Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
HE Maurice Gourdault-Montagne and Mr Diego Colas
10 JUNE 2008
Q1 Chairman:Ambassador, we are delighted to
welcome you to our Committee and thank you very much for taking
the time to come and meet with us. As you know, it is a tradition
of this Committee that we meet with the Ambassador of the incoming
Presidency, and it is quite rare to meet with the Ambassador before
the Presidency has started, so you may find yourself under some
constraints because you have not even started the Presidency yet,
but I think you have an idea of what we want to talk about. I
understand that you would like to make an opening statement and
you are most welcome to do so, so you have the floor, Ambassador.
HE Maurice Gourdault-Montagne: Thank you so much,
Chairman, my Lords, for receiving me today and giving me the opportunity
to give you information about the French Presidency of the European
Union, starting on 1 July. First of all, allow me to give a bit
about the context of our Presidency and then to give you some
elements about the French contribution to the reforms which are
currently an ongoing process in France and then the major priorities.
I will not be long so that I can answer your questions afterwards.
As to the context of our Presidency precisely,
this should be, if the simplified Treaty is ratified, the last
rotating Presidency and we have also, we can say, a short window
of opportunity for action as we have no major political event
during our Presidency at the European level, not as the Czech
Republic afterwards have with the European Parliament elections
or the Swedish Presidency with the renewal of the Commission.
We do not have any major negotiation to complete compared to the
Danish Presidency in 2003 with enlargement or recently the German
Presidency with the simplified Treaty, so in fact the intention
of the French Government is to push forward some issues which
are of significance to the citizens and show that, yes, we are
in a process which puts all the institutional issues behind us
if the Treaty is ratified. We take over from the Slovenian Presidency
which was in many sectors a success in the Balkans, with all the
process in Kosovo with Serbia, as well as on the questions recently
solved of the internal energy market, the unbundling last week
and more recently yesterday with the two social services Directives,
the one on temporary workers and the one on working hours where
we could manage, with in particular France and Britain working
closely together, to find solutions around which to rally the
rest of our partners.
Now, France is at the moment embarked on a programme
of reforms on which President Sarkozy has been elected which are
the contribution of France to generating more growth in the European
Union which is the main question for us at the moment. These reforms
are focused on three areas. First of all, we want work to be at
the heart of our economic policies, hence, everything which is
done with the 35 hours, the new possibilities to rely on overtime,
which have been taken up by more than half of the French companies
in the last six months, the new labour contract. We are focusing
also on more entrepreneurship and competitiveness in the French
private sector and all that is tabled in an Act on the modernisation
of the economy in France which is currently debated in parliament.
All that will deal with the previous items I mentioned, but as
well it will deal with R&D, with university reforms and the
facility even to renew and expand skills. Then we have the last
point which is the general review of public policies, of which
the aim is to reduce the size of the State to create more room
for manoeuvre and reduce taxes, and this happens through the non-renewal
of one half of civil servants going for retirement, there will
be the merger of agencies and there will be as well some reorganisation.
For instance, the judiciary map in France has been totally reorganised
by the suppression of one-third of the tribunals in France, so
these are major reforms, and also lots of outsourcing in many
sectors, for instance, in the visa delivery so we shall follow
the path actually already taken by many other major partners and
the United Kingdom, for example. The last point is the opening
of the French labour market to eight eastern countries of the
European Union. This has been announced by the President which
shows actually the spirit and the dynamic that we would like to
give to our Presidency before we start it.
Now, what are our main priorities? First of
all, energy and climate change. On energy and climate change,
we shall have to prepare the negotiations of the Copenhagen Conference
at the end of 2009. We have to put into force the package which
has been decided during the German Presidency and, in particular,
we have to create the framework in which all these measures which
should lead to the reduction of emissions of CO2 have been envisaged,
so our main task will be the revision of the Directive on the
Emission Trading Scheme, and we can come back to this issue afterwards.
