Le Monde (Jerome Fenoglio)
“(…) It may be that the British are taking a risk huge. This is now their case, they decided democratically (…) But first we believe in Europe, the 27 States that are now. the EU cash historic proportion setbacks. the 27 can not not draw the consequences. the worst would continue as before, with a dynamic that, rightly or wrongly, generates much of Euroscepticism that euro-enthusiasm (…) the unraveling of the EU will continue, with here and there, requests for similar referendums, and other departures. If you will, on the contrary, that on June 23 does not mark the beginning of the disintegration of the European Union, while the EU must consider the referendum in Britain forced him to think deeply about what it should be and turning it needs to take (…).
Libération (Laurent Joffrin)
“(…) The main fault in not return to the voters for that would astray but to Europe itself. Despite all the warnings, all the criticism, it continued its tortuous path, hesitating (…) The sluggish response to the social crisis and irresolution in the migration crisis have completed the work (.. .) Previous high risk … Europe has sinned. Should however turn your back? This is the trend (…) Europe is a common house: it burns. Its leaders have an appointment with history. They can no longer remain at dusk in the Brussels grisaille (…) The reaction should be at the height of the event. Expected actions: establish a clear governance of the eurozone to boost the economy and finance control, unified migration policy by respecting the principles of openness which are the basis of the Union (…)
Le Figaro (Philippe Gélie)
“It’s not the end of the world, but c is the end of Europe as we know (…) an idealistic Europe, invented to banish war and force cooperation by synthesis, but Europe badly prepared for the crises of the real world, whether financial or migration (…) the UK (…) leaves us twenty-seven, at least for now, and it is our future that should concern us. the open crisis requires composure resources cold and intelligence. Now, once again, European leaders have nothing planned, the Eurocrats are agitated to stem the financial shock and avert the threat of contagion + + (…) Summits and martial will be chained (…) It would be better to admit: no overhaul will be possible to twenty-seven. To save Europe, we must be prepared to review everything. Methodology, objectives and participants’
Cross (Guillaume Goubert)
“To evoke the British temperament, two words were well established: phlegm and pragmatism. The Brexit forces us to revise these pictures. The referendum campaign was marked by often disturbing passions and the choice made is not within the practical spirit (…) If the British electorate had thought only + walking + business, he would have stayed in the EU. The major significance of Brexit is there. It does not only apply to the UK. The economic interest is not sufficient to meet the expectations of the people (…) Men and women aspire to something else (…) They want more closeness, sharing and social cohesion. When those who exercise political or economic authority neglect these requests, are, everywhere, withdrawal and confinement prevail. “
No comments:
Post a Comment