Sixth Weimar Triangle Tripartite Summit - Statements made by M. Jacques Chirac, President of the Republic, during his joint press conference with Mr Gerhard Schröder, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, and Mr Aleksander Kwasniewski, President of Poland (excerpts)
Nancy, 19 May 2005
CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY RATIFICATION
THE PRESIDENT - (…) This tripartite meeting is taking place at a particularly important moment since all three of us, in the 25, are engaged in the Constitutional Treaty’s ratification process. Germany is in the process of completing, passing this milestone, after the Bundestag’s vote and just before the Bundesrat’s vote in a few days’ time on 27 May. The French people will deliver their opinion on 29 May. And Poland will do so, probably in a referendum, this autumn.
Over the past 50 years, Europe has come a very long way. First of all, it brought the six founding members what’s most important, i.e. peace, democracy, freedom, a certain social model and economic development. Then it gradually enlarged, as was both necessary and useful for everyone. Today we have a group of countries determined definitively to entrench peace, democracy and freedom throughout our continent, determined to reinforce the economic development and social progress model, the European social model, symbolized in particular by Germany and France’s position, and increase Europe’s weight in the world. This is the ambition of the Constitutional Treaty currently undergoing the ratification process in the 25 EU countries. And this is why all three of us are committed firmly and wholeheartedly to this ratification.
WEIMAR SUMMIT MEETINGS
Our meeting this morning confirmed just how important these regular Weimar summit meetings are to us, for examining together not just bilateral and trilateral issues, but also the more general problems facing Europe, and finally, world issues and international solidarity.
EU
On Europe, we talked in particular about the problem of the financial perspective which we’d obviously like, if possible, to see decided as soon as possible, even though it appears to be a difficult task.
The three of us had no difficulty in agreeing on a number of points. Firstly, budgetary discipline - which is indispensable and in everyone’s interest -, as was inter alia affirmed in a letter co-signed by six EU countries, on my and the Chancellor’s initiative. Secondly, an imperative of solidarity vis-à-vis the new members. Obviously this solidarity, which we displayed with the members who joined earlier, must be displayed in the same spirit and under the same conditions with the new ones. Thirdly, we reiterated that we were in favour of the agreement on the Common Agricultural Policy signed in 2002 and were calling for it to be respected in full. Finally, we concluded that in order to take all these imperatives on board it was necessary to have a fairer financing of the European budget which, indisputably, requires us to discuss again and sort out the problem of the British “cheque” [rebate].
EU/RUSSIA
We then talked about the EU-Russia relationship, stressing its vital importance for the stability of our region and, more generally, for world stability. We welcomed the agreements concluded at the EU-Russia summit a few days ago allowing the signature of the four roadmaps decided on at the St Petersburg summit. We’re fully aware of the difficulties Russia is seeking to overcome and the need to have with that great country cooperation ties which are as solid as possible.
UKRAINE
We talked about Ukraine and the need to implement the EU/Ukraine Action Plan.
MIDDLE EAST
We talked about the Middle East, with the essential withdrawal from Gaza and need for Europe to be more present on the ground and more actively, more strongly involved in the relaunch of a peace and stability process in the region which seems to us today a bit compromised and has to be rehabilitated.
LEBANON
We welcomed the situation in Lebanon, a country which is going to regain her independence in what will once again be a democratic system.
IRAQ
And we talked about Iraq’s problems with the meeting to be held in a month’s time on the support the international community has to provide the country, despite the huge difficulties confronting it.
UN SUMMIT
Finally, we talked about the preparation of next September’s United Nations summit, drawing attention to all our concerns, both with respect to the Kyoto Protocol and its implementation which we’ll also be talking about at the Gleneagles G8, and to official development aid and the innovative sources of financing which must today be brought in if we want to shoulder our responsibilities in the global distribution of wealth and development capabilities, particularly for the benefit of the poorest countries.
