France, the UK and Europe: New Partnerships and Common Challenges

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Chatham House. I’m Robin Niblett, the Director of the Institute. Great to see such a turnout, despite the miserable weather outside, but I suppose I was expecting a good turnout, not least given our speaker today, Amélie de Montchalin, the Europe Minister in French Government, the Minister of State for Europe in the Foreign Ministry, and obviously, the timing. I don’t know if we’d planned it exactly for these days, but one day after…

Amélie de Montchalin

It was always planned.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Always planned. The French are strategic, the British are tactical often, so maybe this was planned. But obviously, two important announcements this week with the European Union’s formal negotiating position being released back on Tuesday, the British releasing their negotiating position yesterday. But in that context, we’re talking more broadly, I believe and I hope, about France, the UK and Europe, New Partnerships, and I notice the plural, I don’t know if we put the plural or you put the plural in there, but New Partnerships and Common Challenges. And we will, as our members here know, have an opportunity for both conversation and also hearing in a minute some formal remarks from the Minister.

Amélie de Montchalin took up this position… sorry?

Amélie de Montchalin

Montchalin.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Sorry, Montchalin, Montchalin. I keep saying Mondchalin, Montchalin, I know, my apologies. Amélie de Montchalin has taken up her position on the 27^th of March, so – but has already made an impact, as we’ve noticed in the British press, amongst other places as well, communicating a strong French position on both the Brexit negotiations, but I notice also, in other aspects of EU negotiations that are taking place at the moment.

She came into government, as many of the people in the En Marche movement and particularly with the La République En Marche!, the party itself, after a time in the private sector, where she worked in the banking sector, in particular in the insurance sector, and took up a position in 2017 in the Assemblée Nationale. A Member of the Finance Committee and the leader of REM’s position in the National Assembly’s Finance Committee, so bringing a particular specialisation perhaps in that area to her position.

So, Montchalin, Minister, welcome very much to Chatham House and we look forward to your remarks. Thank you [applause].

Amélie de Montchalin

Thank you. Thank you. So, ladies and gentlemen, thank you, and it’s a real pleasure to be in London today. Many thanks for the kind introduction and for you all coming. I think it’s a great opportunity to give my own perspective of – on this turning point we have reached and explain also things in this house, where I know that we are the framework of trust and we can have in-depth exchanges, without political instrumentation, which is, I think, a good point.

On January 31^st, a chapter of EU/UK history ended, and I’m not referring here as much to the institutional Brexit, but I’m referring to the three and a half year period where passion, emotion and dramatization prevailed. Where we were all concerned about a no deal, about a cliff edge Brexit, and we manage and we see it to avoid these scenarios, proving that we can build trust, when we preserve our common interest and when these interests are at stake.

Over the last year, I, myself, indeed as you said, I saw my name in the many British newspapers and to be honest, sometimes I was a bit surprised by the way my declaration were misappropriated, and to the point of almost becoming sometimes fake news. So I’m happy to be in front of you in person.

Our shared interest, I think from now on, is not to show our muscles, but is to work together, not with passion, but with reason, and it’s a French cartésien, cartesian person maybe you have in front of you today. Political Brexit is behind us, we now need to talk between two sovereign powers to build a new relationship and partnerships.

Brexit, after a 47 year relationship, came as a shock for many here, I guess, I am sure, maybe for many in the room, and also in the EU. It was the democratic choice of the British people, it was confirmed twice in the last four years and, let’s be clear, we fully respect the choice of the British people. It was a shock nonetheless. Nobody can ignore it was a shock and we know that even though the UK was not a founding member of the EU, it inspired it in many ways. We can think about Winston Churchill’s historic foresight, but from 1973 onwards, the UK was a central player in the European project, particularly in building the single market. The UK had tremendous influence inside the EU, probably much more than many British people may assume at times, but as a French Diplomat, I can tell you it was strong. But we cannot only look toward the past and on this at least I totally agree with Mr Johnson, the withdrawal agreement was ratified by both the UK and the EU exactly a month ago, I think it’s a real positive achievement for our citizens, for the private sector, because it opened a transition period, allowing us to work on our future relationships.

