| | | |

| Home : | Speeches and documents > 2007

|

Statements made by M. Nicolas SARKOZY, President of the Republic, during his joint press briefing with Mr Jose-Manuel BAROSSO, President of the European Commission, at the end his visit to Brussels (excerpts)

Print

Brussels, 23 May 2007

SIMPLIFIED TREATY

THE PRESIDENT - (···) The simplified treaty is the only possible solution. It goes without saying that this simplified treaty can't be a new constitution. Because the French have said no, and others have as well, to the constitution. But we have to provide Europe with institutions on which there's a consensus. I'm thinking particularly of the EU presidency. Europe must also be able to move forward. I'm thinking of enhanced cooperation. I'm thinking of a move from unanimity to majority voting in some areas, particularly immigration. President Barroso, we have often talked about this way of taking things forward. And I'm delighted to see, after seeing Mrs Merkel, that while not everything about this idea of a simplified treaty has been resolved, we're making progress.

For France, the priority is for the 21-22 June European Council to be a success. And it will be a success if all the partners rally round the idea of a simplified treaty with just a few articles, even though I'm perfectly aware that drafting these articles is complicated, given the references to the preceding treaty. The aim would be to produce a Nice Treaty, but a more efficient one to get things moving again in Europe. That's France's priority.

I have come here as a convinced European and I'd like to end on this. I believe deeply in Europe. But I have also come to tell our European friends that what happened in France could have happened in many member States. Don't think that what happened in France was due to a domestic French climate. Europe must think about the European people. Europe must protect and not worry people. Europe must prepare for globalization and not be perceived as a Trojan horse for globalization. Europe has to be a political Europe. The French have said things. The Dutch have said things. These have to be taken on board. I'm convinced that on the basis of these ideas, we can get things moving again. That's what we have come to say.

I'm well aware that 18 countries voted "yes". So a compromise has to be found. A compromise so that Europe moves forward together in step. This is what I have come here to do with the delegation accompanying me, to work with President Barroso. We need everyone. We need him and the Commission. I've told President Pöttering that we'll need the Parliament and all the groups. Because, basically, Europe will succeed only if it finds the way to combine the dream of a continent which has torn itself apart and achieved peace - and mustn't forget it - with, at the same time, a sense of reality and pragmatism, because we can't build Europe on peoples' concerns. Europe is there to protect. (···)

WTO/FOOD SECURITY

On the WTO, I can speak very freely: I am for free trade, globalization doesn't frighten me, but I won't let myself be boxed into a negotiation in which I have a choice between naivety and refusing to open up. I want reciprocity and clarity. Europe must open up, yes, but the others must too, at the same time and under the same conditions. You want us to open up, no problem, so you do likewise.

Second comment, I believe that Europe's food independence is very important, I believe that food security is very important and that I haven't received a mandate to "sell off" the interests of European or French agriculture. And I don't want people to tell me it's either services or agriculture. There's also a lot of technology in agricultural production, we're ready to discuss and I don't want us not to be able to do what the Americans, who are our friends, are doing. This is called reciprocity. At all events, personally, I am so European and so committed that I'm not seeking a Europe where we'd no longer have the right to have farmers in return for services being opened up; we couldn't build planes in Europe any more because the euro's exchange rate is so high that we'd be giving people totally false hopes of productivity gains. So we've had social dumping, fiscal dumping, environmental dumping and now there's the advent of monetary dumping.

I'm European and I took enough risks in the French campaign because of my European commitment to be able to say that. Now if the other parties - I'm thinking of India, Brazil, Mexico and the United States - want to make concessions and efforts so that there's an agreement, I say to President Barroso that an agreement is better than a disagreement, but an agreement on the basis of reciprocity, fairness, and that we say goodbye to naivety. (···)

FRANCE/ECONOMY

President Barroso has said: France must be modernized. He's right. It's what we're going to do. We're going to free up the labour force. We're going to pay overtime. We're going to let the French work more. I can announce to you that there will be, in the [National Assembly's] extraordinary summer session, an extremely ambitious economic and fiscal bill which we in fact talked about this morning in the Council of Ministers. I ask to be judged at the end of my five-year term of office on France's indebtedness and deficits. That's not something that's sorted out week by week. President Barroso well knows that when I was Finance Minister we cut the deficit by €10 billion. That led the Commission to lift the threat of a sanction at the time. I simply ask to be given credit for what I did in the past.

STRASBOURG/EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Q. - (···) During your term of office, will you go on defending the principle of keeping monthly plenary sessions of the European Parliament in Strasbourg or has this become negotiable?

