| 
| 
| 
| 
|
|
European Council – Press conference given by M. Jacques Chirac, President of the Republic.
Brussels, 17 June 2005
THE PRESIDENT – Europe is going through a grave crisis. We were in fact very close to an agreement. I have some experience of Europe and, in the normal course of events, in the tradition of the European family, when we're close to an agreement, we achieve that agreement, because the positive spirit leads everyone to make some small necessary efforts to reach an agreement. That wasn't the case. It's a point it's important to take on board and analyse and, if necessary, draw the appropriate conclusions from. The very great majority of the countries were in favour of the Presidency's last proposal one which was, I'd say, reasonable in every respect. No one, of course, found it satisfied all their ambitions, their demands, but it was a reasonable proposal. And yet, a few countries, not many, refused to accept the compromise, thus, I'd say, radically departing from the European spirit displayed in the past. The vital thing was for everyone to make a reasonable and fair contribution, particularly to the enlargement-related expenses.
And, for my part, I deplore that the United Kingdom refused to agree to make that fair and reasonable contribution to the enlargement expenses. She wanted to keep the whole of her rebate and that led some other countries to raise the stakes, to prioritize strictly national interests to the detriment of the European interest. And it's perhaps even more this new situation in Europe which worries us, more even, I repeat, than the actual problem of the absence of an agreement on the financial perspective, an agreement which was nevertheless, of course, wholly necessary. It's a bad result for Europe. That's what I wanted to say on the financial perspective.
On the Constitutional Treaty, there was political agreement on two points: pursuit of the ratification progress adapted to the new circumstances, with everyone free to take their own decision about completing the ratification process, and the initiation of a debate – which was, in my view, an essential point and, as you know, a proposal of French origin – in order to analyse, understand and take on board the consequences of the message given by the citizens of the two countries which voted "no", and, more generally, by Europeans who, indisputably, are asking themselves questions and revealing what seems to be a hiatus between the Europe as it's operating today and the way a growing number of Europeans actually see it. So a genuine debate has to be set in train. Accordingly, I proposed that we meet – we'll decide on the actual arrangements for this – and think through a number of things. We have to heed what people have said to us, understand it and take the consequences on board. There will be a meeting to decide when this will be in the first half of next year, in 2006.
True to her European vocation, France approached this Council in a constructive spirit, one of unity and coming together, and totally in support of the Luxembourg presidency. And I want to pay special tribute to Jean-Claude Juncker who has proved to be a great European, who used all his experience, skill, intelligence, spirit of compromise in his endeavour to bring about a European success. Regrettably, it wasn't crowned with success. Europe needed that agreement, France did everything she could to facilitate it, with many others, of course, but we ran up against the problem I've just talked about. So we have to go back to work, that goes without saying. France will do this with all her partners, committed like her to a political, ambitious and mutually-supportive Europe. Those were the few comments I wanted to make.
QUESTION – What is your message to the countries of the new Europe which hoped so much for this agreement and were ready to sacrifice and even resigned to giving up a portion of the money due to them. Why, in this case, weren't you prepared to make a link between the British rebate and agriculture?
THE PRESIDENT – Two things: firstly, there isn't any link between the British rebate and agriculture and no one other than the British was asking for it, because it was neither legitimate nor justified. On the other hand, you rightly stressed the attitude of most, not to say all the new entrants. Here there was a pathetic moment – the word isn't excessive – when we heard one after the other, these countries which are the least rich, which have just joined, which were appalled by the richest countries' rejection of any calling into question of their established benefits, spontaneously – it was spontaneous and I repeat the moment was pathetic – say "listen, we haven't got a huge amount of things, but we're ready, if the negotiation can be reopened, if the presidency agrees to reopen it, to give up some of the benefits conceded to us". Six or seven said that, in succession. It was very impressive.
Faced with the egoism displayed by two or three rich countries vis-à-vis these poor countries, hearing them say: "We're ready: let's reopen the discussion, we're going to give back part of what we've been given" was also moving. These countries demonstrated a desire for Europe, a hope, a solidarity, an understanding. They taught us a fine lesson for tomorrow's Europe. Regrettably, that lesson hasn't been heeded, at any rate, for the moment.
QUESTION – You say that some countries refused to give up their established benefits, but isn't that in fact the case for you by refusing to reopen the issue of the Common Agricultural Policy?
