The Independent d’aujourd’hui<\/a> signale la chose en ces termes:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00ab Tony Blair’s ambitious bid to switch EU spending from agriculture to science and technology has been undermined by plans set out by the British Government to slash European research and development spending next year.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb British moves to cut the EU’s 2006 budget prompted a blunt warning that the UK, which holds the rotating presidency of the EU, will be seen as hypocritical in other capitals. The row follows comments from Margaret Beckett, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who appeared to back away from Mr Blair’s demand for an early reform of agriculture spending.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb Three weeks ago, Mr Blair launched the UK presidency with a dramatic warning that the EU risks failure on a grand, strategic scale unless it invests in economic development. Yesterday the European Commission announced that Britain’s presidency wants a severe cut of 429m (\u00a3295m) from one of the EU’s most forward-looking policies next year.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t()<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t\u00bb The British presidency wants to cut 1.146bn from the Commission’s proposed 112.6bn 2006 budget. About half the cuts would hit research and other activities that will stimulate growth and create jobs, the Commission said.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb Eva Hedlund, spokesman for the European budget commissioner, said there was a contradiction between words and deeds on the part of the British presidency. The rhetoric does not match the reality. Chris Davies, the leader of British Liberal Democrat MEPs, said: This will be perceived as hypocrisy by many other member states. The Government has to be careful not to be regarded with huge cynicism by its European partners.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tLaissons le d\u00e9bat sur cette mesure et observons combien la perception qu’on en a est profond\u00e9ment antagoniste, d’un point de vue m\u00e9diatique (virtualiste) du plan grandiose, d’un point de vue m\u00e9diatique (virtualiste), que Blair proposait \u00e0 l’Europe il y a un mois. Bref, d’un point de vue m\u00e9diatique (virtualiste), Blair a fait un faux pas. Il en fera d’autres.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tDes officiels britanniques g\u00e9missent \u00e0 ce propos (\u00ab The UK says the reduction was put forward because the EU failed to spend all the sums allocated to it last year. A British official added: We are surprised to be singled out in this way. We do not think it is particularly constructive because the presidency represents the whole Council of Ministers [made up of all 25 member states]. The issue is poor forecasting.<\/em> \u00bb). Ils n’ont qu’\u00e0 s’en prendre \u00e0 leur patron : c’est lui qui nous a amen\u00e9s sur ce terrain du point de vue m\u00e9diatique (virtualiste). Durant les mois qui nous s\u00e9parent de la fin d\u00e9cembre, Blair va \u00eatre d\u00e9chir\u00e9 \u00e0 belles dents par les critiques et les attaques vicieuses, et les habituels et tonitruants non’ chiraquiens. D’un point de vue m\u00e9diatique (virtualiste), qui est celui qui compte puisque c’est le seul qui fut pris en compte pour en faire la promotion, le mod\u00e8le anglais’ en sortira en lambeaux. Demain, seuls les commentateurs de la grande presse Rive gauche, \u00e0 Paris, en parleront encore.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 15 juillet 2005 \u00e0 15H15<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Blair nous a offert une belle offensive m\u00e9diatique en juin, sur le th\u00e8me : Regardez comme je fais moderne et laissez-moi diriger l’Europe sur cette voie. On a d\u00e9j\u00e0 vu ce qu’il fallait en comprendre sur le plan int\u00e9rieur. Maintenant, l’attaque anti-Blair porte sur ses projets europ\u00e9ens. The Independent d’aujourd’hui signale la chose en ces… <\/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-66595","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\/66595","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=66595"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66595\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66595"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66595"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66595"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}