Ireland has nothing to fear from the easing of "flexibility" provisions in the EU treaties which would allow groups of member states to collaborate on new policy areas, the French Minister for European Affairs, Mr Pierre Moscovici, insists.

In a wide-ranging pre-Presidency interview with The Irish Times, Mr Moscovici urged support for simplification of the flexibility provisions as crucial to the dynamic of an enlarged EU. And he said that Ireland's economic record and its membership of the euro would place it firmly in the ranks of any such "advance guard" groups if it wished. Speaking of the recently strained relationship between Paris and Berlin, seen by many as the engine of European integration, the minister insisted things were very much back on track.

"There is no doubt at all about the political signal," he says. "After a delicate period, the Franco-German relationship is repaired and relaunched and will be manifested in a common position in the Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC). And that is important for the IGC given that Amsterdam's failure in part resulted from a failure of the relationship. That will not happen again."

And he held out little hope for any improvement of Austria's standing with fellow member states, pledging that Austria would receive the same treatment as any other EU member state under the French Presidency "with the important caveat that bilateral sanctions will remain in place because nothing has changed".

Was it likely that such sanctions would be lifted before the Nice summit in December? "No."

Of the key challenge faced by the French Presidency, that of completing the treaty-changing IGC by December, Mr Moscovici is insistent that "we don't want a minimalist agreement. We would prefer no Treaty of Nice."

He admits it will be "a difficult task" but "if we fail it would be a sign that Europe was incapable of reforming itself. . . and would complicate enlargement for which reform is a precondition."

Such changes must include those to the "practically unusable" Amsterdam flexibility provisions. These should allow groups of states to go ahead inside the EU framework with projects without the participation of the unwilling or unable, but have not to date been tested, he insists, "largely because the rules are so strictly drawn.

"Either we want a Europe which is a zone of free trade and politically weak, in which case we can continue as we are. Or we want to continue to have a strong political dimension, in which case we need to have the potential for reinforced co-operation." Such co-operation, he argues, will result in not one but multiple, overlapping "advance guard" groups of states which can break the inevitable inertia of an organisation of 30 members.

"There is no question of calling into question the common policies of the Union. It's about advancing in new fields of activity that have been underdeveloped in the past. . . a whole series of areas where we know it will be difficult to move as a group of 30."

That means, he believes, removing the veto on the operation of the flexibility provisions and reducing to eight or nine from 13 the number required to form such a group. Significantly, he also argues that "we will have to think whether under reinforced co-operation it would not be possible to do things faster and more flexibly. In other words that each project under reinforced co-operation would be able to decide on its own method of work."

That is likely to worry some of the smaller countries who will not want to see disturbed the institutional balance in decision-making, particularly the role of the Commission, which they regard as crucial to protecting their rights.

Mr Moscovici would not be drawn into detail on a longer-term perspective on EU structures beyond a broad welcome for the recent speech by the German Foreign Minister, Mr Joschke Fischer, and a firm rebuttal of the suggestion by the former Commission President, Mr Jacques Delors, of a "treaty within a treaty" as a means of integrating more closely the hard core states. That, he says, would lead to a duplication of the institutions, not their simplification.

But Mr Fischer's speech "asked the questions which are central to the debate at the moment: `How are we to manage a qualitatively different Europe of 30?' `What are the ends we are pursuing?' `What are the limits of the project?' `Where are the ultimate borders of this Europe?' `And how will it all work'?" He sees the IGC as a first step in answering such questions.

The French remain firmly opposed to the "illogical" Irish defence of the principle of one-commissioner-per-state. "A commissioner is not the representative of his country. He is something else. He is part of a collegial entity and guardian of the treaty," he says.

He understands Irish concerns about retaining a sense of ownership of the Commission. "It will be one of the most delicate debates, but I think it's a mistaken perspective. If tomorrow we have a Commission of 30 or 35 it won't be able to work."

The IGC will also explore the curtailing of veto voting. Would it be possible to do so in the field of taxation? The French are studying the issue which may have constitutional implications, he says. But the resistance of the British and Luxembourgers, makes the idea a non-runner. "If I had money to bet I would not put it all on qualified majority voting on taxation."

On the parallel work of the Convention drafting a human rights charter for the EU, Mr Moscovici argues that it is premature to talk of more than a political declaration without legally binding force.

"But I think it should be ambitious and, at the least, not represent a retreat on our own constitutional provisions. At this stage we would give priority to the contents of the charter over its legal standing."

But what value-added would such a charter represent for citizens?

"I think it will be an important source of political inspiration and that little by little, if the charter is a good text, it will be given the force of law."

On defence the French are usually hawks in pressing for substantial commitments to mutual defence guarantees but are playing it low-key. "We can live, at least for the time being, for legal and political reasons, with the current treaty. So we do not want defence included in the IGC," he says.

Paris, once openly derisory about neutrality, can live with coexistence now. "You have clear evidence of that reality. We are creating a European defence project a a quinze while respecting differences."

Mr Moscovici is coy about French intentions for boosting the role of the euro-11 group. Proposals will be tabled by the Finance Minister, Mr Laurent Fabius. But he rejects any suggestion that it will compromise the standing of the Ecofin group of 15 finance ministers.

"I don't see any contradiction. When we created euro-11 Ecofin was the place where decisions are taken on all sorts of issues. But in the context of economic and monetary union it's obviously in the euro-11 where the decisions will be taken in relation to the countries in the single currency. It's clear today that that entity needs to be reinforced."

Specifically in relation to the euro?

"Yes - it's a question of constructing a political forum for the euro which can be a legitimate counterweight to the monetary perspective of the independent European Central Bank." The French are also determined to beef up the results of the March e-summit in Lisbon with a social dimension to balance its somewhat Blairite economic reform agenda. "We want to put in place a five-year programme of work from the Nice summit - a combination of diverse approaches including benchmarking - and are working closely with the Commission to that end."

On enlargement Mr Moscovici rejects the suggestion that France is any less enthusiastic than any other member state. But setting target dates for accession in Nice will simply not be possible, he says.

"France is for enlargement. It is the great project for which we are reforming the institutions. It is a great historical project but it is in all our interests that we do it in such a way that it succeeds.

"We don't think, nor do the Commission or many member states, that it will be possible to give a date. But if it is possible we will do it."