THE PRESIDENT – First, let me tell you that France took a considerable step by accepting, in particular, an increase in the budget which, I'd point out to you, was more than €10 billion, which is a pretty significant sum. I won't go back over the issue of the Common Agricultural Policy because I gave some of you my view on it earlier. I shall simply reiterate that the Common Agricultural Policy is a modern dynamic policy and in line with Europe's interests. It has allowed Europe, 50 years ago a substantial importer of agricultural products and food, to become a major exporter. It is creating a substantial number, millions of jobs in a significant agricultural and food sector. It's the right policy in a world whose population is increasing and whose agricultural and food production, alas, isn't keeping pace, and so is a world which is moving bit by bit towards a major shortage in the agricultural and food sphere. Europe has to contribute to the creation of these agricultural and food resources. In its habits, traditions and skill, it's a model when it comes to [food] security. And so saying today that the Common Agricultural Policy isn't a modern policy simply demonstrates a strange ignorance of things or simply a casual use of the commonplaces people have the habit of repeating without thinking.
QUESTION – On the matter of the Constitution, the Danes voted twice on a European Treaty, so did the Irish. Why not the French?
THE PRESIDENT – The circumstances were altogether different. There's no comparison between a Constitutional Treaty, which had the aim of asserting a number of values, of guaranteeing them and creating institutions tailored to the requirements of the enlargement and modern governance, and the problems which were in fact, without difficulty, settled by minor adjustments, in the case of Ireland, of her status of neutrality and of Denmark, (...) of JHA policy. So there's no possible comparison between them, they are two different things. But I have the greatest respect for the efforts Denmark's representatives made during this discussion. They displayed their complete solidarity in the quest for a solution for the financial perspective.
QUESTION – You talked, I think, about a meeting at the beginning of next year. You also talked about some countries' egoism. Do you think that the six months of the British presidency, which are about to start, will be six months when there's a risk of nothing or very little being done?
THE PRESIDENT – The future will tell us. At all events, it hasn't started brilliantly.
QUESTION – My question is a bit on the same lines as my colleague's: can we know, predict when it will be possible to adopt a budget for the enlargement? Does this mean that it's postponed for a year, after the British presidency.
THE PRESIDENT – It really isn't possible to answer that question. I hope we'll be in a position to adopt it for 1 January 2007, that's what's absolutely necessary. I hope we'll be able to do so.
QUESTION – Did you get the impression, at this summit, of the emergence of a slightly more free-market vision of Europe, or wasn't that the case at all?
THE PRESIDENT – I've above all the feeling that a weakened vision of Europe has emerged.
QUESTION – Regarding those two or three countries [which rejected the compromise], you talk about egoism, don't you think (...) that they may have had more courage to show themselves like that now because France has got weaker?
THE PRESIDENT – The positions, at any rate, of the United Kingdom and Holland, were clearly asserted well before the referendums.
QUESTION – Will France one day be able to ratify the Constitutional Treaty and, if so, when? Secondly, do you think today's summit will have consequences for the negotiation process with Turkey and Croatia?
THE PRESIDENT – For the negotiation process, a priori no. They are two totally different things. Europe's demands will inevitably tend to increase.
QUESTION – Have you a comment on the call by the candidate for the post of German Chancellor for an end to considering the CAP sacrosanct? Do you think that call influenced your discussions today?
THE PRESIDENT – I haven't heard the call, so I can't give a view on it. What I can say in any case is that the German Chancellor, although less directly concerned, wholly supported France's position quite simply because he considers, as I do, that it's a modern and future-oriented policy. It can be adjusted, we'll see that in 2013 on the expiry of the agreement we have concluded. RESEARCH SPENDING/FARM SPENDING On the other hand, – because I heard a comment of this kind around the table from our British friends who were talking about research spending – I'd like to say that I pointed out to them that, while farm spending was stabilized in the agreement, research expenditure was up by a little over a third, [an increase] which has, of course, been eliminated by the position of those who didn't want to sign up to the agreement.
QUESTION – Does this crisis in Europe, this evening's failure, render definitively impossible the task of those who, in France, want to make the citizens who voted "no" in the referendum rethink their position?
THE PRESIDENT – The aim isn't to make the citizens who voted "no" rethink their position. It's to understand why in France, in Holland, the majority of people voted "no". They did so because they have some reasons which deserve to be looked at closely, listened to, heeded, so that we can draw the appropriate conclusions from them. And in the other countries where there hasn't, or hasn't yet been a referendum, questions of the same nature are clearly being asked. So we have the obligation – this is why I proposed the comprehensive detailed debate – to heed what we've been told, to understand why there is, in a way, a divorce between the Europe which is being built and the way a significant number of Europeans quite obviously see it. ]That's what is fundamental.
|