We must, therefore, facilitate a negotiation and we would like
to open as well the discussions about what will be the consequences
on our industries without any distortion of the market. That is
the problem and, if we want to reduce the emissions of CO2, we
need some investments and, if we need some investments, how do
we share the burden of these investments, so there will be discussions
on so-called "carbon leakage", how to prepare a situation
which would lead to a success in the negotiations at the end of
next year.
Another main priority will be immigration. We
need immigration, we need skills, we need immigrants, but we also
need to control the flows of immigrants and we know that we are
in an interdependent system, so we have prepared for long now
what we would call a "pact" on immigration. This will
be a sort of set of principles responding to some questions: first
of all, how to exert better control on frontiers; secondly, how
to have a better integration of immigrants, and this would be
left actually to the national regulations on the basis of the
principle of subsidiarity, but there could be some convergences.
We would like to have better treatment of illegal immigration,
how to pool, for instance, the return flights together with some
partners and how we can address the question of the readmission
agreements with the origin countries. We would like to deal also
with the question of asylum because the traditions we have in
our countries are very different, one knows that, so how to have
something in common so as to avoid distortions of flows towards
countries where asylum would be more favourable, and then also
the question which is essential and crucial to us which is the
co-development question, in fact how to help countries to have
their people prevented from emigrating because they would find
jobs in their own countries and, if they leave their countries,
it is because they cannot stay, so how to help countries to have
their populations stay.
Another priority will be the European Security
and Defence Policy. We do not have in mind at all during our Presidency
any kind of European army; I want to stress that this is not the
point because it is written sometimes here or there. The point
is that we have to address some new threats and give us some capacities
of security and defence. This issue from the French point of view
has very much to be linked with the assessment of President Sarkozy
to give France its full place, its full role in NATO. We have
already started the process of getting closer to NATO and we are
not at all in the situation of 1967, as you know well, but President
Sarkozy would like for us to be at the fore of NATO at the same
time as we develop some European capacities, so, in that regard,
what shall we do? First of all, we would like to update the European
Security Strategy which was written in 2003. We consider that
this Strategy, as it is now, is obsolete. First of all, we have
now 12 more Members of the European Union and then there are some
threats which were not so obvious at the time, the ballistic threat,
piracy, some energy security issues regarding the protection of
transport, all the arms trafficking; all these types of things
have to be taken into account in a new European Security Strategy.
Secondly, we think we should draw some lessons of the operations
of the European Union. There have been 17 operations led under
the framework of the ESDP which were on all the continents, in
Indonesia, which you know perfectly well, in the Middle East,
in Africa many times, and at the moment in Chad, where EUFOR is
working well. So what can kind of lesson can we draw from that?
The idea also would be to address, in particular, the post-conflict
stabilisation process with European means, so now we need clarification
through discussions amongst the partner countries on the missions,
on the commitments, on the nature of the missions, keeping in
mind that of course, because NATO is the hard core of our security,
that this matter would be neither in competition with, nor a duplication
of, what NATO is doing (this would be absurd), but also on that
we have to discuss a lot and continue to participate in the NATO
transformation which we have accompanied from the beginning, since
it was launched. Then the last point would be work on common procurement
amongst European countries, and there is an agency which has been
set up, and this is a slow process, but it should be also a way
to avoid duplications in the armament industries.
