Today's Date:

Speech given by M. Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the Republic, at the public meeting on Europe (excerpts)

(…)

This evening, I have come back to Strasbourg.  I have come to report to the French about what I did as regards the European summit, which will go down as an important moment in the process of building Europe.

This evening, I have come to tell the French the lessons for the present and for the future which I have learned from what happened.  When you make commitments, you honour them.  The divorce between France and politics stems from the fact that promises were given and never honoured.  The break [with past policies] I'm so keen to see is this:  what I said before the elections, I shall honour afterwards.  I want to reconcile the French with politics. (…)

UNION OF EUROPE

It's France who most wanted Europe and who made it possible by taking the initiative of the fraternal gesture which was to change the course of history.  Since while the Europe of civilization and culture is a legacy going back many centuries, while European man has been a reality for a very long time, the Europe we know, we want, the Europe of peace, the Europe of peoples who are no longer rivals, who are no longer enemies, but partners, the Europe of nations conscious that their destiny is shared and intent on forging it together, the fraternal Europe, this Europe, this is the result of the Franco-German reconciliation, the common will not to forget the suffering but to overcome it, not to reject a painful past, but together look to the future.

Franco-German friendship was the instigation for the European Union.  It will always cement it.  This is why Strasbourg, symbol of Franco-German reconciliation, will forever be Europe's capital.  Because it's here that we fought and it's here that we were reconciled.

Europe's union isn't based on repentance.  Europe's union isn't based on atonement for a tragic history.  It's based on the desire shared by all European peoples to learn the lessons of this history.

It's based on the shared will to safeguard the vast legacy of civilization the centuries have bequeathed to us, to preserve this priceless treasure I call European humanism, to keep European man alive, the human ideal we wanted all mankind the world over, universally, to share. (…)

What those famous Frenchmen [Jean Monnet, Schuman and General de Gaulle] achieved and is so great measured against history, it is our duty to continue.  This is the first duty of the President of the French Republic.

From time immemorial, France has been herself, France has been great, and France has been strong only when she has stood at Europe's centre of gravity. (…)

What is the European ideal?  It's the desire to persuade Europe to fight against the death of a certain idea of man and civilization threatened initially in the succession of European civil wars, then in the Cold War and which is today facing the risk of the flattening of the world and the frictions between different identities it triggers.

This is the European ideal.  It's what we always have to return to when we doubt Europe.

(…)

To get 27 countries, which are old nations packed with history, with their characters, and their interests, to agree, there has to be an impetus.  It's lost when people lose sight of the objective, when they no longer understand the meaning of what's being done.

I am going to say what I really believe.  It isn't peace treaties which make peace between peoples, but the will of the peoples to stop fighting each other.  It isn't European treaties which persuade us to think more European, but thinking European which enables the treaties to be concluded.

Whenever Europe has replaced ends with means, it has gone through a crisis.  Whenever Europe has concerned itself only with its organization and functioning, no longer querying the project this organization was to serve or what cause it was supposed to be functioning for, Europe has become incomprehensible and prompted rejection.  The Europe meant to reassure people ended up worrying them.

Nothing is worse than the great machine of Europe when it gives the impression of having become an end in itself, functioning only for itself, spinning round and round, since it can then no longer appeal to the European conscience for support.

EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION

This evening, facing up to my responsibilities, I want to say to all the French and all Europeans:  it wasn't the French and Dutch "no" votes in the referendum which brought Europe to crisis.  It's the crisis in the concept of "thinking European" which led to the French and Dutch voting "no", and would very probably have prompted other European countries to vote "no", had they organized referenda.

I want to tell all those committed to building Europe and who pinned a lot of hope on the European Constitution that the European Constitution couldn't be an end in itself.  I want to tell them that the European Constitution was only a means of taking Europe forward, it wasn't Europe.

I want to tell them that the simplified treaty the 27 EU countries agreed on in Brussels on 23 June in no way signals a reduction in "thinking European", but, on the contrary, its revival, revival of a European will common to all member countries, a will which is stronger than national egoism and stronger than national susceptibilities. (…)

You have to seek the cause of the failure [of the Constitution] in the increasingly widespread feeling that building Europe was no longer the fulfilment of a common destiny, but the establishment of an increasingly dense network of constraints.

You have to seek it in the perception of the EU no longer as the expression of a common will, but as the excuse for everything that had had to be given up.

The cause of the failure of the Constitution and Europe's crisis has to be sought in the big wrong-headed move to depoliticize Europe:  the desire everywhere to replace political decision by rules, standards and procedures, substitute technical expertise for political will, and ensure that technical choices prevailed over political choices. (…)

BRUSSELS SUMMIT/SIMPLIFIED EUROPEAN TREATY

The Brussels Summit was of course a great success for the German Presidency.  Mrs Merkel did a remarkable job.  It was a success for France.

But this success, which very few believed possible a few months ago, isn't the success of specific countries.

It's the success of the 27.

It's the success of the drive to think European which prompted everyone to make concessions rather than risk being the one to shatter the great dream of European unity.

