In this second and final part of his exclusive interview with Mediapart, French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault answers the suggestion that he is railroading the democratic process with the adoption of the European Treaty on Stability, Cooperation and Governance, sets out his position on the widespread use of tax havens by big banks and corporations, and for greater representation of national parliaments in EU decision-making. He also answers questions on recent domestic issues, including his government's decision to ban demonstrations in protest at the publication by a French magazine of cartoon caricatures of Prophet Mohammed, and the calling to book of his interior minister over his out-of-step comments on racial profiling and the right to vote of of non-EU nationals.
-------------------------
Mediapart: The preamble of the text of the TSCG mentions “the Contracting Parties' obligation to transpose the "balanced budget rule" into their national legal systems, through binding, permanent and preferably constitutional provisions”. In other words, a loss of sovereignty for parliamentarians.
Jean-Marc Ayrault: That is not what the Constitutional Council found. Parliament keeps its full sovereignty.
Mediapart: Yes, but that’s what the treaty says, and that’s what will be voted upon. The second point is that there is no transfer of this sovereignty to the European Parliament, a major uninvited party to this treaty, because at the very best its president is invited to attend the European council meetings.
J-M. A.: Indeed, he takes part at the opening of the meetings, but he leaves before the end. A first step of progress would be that he is fully associated into the council meetings. But the question is what will happen now. The last European Council asked for reports from four presidents, Messrs Barroso, Van Rompuy, Juncker and Draghi, about their propositions for the future of Europe. These questions are on the table. They are there because the question raised is about the future of each of the European nations. These questions will be debated as of the next European Council on October 18th and 19th and France will make its own contribution.
Mediapart: So you are postponing the question about democracy until after the TSCG is settled. You who, in 2008, tabled a motion in parliament calling for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
J-M. A.: Europe must enter a new stage in its history, one that François Hollande describes as the integration of solidarity.
Mediapart: At the time, you said: ‘We must share this desire to give a voice back to the people. Representative democracy is neither the most logical, nor the most solid for the future of Europe. I want no more of this obscure Europe, of this shameful Europe. I want a Europe that stands out in the open, a sincere and popular Europe, a Europe of which we are proud. It is by dissimulating Europe, by making it incomprehensible, that we have ended up by by-passing our people’. And you added, ‘The people’s representatives are not the censors of the people. You cannot replace the people after losing a referendum’.
J-M. A.: That was nice.
Mediapart: But it is also still pertinent.
J-M. A.: The question of democracy is not been left behind, it is at the heart of the stage to come. We will not advance more without added democracy.
Mediapart: But by refusing a national public debate, by calling on your parliamentary majority to remain disciplined, you give the impression of placing yourself within an anti-democratic approach.
J-M. A.: I am above all calling for a show of responsibility.
[…]
Mediapart: What is, for you, the next stage?
J-M. A.: To give ourselves more economic and budgetary coherence, and to give national parliaments more powers of control.
Mediapart: What are you thinking of when you speak of involving national parliaments more?
J-M. A.: We need to find the right mechanism. If we want to the people to be associated, their representatives must be able to have their say. It is indispensible, because one is well aware of the disengagement of the general population. Europe must put forward a project for society, with social, economic and environmental perspectives. That remains to be done.
Mediapart: What is your opinion about the predominant power of the European Commission, reinforced by the Two-pack and Six-pack and the European Semester?
J-M. A.: That is not necessarily the most bothersome.
Mediapart: But the Commission is an a-democratic and technical body.
J-M. A.: The commission does not have all the powers. The European Union doesn’t function without these three pillars: the Commission, the European Council of governments and the European Parliament. I am not certain that the inter-governmental [instances] alone is the right formula. It is based on compromises and arrangements that have never produced grand ambitions. All that needs to be put back to work. The Commission, which no longer functioned [properly] has seized back the initiative. All for the best, on certain points
Mediapart: Among the six founding members of the European Union is Luxembourg, one of the tax havens where national wealth is hidden, where our banks and our large corporations have subsidiaries and which allows them to escape a part of the tax dues. The financial assets kept there have never been as huge as they are today, despite the crisis. Yet Europe says nothing about this. Can one at the same time live comfortably with this in the heart of europe while also subjecting people to austerity and constraints and bringing the deficit down to 3% of GDP?