Brexit is officially behind us. Politically, it is done. Let’s be clear, nobody, nobody in France, nobody in the EU questioned this. Then we should all be aware that it comes with immeasurable consequences, as the UK exits the single market, it also loses the benefits and rights that come with it. Brexit puts an end to regulations and trading facilities and it allows, and maybe it’s a positive, it allows us to see much more how the EU impacts our daily life. How we trade together, how we live together, how we get married, and along the way our citizens, our companies have benefitted from a continuous increase in common rules, in common regulations, and I think they have made us more efficient, they have made us greener, they have made us more competitive.

Clearly this is over. Brexit has consequences. There is no such a Brexit only in name and when I hear Mr Johnson explaining with much emphasis that he has a take back control strategy and that he wants the British Government to regain leeway to make its interests prevail, how do you think we should respond?

For me to address this question, you have to see that I’m not today in front of you so much as a French Minister, I’m here as a European voicing a European position. When you negotiate with EU member state, you negotiate with sovereign countries, which sovereignly decided to mutualise its competencies to be even more sovereign, when confronted to an increasing international competition. And for us too, being sovereign means protecting our people, protecting our economies, just as much as you do.

So, our future relationship will necessarily be a special relationship. You are not Canada, you’re certainly not Australia, first of all, because we can come to you by train. You are the United Kingdom and no matter what happens, the UK will remain a strong economic power, on the doorstep of the EU. Geographically, just mentioned it, and economically, closer than any other economic partner. Reciprocally, the EU will remain a strong economic power, also on the doorstep of the UK, and those strong ties will not disappear overnight.

I spent three years of my life growing up in Calais. Today, there are five million trucks transiting every year through Dover. Your companies, I guess, and I will meet them today too, will not want to weaken your ties with the EU internal market and its 450 million consumers. We already have this very special relationship and this cannot be undone. And if the UK wants to build a special relationship with somebody else, maybe like the US, we have to be lucid. Paris and London are 300 miles apart. Boston and London are 3,000 miles away, so it could be more difficult.

The idea that there could be an alternative to a free trade agreement, with honest level playing field, based on an Australia model, which, by the way, as you know, does not exist, is for the birds, as you say in the UK. We didn’t accept any cherry picking from the UK side during the first phase of the negotiations. We will not do it now such – and we will not do it now and this is not the way we usually proceed.

So, just like you, as a sovereign power, we decide how we want to trade with third countries and, as you, we will not trade away our sovereignty and our autonomy of decision in a UK/EU deal. By all means, and I think this is very simple to understand and to state, the future relationship has to be a balance of rights and obligations. Unfettered access to our market can only be balanced by a series of measures to maintain fair competition. And, in this spirit, the EU is proposing an ambitious and a mutually beneficial relationship with the UK. It’s the most ambitious partnership ever negotiated between the EU and a third country that was proposing the mandate, I agreed on Tuesday with Michel Barnier and my 26 fellow colleagues and homologues.

Regarding our future commercial relationship, the level of regulatory proximity, and I’m talking here about proximity between the EU and the UK, is at the heart of the EU negotiating mandate. We need a strong level playing field. we need it as a precondition for any ambitious trade deal and this is not ideological.

Our aim is of course not to punish or to take any revenge on the UK. Our am is not to constrain UK sovereignty, which is total and, as always, we made total. Our aim is to provide fair competition to our companies, particularly when it comes to tax, social, environmental, agricultural and food safety regulation.

So, yes, like your Prime Minister, we want zero tariffs and zero quotas, but we also need zero dumping. And on this issue, I know that British companies, like European companies that are very numerous to come in my office in Paris, they are not on each side of the Channel, they are not calling for regulatory divergence. These show, and I think this is the most probably important part of my speech today, our position is not ideological, it is based on economic rationality.

Free trade also is never frictionless and it’s a fact, we cannot – no, we can lower entry barriers, but there will be controls, because free trade does not equate zero controls. And the control that we will be implementing under all circumstances, they can be higher or lower in intensity, in details, depending on the agreement we reach in the coming weeks and months.

Another important aspect for us is what I call the sustainability of the deal. How we can guarantee on both sides, with the sound governance mechanisms, that we can detect and mitigate in the future potential violation, and this is also in the interest of the UK side. So, let me finish on the future relationship we have to build with three key messages: one on timing, one on trust and one on unity.

