French Perspectives on the Future of Europe

Speech by French Minister Delegate for European Affairs Claudie Haigneré at the Danish Institute for International Studies on 6 September 2004

I am pleased to be here to speak to you today at the end of a very busy visit during which I addressed the major bilateral and European issues.
It is no secret that France and Denmark do not always see eye to eye on European construction and transatlantic relations. Yet our two countries do have a lot in common. Throughout Europe’s long history, Denmark is the only country with which France has never been at war. The only confrontations we have seen recently have been in football and handball, and France is still smarting from its defeats at the hands of Denmark. Although in handball, we can be proud of being beaten by the Olympic champion team.
On a more serious note, our two countries have in common a firm attachment to their national identity. We are not prepared to give up our language and our culture and we believe that diversity should prevail over uniformity. Like Denmark, we set great store by the principle of subsidiarity and the role of the national parliaments, which cannot be left standing passively in the wings of European construction.
We are therefore most keen to build a close and trusting working relationship with Denmark within the European Union. We all remember the crucial role that the Danish Presidency played in bringing enlargement to fruition in 1993 and 2002. With Michel Barnier, we would like France to be extremely open and attentive to its partners’ positions. In an EU of 25, no one country or group of countries is in a position to impose its views. It is only through dialogue that we can move forwards.
I would like today to present France’s vision following the recent milestone events in the EU’s history: the accession of ten new Member States, the adoption of the constitutional treaty, the election of a new European Parliament and the current formation of a new Commission.
Europe is at a turning point in its history: it has to make a success of its enlargement and gain support from all its citizens for a project for the future that is capable of mobilising them. It is these two major issues that I would like to talk to you about today.

1. Making a Success of Enlargement

Making a success of enlargement is first and foremost a question of giving the EU the wherewithal to operate with 25 and soon 27 members. We are too quick to talk about enlargement in the past tense, as if it were over and done with. Granted, the accession of the ten new Member States went extremely smoothly and the Danish presidency of the EU had a large hand in this. Yet let’s not forget that most of the work remains to be done. First of all, the wheels of European machinery have to keep turning. You cannot make decisions with 25 members in the same way as you did with 15. The Treaty of Nice, which currently governs the way we run, it not up to this new challenge. Europe needs to be made more agile and capable of deciding more easily, with a streamlined and more efficient Commission.
The first priority is therefore to implement the European Constitution. We are entering into a critical and difficult phase in terms of the ratification of the constitutional treaty by each Member State. The outcome of this is far from a foregone conclusion. In France, we have opted for a referendum because we believe that the French people should voice their opinion regarding this fundamental step in European construction. Yet we all know how hard it is to rally public opinion when it comes to European issues and how easily the debates on Europe can get sidetracked. You know yourselves just how unpredictable referendums can be. Whatever the method chosen to ratify the treaty, we should all rally in each of the 25 Member States to explain what this Constitution brings us and demonstrate that it is necessary if Europe is to continue to move forward.
Ensuring Europe is in working order is a prerequisite for any new enlargement beyond the 25 and soon 27 members. The EU should take the time to assimilate the historic enlargement it has just achieved. This implies an institutional and legal reform, with the Constitution. Yet it also calls for a real stand of solidarity with the new members, including financially. This is one of the issues in the negotiations on the 2007-2013 financial perspectives. France would like the EU to have the resources its needs for its priority policies. I am referring, in particular, to competitiveness and research, which means a great deal to me. At the same time, the cohesion policy should be ambitious enough to underpin the new members’ modernisation. With a budget that will have to respect the necessary discipline at national level, this will inevitably entail sacrifices by those of the Fifteen hitherto the main structural funds recipients.
We also attach great importance to compliance with the decisions made in Brussels in 2002 to stabilise the common agricultural policy budget through to 2013. You all know how much we value this policy for economic, but also social and cultural reasons. We see it as being about more than just agriculture, as being a question of preserving the vitality of the rural world. We share the same tradition with Denmark in terms of agricultural exports. We are also keen to take into account all the issues related to agriculture: environmental protection, food quality and the development of the poorest countries. The agricultural policy was reformed in 2003 to better meet its objectives and give the EU favourable conditions for its participation in the talks at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The agricultural policy needs financial resources if it is to work. Bear in mind, however, that agriculture represented 80% of the Union’s budget 20 years ago and now only accounts for 45%. This share is expected to decrease further in the future.