THE PRESIDENT - No. I can't see why the only thing negotiable would be Strasbourg. If so, that's incredible! And Brussels, that's negotiable! That's extraordinary! I'm European. I'm told to respect the treaties. Fine! When was the decision on Strasbourg? Where was it laid down? I can't see why anyone would come and tell me that Strasbourg is negotiable, that this would be the only thing that was negotiable. Well no. But I don't feel that people would be doing me a favour by recognizing that. It's quite simply what's laid down. It's laid down in the treaties, to my knowledge, in fact. I don't see why, on whose authority, nothing should be up for negotiation in all the treaties, except Strasbourg.

(···) I want to answer your question in the clearest way possible. Strasbourg isn't negotiable for one simple reason. Because it's one of the balances established when Europe was founded, and I can't see on whose authority one of these balances should be modified.

MINI TREATY

Q. - My first question will be for Mr Barroso. Should one understand that, on the mini treaty, the French President has today convinced the Commission President?

For M. Sarkozy, if he agrees to speak on this. If he didn't talk today about Turkey, I'd like to know when he thinks he will do so and with what proposals.

THE PRESIDENT - I readily acknowledge that the term "mini treaty" denoted a lack of ambition. That's why I proposed the term "simplified treaty", after talking to President Barroso about it. Our complicity goes back a long way, I don't know if I should have confessed it now. (···)

TURKEY

The question of Turkey, on which I've expressed my views on numerous occasions, I'd like to tell you that my mind hasn't changed and I can't see how I could have been a candidate with one opinion and a president with another. That's not how you enhance political life - especially when it comes to an issue of that nature.

Personally, as I've been saying for a very long time, I don't think Turkey's place is in the European Union. It's an issue I haven't changed my mind on. And we've got a European Council on 21 and 22 June and a simplified treaty we need to get a consensus on. I can't see the usefulness, given the European I am, of going to raise that question when it isn't on the agenda now and we have so much on our plate. So, it would really, it seems to me, give the impression that we want to hold things up when, on the contrary, I want to help get things moving again. My firm beliefs haven't changed at all. We'll have this debate. To my mind it's indispensable. The question is do we have to have it now? Do we have to have it later? Quite obviously, since nothing definitive is happening today, it would be counterproductive to have it now.

(···)

ECB/ENHANCED COOPERATION/TWO-SPEED EUROPE

Q. - President Sarkozy, you mentioned the need for Europe to move forward, including through enhanced cooperation. Are you going to give preference to a Europe moving forward in small groups over a Europe which sets its heights at the level of the least ambitious and the lowest common denominator?

And, for President Barroso, you have heard Nicolas Sarkozy talking about Europe's food security, taking a firm line on the negotiations at the WTO, criticizing the strong euro during the campaign and the independence of the European Central Bank. Are you afraid of France taking a protectionist line and of Nicolas Sarkozy being a formidable president?

THE PRESIDENT - (···) If I may say so, it's extraordinary, first of all I have never questioned the European Central Bank's independence, but - excuse me for saying this - if having an opinion is questioning the European Central Bank's independence, I even wonder why you put the question to me. So you raise the problem of monetary policy, exchange rate policy and interest rates - an area of no interest, of course - and you prohibit any elected person from having an idea on it. (···) Excuse me, I don't get the impression that Gordon Brown - whom I know well - calls the Bank of England's independence into question when he discusses British growth. (···)

Q. - (···) On enhanced cooperation, do you prefer a two-speed Europe to a Europe without ambition?

THE PRESIDENT - You have a wonderful way of asking questions. (···) How many enhanced cooperation projects are there? None. Perhaps the present system isn't the most pertinent: there isn't one, unless you regard the Eurogroup, which is a cooperation project, as one, but it wasn't set up under that procedure, so you can't.

UNANIMITY/QMV/IMMIGRATION

The position I'll be defending for the simplified treaty is the following: I'd like to defend the unanimity rule as agreed under the 1962 Luxembourg compromise, i.e. that no country can have something imposed on it which would undermine a fundamental interest. But on the other hand, I can't understand the unanimity rule allowing a country which doesn't want to move forward being able to prevent the others from doing so.

For example, we urgently need a common immigration policy. I'm not impugning anyone, but we've established the Schengen Area and find ourselves with countries which "regularize" the status of immigrants and others which don't. I'm talking about mass amnesties for illegals: what does this mean? When the Spanish "regularize" the status of immigrants - it's their right to do so - I remind you that someone given the right to live in Spain immediately gets the right to be anywhere in the Schengen Area. We need a common immigration policy, why isn't there one? Because of the unanimity rule. There's always one country blocking the way. So my answer is very clear: I prefer a Europe which moves forward through enhanced cooperation, because I'm wary of the concept of circles, because there are always some who think they're in the "first division", others in the "second division", and that way we won't get anything done at all. [So I prefer] a Europe which moves forward through enhanced cooperation to one which stagnates because we have to wait for the last [member] to agree.

|