First of all, I think you should not underestimate the unity of the 27. To those who might think that the EU’s unity will falter in the next phase of the talks, well, let me say, you’re all in for disappointment, because what we know is that we might have different interests, for sure. The fishing aspect is less an issue for Austria, but every member state knows that we are stronger if we stay united and that in the end, it is because we can strongly and in a unified manner defend each other’s interest, that we can protect the whole block’s interest.

You know, we just had adopted a mandate with only one month to negotiate. It was adopted on time, and the unity of the 27 members never faltered, since the Brexit negotiations began. Why? Because we know that we want to protect what keeps us together and we – and what make us stronger together as a union is to be united. If we cannot come to an agreement, then we will all be ready to put custom checks in place at the border, and this was a point we quite at length discussed with Michel Barnier on Tuesday.

We are free, you are free and we all understand that you want to regain leeway, but we have to protect our market, our citizens, our economies, from a decision that was never taken on the Continent. For this reason, and this is my second point, we do not accept time pressure and we are not ready to sign any kind of a deal on the 31^st of December at 11:00pm. We cannot let our level of ambition be affected by what I could call artificial deadlines.

If the UK decides to shorten the negotiating period, it will be UK’s responsibility. It will not be our choice on the European side and that choice will have consequences, in terms of the breadth and depths of the relationship we can build. For us, substance is much, much more important than deadlines. And to conclude, we need trust, because to negotiate, you need two, and we want to negotiate in good conditions. And, indeed, a swift negotiation can be – could be impacted by a degraded implementation of the former agreement, which we just reached three months ago, the withdrawal agreement, ensuring that our citizens are protected and are never bargaining chips in the future, ensuring that the Northern Ireland protocol is fully implemented is, for us, an absolute priority and we shall remain under the authority of Michel Barnier, particularly vigilant in this regard.

So, to conclude, we French, we are among your closest European neighbours and our special relationship is, to me, an opportunity to face many common challenges. Inevitably, we have to write a new chapter of our common history, our history of battles, of peace, of shared memories, of shared battles, and we know we have behind us a strong and unravelled ties. I sincerely hope that we put media and political bashing behind us and we can work together.

This year will indeed celebrate the 80^th anniversary of General de Gaulle’s 18^th of June appeal. The President is also soon to award London the Légion d’Honneur, the highest French civil and military award, in tribute to the immense courage of the whole city, country and people. This year was also marked the tenth anniversary of the Lancaster House Treaty, and we know that in this world where we have a turbulent US, an unpredictable Russia, a raising Asia, we need to deepen our defence, security and intelligence co-operation. We also need to do more, and I’m confident we can use the very efficient E3, the famous France, Germany, UK format, with our friends in Germany, to make sure that our interests are heard and our security always protected.

We have to do a lot as well to fight against climate change and protecting the environment. It’s not, to me, such a coincidence that the UK will host the COP 26 at the end of the year. It will be just five years after the COP 21 and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. It will be another set of negotiation and COP 26 is key, we all know that, to the Paris Agreement’s legacy, so we must succeed together, for the sake of our planet, for the sake of future generation, and on this matter and many others globally, the UK government can count on France’s full support to make this conference a success. We, indeed, at the [mother tongue – 18:06] already started to go country-after-country, building coalition, improving, raising ambition for our partners to make Glasgow a success.

We need to go together. We also need to create and have new bold, new ambitious projects. Without the joint steering forces of France and the UK, we would never have had Eurotunnel or Airbus. Our shared history shows that our two nation can do great things together and I’m confident that we will achieve just that in the coming months and years, provided we join unity, time and trust.

So, ladies and gentlemen, my dear British friends, I think the only limit to our realisation of tomorrow will be our doubts of today. I’m sorry, I’m not quoting Churchill, I’m quoting Roosevelt, and we should indeed forget our doubts to build our common future, a future of a strong, of a fair partnership between the UK and the EU and a new entente cordiale, with my French accent, between our both countries. Thank you [applause].

