Today's Date:

THE PRESIDENT – Ladies and gentlemen, we finished this informal European Council almost at the time the British presidency had wished, and I must say from my point of view it was an excellent Council. It reminded me of the period when President Georges Pompidou insisted on organizing, in the European framework, “fireside” chats. He thought that talking calmly about the future, without any specific controversial objective, was the way to take things forward. And that’s what happened today.

I felt the Council was very positive because everyone was able to express their view without feeling rushed, having enough time to say what they’d got to say on issues essential for the future building of Europe, and it allowed us to talk about a number of fundamental problems. Consequently, I think that it was not only a very positive Council but that we would do well to hold this kind of Council at least once a year.

There was a very good Commission report addressing inter alia several points essential for the future building of Europe and for defining the major objectives, which must be both taken further and developed in detail. Firstly, the problems of research and innovation: everyone realizes that, as things are at the moment, and have been for some time, Europe is lagging behind the [other] major international entities in research and innovation, and that it’s vital for it to put this right.

Doing this requires a political will, procedures and resources. We talked about all these points. Among other things, I highlighted the effort which France and Germany launched several months ago, using government money to fund projects, which are proposed and led by major companies and the small and medium-sized enterprises operating alongside them, in spheres on which the high technology sectors of the future depend. I suggested broadening this procedure to include all EU States wishing to join in. And I also talked about the need for a marked increase in the resources the EU devotes to research and innovation.

For this I proposed taking up a suggestion which Jean-Claude Juncker had put forward when he was President of the European Council and consists in mobilizing the resources of the European Investment Bank, which is easily in a position to use around €2.5 billion of its capital to finance €10 billion over the 2007-2013 period, which, given the co-financing which accompanies this type of initiative, would make it possible to devote, roughly, around €30 billion to innovation and research – essentially research, which would double the resources the European Union allocates to it. This suggestion was, I believe, given an extremely positive reception.

IMMIGRATION/DEVELOPMENT/INNOVATIVE SOURCES OF FINANCING

In the same spirit, we talked about what can and needs to be done at European level vis-à-vis immigration. The Spanish Prime Minister and I had a common position which we had drawn up in the wake of the tragedies we’ve seen in Ceuta and Melilla, which aren’t a Spanish or Moroccan problem, but a global one or, in any case, at least a European one, which demands that we clearly recognize the problem and provide an answer to it. We had an interesting debate on this. On the one hand, we need to implement a policy to combat illegal immigration which, indisputably, is fuelled by different forms of trafficking which need to be controlled and punished. This is the job of the police and judicial authorities. But, on the other, we need to take on board a second development, which we need genuinely to respond to: people who are leaving their countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa to go north with the aim of entering Europe, aren’t leaving home simply because they want to move but because they are compelled to do so by poverty.

Consequently, there’s a real issue which France has been fighting for a long time: the issue of development and provision of the necessary resources to allow the development of both origin and transit countries, and give the people the means to stay at home. I had the opportunity to stress that, regardless of the efforts – which are positive – European Union countries have made to increase official development assistance, quite obviously we won’t succeed [if we just use ODA] – we saw this too at the last UN meeting – in releasing sufficient resources to create normal living conditions on the ground in a number of countries which, moreover, have exceptionally high birth rates, particularly in Africa.

Consequently, there’s no other responsible solution than to establish innovative methods of financing, based in some way or other on international taxation.

We took a decision at the last UN meeting on our proposal for a tax on plane tickets, but it’s wholly experimental and modest – it’s a start. As you know, in the report we published, drafted under M. Landau’s direction, we proposed a whole series of options allowing the creation of innovative methods of financing giving Europe the means to create normal living conditions in a number of these countries to prevent their nationals being tempted, led or forced to emigrate. So there are two measures which the European Union can take simultaneously: on the one hand, what I would call police action, and on the other, development. The one won’t work without the other.

AGEING POPULATIONS

The third point discussed was the demographic problem. The Commission was tasked with reviewing the situation and making proposals, implementing family-friendly policies to restore a bit of dynamism to our demographic policy. Since most European countries are currently below – some far below – the population replacement threshold, it’s absolutely vital for the European Union to give a strong boost here.

ENVIRONMENT

The final point we talked about was the environment. Quite clearly – all the scientific authorities are of this view and are telling us – the occurrence, scale and consequences of natural disasters have been considerably increasing for some years. This is without doubt linked – without us knowing the technical reasons for it, but no one disputes it – to global warming. Here too, this presupposes that the European Union recognize it, which necessitates an energy policy which we haven’t got. So we decided collectively to bring in an energy policy and a policy to control greenhouse gas emissions. This requires both defining a more legally-binding system, particularly from 2012 onwards in the Kyoto Protocol framework, by setting maximum greenhouse gas emissions, and cooperating with the developing countries so that they can concretely join in this effort to control greenhouse gas emissions which are causing climate warming.