It's the success of the political will over a mindset geared to abandonment and giving up.

For two years things hadn't moved.  In a few weeks, they have started moving again.

An intergovernmental conference is going to meet to lay down the details and terms and conditions for implementing what's been decided.  Then will come the ratification by the national parliaments in the form not of a new Constitution, but of amendments to existing treaties.

As early as 2009, Europe will have new institutions:  a stable president, a High Representative for the Union for Foreign Affairs, legal recognition of the Eurogroup, genuine monitoring by national parliaments of the Commission's proposals to ensure respect for the division of competencies between the EU and member States, qualified majority voting extended to many spheres replacing the unanimity rule inevitably paralysing a 27-member Europe, the strengthening of the role of the European Parliament, which makes Strasbourg Europe's parliamentary capital and the double majority system which will make it possible to correct the inadequacies of the Nice Treaty and will come into force in 2014.

These are absolutely essential reforms.

Thanks to the stable president of the European Council, elected for a two-and-a-half year term, renewable once, the EU will have a face, the EU will have its own will, the EU will have a continuity of action instead of changing its president every six months.  Thanks to a High Representative, Europe will at last be able to talk with one voice to the major world powers.  It isn't a matter of replacing national foreign policies by a European foreign policy.  But when European governments agree, one person can act on their behalf instead of three, today.

Qualified majority voting will allow us to take decisions and act.  I'm thinking of cooperation in combating crime.  I'm thinking of the energy policy in Europe we need so much.  I'm thinking of the European immigration policy we need so much.  In these absolutely essential spheres, the EU is going to end its paralysis.

By recognizing a genuine decision-making power for the Eurogroup, the new treaty is laying the foundations of the future economic government of the Euro Area.

National parliaments will be able to monitor the Commission's proposals and check they comply with the subsidiarity principle.  So Europe will be able to take decisions;  Europe will be able to function. (…)

EUROPE POST-BRUSSELS SUMMIT

The greatest success of this summit is that politics has taken over again.  The improbable synthesis of the "yes" and "no" supporters has begun.  There's only one possible reasonable solution to the peoples' growing disenchantment vis-à-vis a Europe which seemed to be honouring none of its promises, to the tendency to fall back on national identity in the face of the loss of bearings and direction, and to the resurgence of the nations which throughout the world are expressing the need for protection:  the "yes" and "no" Europes have to come together.  There weren't on one side the intelligent people who had understood everything and, on the other, the obtuse who had understood nothing.  There were worried people expressing a need for protection

By "synthesis" I mean the search for the happy medium between the aims of the "yes" and the "no" supporters.  I mean the effort to transcend the contradictions.  This synthesis lies in the vision of a Europe which gives itself the means to act and protect itself.

The synthesis between the "yes" and "no" supporters lies in a Europe which, rejecting all naivety, gives itself the means to act, to fight all forms of dumping, to establish a Community preference – it isn't a bad word – and implement industrial policies.  We have created Europe so we can keep factories, industries in Europe, not watch them leave for other continents, sitting on our hands and doing nothing.  That isn't what Europe is.

The synthesis between the "yes" and "no" supporters lies in a Europe which doesn't accept deindustrialization – I dare use the word – which doesn't sit on its hands in the face of offshoring, which doesn't give in to the pseudo-dictatorship of the markets.

The synthesis between the "yes" and "no" supporters lies in a Europe which isn't Malthusian, but is capable of investing massively in the activities of tomorrow, in infrastructure, training and research.

The synthesis between the "yes" and "no" supporters lies in a Europe where the euro will at last be used to deliver growth and serve the economy.  We haven't created the world's second most important currency to be the only ones not using it.

The synthesis between the "yes" and "no" supporters lies in a Europe which prevents by all possible means its members from engaging in an endless race to the bottom in taxation and social protection.

The synthesis between the "yes" and "no" supporters lies in a Europe which controls immigration, where no one can decide on a mass legalization of illegals without the others' agreement.

The synthesis between the "yes" and "no" supporters lies in a Europe which respects the nations, wants them to cooperate, unite and delegate part of their sovereignty, but doesn't want them to disappear, doesn't want to be built against their wishes.

The synthesis between the "yes" and "no" supporters lies in a Europe where each nation has its place and its role, where the nation essentially continues to serve as the framework of democracy, a Europe which respects subsidiarity, a Europe which does only what the nations can't do well, a Europe which fundamentally remains a Europe of nations jointly exercising their sovereignty.

The synthesis between the "yes" and "no" supporters lies in a Europe which rejects globalization without rules.  I said this at the G8, in a meeting of the G24, in the presence of M. Lamy:  it's a Europe which is open to globalization and free trade, but where there is reciprocity.  It's, for example, a Europe which doesn't accept the United States getting an exemption at the WTO to support its SMEs when Europe is refused an equivalent one under the same conditions.  This isn't fair competition.

