Edited transcript of the interview with Valery Giscard D'Estaing
Q: You will have been aware of the controversy that was provoked during the referendum by the quotation that was used from you in Libertas posters. Could you put that remark in context, what you were trying to say at that point?
A: It was not in any sense centred on an Irish point. It was concerning the institutions. Europe cannot function without an improvement of the institutions. We started with a small group. When Ireland joined we were nine, and are now 27. It is clear that the institutions do not produce the results that were expected in fact. It is due mainly – not only, but mainly – to the consequences of enlargement. Enlargement in two steps: in 1999 and 2004 increased the number by 15 members. The institutions cannot function without this addition of members without being reorganised. If you take any company, or municipality you cannot have a council of 27 members without any structure, without any bureau, or nothing, and a rotating presidency. So, we worked to reorganise this and the consequence is to reduce the number of the commissioners. It is not to suppress the Irish commissioner, or the French commissioner. No. It is to say that 27 cannot work. They have 12 tasks to perform, so there will be 12, or 15, with a little flexibility, which means that everyone, including
Britain, France will not have a permanent member. But this is not the idea. The idea is to have people chosen for their expertise to study the common European interest, and they can from anywhere.
Q: But your quotation gave the impression that if people knew the full content of the treaty that they would not accept in France, or in any other country
A: I didn't see how it was translated. I said exactly the contrary that I wish that people could understand the whole substance of the treaty. But it is difficult, honestly. It is legal treaty after a long
period of common life, in which you have many details. For a reader of good faith it is difficult to move into the text. The text of the Constitution was easier to interpret, and I would have liked to have the debate centred on the first part – the real new part. This part which we presented in 2003 so it is now six years ago and it could have been understood by people. It could, at least, have been debated by people. With the full text, it was not possible, or it was very difficult. It is difficult to ask citizens to approve a text that they cannot fully understand. So, the process was a difficult one in terms of democratic support.
Q: The inevitable conclusion of that argument, though, is that any future EU treaties should not be put to referendum because you will never have a sufficiently-informed public.
A: Yes, in the text there was no mention of a referendum and also because of another argument, you know. I am - even if it is not understood by everyone keen - on protecting the right of the small
countries. Because if we want to have a Europe composed of Germany, France and the UK we could do it. But that is not Europe. Europe is composed of different countries, different sizes. The referendum at the end would be decided by the largest country. If you take the population of the UK, France and Germany it would be finished. People say the president should be elected by popular vote. OK! Then small countries would have no voice. So it is not a good approach. Our approach is clearly to have a system in which we have the representation of every state and we also have bodies and these bodies should be composed of adequate members, not representatives of states.
Q: You have been here for a day and a half. Have you built up an assessment of the political climate in Ireland now towards the referendum.
A: Firstly, I would not intrude into Irish politics because I am not qualified for that. What I perceive from reading the papers and talking to people is that at this moment the main concern is the economic situation, and that probably future decisions by the Irish people will be affected or even determined by the economic situation and evolution. Some people say that we should use this as an argument for support for (it). I think it mustn't be used for that, but it is a fact that in time of difficulties you have a need for solidarity, for common approach. It is very interesting to see that you have demands for two meetings of the EU Council in the next two months, and they come from small countries, not the big ones, in fact. I realise that by the poll you published this morning that there are movements in the Irish political scene but it is not motivated by the debate on the Lisbon Treaty. In fact, it is motivated probably by the economic and social crisis.
Q: What was your assessment of the Irish No and the reasons for it? Did you see it as the last demonstration by a buoyant economy, buoyant society that it could operate on its own?
A: I read with interest the analysis that has been published. The first answer, clearly, is the difficulty people had understanding the text. And it is a legitimate demand. The other aspect is a fear
because Ireland has special values, traditions, Christian values, family values. There is a vague fear that it could be changed in the world of today, not especially in Europe, but in the world of today.
And this fear has been used as an argument against the treaty. But, honestly, this is unfair because nothing in the treaty, absolutely nothing, creates a new approach to family values, or social legislation that exists under the existing treaties. Personally, I am a French Catholic and I am not so far from the Irish perception of events, even if we are from different traditions. So I can understand
the Irish point of view. But I think the approach is not the proper one. The proper one would be to look in Europe for who shared the same point of view. Probably France, probably Belgium, probably Italy. Well, we will watch the field to avoid any slip-ups. It would be more efficient than to say that we isolate ourselves. We say, no. That is not protective in the global scheme.
Q: You were talking last night about the ideals of your generation after the war, and questioning the ideals of younger people in Europe today. Do you have a sense of the ideals, or the interest in even having ideals of the younger Irish generation? Do you see them having any particular interest in European integration, or even understanding of the gains which EU membership has given Ireland.