J-M. A.: It is a situation that is no longer durable. These sums of money escaping nations are considerable. But it is a complex debate, touching on fiscal relations between countries. This economic model that is to be built in Europe must also place these questions on the table. Once again, we are unfortunately not in an ideal world, and we are far from getting there. We must continue to fight. For example banking union and supervision are also there to allow us to reach a new stage. The [free marketeer] liberals don’t want this, we want it. The election of François Hollande has also allowed these questions to be asked. Even if, indeed, concerning the tax havens much remains to be done. The tax on financial transactions is one step.
Mediapart: What is France’s position in the current discussions concerning the European budget?
J-M. A.: I can tell you already that it is not that of the preceding president, Nicolas Sarkozy, who wanted to reduce the European budget, which signifies fewer structural funds, fewer European social funds, and thus less solidarity. France doesn’t accept this.
Mediapart: But you are not in favour of it being increased?
J-M. A.: Already, there are many countries who want to reduce it, among them the English [sic]. We will fight this issue. Afterwards, we’ll see how we can bring the points of view closer together. And I think we will have a Franco-German agreement on this question.
[…]
Mediapart: You call for coherence and discipline among your parliamentary majority concerning the debate about Europe, but a member of your government, interior minister Manuel Valls, has called into question several of President Hollande’s election manifesto pledges, notably propositions 30 and 50 regarding putting an end to the use by police of racial profiling and for giving non-EU foreign residents the right to vote. Why hasn’t he been called to order in the same way?
J-M. A.: He has been reminded that, when one has a doubt, one must always return to the fundamentals, these being François Hollande’s 60 propositions. It’s not a question of reading them with scholarly detail, but everyone knows them almost by heart. These engagements will be respected, Manuel Valls knows this, as do the other members of government. I told him this and he perfectly admitted this. It is not forbidden to have a personal thought, and it’s all for the better that each one has his own personality. But Manuel Valls knows very well that the policy programme of the president, which I have the task of putting in train, is that one. And not another.
Mediapart: There has been a debate over the online publication of an anti-Islam video which French magazine Charlie Hebdo jumped into (by publishing satirical cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed). Some say quite justly that the liberty of expression is an inviolable principle. But among other fundamental principles is the freedom to demonstrate. You took a very rare decision to ban outright the demonstrations of Muslims who felt humiliated by this context, even if they did not disturb public order. On the one side the freedom of expression, on the other an infringement of the freedom to demonstrate. Why?
J-M. A.: The government has carried out its responsibilities, and thoroughly assumes this. We had received information that leads us to believe that there is a risk of disturbing public order. But, indeed, this decision is exceptional, and I join you in your argument.
Mediapart: Catholic or Jewish fundamentalists don’t see their demonstrations banned, even if they are sometimes violent.
J-M. A.: What do you know? If that was to happen again, we would have exactly the same attitude. France has no reason to let itself be imposed upon, for whatever it is, by religions. That applies to the future law on marriage for all and adoption [rights] for homosexual couples. The [French] republic doesn’t allow a spirituality to impose upon it what it must do when citizens have pronounced themselves through the ballot box.
Mediapart: What do you have to say to Muslims in France who feel stigmatised, whereas it is a tiny minority who demonstrate and protest across the world and when, in one week, the controversy over an anti-Islam film has been transformed into building-up talk about the ‘Islamic threat’.
J-M. A.: I understand that they can feel a wound, an injustice. But for as much, I don’t think one should confuse radical expression with the feelings of a vast majority of Muslims in France. They all have their place in the lay republic, which guarantees the freedom of conscience and the respect of the free exercise of religions.
-------------------------
This abridged version of the original interview in French has omitted seven questions on domestic politics, as indicated in the text.
- See part one of the interview here.
-------------------------
English version: Graham Tearse