2. Making Europe a Project

A first priority, then, is to make Europe more efficient and strengthen solidarity. Yet this is not enough. We need to rally our fellow citizens around a project that is really theirs and in which they believe. Today, this project has shrunk from view, as glaringly demonstrated by the results of the recent European elections. Young people are less aware of the origins of Europe, the plan for peace on which Europe was founded, and the remarkable success it represents in this regard. The Second World War is already ancient history for our children. We may regret this loss of memory, but we cannot move forwards by looking backwards. We have to reinvent Europe, make it a project again.
First and foremost an economic project. In Lisbon in 2000, we decided to make Europe the most dynamic and competitive economy in the world. It is an admirable project, but we have to take it further than words and slogans. If the Lisbon strategy is to become reality, it needs resources.
Why? It is not so much a question of competing with the United States, even if it is unsatisfactory that our per capita GDP remains one-third below theirs. No, the real challenge for tomorrow’s Europe is in the form of the new emerging economic powers – China and India – which are penetrating all economic sectors as competitors. Europe has no choice but to evolve to meet this challenge.
Moreover, the creation of wealth would alone protect our social model, which is an essential element of our European identity. Europe should be proud of it. France believes in this model, just as it believes that it should be funded by wealth and work.
Contrary to what is sometimes said, France has set the wheels in motion to become a factor for buoyancy and employment in Europe. Did you know, for example, that there are some 200,000 start-ups in France every year thanks to recently introduced reductions in corporate charges? Did you know that taxes in France have been cut by nearly 10% in the last two years?
Granted, France continues to suffer from certain weaknesses like many European countries, such as an ageing population burdening the pensions system, productivity still below that of the United States and insufficient investment in research. Yet France has been working on an unprecedented modernisation process for two years now: pensions, health insurance, more flexible 35-hour working week legislation, and the drafting of a law on research. There has long been much talk about these reforms in Europe, but often the hardest thing of all is to actually put them into practice. We have endeavoured to do this in a climate of social dialogue and justice and, from this point of view, we have a lot to learn from Denmark.
The same holds true for the public services, which are a major component of our social model. France has extensively reformed its public services – France Télécom in 1996 and Electricité de France (EDF) this year are just two examples of this. These reforms have established free competition while maintaining the purpose of the public service. It is this modern and balanced outlook that France wishes to promote in Europe.
There is still a great deal of work to be done and I believe that Europe, due to pressure from other Member States and competition between businesses, is a strong driving force for reform when the political will is present.
Yet the introduction of reforms is not the be all and end all of Europe’s economic ambition. We need to be assertive. We need to know what our strengths are and what are the goals to which we must steadfastly adhere.
I am referring to our areas of excellence – aeronautics, pharmaceuticals, transport, certain fields of research, and so on. There are companies and sectors that are vital to Europe, to its economy, its independence and the stability of its jobs. Do not think, in saying this, that I am advocating systematic government intervention. I am simply putting forward a realistic viewpoint shared by a good number of our leading partners. The United States, for example, has been subsidising its airlines since 9/11. Similarly, France cannot lose interest in the future of Alstom and its 80,000 employees. And it must resolutely embark with Europe on building the ITER reactor, to cite a last example by which I set great store.
Only a strong and dynamic European Union can assume all its responsibilities on the international scene. I am aware that our citizens have great expectations in this area. They believe that Europe has a vital role to play in the world and are often surprised that it does not give itself more means to do so.
Europe has learnt to assert its voice more in recent years. The crises in the Balkans have taught us often-hard, but eventually productive, lessons in foreign and security policy. And I would like to pay tribute here to Denmark’s contribution to peace and stability in this region of the world.
We now need to go further, to put in place a foreign policy that is really equal to the weight Europe represents in the world. Three conditions are necessary for this: a shared vision, a more effective method and appropriate means.
The European Union has gradually developed a common perception of European security. The European security strategy adopted in December 2003 is a first vital building block on which we need to continue to build. This strategy quite rightly prioritises the new challenges: the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and, of course, terrorism. The fight against terrorism in all its forms is a priority that calls for the EU to put to work all the resources at its disposal: diplomatic and military resources, but also police and judicial co-operation.
The constitutional treaty contains major advances to make EU foreign and security policy action more effective. The abolition of the revolving presidency and the creation of a Union Minister for Foreign Affairs, to be assisted by a European diplomatic service in Brussels and worldwide, should, if Europe has the will, raise the profile and increase the effectiveness of EU action. In the Western Balkans, in particular, significant progress should result from a better co-ordination of the different instruments available to the European Union.
In the military field, too, the EU has developed a decision-making and action-taking capability. Operation Concordia in Macedonia and Operation Artemis in the Congo showed that the EU is capable of taking strong action to deal with stability-threatening crises and to respond to calls from other organisations. With the year not yet out, Operation Althea has demonstrated the EU’s ability to conduct a smooth takeover from NATO in Bosnia and Herzegovina. And it is in this same spirit of co-operation and complementarity with NATO that the EU should define how to implement the treaty’s advances as regards the Europe of Defence. Strengthening European defence capabilities can only be beneficial to the Atlantic Alliance. This is how France sees its participation in NATO and the European Union as being fully compatible. Contrary to popular belief, France does not keep its distance from NATO. It is, in actual fact, one of the leading contributors of troops to NATO operations and, since the beginning of September, the two largest NATO operations in Afghanistan and Kosovo are commanded by French generals.
The European Union should define its role in dialogue and co-operation with its leading partners, and first and foremost the United States.
The United States and Europe are the only really determined players capable of responding to the current challenges. They should therefore work together constructively, rationally and efficiently. We need to seek complementarity in independence rather than competition, which can only be counterproductive. When our approaches differ to those of the Americans, we feel it our duty to make them known. This is what we did in the case of Iraq. Yet we also know how to co-operate closely with the United States, both politically and militarily, which is exactly what we are doing in Afghanistan, the Balkans and Africa.
Last but not least, there is an area in which France and Denmark share the same objectives. And that is the strengthening of the multilateral institutions to serve peace, the development of the poorest countries and environmental protection, fields in which the action taken by the Danish authorities is an example and a benchmark. In these areas, Europe has a strong position to champion to rally the entire international community. I am sure that our two countries can continue to work on this, especially since Denmark will have a seat on the UN Security Council in 2005 and 2006.

Thank you.

Top