 avril \u00e0 12H45<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Le Guardian de ce matin indique que, par la voix de son secr\u00e9taire au Foreign Office, Tony Blair a fait indirectement savoir qu&rsquo;un non fran\u00e7ais au r\u00e9f\u00e9rendum sur la Constitution europ\u00e9enne conduirait \u00e9ventuellement le Royaume-Uni \u00e0 abandonner son propre r\u00e9f\u00e9rendum sur le sujet. Dans tous les cas, le gouvernement britannique consid\u00e8re qu&rsquo;un tel \u00e9v\u00e9nement changerait&hellip;&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66337","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66337","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66337"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66337\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66337"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66337"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66337"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}