Today's Date:

(...)

TERRORISM/RACHID RAMDA/JUDICIAL COOPERATION/EAW

THE MINISTER – Of course, moreover the British government wanted to do this. Let me nonetheless say one thing before giving a detailed answer. We are, Jack, totally at one with you against terror, hatred and the absolutely horrific nature, inhumanity of terrorism. You were with us, we are with you. We enjoy perfect cooperation and solidarity between us. President Chirac has said this, as has the Prime Minister. We simply want to say that this is a political gesture against the democracies, because it's Europe's, our fundamental values – democracy, respect for the Other, rule of law – which are being targeted today. And there has to be transnational cooperation because one State alone can't do anything.

So I believe we've got to act very practically here. We need joint investigations, joint investigation teams. Today, when a judge asks for cross-border cooperation, the British and French, or Spanish and French police immediately conduct a joint investigation. That's practical, it's started, it's being done. Then there's the European arrest warrant. The European arrest warrant is hugely important, it allows us to cut by 80% the period within which a court judgment must be enforced which you were talking about a moment ago. In 2004, we ourselves issued 220 European arrest warrants and were granted 160 of them. That's what we've got to do together.

EU INSTRUMENTS/COUNTER-TERRORISM

THE MINISTER – That's changing since there are two totally new instruments which have now been up and running for a few months.

Firstly, an intelligence analysis capability – I believe that Britain and France are among the three or four best countries in the world when it comes to intelligence. We're working together and, above all, sharing this intelligence with the 23 other countries.

THE MINISTER – Yes.

THE MINISTER – We can share secrets when they're to do with terrorist networks, when we know that a supposed member of a network is in a specific country, even if it's small, medium-sized or a large one. We're capable, today, of sharing our intelligence.

And secondly, above all, there's the appraisal of what the various European countries are doing to fight terrorism. Because if we ourselves are doing this and a third country isn't, then there'll be a hole all the terrorists will, obviously, go into. That's what we're working on today. Believe me, we're working on it. The G5 interior ministers are too. Last week, for example, I took a decision: anyone applying for a visa for France in any consulate anywhere in the world will be required, very soon, to have his or her index fingers fingerprinted and have an iris scan. Because then, once they've entered France, we'll know when and if they leave again. Today, once someone has entered the country, we don't know whether or not they leave. This is something we're going to do, harmonizing our procedures. This is how we're going to track down the terrorists.

THE MINISTER – These are decisions which have been taken.

(...)

DOMESTIC JUDICIAL SYSTEMS/NON-FOREIGN TERRORISTS

(...)

THE MINISTER – Your question concerns their domestic law, which isn't quite the same as ours. Obviously, in Britain if someone doesn't commit a harmful or criminal act on British soil, he can't be touched. The same applies in France, but there can also be an extension depending on what one says or has said. So firstly our domestic law isn't the same. This is an important matter and has to be taken on board.

Secondly, the most important thing is that, today, people have to realize – it's true in France, it's true in Britain – that terrorists who aren't necessarily foreigners live on our soil. People can be born in London, or Paris, and undergo intensive training in places where they are taught to be terrorists. This is an important issue connected to the problem of societies being split into communities (communautarisme). I think it's important to fight this in France and it always will be.

(...)

EU/COUNTER-TERRORISM

THE MINISTER – You have to be very practical. In intelligence, people work with people they know (...), but by definition they are the only ones who know each other (...). So you can't have anyone above knowing everyone otherwise there's no longer any intelligence. Look at the "Washington Post" ten days ago: (...) it headlined American praise and thanks for the French intelligence services in the fight against terrorism but, quite obviously, it didn't name any names, because you can't give the names of people working in French intelligence.

We have to talk about practical cooperation. This morning Jack and I were talking about something which is going to be proposed at the G5 interior ministers' meeting: the telecommunications chiefs of the G5 countries are going to be able to keep all the information they've got stored so that if one day there's a terrorist attack...

THE MINISTER – It isn't that at all. (...) A number of operators already have obligations in this respect, but it has to be done in an organized way. If there's an attack in Britain, we must immediately be able to have information, if there's some doubt about a French national, for example. If we can immediately get the person's mobile number, if there's information, we have to be able to give it immediately. For this we don't need a "sheriff" in Brussels. We just need legislation allowing us to do it. That's what's important, it's being practical. We have to cut out the red tape, the technocracy and work together.

(...)

IRAQ/TERRORISM

THE MINISTER – I believe that terrorism is in fact becoming a political act. What's certain – and I completely agree with Jack here – is that it isn't a problem of religion. Making people think this is scandalous. In fact the point is that there's terrorism because we've not only become egoistic, but stupid. I.e. there are people taking advantage of poverty, vulnerability, deep distress, sickness, the suffering caused by AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis without the medicines to treat them, in order to stir people up against the northern democracies. That's what it's all about. The action taken at the G8, President Chirac's and today Tony Blair's idea, is designed to cancel the debt of the poor countries, give them maximum support, including through our projects in the field of public health, in the fight against AIDS. This is perhaps the only real way to fight terrorism. Because after a while, peoples who are distraught and in despair are not only going to emigrate northwards – and this obviously is a major problem for the West – but also perhaps, in some cases horrendously, going to take advantage of the despair by exploding bombs.

