Interview given by Mr Gérard Errera, French Ambassador, to the BBC Radio 4 "Today" programme, 21.06.05

Q. – British-French relations always seem to be in a bit of a seesaw, pitching one way or the other, settling down for a while, then dipping back and forth again, and the interpretation of last week’s European summit – not just here, but elsewhere in Europe - is that the Blair-Chirac relationship encapsulates the argument over what kind of EU we are going to have. Well, the French Ambassador in London, Gérard Errera, is addressing the question of strategic partnerships, as it happens, at Chatham House, the Foreign Affairs Institute, today and is a welcome guest in the studio with us now. Ambassador, strategic partnerships, what’s partnership like between London and Paris at the moment?

THE AMBASSADOR – Good morning this is not frankly - the problem which is on the table today – is not a problem between France and the United Kingdom. I know it’s convenient for some to present matters like that. But I think that facts are much simpler. The fact is that what was central, the central issue on the table of the Council in Brussels, was the financing of the enlargement of the European Union. And we, France, together with many countries, was prepared to take its share of the financing of the enlargement, because it was important. And we were ready to make that effort and to accept the proposal of the Luxembourg presidency. As you know, it was turned down and it’s a pity.

Q. – It was. Britain was prepared to accept the cost too. What Mr Blair said with relation to the rebate was that he’d be willing to discuss anything to do with the rebate, which he argues is still fair because it is an anomaly on top of an anomaly, as he put it, if the question of financing was put on the table. And he argued that it was absurd for President Chirac to say that the CAP was the heart of the European Union and the way of the future. He said it was the way of the past, now that’s a fundamental difference of view.

THE AMBASSADOR – Well, I don’t think that to oppose modernity and immobility is the right way forward. Let me also state facts. The Common Agricultural Policy has changed, has been reformed three times: on ceiling of expenditures, on the content of this policy, on everything over the last 15 or 20 years. If there’s one thing which has not changed it is the British rebate for the last 20 years. To cling, frankly, to cling to something which is a perk, and which has not changed for 21 years, is not exactly what I would call modernism.

Q. – A perk, well Mr Chirac, when you argue that some people personalize these things, Mr Chirac did say, when some of the Eastern European countries offered to put some money into the pot to solve this problem, Mr Chirac said "I ask myself what would be the dignity of those", i.e. Mr Blair, "who said ’no’, when the poor member States say at the same time they want to make sacrifices, I repeat it is pathetic and tragic". Well it’s quite a long time since the French President has called the British Prime Minister "pathetic" and "tragic".

THE AMBASSADOR – I don’t think that he mentioned Mr Blair by name.

Q. – Not by name, but it is hard...

THE AMBASSADOR – If you remember I think that it was the presidency who said that it was a shame that we could not get an agreement and had to see the new members, poorer than others, themselves offer to give away the benefit they would have got in order to get an agreement.

Q. – Aren’t we really talking here about something very fundamental? After all, Mr Chirac said Mr Blair was being un-European. Mr Blair said more or less the same about Mr Chirac because he argued that the way forward was to spend the European Union budget more on knowledge and skills, on the expansion of things we could do to improve our standing in the world and not to spend 40% of it on farming, which accounts for only 4 or 5% of the population’s work. Now that is a very fundamental difference and don’t you accept that President Chirac’s view of the future of the EU is actually in the minority now?

THE AMBASSADOR – No, I don’t think so. First the CAP was 70% of the budget, the budget of 1% of total GNP, is now 40 and would have been 30% in the new budget that has been turned down. And knowledge, education and research was increasing 33% in the new budget. So there also, please let’s stick to the facts. There is not a modern Europe on one side and an immobile Europe on the other side. There is a necessity to answer the real concerns of the people and the real concerns means not talk but action.

Q. – Does President Chirac accept what was said by many people, including Mr Blair, in Brussels, that many countries, including the French leadership, had not yet understood why people said "no" to the Constitution. And we know there were political factors, contemporary political factors, but that the reasons for people’s disaffection with the European Union had not been gone through, and studied and understood yet.

THE AMBASSADOR – Since we had a referendum, we might be in a better position to understand what the voters think than those who had not done so. But I think that what people want is for the European Union to answer their concerns, whether it is for better education, better knowledge, better research, and at the same time to give the EU the means to be an important player – this I will address this afternoon in Chatham House – for that you need two things: you need more means, you need action, you need common policies and, second, you need the presidency of the European Union to try to get consensus to bring people together, not to divide, not to impose views, especially when those views are not shared by a majority.

Q. – Gérard Errera, Ambassador of France, thank you very much for joining us.

THE AMBASSADOR – Thank you very much.