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Thank you very much, Minister Montchalin. Thank you for those strong words and finishing with, as you said, a US quote and falling out, I thought very clearly, the European position in – with a French voice and a French style, you noted in particular, I thought this an interesting phrase, that the relationship the UK will have to have with the EU will be one of a special relationship. It’s a view I happen to share, partly also ‘cause special relationships are often difficult, as the US and the UK have found and are finding even on the decisions, in recent years.

You also talked very importantly about these elements of unity inside the EU, the need for trust in the negotiation, and I was wondering if you were going to give an example and you did, which was that of actually implementing the withdrawal agreement, and in particular the requirements for some type of controls between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, which implied – which are contained in the withdrawal agreement. And you talked obviously very much this issue about not accepting artificial deadlines. I wondered, just as a quick question on that, maybe I’ll just do one question and I’m going to open it up to the group here, when you say artificial deadlines, obviously the end of this year is the deadline that’s in the withdrawal agreement, although it is extendable. So, when you say it’s artificial deadline, you feel the government are overly creating the pressure at the moment.

Are you concerned that the fact that this government has accepted a free trade agreement and the fact that there will be, as yourself and Michel Barnier said, there will be barriers, there will be friction, means that this government might say to itself, well, look, if we can’t get a good enough deal by the end, we’re going to have friction whatever happens. We might as well go to WTO status, keep negotiating and then maybe getting something better down the line. We’re going to have to have friction whatever happens, zero tariffs, still rules of origin, still standards checks. I mean, is your – I mean, could the EU be quite laidback, as laidback as the British Government appears to be with, and let’s call it a breakdown or an extension into WTO’s status after the end of this year?

Amélie de Montchalin

So, a lot of question in one question.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Yeah, Apologies.

Amélie de Montchalin

Yes, I call it artificial because it’s, as you said, extendable. So, we all know that if we feel the need, we have the legal capacity to extend. This is why I call it artificial, in a sense.

When you refer to the agreement, I’m, you know, curious on the fact that you only speak about trade. We are seeking with you, provided it’s, you know, a dual, not only a free trade agreement, but we are also looking for working on security, on defence, on mobility, on many other issues, which are not exactly related to trade in goods, because what you describe is trade in goods.

We, on the European side, we have a clear vision that there are four things coming together, in a totally unified block, which is discussing free trade, competition rules, meaning how we handle a loyal, reciprocal and balanced relationship. You can call it level playing field. In French, I don’t use this word, because we don’t have this expression, so I say it’s a relationship which is balanced and loyal over time. Third block is governance, how do we create a system where we have ways and means to, in the future if commitments made are not upheld, to have sanctions, so safeguard, you know, retortion mechanism and fishery. And, from the EU side, these four things come together and on these four items, we will not agree on anything if we do not agree on everything.

Then there are different blocks, but I think we have also to understand the discussion we must have for the future of this special relationship we want to build, it’s not only about trade in goods. There are other aspects that we cannot just forget and I think it’s important also for you to see that on our side. We are not obsession, we know it’s a very important part because that’s probably the most visible in the short-run, but there are many other aspects.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

And just to follow-up on that very quickly, you said how important it is, it’s not just about trading goods, it’s also about, as you said, about security, defence, mobility and even within trading goods, competition rules, fisheries, you left out services entirely. So, from a British standpoint, it does sound as if the EU is picking and choosing, it’s all about trading goods, but it’s not just trading goods, it’s defence, the phrase services never appears. So doesn’t that…?

Amélie de Montchalin

I was answering your question, to be honest. If you go into financial services or personal data, which are not exactly goods, on these two items, very precisely, we are in a position where it’s an autonomous, unilateral decision to be made by the EU and this is the way we, you know, have a relationship with Singapore, with Switzerland, with every third country on the planet.

So, it doesn’t mean it’s not on the radar, it means it’s not part of the negotiation itself.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Because?

Amélie de Montchalin

Because in the EU, we have a rule to say that we can negotiate free trade agreements for goods, that we can negotiate agreements for mobility, that we can negotiate agreements for, you know, management of areas on the sea, for fishing.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Exactly, exactly.

Amélie de Montchalin

But we have a rule to say on financial services, all the rules of equivalence, of capacity to work together, is a autonomous EU decision and it’s not open for negotiation with anybody on the planet, and that’s an EU choice we made, and the same for data, personal data, is a, what we call, an autonomous regime, meaning it’s not for negotiation, not just for the UK, but just for everybody on the planet.

