On the subject of an "off the record" interview. The secret's out. The French journalist Jean Quatremer stated (in his universally accessible blog) that Nicolas Sarkozy had met journalists of the French press with accreditation in Brussels on 5 May, for an "off the record" exchange of views on the forthcoming Presidency of the EU, adding that Agence EUROPE was among those invited to take part (due, quite obviously, to our "European" focus). He went on to state that the summary of this, which he had published himself as the result of an exchange of views with the presidential entourage, was in fact a summary of Mr Sarkozy's words. Since then, odd bits and pieces of the presidential conferences have appeared here or there, sometimes in transparent form.
The "off the record" nature of the interview having been thus dispelled, I felt that I could also lift my reservations and impart to our readers what the next President of the European Council felt it was appropriate to tell journalists specialising in European affairs. In Paris, however, it is felt that the confidential nature of the meeting should remain in place: it was off the record and will remain so. I will restrict myself, therefore, to what anybody can read on Mr Quatremer's blog, which is that Nicolas Sarkozy met a group of journalists at the Elysée Palace for an open and informal exchange of views, in a "relaxed" atmosphere. As for the content, I shall follow the lead of my French colleagues by summing up comments made by sources close to the Presidency of the Republic. In so doing I shall make no revelations, but shall provide my information in schematic form, subject by subject.
Significance of the European Presidency. The first principle is to disregard national interests, taking instead the basis of the interests of Europe. One example: France would like to re-negotiate certain aspects of the energy/climate package presented by the Commission, such as the rate/objective of renewable energies, but European interests mean that it is better to avoid reopening the whole package. As the fundamental objective is shared by all, the way in which it is achieved is obviously open for discussion; but if each country goes too far in the defence of its own opinions and interests, even if they are justified, "we are heading for disaster".
Generally speaking, the new Presidency intends to "place much trust" in the European Parliament.
The presidents to be appointed. The best-placed candidates, the "favourites", for the permanent presidency of the European Council and for that of the Commission are Mr. Juncker and Mr Barroso, without ruling out a "swap", a change of roles between the two. For the time being, British opposition to Mr Juncker's appointment remains firm. But doors may start to open, because France does not share the view that the United Kingdom should be excluded from major European responsibilities simply because their country has remained on the outside of important achievements such as the single currency and the Schengen zone. A person should not be chosen on the basis of his or her nationality, but on the basis of his or her values and beliefs.
France has not applied for any of the presidencies to be created or renewed. For the European Commission in particular, the return of Michel Barnier as vice-president with responsibility for a portfolio such as the internal market is a possibility.
Money and finance. The French Presidency will not raise the question of the autonomy of the European Central Bank (ECB) or of any changes to its status. This is a delicate issue, on which France has no intention of getting into conflict with Germany. The objective, therefore, is a systematic intensification of dialogue between the ECB and the Eurogroup. Precisely because he is independent and the master of his own decisions, Mr Trichet is likely to agree to dialogue. France does not support the policy of the ECB as regards interest rates, because it believes this policy is wrong, but it does not challenge its competencies; what it does want to do is to discuss them in the appropriate fora.
The Presidency will focus in particular on the moralisation of financial capitalism. It is clear that the position of the United Kingdom has changed much on this subject; London previously felt that there was no role for Europe to play in this field, but the UK is now taking an active part in the debate at EU level.
Defence. We must move forward without talking about it too much, in order to avoid rows which may jeopardise neutrality, relations with NATO, etc. We must try to make progress on concrete aspects, such as the armament industry and the view that a "defence à 27" cannot advance with the efforts of just four countries behind it. Progress is possible with discretion.
The Eastern European member states. There is nothing to reproach them for on the past. They needed both support for economic growth (which the EU offered them, with its common policies) and to feel protected for the "security" element, which they felt depended on the United States and NATO. They feel reassured and ready, now, to discuss these subjects in the framework of the ESDP.
(F.R.)