Another issue which will be difficult, but to
which we are committed and on which, I would say, right now there
is no taboo on is the CAP issue. The CAP issue is dealt with through
what is called, as you know, the "health check" which
is a sort of re-evaluation of the CAP on some points, within the
framework of the reform of 2003. The context of the CAP has already
changed a lot and it continues to do so, so we are actually putting
a set of questions about this issue, taking into account that
there is a European specificity as we have seven million farmers
and the United States have only two million, so this is something
which makes us very specific. The questions would be: what form
of food security do we have for Europe actually at the time when
we are net importers of food in Europe and these imports are growing
every year; what is the role for Europe in the present food crisis;
what can we do regarding a balanced development of territories
with the CAP; what are the environmental issues and all the discussion
about the debate about biomass, how to encourage investments by
producers having in mind that there are risks, climatic and sanitary
risks; what kind of sanitary standards do we want for our consumers
when importing food and not being in a mood of protectionism,
but as an ordinary requirement from consumers themselves? So the
EU is ready, as everyone knows, through the Doha process to dismantle
the export subsidies, it is ready at the European level—this
is in the mandate of Mr Mandelson—to reduce by an average
of 50 per cent our custom duties, but what can be done? Everything
is open on these issues, and there is a last question which is:
what can we do so that there is a balance between food crops and
export crops in the less-developed countries which cannot afford
to go on the international market and cannot afford to invest
in export crops?
Then the last priority is economic and financial
issues. We are working very much, in particular, with the United
Kingdom. The Lord Mayor of London and the City of London have
visited Paris and next week our Finance Minister is coming back
to London and delivering a speech to the City. We are working
on financial stability since the financial turmoil started at
the end of last year. We are working on the financial supervision
in the banking system as well as on Insolvency II, and we are
working also, regarding the economic growth, on a European Small
Business Act which would be inspired by the American one and would
give more opportunity to SMEs to have access to public markets,
freed from red tape and to have more possibilities to develop,
so these are the bases of our Presidency. There are also the external
issues and we can come back of course; I am at your disposal to
answer your questions on these other issues.
Q2 Chairman: Thank you, Ambassador,
for that very informative opening statement which gives much food
for thought for members of the Committee, some of whom will be
following up on the specific issues and priorities that you raise
from the point of view of their own particular expertise as Chairmen
of the Sub-Committees that deal with these issues. I just wanted
to ask you one question about what I believe will be an important
responsibility for the French Presidency and that is how you are
going to handle the organisation of the choice of a President
of the European Council because that has to be done, does it not,
by 1 January at the very end of your Presidency? Could you tell
us a little bit about what you are going to be able to do about
that, how you are going to organise it?
HE Maurice Gourdault-Montagne: This is, as you
said, Lord Grenfell, an important issue which may be decided during
our Presidency and before 1 January if the Treaty is ratified,
and enters into force. For the moment, there are consultations
amongst the Governments. There are in fact two profiles actually.
Either we want a visible profile for exerting the responsibility
of a stable President or we want someone actually who goes direct
into the mortar and deals with all the issues. This puts the question
of the balance and the way it works between the stable Presidency
and the rotating Presidency and, on this, there are not so many
things in the Treaty itself actually. So, first of all, we need
to have someone who is there to give the right answer when one
wonders who is Europe, that is important, and then, according
to the choice of the profile, we shall set the basis of how it
will be run in the future, so for the moment things are very open.
I would not mention names here because it would be improper. There
are some names which have been raised, but none has yet been chosen;
we are discussing with our partners. Some say that there should
be a balance between the genders, between the parties and between
the north and the south, the east and the west, so we should try
something which makes a consensus, and we shall try our best to
reach a consensus, but for the moment the profile is not yet chosen
and we still have choice and time for discussion with our partners.
Q3 Chairman: So the sequence is first
the profile, then the choice of personality and then the definition
of the precise role? That is the order in which you foresee it
going?
HE Maurice Gourdault-Montagne: If I may add,
Lord Grenfell, there is also the question of the High Representative.
Q4 Chairman: Yes, it has to be a
balance between the three.
HE Maurice Gourdault-Montagne: Yes, exactly.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed. Well, let us
go now into some of the substance of what you have been speaking
about.
Q5 Lord Tomlinson: My Lord Chairman,
I just had one very small point. When Mr Kouchner espoused the
virtues of Mr Felipe Gonzalez, he was speaking in a personal capacity
and not reflecting the views of the Government?
