How France views U.K. policy on Europe

Press, 14 April 1980, Page 16

How France views U.K. policy on Europe

By

WALTER SCHWARZ

in the “Guardian,” London

When the subject of Mrs Thatcher came up at the Bar in the Rue St Honore, where current topics are thrashed out over morning coffee and croissants, the barman began with an outsize Gallic shrug. “But what do you expect, Monsieur, in the name of God? The English, they are not Europeans. They live on their island and that’s what comes first with them. How can they be Europeans when they still drive on the left?”

It was said without contempt, even a sneaking admiration. “What they want now is to have it both ways: stay in the European Economic Community and still get their food cheap from New Zealand so they can dump their mutton on us.” This is the current middle class French view, stirred up by the radio and television which in turn are manipulated by the Government. The man in the street hardly cares one way or the other, unless he is a sheep farmer and then he is fully briefed on the size of the French grievance. “We_ signed a treaty with Britain, not New Zealand,” said one of them, on the hills above Chaors. Officials and politicians play a more sophisticated game, where rudimentary efforts are sometimes made to understand the British view. But these efforts are marred by irritation at Mrs Thatcher’s “aggressiveness and sheer bad manners,” as one seasoned diplomat said.

The radio and television are much cruder than the British in handling news and current affairs. “It’s the spirit of Trafalgar all over again, as the Iron Lady gives us yet another turn of the screw,” announced France Inter the other morning, after Mrs Thatcher had threatened' to withhold Britain’s value added tax payments to the E.E.C. On the Europe One net-

work the commentator,Alain Duhamel, noted after the latest Giscard-Schmidt talks: “The E.E.C. moves forward only at the FrancoGerman pace. Whatever works well — whether it s the European monetary system or the joint diplomatic initiatives — is mainly Franco-German in origin. What breaks down tends to come from London — which means indirectly from Washington.” . Britain as the Trojan horse of Europe is a myth that will stay alive as long as English continues to be spoken on both sides of the Atlantic. , The week-end’s _ popular “Journal de Dimanche issued a reminder that the 1944 Normandy landings were “accompanied and even preceded throughout the war by the soldiers of Free France.” This was a reply to the “Daily Express” which had suggested the French were less 'than grateful nowadays. The Journal’s

writer went on: “Since al! your fears over Europe have turned out to be true, one might have expected Britain to use the politeness for which she is famous, say sorry, and pull out. Instead, all you do is pocket the advantages and complain you’ve been robbed. “The rules you fulminate against were solemnly agreed when you entered, and they are defended by all the other eight members. If you are paying too much money, that is only because you persist in. buying all your agricultural produce outside the Community.” . At the other extreme to jingoism of this sort, Mr' Geoffrey de Courcel, whowas ambassador in Britain from 1962 to 1972 (“far worse crisis than this one”) can hardly be called antiBritish since he is chairman of the Franco-British Council. He deplores the current aggressiveness ■ and brinkmanship on both sides. But he admits irritation in France at the. “take it or leave it approach of Mrs Thatcher,” and he warns this could be dangerous because in Britain it could stir up the anti-Market feeling to a point where it would be difficult to control. In the Foreign Ministry the requirements of diplomacy conflict with a studied sense of grievance and a determination to win the battle. •- . ; ' 7

An official, bending over backwards to be reasonable, ’ suggested the. real problem was Mrs Thatcher’s tendency to mix up two things: a particular ' grievance over money, which can be sensibly tackled on a short term, ad hoc basis and fundamental criticism of the E.E.C., which the French feel they cannot afford to countenance.

The official took the argument back all the way to 1957. “Our own entry into the E.E.C. was based on a fundamental bargain: we agreed to take the 1 enormous risk of letting German goods into France in return for two crucial things: protection for our agriculture and association for our former colonies. If Britain wants., challenge that now, there is no room for manoeuvre.” Occasional rumours ~ thaf.j,j the French would like to relegate Britain to the second class in a “two-tier Europe” are stoutly denied at the Quai d’Orsay. “In practice a two-tier Europe already exists in some ways, sometimes with Britain in, as in the air bus, and sometimes with Britain out as in the European Monetary System. But any attempt to formalise such an arrangement would be a non-starter.” It is conceded that the two-tier rumour may have been floated by politicians as a form of psychological pressure. If Mrs Thatcher will separate financial grievance from criticism of the Common Agricultural Policy, the

way to a compromise is wide open, according to French officials. They say France shares British determination to reduce the cost of the Common Agricultural Policy by making big ; food enterprises pay the cost of surpluses. “Besides if the Community got too expensive, Brussels would get too big for its boots, and we don’t want that any more than Britain does,” said an official. He recalled that the basic argument of Pompidou for letting Britain in as a counterweight to Germany and an ally against supernationalism with which Germany is tainted, was still valid. Nobody in France appears to see the contradiction in holding oilt .for the-rules,,, over, the EXC. budget while failing to apply the court ... ruling Debfe, the Gaullist ex-prime minister, expressed. the -of ficial view when he .y. said: “The court has committed an abuse, of law in; condemning the French support system for lamb without condemning, the British; one. Faced with an abuse of law a sovereign state has a/right to observe the only law which it finds legitimate: its own law and international law.” 1 •* *

Mr Chirac, the Gaulli&t leader, has suggested Britain would do well to draw the consequences of its position and leave the Community — but this was playing to the gallery and not meant as a serious solution. However, Mr Debre thinks: “The day

will come when Europe will be re-organised on a differ* ent basis, as de Gaulle had in mind.” Between official diplomacy, middle class xenophobia and popular indifference, French attitudes to Britain would be complex enough even without the coming presidential elections. Ah though the Left is in disarray, President Giscard is taking no chances and his most serious challenger is the Gaullist Party. During the European election campaign Mr Chirac accused Giscard of representing "the party of the foreigner.” He cannot allow this to happen again, and has since stolen all the Gaullists’ clothing. This is . wfiy he cannot afford £p bet ’seen as less than tough with

Mrs Thatcher. As the TVI .pews man put it last week? wFrarice will’ riot ’yield one single inch of territory to the British.” The essential French complaint is that Britain is trying to have her cake and eat it.. But the French are bedevilled by dilemmas of their own. France wants to lead Europe in partnership with West Germany — yet it fears Germany and needs Britain as a counterweight. •i • France wants Europe to speak with a unified political voice — but resents the British relationship with the United States. And behind! all these emotions is the feeling that France was in it from the beginning and cannot now be pushed around by a latecomer.