So, when it comes to services, that question’s typically on your intellectual property, things like this, this is not in the core of the EU competencies and there are things where it’s a – the rules we have set for ourselves, mostly, I can say, typically, are under the influence of the UK initially, was not to negotiate this with the outside world.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

So, even for a special relationship that, as you said, is not like Australia and so on, that is very close by, you mentioned Switzerland, so I suppose the Swiss have to suffer the same experiences, is what you say. Yeah.

Amélie de Montchalin

Yes, and, you know, the discussion with the Swiss at the moment is also difficult because we are trying also to have this common governance of the very different scattered agreements we have built in the past and for the UK, we have the same vision that we need an encompassing governance system.

Just for you to – we have some thinking in Brussels and in the EU about this Canada, Australia buzzwords on the UK side, you know, UK is not Canada. UK is the ninth economic power on the planet. Canada is the 17^th. Australia is the 20^th, so when we say you are not Canada, we’re not telling you something else than you’re much bigger, you’re much closer, you’re much more important. So, we don’t seek with you to do what we’d have done with Canada, just because, for us, you’re just much, much bigger. So, I think it’s also a signal of, not credibility, but realism on our side. But we cannot do exactly the same things for people which are very different.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Understood. Let’s get some questions in here as well and I see various hands going up, and I’ll start with the gentleman here, one, two, three, four. Yeah, so I’ll take them singly in the beginning, we do need to finish on time, I’m just warning everyone here, so let’s be very specific. Yeah, please?

Thomas Cole

Thomas Cole from a European Commission Negotiator, do you think a deal can be done by the 31^st of December?

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

That’s a very simple question.

Amélie de Montchalin

So, the answer is yes, I’m totally open and very realistically thinking it’s possible, we just need consistency on the two sides. You know, there are ways in which we can easily say for goods, for environmental norms, for a number of things we hear Boris Johnson’s Government saying that it wants to keep highest standards, potentially the highest standard on the planet, we can very easily find a deal. We just need consistency.

The level of openness of the single market will depend on the level of proximity on rules, and as soon as we get this, it can be done. What we cannot do, indeed in the 11th month, is to open the whole, you know, customs and borders book and to redefine line-by-line what rules, what checks, what controls we need to do. This cannot be done in 11 months. So, we can do a deal as soon as we are consistent and that’s – and we have no, you know, second intentions or whatsoever, this is also why I’m saying, we do not so much care about these deadlines. We are ready and we want to have a deal. So, if we need six more months, so it be.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Right, second question here, then I’m going there, then I’m going there, yeah.

John Peet

Yes, John Peet from The Economist. I’m just trying to understand your level playing field and geographical position. You’ve said, several times, that the UK is different from other countries. You will be aware that Michael Gove yesterday said that “Geography does not trump democracy.” And, in particular, if you take the example of the state aid regime, the EU is demanding that the UK should observe all EU state aid rules now and in the future, including being subject to the European Court of Justice. That is not a suggestion you ever make to any other partner that you are negotiating free trade agreements with and it doesn’t sound as if it’s observing the sovereignty of the UK, which anyway, has a much better record on state aid than most European countries.

Amélie de Montchalin

I will respond very easily. As soon as things are done for the UK people, economy here, the EU has nothing to say. As soon as the goods, the services go outside the UK borders, then it concerns us. And, as you know, in Leipzig, we are negotiating with China, an investment treaty to revise rules of reciprocity of investment, we think that, given the proximity we have geographically and if you look, a car produced in the UK has gone four times under the tunnel, by parts, by being new, assembled in one way, assembled in the other, so our supply chains are totally linked. You see that if you have state aid in one area and you don’t have the same reciprocity on the Continent, you might create huge distortion on the industrial matters. So, as soon as it’s here, for sure, the European Court of Justice has nothing to say. As soon as the goods produced with these public subsidies go outside, then they concern us.

One point for this is it was in the political declaration. I know political declaration as on the stages of a formal international treaty, but it has been signed and it has been agreed from the beginning that in the both interest of the UK and the EU, we needed to protect a fair competition.