HE Maurice Gourdault-Montagne: Lord Tomlinson,
there are lots of names actually raised and the name of Mr Gonzalez
is one of them. He is the Chair of the Wise Men Group set up in
December 2007. He was received in Paris in this capacity as the
Chair of this group which is discussing the future of Europe after
2020, but for the moment there is nothing formal.
Q6 Lord Roper: I have one very small
point. Ambassador, the Treaty says that the President of the Commission
should be chosen "taking into account" the results of
the European Parliament elections. How is it possible then to
get a balance before those elections have taken place?
HE Maurice Gourdault-Montagne: That is a point
which is, if you will allow me, Lord Roper, a bit different. As
you know and as you have just said, the Parliament will have to
consider the choice of the President of the Commission as its
own choice, which is not exactly the case of the two others, so
this has to be to a certain extent separated from the two other
issues.
Chairman: Could we go on then to pick up on what
you were saying about climate change and energy?
Q7 Lord Jopling: Ambassador, is it
not over-optimistic and unrealistic to suppose that the Union
by the end of this year can get a consensus on climate change
and energy?
HE Maurice Gourdault-Montagne: As I said, Lord
Jopling, our purpose is in fact to push forward this issue. We
have a package which has to be implemented, so there are issues
on some Directives, the one arising on the ETS which I mentioned,
a new Directive on renewables to share the burden on this issue
as well, and a Directive which is being proposed so that other
sources of the greenhouse gas effect are also taken into account,
so this is, I would say, work in progress where we would like
to go as far as possible, as well as the discussion on carbon
leakage which is something some say should not be formally discussed
before 2011, but which we think is necessary to address before
the meetings of next year. So we shall do our best to go as far
as possible as we think is necessary so that the basis for an
agreement in Copenhagen is reached. We are in fact sharing views
with major partners on these issues in the European Union, and
with the United Kingdom we are very close on these issues, as
we are since the Gleneagles Summit where in fact the targets were
defined by the then Presidency of the G8, chaired by Prime Minister
Tony Blair and then, during your Presidency of the European Union,
it has continued, so it is a long process in which we are now
continuing the job already done. With the Germans, as maybe you
have seen yesterday, there was an agreement on the CO2 emissions
of cars, so on all these issues step by step we are trying, as
I say, to create a basis for a consensus. Whether it will be reached,
I do not know, it is difficult to say, but the time for this convention
at Copenhagen next year is very close to us and, if we do not
want any vacuum after 2012 for the starting post-Kyoto era, we
need to reach something as early as possible.
Q8 Lord Dykes: Further to that, Ambassador,
do you think that the United Kingdom and France are setting a
very exciting example on renewables? Do you not think it is a
bit modest, our targets for the two countries? Should we not have
a greater sense of urgency on this matter in comparison with Germany,
for example?
HE Maurice Gourdault-Montagne: As you know,
we are starting from different points actually and the starting
point for renewables in France is about 8 per cent on renewables.
Your starting point is lower, if I am not wrong, so in fact we
are setting objectives which are very ambitious for ourselves.
It is a matter of political will and also of practicability and
bilaterally, we are working very much on that and we are sharing
a lot on these issues. Also in France regarding the renewables
point, which has not been accepted by the Commission, we are producing
non-carbon energy with all the nuclear capacity, so we would like
this to be taken into account as well. The question is whether
all these efforts are done for decreasing non-carbon energy or
not. On these issues this is very ambitious, but we cannot but
continue and try to be proactive and try to go as far as possible.
Chairman: Ambassador, as you know, Lord Sewel on
your right is Chairman of the Sub-Committee that deals with agriculture
and the environment and, as you also know, as indeed you informed
me, he has recently met with Minister Barnier, and I am going
to ask him to follow up on the CAP health question and then Lord
Plumb, who is a member of his Committee who also is a former President
of the European Parliament with a very, very distinguished background
in agriculture, so you could not ask for two better interlocutors.
