British pragmatism - the bubble that the NO has burst

Because of the negligence of the non-members (probably?), Mr. Blair proved to be in himself, much more preoccupied with British sovereignty (*) than with the construction of the Union.

More seriously, it is to all of those who speculated upward on the value of "European  Economy (s) Solidaire (s) solidaire (s)  " that must be blamed the occultation of the strategy of Outre-Manche. In the resulting bubble of this distortion desire / real they had by unconsciousness (in France it is often about valorization of the individual action potential, especially intellectual related to the talents of strategist) or by interest, omitted to take in account the history of the   United Kingdom / Europe "white marriage" . History with consequences yet engraved in many places of the "  Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. (Where, in more than 150 citations, the United Kingdom case is declared specific and derogating from obligations in all other states of the Union.)

It may be time to say how perfect was the date chosen for the UK for his referendum. 
It allowed the most pragmatic and less enticed country in Europe to board the boat only once the battle was won, possibly even after a final Thatcher negotiation . 
Otherwise, it was enough to act as Mr. Blair is about to do. Since in his idea - and such cynicism is only pragmatism on the other side of the Channel - "  a referendum is proposed only in the event that the vote YES is assured  " (or marketable!).

The UK would have had interest in borrowing the "shortcut" NO that if this way being cleared (no country having "dared"), it allowed again a little haggling - which had d also announced by Sir Gordon Brown (Minister of Finance, May 2005): "  It is not up to Britain to adapt to Europe, but to Europe to adapt to Britain. "

There was much criticism of those who refused a reality without proposing another, of being inconsistent, and of being guided by their affect. 
Do not take into account the position of the United Kingdom (Alain Lipietz himself acknowledged that one day would have to collapse "the English case") even though everyone knew how much this country undermines, more at each stage, (see the OPT OUT) the principles of the Union, this attitude of ostrich or upward speculator refusing to take into account the economic situation, may be considered much more inconsistent (especially from almost all an elite).

In the aftermath of the confirmation that in terms of OPT OUT, Great Britain won the game (**), it would be very useful - to rebuild the dynamics of Europe (and a European constitution) on sound bases - to recognize how the NO has helped to avoid an extra trap on the other end of the Eurotunnel. (***)

* In fact this term does not really reflect the small size of the British - British stakes on which the concerns and activity of the resident of Downing Street as much as of his collaborators or even opponents focus.

** "  This objective guided me to revise the provisions concerning on-call time and the reference period for the calculation of maximum hours of work. He mainly guided me to address the issue of the "opt-out" individual.

First, if an opt-out is used by a country, the proposal limits the maximum hours of work to fifty-five hours a week.

It also maintains the opt-out for only three years after the end of the transposition period of the Directive. After this period, if a Member State considers that the functioning of its labor market warrants the continuation of the opt-out, it must submit a reasoned request to the Commission. Here is the balance of the modified proposal. Only such an approach seems to me to be able to bring together the positions in the presence, in the respect of the Parliament and with the concern to modernize the text of one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three.  "