Texte intégral
Q : What concrete results do you expect from the Vienna summit meeting ?
A : The central message will be and must be about employment. The result should be to confirm the dynamic that began at the Luxembourg meeting a year ago. That means we want quantified indicators in order to reduce un employment among the young and those who have been unemployed for quite some time. We'd like to have a discussion about lifelong Learning, reducing the length of work and, why not, about minimum income in each country. This doesn't mean the same minimum revenue, but the principle of minimum revenue in all countries. We'd like to call for more social dialogue about those questions.
Q : What is France's view or Germany's desire to lower its contribution to the EU through Agenda 2000 ?
A : We don't consider that Agenda 2000 is only about the German problem. It's a global reform. It's how to finance the Union for seven years and how to define the common policies. We don't ignore that Germany feels that they are supporting an imbalance. But we want the answer to all those problems to come from one principle : stabilizing the expenses of the Union. We believe we can do better with no more expenses. That's what we're seeking in Vienna, and we really want to end these negotiations in March. There are two things that we very clearly refuse. First, to solve the German problem, the Dutch problem, the British problem by generalizing, the rebate system that was given Britain. The second thing we refuse is co-financing the Common Agricultural Policy, which would mean a renationalization of that policy.
Q : But how do you respond to the people who say France is far too great a beneficiary of agricultural subsidies ?
A : France is a beneficiary because it’s a strong agricultural power, but we are not favored by any specific mechanism. This has been recognized for 40 years. We don't refuse a reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. We'll be capable of talking about economies on that policy. But I repeat : We refuse co-financing.
Q : Because there's so much money and so many strongly held positions involved, won't these Agenda 2000 talks be difficult, perhaps damaging ?
A : It's a very difficult discussion. And I believe nobody should consider it a discussion in which somebody can win, alone, against the others. We'll all have to make compromises, and we're entering these negotiations with that spirit. For us, nothing is taboo.
Q : What's the French view on the call for tax harmonization that has created a lot of upset ?
A : Maybe there's a problem of wording. Harmonization in our view doesn’t mean uniformization. We don't believe that there should be one single rate of income tax on people or firms. We believe two things : There mustn't be tax paradises in Europe. And we believe there have to be rules against social and fiscal dumping in Europe. That's all that we are seeking, and that means there will probably have to be a fiscal harmonization about energy or savings. This could be a first step.
Q : How do you define social dumping ? Oskar Lafontaine uses the phrase a lot. There are countries in the Union that have, for example, lower pension costs than France or Germany. Is that how you explain social dumping ?
A : I don't want to go too far, and i don't want to involve any specific country in that field. What i mean is that together we' ve got to find the minimum rules we want to fix.
Q : How does Paris regard the new German government and what many consider its less-than-brilliant start ?
A : They have a new team that wants a new start for Germany and a new start for Europe. Maybe they have their difficulties, but we've had very concrete, very positive conversations. We feel they are going to move. This is important for Europe. We are also closer on themes like enlargement, institutional reform, a pact for employment.
Q : Do you feel any less German interest in sharing a motor-of-Europe role with France ?
A : Not at all. They really want to be involved in Europe, and they still believe the Franco-German relationship is at its center. Maybe they feel it in another way. Maybe it's less romantic, less sentimental, but i think it is maybe more concrete, closer to the preoccupations of the people. There won't be a change here, and that's clear.