Q9 Lord Sewel: Yes, you are not going
to get a better one than me! Ambassador, there are two questions
really, one to do with the short term and one to do with the slightly
longer term. The short-term one really is about the CAP health
check. We now have the Commission's proposals and it falls to
your Presidency to work on achieving a consensus. How easy do
you think that will be, given what the Commission has said, and
where do you see the areas of difficulty? The second question,
I think the longer-term one, is really as a result of the pretty
sudden change in the sort of global context of agriculture. We
now have the UN Secretary General saying things like members of
the UN should increase food production by 50 per cent over the
period to 2030. Now, that would seem to me to be such a radical
change that it seems to me it should have profound implications
for European agriculture and bring into question the whole sort
of future nature and structure of the CAP, so I would be grateful
for any observations you have on those two issues.
HE Maurice Gourdault-Montagne: I will be frank
with you, Lord Sewel. I do not have the answers because the debate
has just started actually and, when it was said that we would
have this re-evaluation of the CAP actually, we did not know that
the context would have been changed completely. Whether it will
be easy and what are the difficult points, I cannot tell you.
We are ready as far France is concerned, to discuss all the issues,
but we are not sure that dismantling completely the CAP will be
the proper solution. There is the link with the food crisis at
the moment and the question is: what is the role of Europe in
the whole context? There is the question of the Doha Round and
I would put it aside actually because at the moment, when you
see the new Farm Bill in the United States which preserves all
the subsidies that were given before, I would say it is a setback
for the present process. When we see Brazil or many other countries
putting some export taxes on their own agricultural products,
it shows that things have changed completely in the world trade
system, so the main issue to deal with, according to us, is first
of all, what do we do in favour of the less-developed countries,
what is made for their food security, what is the place given
to food crops which they have been growing in the past and export
crops. Regarding our continent, regarding the European Union,
yes, the time for export subsidies is completely over and already
it has been halved, as one knows very well, since the 1990s, and
we can go further. This discussion will be linked one day with
the budget. What are the means that we are ready to put in the
machine so that it works? These are only questions at the moment
and there will be lots of discussions about modulation, about
the capacity of each country to go back on a national basis on
some issues, on the size of the exportations. There are issues,
which you know very well, which are environmental issues to which
we attach importance as well and also the balanced development
of territories and, for instance, when we think of the decoupling
which will be a major issue, we are convinced that, for instance,
in the mountain areas, if there is too much or only decoupling,
there will be no longer any livestock farms actually which would
be a major problem because why have cattle and devote so much
effort if there is no payback or no payoff from that? That is
something important. The quotas, for instance, the quotas for
milk, yes, the quotas are questionable. Yes, there were huge bulks
of butter in the past, but this is no longer the case now and
the reserves of food in the whole world have declined by 30 per
cent, so what do we do in that regard? There is also the question
of the balanced development of territories which is linked with
all these issues, so this is a comprehensive issue and, when we
touch one aspect of it, then we touch the others. On these issues,
as you have a position which has been always, I would say, different
from ours, we need a discussion. If I may say, you handed over
to the French Minister for Agriculture last time your Committee's
report on the CAP and we are scrutinising this report, it is highly
interesting, and there is a basis for discussion on every paragraph
actually and we need each other to discuss more these issues at
the moment.
Q10 Lord Sewel: Specifically on the
health check, and I do not want you to commit in particular areas,
but do you see the Commission's proposals as being a suitable
base to take forward the discussion and work towards a consensus?
HE Maurice Gourdault-Montagne: It is a suitable
base, yes, for sure, and this is the prefiguration of what one
day the CAP should be. That is what I would say.
Q11 Lord Plumb: Ambassador, you mentioned
two things, in particular, of many things in your opening remarks,
one being food security which is now being seen, I think, throughout
the whole world as one of the major issues, not just in respect
of Europe, but also the rest of the world, particularly the developing
countries. You also asked what role should we play in the present
crisis. That inevitably means some fairly dramatic changes in
the direction of the CAP if we are going to meet those commitments,
and I would like to ask you what is the attitude at the moment
in France to biofuels because biofuels have been the talking point?