THE MINISTER – That's not the issue. (...) There are some rich people behind these acts. It's true that bin Laden isn't poor, that's for sure. Admittedly, leading people to think that those who plant bombs are poor is a mistake, but the bombers use the peoples' despair, and the fact that the northern hemisphere leaves the southern hemisphere without medicines, without money, without global trade, is certainly, only the start...

THE MINISTER – Obviously! But I think everyone has to think about why a fifth of the world population shares between them four fifths of their wealth. This is hugely important. I excuse no one, I shall be very tough and we'll be very tough with all terrorists. It isn't a matter of giving up, on the contrary. We must go on fighting harder than ever. No one will destabilize us, but, on the other hand, we have to understand that there are peoples in deep distress.

EU CONSTITUTION REFERENDUM/LUXEMBOURG/FRANCE (...)

THE MINISTER – I'm happy for Jean-Claude Juncker whom I have known personally for 15 years, having been in the same party, he is a great European, a loyal European, a man who believes in building Europe, and I'm very happy for him because the Luxembourg presidency was a great one and so I paid tribute to him.

FUTURE OF EUROPE/SPECIAL COUNCIL/2½ HALF YEAR EU PRESIDENCY

THE MINISTER – No, France isn't isolated. Today it isn't only the Netherlands and France who are asking questions. All Europeans are pondering the future of the Europe the founding fathers wanted to build. Do we keep to their conception or have we to some extent lost it? It's a discussion we obviously have to have with Jack and is extremely important. (...) I'm more convinced than ever that we have to build the European political union. For me the EU isn't solely a customs union, it isn't a free-trade area, it isn't a simple area of peace and stability, it's the common policies, a political union, a defence union, a Europe as a world power, a Europe capable of having common policies not just in agriculture but also, why not, tomorrow in research. I've just come back from the United States. They are devoting €70 billion to information technology, €100 billion to biotechnology. Jack, we'll obviously have to have an integrated research policy. That's how we shall keep going and become a political union. That's my vision and I think it's shared.

THE MINISTER – I think that the British presidency took an altogether wise decision which is to organize a special summit so we can take stock. It's absolutely fundamental to have a discussion as soon as possible so we know where we're going. Obviously, in France people said "no", in the Netherlands people said "no", but let me take an example: a 2½-year European Council presidency; personally, I'd like the heads of State and government to think about this in a European Council to see if we can't keep this idea. We don't need a treaty for that. I'd say being president for 2½ years is, after all, more normal, more efficient...

THE MINISTER – No I'm not saying we cherry-pick. I'm taking an example. 2½ years, who can say today that a six-month rotating presidency is better than one of 2½ years? I ask the question and I'd like the 25 to discuss it, we don't need a treaty to decide that. During the French campaign I never heard anyone voting "no" because of the 2½-year presidency.

(...)

FRENCH REFERENDUM RESULT/EU BUDGET

THE MINISTER – In the first place, by definition the people are never wrong, so no one is torpedoing anyone, that's how it is. We weren't perhaps sufficiently able to explain things. Where we have a problem and it has to be resolved – incidentally under the British presidency and I think Jack will do it – is regarding the cost of the enlargement. We have new countries who have just joined the European Union and it's important, especially for those of Eastern Europe which experienced dictatorships and are at last arriving at the negotiating table, that they aren't given the impression that there isn't a budget. It's what has created a bit of tension between us.

THE MINISTER – That means not helping Poland, not helping Lithuania, Estonia, as in the past we helped Spain, Greece and Portugal. And you can see how successful that was. So obviously we must find a way out of this through political action and it's important not to give the impression of not giving the East European countries their due place. At the same time, it's true that France has decided to give another €10 billion over the 2007-2013 period, this is where the issue of the British rebate came up and we had a discussion. But I believe it's important for us to have a budget pretty soon so that we don't have a financial crisis on top of an institutional one.

POLITICAL EUROPE/UK

(...)

THE MINISTER – What's obvious is that the policies conducted by Mrs Thatcher and today by Tony Blair (...) have resulted in 5.1% unemployment, and it isn't us (...) who can tell people what to do. But what is important is to wring the neck of anyone saying there is on one side an Anglo-Saxon non-social model and on the other a "has-been" French social model. What's important is that we are all in favour of a social model. (...) We are against handouts and against abuses of the social system. I systematically checked all the sick leave records and saw that there's now a reduction in sick leave, I'm pleased (...). The real problem is knowing whether, in the future, we Europeans can have an integrated European policy for research as we have successfully had for agriculture with the Common Agricultural Policy, which has (...) enabled us to be a continent totally independent from the rest of the world when it comes to feeding itself and to be the world's leading exporters of processed agricultural products. Would you agree? Ought we to move towards a European research agency which would allow us, over six, seven years, to become as strong a power as America, China or India? Because, if we don't, I can't see how in the future we'll be able to get the jobs of tomorrow for our children and grandchildren. This means that if we put money there, admittedly we don't spend it on handouts. That's for sure.

(...)

EU BUDGET/CAP/RESEARCH

THE MINISTER – It's already the case [that we're spending less on supporting farmers and more on research and development], (...) since we've gone from allocating 71% of Europe's budget to the Common Agricultural Policy to 40% today, and with the Luxembourg package it was 33%. (...) On the Africans' problem, I must nevertheless point out that we've opened up all our borders to African imports, which the Americans haven't done. I'm saying this too vis-ΰ-vis the WTO: the day we do it, we'd like the Americans to do it too./.