How do France and Germany see Britain's place in Europe? Writers from Le Monde and Süddeutsche Zeitung paint a picture
*Alain Frachon: Don't they realise? Europe is Britain*
Why the hell do they want to leave? We know that originality is all part of the British DNA. But to take this character trait as far as quitting the EU? This is a move that French people struggle to understand. For a very simple reason: Europe is Britain (a fact that obviously escapes Ukip and those in the Tory party who want to leave the union).
These people have no sense of history – or don't read newspapers. Ever since it joined what was then the EEC in 1973, Britain has fashioned Europe in its own image. It achieved two principal objectives. The first was to improve the single market, set into train in the mid-1980s. The second, after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, was to fight in favour of a wider union.
On these two points, London can only rejoice. Success right across the board: the union now numbers 27, soon to be 28; and the main concern of the European commission, meanwhile, seems to be to constantly refine the huge area of free trade that Europe has become.
To gauge just how successful this British performance has been, think for a moment of the Europe that the French dream of. It's the direct opposite. Paris imagined a Europe that would exist as a single force on the international scene, alongside the US, Russia and China. As well as a free trade area, that Europe would have a joint foreign and defence policy. London didn't want this. And London has won: with more than 20 members in the EU, there is no joint policy (apart from the single market, of course).
The French imagined a Europe that straddled mercantilism and social democracy, in which Brussels would sponsor industrial and infrastructure "grands projets" (Parisian Keynesians adore grands projets), arousing the jealousy of the Americans.
Yet in today's EU, the power remains with member states. Westminster has less than ever to fear from the directives of a European superstate, which only really exists in gin-soaked Tory nightmares.
The French wanted a social Europe that the British don't want. But with 27, soon 28, members you look in vain for the famous European "social model": what do the welfare states of Bulgaria and Sweden have in common? The French imagined an ever closer union, as referred to in the EU's founding treaties. The British got all the exceptions to the common rules that they wanted. They made the union an a la carte club.
Why would our British friends want to leave "their" Europe?
• Alain Frachon is the editorial director of Le Monde
*Daniel Brössler: Britain is not indispensible*
In one of the few pictures to emerge from David Cameron's visit to the official state guest house Schloss Meseberg was one of Angela Merkel pointing a finger into the far distance, with the British prime minister fixing his gaze on the same point. Another picture reversed the roles: here Cameron is pointing, Merkel is watching. The intended message was clear: here are Merkel and Cameron, two heads of state in absolute agreement, steering a common course. That was the symbolism, but does it reflect the reality?
Over recent weeks, German politicians have repeatedly emphasised that they appreciate Britain's sense of tradition, level-headedness and courage. Ahead of the meeting between Cameron and Merkel, her spokesperson said that "Great Britain is an important and indispensable partner for us in Europe". Such bromides are designed to calm us all down, but they might also create unpleasant side effects: namely delusion and misunderstanding.
The biggest delusion would be to assume that Merkel agrees with Cameron's political course on Europe. There's not a single statement by her that would support that assumption. She has merely decided to delay confrontation with the British PM over the matter for now, principally for three reasons. First, Merkel has had her eyes on the EU budget summit, where she wanted to present a united front with Cameron and had no desire to weaken or isolate him.
Second, she regards Cameron as an ally in the battle for a change of culture within the EU. She regards him as one of the few who really understands that Europe needs to fundamentally change in order to keep up in the global race.
Third, and most importantly, her tactic on a British exit from the EU is like her domestic political strategy: avoid engaging with a subject before the time is right. And until now, precious little detail has trickled through to Berlin about what policy areas Cameron wants to "repatriate".
There may be one policy area where Germany and Britain really could co-operate: EU treaty change. Germany's finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, has recently argued that a full banking union would require such a change. Given that there is widespread resistance to such a change in Europe, Germany may need Britain's support. In theory, that is. In practice it is hard to imagine how the British desire to loosen ties would square with the German drive for closer union. And at any rate: until after the German elections in September the issue of treaty change will remain a political taboo. Time for plenty more delusions and disillusions until then.
The future of Europe will be decided on the continent, not in Britain. It is true that Merkel or her successor would be interested in seeking an agreement with Britain. But such an agreement would be optional, unlike that with France, which will be essential. If there's a internal debate in Berlin, it's over whether the time has already come to break the news to the Brits.
• Daniel Brössler is parliamentary correspondent for Süddeutsche Zeitung Reported by guardian.co.uk 11 hours ago.
