Euractiv spoke to former French Prime Minister Michel Barnier during his visit to Brussels this week to present his new book, “Ce que vous m’avez appris”.
One year after the dissolution of the French National Assembly, Barnier, a key figure in the Brexit negotiations, spoke to Euractiv about relations with the United States, trade diversification with India, tensions with China, the Mercosur agreement, the political situation in France, and his potential presidential ambitions.
The deadline to avoid a 50% tariff on EU imports – on 9th July – is approaching. What is your view on the Commission’s efforts in this regard?
I think that the Commission’s attitude for the time being has been skilful and appropriate.
Should the EU take a more aggressive stance towards the USA?
It’s not about being aggressive, even if the Americans are aggressive. And at the same time, they often change their minds. You have to be very calm with them, you have to keep your cool.
They simply need to know that the European single market will respond to any aggression. It’s as simple as that.
Do you have an advice to give the Commission in dealing with the Trump administration?
I have no advice to give the Commission. But I think it should pay close attention to the Member States, to the positions of the member states, particularly the exporting countries, large and small.
We need to be able to say to the Americans, calmly and without aggression, that if they attack such or such a market with taxes, we’ll answer blow for a blow.
Also, unless I’m mistaken, we only have 15-20% of trade with the United States, so we need to react intelligently to aggressive American trade.
By diversifying our trade with other parts of the world, with free trade agreements for example? It’s no secret that you’re not very pleased with the one under negotiation with Mercosur.
The agreement was signed by the president of the European Commission under conditions that were not appreciated in France by the entire political class, because she signed it the day after the fall of my government last year.
We can’t explain in France that the Commission is signing an agreement that would wipe out part of our economy – it’s as simple as that.
This agreement is not acceptable to us as it stands, and it will remain unacceptable until we rewrite it in agricultural terms. For this agreement to be successful we need reciprocity.
The free trade agreement with Mercosur is not the only agreement currently being negotiated with the EU. There is one currently being negotiated with India. Doesn’t this augur more turbulence in the future?
It’s all about making compromises that have to be win-win. Negotiations with India are open, and that’s a good thing, but it has to be a balanced agreement.
India and other countries also need to understand that we will no longer accept imports of products that do not comply with any – or very few – of the rules we impose on our own producers: the famous mirror clauses.
I find it interesting and useful that we are negotiating with India, that we diversify and open negotiations with the rest of the world.
Like with China, for example?
It’s not the same thing with China.
How so?
China is an extremely powerful country, which defends its interests unashamedly.
The European Union will have to – and not should have to – define by itself and for itself where its strategic interests lie, because that’s what China is doing.
For example?
Ensuring that Chinese overproduction does not invade the European market at low cost. Avoiding products that are manufactured hastily and under conditions that mean they are often dangerous – I’m thinking in particular of textiles and toys.
We have the means to defend ourselves.
In your book, you also reflect on your time as the EU’s Brexit negotiator. Almost a decade later, the UK and the EU are growing closer, particularly in terms of defence. Is this an admission of weakness on the part of the United Kingdom ?
No, it’s realism, it’s lucidity. It’s better to be together in today’s world, as we can see with Russian aggression on the one hand, American aggression on the other, and the rise of China.
Personally, I’ve never understood Brexit. No one, not even Mr Farage, has been able to explain to me the added value of Brexit. It’s a lose-lose situation.
So the United Kingdom is not coming back through the back door, as some say?
I don’t think they’re coming back before a generation.
I think they’re realising the difficulties associated with Brexit. Not all the difficulties in the UK are due to Brexit, but they are definitely more serious because of Brexit.
And it would be the same for each of our countries if we left the European Union.
Apart from your international activities, you were in office until the dissolution of the National Assembly last year. What is your view of the political instability in France today?
Today the French public sector is impotent, and there is an overall inability to act due to the absence of a majority in the National Assembly.
That will only be resolved the day we have a new president of the republic who will be accompanied and supported by an absolute majority.
So you don’t believe in another dissolution?
I heard the president of the republic say that he did not wish to dissolve the National Assembly. To be honest, nobody really understood why he dissolved it the last time, and I cannot prejudge what he will do.
But, if there were to be another motion of censure in the National Assembly, I think that one way or another the people would have to have their say.
What do you mean by this?
There are three ways of going to the people: through a referendum, a dissolution, or a presidential election.
You don’t hide a presidential ambition in interviews with the French press, mentioning your “will to serve the country”. Were you to be elected, you would be 76 years old, making you the oldest President of the Fifth Republic. Do you feel strong enough?
Every presidential candidate has to ask himself three questions: am I up to the job? Do I have a good plan for the country? Am I capable of rallying people beyond my own camp?
As far as my camp is concerned, is the Republican candidate capable of rallying people beyond the party, in particular the whole centrist family?
These are questions we don’t have the answers to yet. And if I were to ask them, I would ask them in due course and I would answer them frankly in due course.
(aw)