H.E. Mr. Vincent Gu?rend:

I thank the Deputy for his interesting points. He asked about the relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom and the latest announcement by the British Government concerning the protocol and this draft law.

There was a public reaction from the EU institutions and the vice-president of the European Commission, Mr. Maroš Šefovi. There have also been reactions from many European governments, including the French Government, in full support both of what Mr. Šefovi said and the Irish Government's concerns. There is strong unity regarding those concerns and a strong sense that what the British Government is now tabling is in full contradiction of its own commitment to the signing and ratification of the protocol two and a half years ago. Again, we are fully supportive of the efforts of the Commission and in full solidarity with Ireland on this very important subject. I think that is clear enough. There is no ambiguity in respect of that.

When it comes more generally to the Conference on the Future of Europe and how we want the debate to continue, I realise the timescale was very packed initially. The pandemic and virtual meetings probably did not help either, including with national debates, but ultimately we believe it was a useful exercise. The point was not to again open the Pandora's box of the institutional debate in Europe, even though it was an expectation, particularly in respect of the European Parliament, to move the lines with this right of initiative, which France supports. We believe Europe has to work and function. We do not have to fix something that is not broken. We never said that Europe has a broken engine but in view of the extremely fast developments we mentioned previously, nobody should be complacent and should consider that just because it works and broadly delivers a good service to European citizens, Europe should just stand as it is in light of the upcoming enlargements. In this context, the French President made a speech on 9 May in Strasbourg at the close of the conference, where he called on European citizens and institutions to see how best to serve the European citizen with no taboo on institutions. Even though it is certainly not the priority of the day to have a new institutional debate, it should not be a red line either.

When it comes to EU enlargement, it is about what we said on the French side before the presidency and now that we have it. In 2019, before France held the presidency, I was part of the decision-making, or at least the thinking on this on the French side. The accession procedure that had been developed in the 1990s and early 2000s, before a large number of central and eastern European countries joined, was no longer fit for purpose for the new applicants, including the current applicant in the western Balkans. As we can see, the negotiating process with the western Balkans is, in a way, stalled because of the many challenges faced by these countries but also because the process is just too heavy and not political enough, in a way. As members will probably well know, the process is based on 35 chapters with many sub-groups and sub-meetings, which I should certainly not criticise as being too bureaucratic. I am a bureaucrat myself and, at the end of the day, papers and analysis etc. are needed. It is just a very heavy process because, ultimately, the applicant countries have the impression of being drawn into procedures about internal markets, the Single Market, and the TETRA project, without having a political vision. The process then stalls.

We wanted to propose in this new scheme for accession negotiations, which was partly taken over by the Commission, the ability to propose to these countries a mechanism of better and stronger political dialogue with the EU on foreign policy issues, values and the way the EU works on the one side, and keep a certain track on technicalities that are ultimately key. If these countries want to be member states, they have to have policies on transport, social issues and the environment that fit and match with EU standards and, generally, keep to this double track. In a way, by extension, what the French President proposed on 9 May to Ukraine, but also to non-EU countries such as Norway, Switzerland and, why not, the UK, was a little the same. We need a basis of political dialogue with these countries, including Ukraine, on foreign policy, where we have shared interests. This includes the UK where we have a shared foreign policy interest to have the UK be part of continental foreign policy and security thinking, and also in respect of values and the fact that on the European Continent we all share the same democratic values - at least we hope so - on the rule of law and are part of the Council of Europe. I exclude Russia, of course. This is one political platform.

When it comes to Ukraine, we will have to continue to see when and if we start negotiations for accession. On the French side, we really believe it would be deceiving to let the Ukrainian people believe Ukraine will be a member in five or ten years' time. We consider this not to be the case, not because we do not want it but because Ukraine is not ready for it. Look at the extremely high standards we Europeans have on everything. We have the highest standards in the world. How do we want a country, which has a GDP of probably not even €1,000 per head, to comply with this? It is just not realistic. We certainly have to find a mechanism to bring Ukraine closer to Europe on everything, including on political and foreign policy issues in particular, but the shortest way for this is not EU accession.

On supply chains, as I mentioned previously, as Europe is a major powerhouse at global level, it should remain the case our own interests are completely plugged into global supply chains. I am not sharing a scoop here, but when we see that close to 90% of the supply of microchips comes from Taiwan, the risk that is can be measured. The fact is the EU is correct to now develop a strategy on microchips. It cannot be that we are so over-reliant on one single site of production that is marred, whether we like it or not, by some risks.