(…)
EU BUDGET/CAP/BRITISH REBATE
Q. - (…) Is there already an agreement to decide on the budget at the next European Union summit? And has Poland accepted the German and French premise that it be 1% of GDP?
(…)
THE PRESIDENT - (…) Firstly, we must have budgetary discipline. It would be in no one’s interest for the German contribution to increase to such an extent that it were rejected by the Germans. That would be a miscalculation, hence the absolute need for budgetary discipline. Secondly, solidarity has always been required in the EU, today we must also display it vis-à-vis the new entrants. Thirdly, let me add, if you will allow the French to do so, we agree on the need to abide by the 2002 agreement on the Common Agricultural Policy. This is an imperative for France. And I thank Germany for her solidarity on this. And final point - our ability to find an agreement capable of satisfying all these constraints depends on it -: we shall have to find some flexibility somewhere. We can find it only if we look again at the terms and conditions for the British cheque [rebate]. And this is why no one can say today whether we shall succeed at the end of this half year, i.e. under Luxembourg’s presidency, in finding an agreement or whether a bit more time will be needed.
FRANCE/GERMANY
Q. - You are the politician the German people like best. What will you say to the German people if, on 29 May, a majority of French say "no", and would that be the end of close Franco-German cooperation?
THE PRESIDENT - Franco-German solidarity is, in reality, a bedrock of European integration. And over the years, this solidarity has grown considerably stronger, to the point of creating between us a genuine friendship, which is easy to see today at the level of young people who are, of course, not scarred by history. This friendship and this solidarity are essential for Europe’s future.
Of course, things won’t change. Friendship is friendship, and if there were a political accident, I’m sure that this friendship would continue. But its manifestations and consequences would probably be different. And certainly Franco-German solidarity, which is the engine and bedrock of tomorrow’s Europe would, regrettably, whether we like it or not, be affected. It’s a real danger for tomorrow’s Europe. I don’t want to believe today in the possibility of the French taking responsibility for jeopardizing Franco-German friendship, one of the world’s great achievements in terms of peace and democracy (…).
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL MODEL
Q. - President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder, you have long urged the need to develop, to go on developing a European economic and social model. Yet at one of his meetings last week, the UMP Chairman, M. Nicolas Sarkozy, explained that this social model which was bringing unemployment in both our countries should, on the contrary, be reconsidered. What do you think?
THE PRESIDENT - (…) The Chancellor and I are deeply committed to what the Chancellor called the "European social model", i.e. a balance between the economic efficiency needed to create the essential wealth, and justice, i.e. respect for man and his dignity. And on this point we absolutely wholeheartedly agree.
Now, what is this "European social model" for us French? For us French, it’s essentially three things. It’s our social security system, our labour law and public service: three vital elements in our social balance which for me aren’t open to debate.
Throughout the drawing-up of the Constitutional Treaty, I fought, often in difficult conditions, often isolated, except for the Chancellor’s unfailing support to defend what we considered our social achievements. Similarly, I fought, we fought for public services, for cultural diversity, all this consonant with man’s dignity and the respect we owe it. I can’t imagine anyone doing otherwise.
And it’s true that this Constitution, this Constitutional Treaty gives priority to this whole aim. It gives priority to the social purpose (…). It’s one of the text’s major advances. It’s what allows the European Trade Union Confederation, which represents 68 or 70 trade unions and very many millions of workers, to say that this Constitution is the best we could have and makes a crucial contribution to the respect we must have for a certain social vision of our future Europe.
You know, if this hadn’t been the case, the Chancellor said: "I wouldn’t have signed it". And let me add: nor would I. The Chancellor and I signed it only because it expressed a certain vision of the social model we’re committed to and I’ve just referred to. This is why I think that the French, who are conscious of and committed to this social aim of France, will understand and approve the effort made to confirm it in the Constitutional Treaty. (…)
CHINA/TEXTILES
Q. - (…) As you know, the European Union is starting to negotiate with Beijing on the textile problem and is ready to go further. What do you think can be done both to resolve this problem and not hurt the increasingly close relations, over the past few years, between China and Europe?