Yes, we can produce enough for both biofuel and for the food market,
can we? Is that an issue that French agriculture is now looking
at? In those so-called "dramatic changes" and in that
context, I think you referred to the American scene and the proposals
that they have at the moment in the Farm Bill in America. It does
seem that they have not recognised the importance of trying to
bring about the necessary stability which, I think, is what matters.
The instability we see now appears to be between one sector and
another, the arable sector and of course then, as you have just
said, the livestock sector. If one is at the expense of the other,
what happens at the end of the day and where is the food coming
from? These are issues that almost seem to be insoluble at the
moment, but they have to be resolved and I, for one, hope that
Europe can see the need for change to see the positive aspects
of what we are doing and, I accept, within budget control because
you cannot go on for ever feeding through the budget yet more
unless we know exactly what it is being used for. There are 1,001
questions, my Lord Chairman, that we need to follow up on which
need a lot of further discussion, but these are the areas of concern.
HE Maurice Gourdault-Montagne: On the question
of biofuels, I remember that three years ago or four years ago
biofuels were the solution to everything and very soon one became
aware that this had environmental consequences, it was a waste
of water, but the investments were made. Actually, for the moment
France is producing some biofuels, we have some projects, but
we are very much debating and thinking that, yes, maybe we should
put an end to this, to continue with existing plants for biofuels,
but not to develop further because of all the drawbacks I was
just mentioning, so this is, for sure, not a solution at the moment
and not a solution to be exported to other countries. We have
another issue in France which is the issue of GMOs, as you know,
which is an issue on which we are working under the principle
of precaution. At the moment there is a bill which was passed
into legislation in the parliament which gives us a bit more time
to see, on a scientific basis, where we go, so it is an issue
on which we are not really progressing, but on which the political
debate is very sensitive and on which we have to be very, very
cautious. These are all difficult issues which are linked together,
although not exactly the same. On the question of America, I do
not have any comments actually. I agree with your point of where
is the balance actually, but this is very much linked also with
the developments at stake in America and one does not know exactly
yet what the future administration will be willing to do. What
we are very much concerned about is that there will be a movement
back to protectionism which is something that we cannot but fear.
Q12 Lord Jopling: Ambassador, I want
to follow up on Lord Plumb's question, and I should declare an
interest as one who has significant benefit from high grain prices.
I remember, when I was Minister of Agriculture many years ago,
that the French and Italian Ministers got together, I think it
was Rocard and Pandolfi from memory, and came up with this great
suggestion of Valhalla of using grain and other vegetable products
for making biofuels. When we looked into it, it was based on totally
bogus economics and one wonders whether that still is the basis
of the move towards biofuels. I would just quote you a comment
which was made on the Front Bench here yesterday where Lord Howell
said, "Was a distinction made between energy-efficient biofuels
made from cane sugar which came from Brazil and biofuels produced
by corn farmers in America and Europe which are energy-inefficient?"
Now, do you not think that too much has been made of the advantage
both environmentally and economically in turning food crops into
biofuels?
HE Maurice Gourdault-Montagne: Yes, I do think
so, too much has been made. That is the opinion of the French
Government now and that is why we are revising our position on
this issue, very much so.
Q13 Lord Tomlinson: Linked up with
the agriculture question is the obvious question about the French
Presidency's intention regarding efforts to reform the EU budget.
What do you mean by reform in terms of quantity and what do you
mean by reform in terms of policies?
HE Maurice Gourdault-Montagne: As you know,
Lord Tomlinson, this issue of the budget is not on the agenda
of the French Presidency and we—
Q14 Lord Tomlinson: But can you have
a debate on agriculture without it being on the agenda?
