After Sigmar Gabriel’s shock statements about the state of the TTIP negotiations, France has weighed in with its Secretary of State’s announcement this morning (30 August 2016) on French television that Paris wants a full halt to the talks. Full details – an nuances – in the full English translation of the interview below.
For French speakers please view the interview on BFMTV here (about 8 minutes). For non-French speakers, and for those who don’t have 8 minutes to spare, below a full transcript and translation (by yours truly) of the interview.
Our assessment: Signs are France is taking a “hard” negotiating position with Washington as crunch time on TTIP nears this autumn. Paris is not fully closing the door to TTIP, but it looks like politically it will prioritise ratifying CETA in the short term, as it faces a potentially rocky ratification process back home, in the midst of an election year.
Q: [About what Fekl thinks of German economics minister Sigmar Gabriel’s statements on TTIP on 28 August]
I said it one year ago… that things were off to a very bad start. Sigmar Gabriel confirmed yesterday what I was saying before the summer, which is that we were at a dead point. There remains a lot of pressure to come to an agreement, on the side of the US, on the side of the Chancellor Ms Merkel.
What is true is that France considers that we are now at a moment of truth and at decision-time.
Q: Does this mean France will pull out of the talks?
It means that end September when trade ministers will meet in Bratislava [on 22/23 September] to have an exchange on this topic among others I will ask, in the name of France, the end of negotiations towards TAFTA [note TTIP is generally referred to as TAFTA in France]. To be totally clear: stop means the end. Because some might be tempted to suspend negotiations.
There are elections on both sides of the Atlantic. Some might say to themselves: we will postpone that to later. But one doesn’t postpone after fundamental democratic debates on the serious subjects. What France asks is the full, simple and definitive stop to these negotiations.
Why? Because they started in opacity, they created a lot of distrust and defiance everywhere, some unfounded, some perfectly justified.
The role of the United States and the EU is to set together the rules of international trade of the 21st century if we don’t want others to do that. But one must set the best possible rules on food, on energy, on public services, on culture. That is not the direction in which things are going. Because one can continue to comment, to say things are deadlocked, things are not going well. But negotiators continue to meet, sometimes in emptiness, sometimes over concrete issues.
What is needed is a full, clear and definitive stop to the negotiations, to later be able to restart discussions on a good basis, on a modern basis with the United States, taking into account the environment … social issues, small and medium-sized enterprises.
Q: Can France go it alone and pull out of the talks?
We will see if others follow us. We also know that we talk in the name of some countries who cannot express themselves this way because their diplomacy, their history, their relations with the world are not the same but in fact think the same (“qui n’en pensent pas moins”), and a majority of European citizens I am convinced think the same. It is France’s role and honour to face its responsibilities.
Q: “Full stop”, what does it mean concretely?
In terms of procedure, the Commission has the possibility to continue to negotiate until the end of time. Nobody can legally oppose this. That is part of the joys of the Union. But there is no political support of France for these negotiations. France considers that these negotiations should stop and that there should no longer be meetings between the negotiators.
Q: Are the negotiations dead?
They are dead and France doesn’t support them anymore.
The Americans are our oldest allies and we are their oldest partners. We have always been side by side during difficult moments. But among friends one must also be able to say things to each other as they are. Today negotiations are not up to the historical friendship relationship that exists between France and the United States, between Europe and the United States.
It is necessary to retake things later on a good basis, i.e. in being transparent from the start, in giving parliaments information upfront, giving the citizens the information. And in concluding modern treaties. This is not the case today.
Q: But it’s the Commission doing the negotiations. There are no French negotiators?
…. France no longer supports these negotiations.
The Commission has been very offensive in these negotiations. And we have always supported it in its drive to obtain concessions. But Americans give nothing. Or else breadcrumbs. Very frankly, that is not the way one should negotiate between equals, between partners and between allies. It is not the Commission that is at fault in this matter.
Q: What about the free trade agreement with Canada?
We consider that this treaty is a good treaty, that on many topics it’s the ‘anti-TTIP’ (“anti TAFTA” in the original – meaning the countermodel to TTIP), on what it gives to SMEs, to what if gives on opening public procurement markets to European businesses, on the end of private arbitration, which was replaced by the French proposal towards an international commercial [sic] court of justice, on the recognition of our agriculture, our geographical indications. And on many points that are rightly criticised in [TTIP], the agreement with Canada is the “anti-TAFTA”. Hence France supports this treaty.
Q: When will this treaty [CETA] be signed?
It is the Commission that will indicate the calendar, but we will certainly talk about this subject in Bratislava at the end of September.
Q: CETA oui, TAFTA non?
Yes, because this is not the same agreement. What counts in a deal is the contents, what is concrete and what is good for the European economy and for certain European values.