Those are the main subjects which we talked about and were developed in turn by each of the 25 members of the European Council.

WTO NEGOTIATIONS

Aside from the agenda set by the Presidency, I made a point of saying a word on the developments in the WTO negotiations. You know that the Commission is going to present, seemingly tomorrow, today or tomorrow, a new proposal for the agricultural issue in the WTO negotiations. I felt the need to spell out France’s position, i.e. the fact that we had a simple clear position: ensure full respect of the Common Agricultural Policy as modified in 2003, with the intention precisely of allowing the necessary opening up to the world; and demand from our major partners the compensation we are entitled to expect at both the agricultural and services and industrial goods levels.

I made it clear that we were totally committed to the EU sticking to the decision the European Council took unanimously on 19 October and that for us it was out of the question to go one step further. This was to be the red line – which for us would, whatever happens, be the line accepted by the last Council of European Ministers – in Hong Kong when the negotiations will end. There the European Union will have unanimously to accept or refuse the latest proposals. I said that France would stick strictly to her position, that of 19 October, i.e. full respect of the Common Agricultural Policy, otherwise she would not be party to a unanimous decision.

Those are the main points, the final one was an additional one and not discussed – I simply made a statement. Afterwards, in fact, I discussed it directly in tête-à-têtes with the British presidency, i.e. Prime Minister Tony Blair, and with the Commission President, Mr Barroso.

That’s how things went today – I found the discussion arrangements particularly interesting and satisfactory, which led me to the conclusion that it would be useful for us to have this type of meeting at least once a year, so that we can talk in a wholly relaxed way about the future.

EU GLOBALIZATION “SHOCK ABSORBER” FUND

THE PRESIDENT – I’m wholly in favour of the stabilization fund initiative, which is a proposal of the Commission President and is popularly known as the “shock absorber” fund. We now need to finalize the terms and conditions for financing the fund. I don’t think we can finance it by increasing the budget, because a majority of States wouldn’t be in favour. Consequently, I believe that the right way to finance it is to use each State’s structural funds, which everyone knows there’s always a delay in using.

So it’s perfectly possible to use them for a specific problem due to outsourcing or an economic shock with social consequences for jobs, when this occurs. So, subject to the complete finalization of the terms and conditions, I’m personally totally in favour and said so. Moreover, it’s a proposal Mr Barroso had already made two years ago and had in a way been left on hold and which he’s taken up again. For my part, I gave my agreement and I believe there will be more or less general agreement.

IRAN

THE PRESIDENT – As regards Iran, let me tell you that I was profoundly shocked by the Iranian President’s statements. To be completely honest I find them totally insane and irresponsible. The Iranian President risks his country being deemed a pariah State, which, for a great nation like Iran, is an unacceptable situation. This said, the British presidency did indeed draw up a statement, which was approved and is now being distributed.

LEBANON/MEHLIS REPORT/SYRIA

Similarly, on France’s proposal, a statement following the submission of the Mehlis report, signalling in particular the European Union’s solidarity with Lebanon, was approved and distributed. The 25 European Union States took a very severe view of Syria’s attitude and cooperation in the international investigation in the wake of the murder of the former prime minister Rafiq Hariri and, of course, expressed the determination to give Mr Mehlis the resources to complete his investigation, and to draw all the necessary conclusions, particularly at the next UN Security Council in a week’s time.

THE PRESIDENT – Firstly, I’m personally in favour of there being an international tribunal, as the leader of the present Lebanese majority, Mr Saad Hariri, the former prime minister’s son, has asked. That said, I’m not sure one can, for all sorts of reasons which I can perfectly understand, have an international tribunal. And if we don’t have one, it’s essential for there to be, at the Lebanese government’s request, a procedure allowing the suspects, particularly those who have been or will be identified by Mr Mehlis’ report, to be tried, and tried objectively.

Indeed everyone understands that, given the situation today, such a trial can’t take place in Lebanon solely with the participation of the Lebanese justice system because of the situation and the pressures it could be subject to. So if there’s no international tribunal, a system must be found – there are a number of possible ones – in which justice and the proper conduct of the proceedings can be guaranteed.

This also presupposes that Mr Mehlis has the time to complete his investigation. He has asked for and obtained its extension until 15 December. It’s not obvious that it won’t have to be extended beyond that and there’s a major problem which the UN Security Council will clearly have to stress, with the consequences this implies: Syria’s cooperation. Quite clearly, until now Syria hasn’t cooperated. I’m not going back over what the Mehlis report said. She hasn’t cooperated and so we have to ensure that she’s compelled to cooperate.

