There are lot of spite in English criticism

I do more meets an English friend, lately, that does make me the criticism of what "the France lies in the Germany." The acerbic admonition is shared by not bad to us, and part of the French, obviously. Paris would have accepted the diktat of Berlin on the management of the euro and the European economy and, as in the service of his master, the France would impose it on the "small" countries. The Poland, the Netherlands, the Austria objection. Je does none of these fundamental criticism, I am delighted in contrast to the revival of the Franco-German couple and considers that it is the only way forward in Europe. Here is why.

British resentment is motivated by the idea that the "Germanic vision" of Europe would be the matrix of all what is proposed to improve the coordination of economic policies in the euro area and in the entire Union: binding renegotiation of a stability and Growth Pact, the "European semester", which will force Member States to make adouber the broad lines of their budget by others and Brussels, and, most importantly, the "Pact for competitiveness", as Mrs Merkel and Mr Sarkozy unveiled it Friday, February 4. This text would be like the block of alouette, one gram of French and a kilo of German horse. He had to, to seal all, that the Peregrine Axel Weber be appointed at the head of the ECB in replacement of Jean-Claude Trichet for the French defeat was complete. Fortunately this last hypothesis seems ruled out. It remains that all the proposals built "a Europe on the German model": obsessed with inflation, neglecting the growth, thinking the offer and the industry, ignorant of Keynesian demand problems, a Europe, in summary, dedicated to the deflation.

There are lot of spite in English criticism. Britain is still critical of the Franco-German reconciliation and it is his right. It goes back to 1956, when, after the common to Suez, she chooses America, while the France chooses to Europe with the Germany. However, today American superbly ignores the United Kingdom and London wondered about the "special relationship"...

On the economic merits, it is true that much German ideas are repeated: sanctions, the rigour imposed in a rule to constitutional value and the fact to pay bankers crises to force them to less lending to countries in excessive deficit (which stirs up the City course). More generally, it is true that the relevance of the German model is not discussed: critics of Christine Lagarde on the weaknesses of the German consumption are shelved national slogans. But for a considerable profit: the Germany reaffirmed its indissoluble commitment to Europe and the euro, and she understood that this implied an economic government as broad as the only criteria of Maastricht. Say that it is obvious, that German interest is Europe, Kohl had seen, and that it therefore gained victory in advance. Yes and no. Angela Merkel is another generation, in the crisis it had shown a refusal of solidarity, is convinced by Nicolas Sarkozy. And is satisfied much more: it boosts the European integration. It offers two excellent tracks: the mobility of the workforce ' work and tax harmonisation (another topic that naturally irritates our English friends). Then there are the purely French tactics that the English did not see: develop austerity on behalf of the European construction... The only way to begin to clean up public finances before a restive opinion and a cowardly political class.

If so this is not a block of alouette, is that a Franco-German diktat He must tell the truth: Yes, and then The Community way is blocked by the institutional tangle. Only the ParisBerlin alliance is likely to boost the integration machine. In total, the anglo-saxon criticism is justified on the macroeconomic aspect. Chapter competitiveness is lean. There is much to do, start by saving the Greece and the Ireland. The Germany is at the controls, but it goes in the direction always intended by the France of the "economic government".