A: Difficult to tell, because clearly they have not the basic faith that we had. That is clear. But it has not been replaced by something else. They have a perception that the world will be different, that
the relationship with immigrants will change a little the conditions of life, of study. But they are not fixed. They are moving from one position to another. It is moving from one position to another. It is
a transition. I guess that in a few years when they see what the world will become, with enormous Chinese, with a brilliant and more complicated Indian power, with Brazil becoming an influential country. What do we do in Europe? We will be very little. So, probably, they will support then. The mistake we did probably was to think that peace was enough. Because for the young people peace is something accepted, it is finished. When we say, look at the peace, they say, 'That's OK, but it doesn't matter anymore". The new problem is dimension. We are too small today for the world to count. If we want to have influence, jointly we can. Isolated, even the large so-called European countries cannot. When I speak with leading Germans, they say we cannot, we need to be in a group. It is true for everyone, including Ireland.
Q: Many people here see that it is part of a group that is changing, that the Irish voice will become weaker. People here have a very strong attachment to having a place at the Commission table.
A: Firstly, I don't think that they have such a deep attachment. I think it is more the political approach. It is more the political class who created this perception. I do not say that there will not an
Irish commissioner. I could say that there will not be a French commissioner, or a German one. It is the same rule. If we move from 27 to 17 it means practically out of two times a country will have a commissioner. But the commissioner do not represent the country. It is a false position. When we were nine, no-one cared about the commissioner. No-one. No one knew them in France. It was a choice made by governments, and it was made not to represent a country, but to compose the Commission. Until the Commission should be reduced it means that the process of choosing must change. What I recommend, for instance, to appease the Irish sensibility is that there is a commitment for the first time there will be an Irish commissioner. You will have 17 countries without, but there will be an Irish commissioner. This is a pledge that should be taken by the European Council. After that it will be the rule of rotation, to be debated by the Council.
Q: But the other member states are ready to concede a commissioner for every country?
A: No, honestly, no. It is rather remarkable that they have ratified. In ratification they accept a Commission of 17 members. Seventeen members means that they will have a commissioner once in every two times, and not every time. They accepted. If you look at the debate in the countries that have ratified it was not a key point, because everyone knows that the Commission should be reduced.
Q: But the Government presented the outcome of the December summit as that the member states had agreed that even after the treaty was brought into force that every country would have a commissioner. Was that an inaccurate presentation?
A: Well, I did not attend the meeting. Certainly, the perception was this one, because if there is a Irish commissioner of course all the other countries will say that we have got to have one, so the decision on the Irish commissioner implicates that every country will have a commissioner. So the proposal accepted by the Irish Government when they signed the Lisbon Treaty to have a reorganised Commission must be abandoned.
Q: Therefore, what concessions can be offered to the Irish people to get them to change their minds, and do you believe that concessions in any form should be offered to deal with the reasons for the Irish vote.
A: Number one, explanation, because the people were afraid. It was a sort of a reaction, it wasn't an analysis. They were afraid of the tax consequences, for instance. So explanation by the Press, by the institutions – not the political parties so much because they will be involved in local elections in the Spring, and in the economic crisis and people will be worried for themselves. So it is civil society, unions, teachers, chambers of commerce, farming organisations…
Q: What would be the consequences of a second No vote?
A: Difficult to tell. It depends on what the others will do. If Ireland is followed by one, or two countries – which is possible, the Czech Republic and what will happen in Britain it will lead rather automatically to a new positioning of the European system centred on the big countries. Because the big countries will say, 'We tried to have a functioning system. It failed. So let's work together'. That mean Franco-German co-operation, it also means Anglo-Franco-German co-operation. That will be the natural reaction, because the process that we supported of having everyone into the system but it was a system that wasn't able to function
Q: There has been an argument put forward by the Yes camp, and the Government's that Ireland's standing in the EU has been damaged.
A: Honestly, a little, but I guess that it could be repaired. And I wish it could be repaired. It is now about the way that Ireland handles the questions, that it is not too complicated and that they go rather straight to the final question. Because you have other problems. You have the local elections, but the Lisbon Treaty is something else. If there is no solution in Ireland the European election everywhere will be confused because people will not know which Europe they will vote: Nice, or Lisbon. Of course, the responsibility of Ireland will be mentioned, so I think that for the Irish interest it should not last too long.
Q: So you would like to see an early referendum?
A: Not early, because I think people need time to be informed. What is the lapse of time they need I don't know, two months, three months. It cannot be done overnight.
Q: The Government is talking about October?
A: October means after the European elections, and at the moment when the new Commission will be composed. Until the Irish answer people will not know whether it is to be 17, or 27, so there will be confusion.
Q: So just to clarify, you would prefer it to take place well before the European Parliament elections?
A: Yes, if it is possible. I don't know if it is possible, but I thought April, or the beginning of May would be the best time.
Q: Do you believe that a government under pressure economically, under pressure in the opinion polls has the political mandate necessary?
A: I cannot tell. You can write about it. But I am confident that the Irish will vote Yes.
Q: Why do you say that?
A: Because it is like in France. They used it once to expel some dissatisfaction, some anguish. They did it. Finished.
Q: So it wasn't just Europe?
A: No. Next time, they will say, 'We said what we had to say and now we want to stay in Europe'. It is what I expect.