Sports Calendar

The second point is that this Constitution defines who does what. We have debated that for a long time, as you will remember, what Europe is. Is it a great sovereign state which will take over from nations, or is an organisation which allows us to do together what should best be done together, but in which each nation, each people, retains its identity, it's culture, interests, etc?

And this Constitution cuts through that question. We are making a united Europe of states and peoples, and not at all the 'United States of Europe'. We are keeping our identity. That is a concern that has always been a French concern in 50 years of negotiations and is now recognised. For us it is a very, very big step forward, shown notably by the increased power of national parliaments and confirmation of the right of subsidiarity, which means that European power concerns only that which we can best do together; the rest is under the control of parliaments, under national jurisidiction.

Question: You have said that this Constitution is a rampart, a brake against rampant liberalism and globalisation, but the defenders of liberalism in Europe also defend this text. For example, we hear Tony Blair in Great Britain use exactly the opposite argument - that this Constitution helps entrench free trade in Europe. Who should we believe?

Chirac: I shall tell you something first. This Constitution, by definition, is neither of the Right or of the Left. Right-wing governments will make right-wing policies, left-wing governments will make left-wing policies. And the European majority will be a bit more to the Right or a bit more to the Left, depending on circumstances. But the Constitution itself is neither Right nor Left. What it is, by contrast, is a decisive step towards social justice.

There is a decisive principle in this Constitution. All policies must answer a social or environmental demand, and that is new. It is a considerable step towards guaranteeing a European social model, which means it's turning its back on those who defended the notion that Europe is simply a very large free-trade zone. From an economic Europe, it has become a Europe with a social purpose. And that is extremely important.

Question: Isn't there a natural tendency for Europe to be 'laissez faire' on trade?

Chirac: (...) You know, there is an organisation in Europe which is called the European Trade Union Confederation, chaired by a trade unionist called Mr [John] Monks. And he said something that is very true. This European Trade Union Confederation groups 76 European trade unions, more than 60 million unionists, it's important, and this Confederation adopted the Constitution almost unanimously. And Mr Monks, the Secretary-General, said: "You know, capitalism doesn't need this Constitution - we do" - simply because this Constitution has the added advantage of bringing social harmonisation. If you like, it brings together both a common market, which gives economic and development perspectives for the future, and social harmonisation - that is, a European social model, a system which always brings social issues to the fore.

There is another thing, which is that decisions will be taken by 25 countries, either by a majority or unanimously in different cases. The great benefit of this Constitution is that it gives a much greater weight to France. The number of votes which France has in the European Council is increased by 50 per cent with the Constitution. Together, Germany and France, which are the motor of European integration, pass from 18 per cent to 30 per cent of the votes. And together, the six founding countries - France, Germany, Italy and the three Benelux countries - have 50 per cent of the votes. Which is to tell you that if we do not adopt the Constitution, one of the first consequences, of course, is not that we are stuck in the past, a past that has rightly been criticised, but that we weaken France considerably.

Question: If you look at the hard core of the European economy, the euro zone, France, Germany and Italy have the weakest economic growth, the highest unemployment. Hasn't Europe taken the wrong path if its three driving economies are the least dynamic?

Chirac: I don't think one can stay that. We have had a period of low economic growth.

Question: But lower in the euro zone?

Chirac: No, wait. Low growth, effectively, lower in the euro zone than in the United States or, of course, in the large emerging powers of Asia... In the euro zone countries, we have growth of around two and a half per cent, which is more than any other country.

Question: But Great Britain, outside the euro zone, has greater growth.

Chirac: That's true. Outside the euro zone, with another policy which is perfect for Great Britain, which I don't criticise, but which would not be accepted in France, for social reasons. That is another problem. Great Britain considers that economic development is of the first order. The result is that they have unemployment half as much as ours, but at a social cost that would not be accepted in France. I don't make any judgement, that is a fact. But what I would like to say is that for three years what we have done is to abstain from any initiative which could put a brake on growth, and that has had a positive result. Our growth is not high enough, but we have the highest growth in the euro zone.

Explore World News

• World Agenda

• Iraq News

• US & Americas News

• Europe News

• Middle East News

• Afghanistan News

• Asia News

• Africa News

• Ireland News

Times Recommends

• Mandela’s tribe threatens President Zuma
• The French empire strikes back
• Wife of cheating governor exacts a political revenge