*Alain Frachon: Don't they realise? Europe is Britain*
Why the hell do they want to leave? We know that originality is all part of the British DNA. But to take this character trait as far as quitting the EU? This is a move that French people struggle to understand. For a very simple reason: Europe is Britain (a fact that obviously escapes Ukip and those in the Tory party who want to leave the union).
These people have no sense of history – or don't read newspapers. Ever since it joined what was then the EEC in 1973, Britain has fashioned Europe in its own image. It achieved two principal objectives. The first was to improve the single market, set into train in the mid-1980s. The second, after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, was to fight in favour of a wider union.
On these two points, London can only rejoice. Success right across the board: the union now numbers 27, soon to be 28; and the main concern of the European commission, meanwhile, seems to be to constantly refine the huge area of free trade that Europe has become.
To gauge just how successful this British performance has been, think for a moment of the Europe that the French dream of. It's the direct opposite. Paris imagined a Europe that would exist as a single force on the international scene, alongside the US, Russia and China. As well as a free trade area, that Europe would have a joint foreign and defence policy. London didn't want this. And London has won: with more than 20 members in the EU, there is no joint policy (apart from the single market, of course).
The French imagined a Europe that straddled mercantilism and social democracy, in which Brussels would sponsor industrial and infrastructure "grands projets" (Parisian Keynesians adore grands projets), arousing the jealousy of the Americans.
Yet in today's EU, the power remains with member states. Westminster has less than ever to fear from the directives of a European superstate, which only really exists in gin-soaked Tory nightmares.
The French wanted a social Europe that the British don't want. But with 27, soon 28, members you look in vain for the famous European "social model": what do the welfare states of Bulgaria and Sweden have in common? The French imagined an ever closer union, as referred to in the EU's founding treaties. The British got all the exceptions to the common rules that they wanted. They made the union an a la carte club.
Why would our British friends want to leave "their" Europe?
• Alain Frachon is the editorial director of Le Monde
*Daniel Brössler: Britain is not indispensible*
In one of the few pictures to emerge from David Cameron's visit to the official state guest house Schloss Meseberg was one of Angela Merkel pointing a finger into the far distance, with the British prime minister fixing his gaze on the same point. Another picture reversed the roles: here Cameron is pointing, Merkel is watching. The intended message was clear: here are Merkel and Cameron, two heads of state in absolute agreement, steering a common course. That was the symbolism, but does it reflect the reality?
Over recent weeks, German politicians have repeatedly emphasised that they appreciate Britain's sense of tradition, level-headedness and courage. Ahead of the meeting between Cameron and Merkel, her spokesperson said that "Great Britain is an important and indispensable partner for us in Europe". Such bromides are designed to calm us all down, but they might also create unpleasant side effects: namely delusion and misunderstanding.
The biggest delusion would be to assume that Merkel agrees with Cameron's political course on Europe. There's not a single statement by her that would support that assumption. She has merely decided to delay confrontation with the British PM over the matter for now, principally for three reasons. First, Merkel has had her eyes on the EU budget summit, where she wanted to present a united front with Cameron and had no desire to weaken or isolate him.
Second, she regards Cameron as an ally in the battle for a change of culture within the EU. She regards him as one of the few who really understands that Europe needs to fundamentally change in order to keep up in the global race.
Third, and most importantly, her tactic on a British exit from the EU is like her domestic political strategy: avoid engaging with a subject before the time is right. And until now, precious little detail has trickled through to Berlin about what policy areas Cameron wants to "repatriate".
There may be one policy area where Germany and Britain really could co-operate: EU treaty change. Germany's finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, has recently argued that a full banking union would require such a change. Given that there is widespread resistance to such a change in Europe, Germany may need Britain's support. In theory, that is. In practice it is hard to imagine how the British desire to loosen ties would square with the German drive for closer union. And at any rate: until after the German elections in September the issue of treaty change will remain a political taboo. Time for plenty more delusions and disillusions until then.
The future of Europe will be decided on the continent, not in Britain. It is true that Merkel or her successor would be interested in seeking an agreement with Britain. But such an agreement would be optional, unlike that with France, which will be essential. If there's a internal debate in Berlin, it's over whether the time has already come to break the news to the Brits.
• Daniel Brössler is parliamentary correspondent for Süddeutsche Zeitung Reported by guardian.co.uk 11 hours ago.