THE PRESIDENT - We have a real problem in Europe. The huge increase in Chinese textile imports to our countries is jeopardizing millions of jobs. And so we can’t of course accept it without doing anything. This is why we called on the Commission to react and start [WTO] consultations to find a solution with the Chinese authorities, a balance which safeguards our jobs which we’re obviously committed to, of course within the framework of the WTO rules.
The Commission has begun this process, deciding to do so yesterday for two textile categories. It’s important, it isn’t yet enough and we want an agreement found very soon which safeguards our legitimate interests. A few days ago in Moscow, I had the chance to talk to President Hu Jintao about it. I have heard the statements made by the Chinese authorities over the past few days. I found them open-minded and so conducive to discussion. I’m of course keen for this discussion to succeed as soon as possible since, I repeat, we can’t agree to killing off, if you’ll pardon the expression, the jobs of a significant number of workers in our country.
(…)
"NO" VOTE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES/BOLKESTEIN DIRECTIVE/RELOCATIONS
Q. - (…) First of all, in the last few days in France there’s been a lot of talk about the economic consequences of a "no" victory on 29 May. According to investors, the most affected countries would be Poland and the other new member countries, and also Turkey. Have you got real fears about this? In the event of the polls being right and the "no" winning, do you have a plan to minimize its effect on your economy? Also, François Hollande attributes the rise of the "noes" partly to your interventions on the Bolkestein Directive and the relocations, said to have frightened the French. What’s your reaction? To what do you attribute the rise in the "noes"?
(…)
THE PRESIDENT - I’d like to take up a comment by the Chancellor on freedom of movement, necessary in principle. Where goods are concerned, these are objects. Services involve men and women and this is obviously quite different. They can’t be dealt with in the same way. Hence a common German and French position on this, which has moreover been approved by a majority of the Council, and also by a majority of the European Parliament. And, I remind you that, in our institutions, the Commission proposes, the Parliament and Council decide.
Let me simply tell you that the Bolkestein Directive no longer exists and is today used only as a sort of spectre which politicians brandish in support of the ideas they want to defend. But the reality is that it no longer exists and has no chance of coming back, particularly given the position of Parliament and a majority of Council members. There’s no point in brandishing spectres which don’t exist. (…)
"PLAN B"
I’d like to come back to a point the Chancellor raised just now, to what some are calling the renegotiation or “plan B”.
I’d like briefly to say one or two things about this, because I’m shaken by the lack of realism of those talking about such possibilities. I’d like first to point out that virtually all the European Union Heads of State and government, and particularly those geographically closest to us, have said extremely clearly that there can be no question of renegotiating, that there was no possible “plan B”, either legally or politically.
How indeed could one imagine that after a year and a half of discussions in the Convention between a number of leading figures, representatives of both Left and Right, after arriving at a result virtually unanimously approved by this Convention, after 25 European Council heads of State and government had spent a very great number of hours, days, weeks, months talking about all the details of the Treaty, in which everyone of course went as far as they could, where everyone obviously sacrificed some of what they wanted, when everyone went more or less to the limit of what their general public could accept, how could one think for a moment that, because France said "no" our partners would say: "OK fine, we’ll start again".
People making this kind of statement must either not know how the European Union or in fact diplomacy in general works, or really want to mislead the French.
No, there will obviously not be any renegotiation. And besides, our partners would find it easy to say to us: "but on what basis do you want to renegotiate, on the proposals of the National Front or the French Communist Party or a mixture of the two"? I ask you. You can say "yes" or you can say "no". You can be for Europe or you can be against Europe. But you can’t say "we’re going to renegotiate". We won’t renegotiate because we’ll have no one to renegotiate with.
I wanted to say this so that things are clear, and in order to be frank./.