EU/CRISES/WTO NEGOTIATIONS

Second question: isn’t there a contradiction in the French position on the WTO? On the one hand, we want the development of the developing countries while, on the other, we’re against a greater opening-up of our agricultural markets. Yet these developing countries mainly produce agricultural products

THE PRESIDENT – On the second point, may I suggest you look at the dossier. I’d like first to remind you that the poorest countries’ agricultural products come into the European Union customs-free, under what’s called the “Everything but Arms” decision. In other words, there are no customs duties. It’s the only market which is open without any customs duties, i.e. without any restriction on the poorest countries’ products. And this isn’t insignificant. It probably explains the fact, contrary to what you seem to be insinuating, that Europe absorbs 85% of the agricultural exports from the whole of Africa – where the bulk of the countries we have to help are located – and Europe is, I also remind you, the world’s leading importer of agricultural products.

It imports more than the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan and New Zealand put together, so this sort of criticism ignores the facts. Consequently, from this point of view, we have absolutely no hang-ups.

In actual fact, the whole system, as it stands today, is one in which the position taken by the United States and major emerging countries is impoverishing the developing countries. As things are at the moment, we, the European Union and particularly France, are alone – and in fact we traditionally do this – in defending the interests of the developing countries, which know this perfectly well. I remind you that three years ago at the Africa-France summit I proposed – and my proposal is still on the table – abolishing all obstacles to their exports.

I also remind you that what the developing countries most suffer from is the United States’ systems, particularly as regards food aid which is tragic for the developing countries. I have to tell you that the United States produces 150% of its consumption of agricultural products – so the US is causing the major problem in this sphere – whilst European production is only 110% of its consumption. Since the Common Agricultural Policy the EU has, admittedly, exceeded it, but all the same by a far smaller percentage than the United States, which explains moreover the United States’ determination to make no move in the direction desired by the developing countries, which aside from the emerging countries have other interests.

Secondly, you ask me what the purpose of this meeting was? I think I’ve answered you. One can always take the view that anything is pointless, but I won’t try to prove the contrary to you. I’m telling you simply that, personally, I feel it’s good to have times when we can discuss things between ourselves so as to decide what we want and how we want to achieve it. From this point of view, it’s very useful to be able to do something other than defend immediate interests. We have to do both.

EU/FRANCE/GERMANY

THE PRESIDENT – The relationship between France and Germany is essential in Europe. It’s not that France and Germany want to impose their points of view, but quite simply because, automatically, when they agree Europe moves forward; when they don’t agree Europe stops. I’d say it’s automatic. Europe’s whole history over the past 50 years attests to this. That’s a first comment.

The second: don’t worry, there will be absolutely no change in the Franco-German relationship. Up to now, generally, and if you’re talking about the CAP, which is an important point, we’ve had, with Chancellor Schröder’s government, because of Chancellor Schröder’s firm beliefs, and those who voted for him, an agreement whereby he took the necessary steps to find common ground with us, in return for which we took, in other respects, the necessary steps to find common ground with him.

The situation has evolved, i.e. the new German government and German chancellor who’s soon going to take office have a position on the vital interests which is spontaneously far closer to France’s. This can but strengthen our position – something which the British presidency hasn’t in fact failed to notice. They haven’t seen only benefits in this change, that’s the least that can be said.

Let me completely reassure you that, on the agricultural front, Franco-German agreement can only be bolstered, given the new German government’s positions. And the same goes for other areas because, I repeat, Franco-German agreement is essential for Europeans.

FRANCE/PROTECTIONISM

THE PRESIDENT – I’ve never heard it said that France had taken a protectionist route, but maybe you could give me some examples? What are your grounds for telling me that France has taken a protectionist route?

THE PRESIDENT – There are national rules and EU rules. France quite obviously isn’t going to go against EU rules. We respect, and shall of course continue to respect EU rules here, as in the other areas, so you’ve got nothing to fear here.

EU BUDGET

THE PRESIDENT – What you call the “June battles” were on the budget. Certainly there’s a problem, that’s escaped no one. Virtually all the European partners are urging the adoption of the budgetary package both as soon as possible and on the basis of what’s been called the Juncker package. As you will remember, this had been approved by about 20 countries, out of 25, which haven’t changed their minds but are increasingly impatient, particularly the new members who are very anxious for the budget to be decided, particularly as regards structural funds, so that they can plan their own future policies.

So the British presidency made a choice which I naturally understood and which I don’t question, which no one questioned, i.e. that it would put forward the proposal on this in November and that the decision on the budget will be taken at the last European Council, in Brussels, under British presidency. So we’re awaiting the British proposals on this. What I can tell you is that the vast majority – and I mean the vast majority – of Council members are, on the one hand, eager – a number said so today – to get the budgetary package settled and, on the other, keen to have a budgetary package which is, roughly speaking, the one the Luxembourg presidency had proposed in June this year./.