The synthesis between the "yes" and "no" supporters lies in the Europe reaching out to the South, stretching out a hand to Africa and making a huge effort in the Mediterranean, the Europe which is ready to make the Mediterranean the linchpin of a great Euro-African union, the Europe, which, alongside Barcelona and the Euro-Mediterranean dialogue, supports and encourages the Mediterranean union because it is its future.

It's a Europe as a world power in a democratic Europe, a Europe which is reconnecting with the philosophy of its founding fathers when they invented the European Coal and Steel Community, Common Market and Common Agricultural Policy.  At that time every European knew the purpose of Europe. (…)

ISSUES FACING EU

I want to raise all the issues, I want to ask all the questions, and I want to talk about all the problems.

I want to raise the issue of monetary dumping, social dumping and environmental dumping.

How do you expect us to go on as we are at the moment?  Our companies have to compete against countries which don't care about environmental balances, don't comply with any social legislation and indulge in tax dumping.  Who can tell me that's competition?  It's unfairness, not competition.

I want to raise the issue of Community preference since the equivalent exists in the United States.  The Americans have for a long time had a tax system which is more favourable to products manufactured in the United States than to products manufactured in Asia.

EURO/INDUSTRIAL POLICIES/COMPETITION LAW

I ask for your attention for a minute.  I'm going to tell you something extremely important.  There's the issue of the excessively high euro.  Are we going to be able to keep on manufacturing planes on the European continent when every time the euro appreciates by 10 cents, Airbus has a deficit of a billion?  I can't accept this policy because look at what the Americans do with the dollar, look at what the Chinese do with the yuan, look at what the Japanese do with the yen.  I'm simply saying that when the dollar depreciates by 33% against the euro, how do you expect our companies to get back through productivity what they have lost, unfairly, through political management of the world's other currencies?  I voted for the euro, I believe in the euro.  But at the end of the day the currency isn't a taboo issue.  I want the currency to deliver growth, jobs for your children, for you, full employment in Europe.  I don't want people to make it a subject only bankers can talk about.

I have been thinking about industrial policies.

I have been looking at competition law compared with what happens outside Europe.

COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY

I want to raise the issue of the long-term future of the Common Agricultural Policy and Europe's food independence.  What's the point of imposing on our farmers traceability and food safety if we import into Europe products for which we can guarantee neither their traceability nor their safety?  The day when we have no more farmers, we'll have lost Europe's food independence.  What will people then say about consumer safety.  I'm not going to the European Council with my beret and my baguette.  I'm going to defend all Europeans' food safety and independence.  All Europeans need the continued existence of a powerful, modern, balanced European agriculture, that's the reality.  Moreover, I said to President Bush:  "I congratulate you, Mr President, for defending American farmers.  I'll do exactly the same for European farmers".

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND ECOTAXES/VAT

 I want to raise the issue of European policy on sustainable development and ecotaxes.  If only we could at last decide all together, in Europe, on systematically reducing VAT on clean products.

I want to raise the issue of the unanimity rule for cutting VAT when it has no impact on competition between member States.  How come some countries have to reduce taxes on profits to zero and we, France, have to wait for the unanimous agreement of all the partners to cut VAT by a few percentage points in one sector?  The rule must be the same.  OK, we can do this on our own for our wealth tax, so we should also be able to adjust our VAT rates.  There can't be double standards in the Europe I want to see.

DEFENCE/STABILITY PACT

I want to raise the issue of the defence effort with respect to the Stability Pact.  Of course France, Germany, Italy and Britain are making huge defence efforts, but are we going to be able to go on for a long time having four or five countries in Europe ensuring the security of all the others and complying with the same [Stability Pact] deficit rules when so many others haven't got the defence budgets we have?

EU BORDERS

I want to raise the crucial issue of Europe's borders.  Since, without borders, there won't be any European identity and nor will there be any European power, because of the European will being doomed to keep on forever being diluted.  When talking about the borders, I'm thinking about all those countries which are Europe's neighbours and Europe has to build special ties with, but, I say, aren't all destined to become fully-fledged members of the EU.

EU/RENAISSANCE

The moment has come for the 27 to start addressing the questions:  what is Europe?  What are the criteria for it?  On what principles is it defined?  I want us to go further.  I want us to be clearer.  I no longer want there to be misunderstandings when everyone thinks one thing and says something else.  Since this is what's actually going on and the French shouldn't be told:  "don't worry, it won't happen".  If it won't happen, one must simply say so.  Personally I don't want misunderstandings.  I want Europe to apply to relations with its neighbours the principles I believe in, principles of truth and sincerity, since without truth and sincerity, there's no real friendship.  I want to go further.  Europe isn't only the currency, it isn't only budgetary discipline, it isn't only competition law, it isn't only borders, and it isn't only voting weights.  Europe is a civilization project.

Europe needs a new Renaissance.  It needs to create the conditions for this Renaissance.

It needs to create the psychological, intellectual and moral climate thanks to which, within our old nations, everyone will once again feel intuitively that everything is possible, that they can fulfil their dreams, that the possibilities of human adventure are infinite, thanks to which we'll see the rebirth of faith in the future and self confidence. (…)./.