HE Maurice Gourdault-Montagne: As I said, there
will be a link, but for the moment it is more of a review, of
a revision of what should be the CAP and what should be the new
shape of the CAP than something which would be directly linked
with the budget and for budgetary decisions. We shall expect of
course from the second half of the budgetary period the new European
Parliament to be elected and the new Commission to be named. In
fact there was, by the Commission, a public consultation, as you
know, regarding the budget to which we have answered and said
that, yes, the CAP would be part of the revision of the budget
and would be part afterwards as well as all the questions of the
Structural Funds which are important for the new Member States
and that it would be important as well to engage new common policies
and a follow up to the Lisbon Strategy, which expires in 2010,
and all of that all start under the Swedish Presidency, so this
is a debate for after, but, as you say rightly, the debate on
the CAP will not preclude what will be the budget for the CAP
afterwards, but will give the shape of what are the needs to be
met from the European budget in the future.
Chairman: Lord Roper is Chairman of our Sub-Committee
dealing with the Common Foreign and Security Policy, defence issues
and international development.
Q15 Lord Roper: Ambassador, in your
remarks you talked about the review of the European Security Strategy.
The original European Security Strategy was of course adopted
on a proposal from the High Representative and, when he addressed
the European Parliament last week, he made it quite clear that
he was going to produce a revised European Security Strategy to
be considered in December. How do you see the relative roles of
the High Representative and the Presidency in the preparation
of the revised European Security Strategy?
HE Maurice Gourdault-Montagne: There is a very
constant relationship between the French Government, hence from
the French Presidency-to-be, with the High Representative. Mr
Solana is a man of experience and he has the advantage of having
been the Secretary General of NATO, so, as far as we have worked
with him for the moment, he never, I would say, was disloyal or
betrayed anything we had to give him as a mission, that we had
to task him with, so he will present this revised strategy, but
in steady consultation with the Presidency.
Q16 Lord Roper: And with other members
of the Council?
HE Maurice Gourdault-Montagne: Of course it
will be proposed to the Council, it has to be proposed to the
Council, and prepared in consultation with other members of the
Council.
Q17 Lord Dykes: Ambassador, on the
thorny and complex question of the pact for immigration, and Foreign
Minister Kouchner has been referring to this many times, would
it have helped the emerging debate on the very complicated territory
if the French Government had made more public its draft outline
putative proposals without being bound by them and without reaching
conclusions too early? This surely would have helped the public
debate and reassured the EU-wide public as well.
HE Maurice Gourdault-Montagne: I see this as
a question which is very important. We have the feeling that this
pact on immigration and all the issues which are linked with the
pact have been in the public domain for some time, notably, since
Mr Sarkozy discussed it at the time he was Home Secretary, which
is not the same as now of course. Mr Jouyet (French Minister for
Europe) came here recently (on 8 May) and delivered a speech at
the LSE talking at length about this issue, but, if you say so,
we should admit that there is a need actually of more debate and
bringing all the issues more into the public domain so that there
is a feeling of ownership of what is at stake in this pact for
immigration, on which we are quite confident we shall reach consensus
by October.
Q18 Baroness Howarth of Breckland:
I wanted to ask about France's attitude towards Turkey and the
accession and what you see as the possibilities and the impediments
in relation to Turkey.
HE Maurice Gourdault-Montagne: As you know,
Turkey has been a very controversial issue for France, but, although
it was a controversial issue, decisions were taken and were always
followed to go forward in the negotiations, so for the moment
what has been said by the French Government is that we stick to
the decisions taken by the European Council regarding Turkey.
We do not preclude what would be the result of the negotiations
and we do not want to raise again any question of principle, whether
it should be a partnership, a privileged partnership or an accession.
There are 35 chapters and there are, according to us, 30 chapters
which can be negotiated because they are chapters which, by all
means, are worth being negotiated with Turkey irrespective of
the end result of the negotiation. There are five more chapters
which are more difficult as they imply inevitably accession to
the EU. So we are ready to open some chapters under our Presidency
and not to have any theological position about it. There are three
qualifications used by the French Government, that we want to
be neutral, we want to be impartial and we want to be objective
regarding negotiations with Turkey.
Q19 Chairman: Ambassador, we have
just a little time left and I have a couple of other questions
I would like to put to you, and one is concerning EuroMed. I think
there is some concern, particularly in the light of the fact that
now we have the Polish and the Swedish proposal for the Eastern
Partnership, and today I was reading, to my astonishment, that
the socialists in the European Parliament are now suggesting that
there should be a Black Sea Union. It all seems to be getting
a bit out of control. I think we are quite clear now about how
President Sarkozy has come to modify slightly the proposal on
the Euro-Mediterranean Union and we do understand that it should
be, as much as possible, budget-neutral, although of course there
will have to be quite a lot of investment in projects. When Lord
Roper and I were in Brussels at the joint meeting, I put the question
to President Barroso, "Would the Eastern Partnership funding
be at the expense of the funding for the western Balkans?"
and he sidestepped the issue, which suggested to me that maybe
he was not too sure about that himself, but would your position,
the French Government's position, be that the more these partnerships
and unions proliferate, the less effective they will be? Maybe
you could just tell us a word or two about your attitude towards
the Mediterranean Union and whether you have any comments on the
proposals for the Eastern Partnership. I will not ask you to comment
on the Black Sea one because I think that is very much up in the
air at the moment, but maybe you would like to answer on the EuroMed.
HE Maurice Gourdault-Montagne: My Lord Chairman,
there were lots of misunderstandings about this union, this Mediterranean
Union when it was proposed, and maybe it was launched in a way
that gave the misleading impression that it would be something
which would be in competition with what already exists. In fact
there are three factors. First of all, the EuroMed process is
something important, but has not delivered concrete results so
far in the process, so we pushed it, but the main merit was that
Israel was included with all the other countries in this forum
for the first time and that is an important result. Then there
is an issue which is important for the countries of the southern
part of Europe, the southern bank of Europe, which is in fact
that we have populations in front of us who would like to normalise
their lives towards Europe. They look at us through TV screens
but they are not allowed to come and to experience this life for
themselves, so there is a feeling of frustration and discrimination
which is enormous, and neighbouring countries like France, but
also Spain and Italy feel it particularly strongly. This is an
issue which is vital. Third, we consider having some figures in
mind that what we do for this part of the world which is so close
to Europe is not enough. When we compare what is done regarding
foreign investments of the United States towards Mexico, 20 per
cent of American foreign investments goes towards Mexico. Japan
invests 25% of its FDI in south-east Asia. Only 2 per cent of
European FDI is invested in northern Africa and in the region
considered by the project. This is too little considering what
is at stake in this region, so this pushed us to take some initiative.
Now, the result is that we will have a budget-neutral project
which will be based on parity, which was not the case in the EuroMed
process which was more north-south and more unequal. As we shall
have a core presidency in the process, there will be one country
of the north and one country of the south, and therefore equality
which is important. Second, there will be a secretariat, depending
on the Secretary General of the Council, working on some projects
which will be identified, selected and implemented by the secretariat
itself and reporting to the European authorities, the Commission
and Secretary General of the Council, so there is a feeling of
ownership by these southern countries which was far more present
than it was before, so this is the essence of the project. Third,
it will be built around projects which will be concrete, whereas
in the EuroMed process there were no concrete projects. For instance
they could cover depollution, maritime surveillance, access to
drinkable water, development of SMEs, a wide range, and we would
like by the end of the year to have set up this secretariat with
its executive structure and to have taken some decisions on the
precise projects that I have just described, so this is something
new on a region which is vital to the whole equilibrium of Europe.
Regarding the other projects, we have nothing against them, but
I am not sure that they should be put in the same terms because
of not being of the same nature of what is this contact of Europe
across the Mediterranean with countries of a special nature.
Chairman: Thank you, I think that makes clear where
the French priorities lie as far as these arrangements are concerned.
|