You can also reverse the argument. Imagine tomorrow in France, we do a huge policy to subsidise the building of windmills. You, as Brits, you could say, okay, given the subsidies you’re providing, your windmills are 50% cheaper than the ones I can produce in the UK. I need a way to protect my market from these goods coming to my place, with a level of subsidy, which make my private producers totally uncompetitive.

So, I think on this, and also it’s quite interesting, the UK was the first actor formally to push for straight and strong anti-state aid policies and, indeed, the UK was not the one having the most, you know, contentious or trouble with this in the past. So, I’m not saying we are at risk, I’m just saying that in the both interests of the UK and EU manufacturers and producers, we need this capacity to protect reciprocity.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

So that the compromise is there, all depending on how you adjudicate whether somebody has broken the commitment in the agreement as to what – whether that was a fair state aid or not? And on the EU side, I presume the ECJ would determine whether it was broken; on the UK aside, a British court would determine it? And if you had to resolve that dispute?

Amélie de Montchalin

You need then, a proper standing, single standing, governance mechanism.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Which would be equally represented on both sides.

Amélie de Montchalin

Which then is an arbitrage court or is a governance body where the EU law will be looked by our only body we have to look at EU law, which is the European Court of Justice. The UK part will have its own body. At some point, you know, the ECJ will exist and will have still a role to play for the EU side, it doesn’t mean it will rule the dispute, but it means it should have a voice in the dispute.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

It’s noticeable, if I can just say this quickly, that on the British negotiating document that was laid out, if I read it right, and there’s people here who would have read it very closely, I can see sitting three rows back at the front, one paragraph I saw in this dispute settlement mechanism, I mean, it literally seems like a lot of room for manoeuvre and interpretation there. That’s just going to be my comment on it, ‘cause it was very short and I think there may be bridging places.

Gentleman here who’s waiting and, sorry, first, back there, and then, sorry, get the order right, yeah.

Bénédicte Paviot

Bénédicte Paviot, France Vin Quatre, France 24, Madame Les Minister, bon jour. I’ll ask my question of course in English. Both sides, the UK and the EU, say that they want a deal. However, isn’t the reality that both the UK and the EU are on a collision course? One of the key flashpoints obviously is going to be fisheries. France has already made it very clear that it will be very tough on that, and from a briefing I had yesterday in Downing Street with the Chief Negotiator, David Frost, I would suggest that proximity, as indicated by Michael Gove, is simply not accepted at all as an argument on the UK side. This does not bode well.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Fisheries, which has a whole page, I think, on the British negotiating position, by the way, compared to dispute settlement.

Amélie de Montchalin

If you go to Normandy, like I’ve done two weeks ago, in the morning at 5:00am with the fishermen, that day 100% of the fish, coming from the high waters, has been caught in the UK waters. The day before, it was 0% because the fish just doesn’t know where the line is. So, the fish are there and that’s the place it lives.

If we want to protect the resource, as we say in French, if we want to protect the capacity for fishermen on both sides to keep fishing today, but also in the future, we will need to find a way to control the total capture level, because, you know, the fish is there. If there is overfishing on one side, and it can be the EU side potentially, then the UK fishermen has no fish anymore to fish. So, we need, we know, for environment, for biodiversity, just for the sustainability of the activity, we need an agreement to protect the fishing stock.

What I see too is that 70% of the fish fished by UK fishermen is exported, treated and eaten on the soil of the EU Continent. So, there is a level of interdependence and this is why, again, I’m speaking with you with a lot of calm and a lot of reason, reasonably the UK fishermen need access to the EU for people to eat the fish they fish. And reasonably, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch, the Danes, fishermen need access to the UK waters because sometimes the fish, they are, you know, following will just cross this, you know, line which is not visible.

So, for us, there are three things we need to protect. One is capacity in the Channel, in La Manche, to keep a reciprocal access, but it also concerns, you know, the Danish fishermen from Jutland coming to the east of your island and the Irish bits, these fishes are fished by everybody and they will move. So, we need first to protect reciprocal access. I’m also talking about fishermen from Jersey, from Guernsey, they also want access to the French waters and we’re okay with it, but we just need reciprocity, for one.

Second, we need a system to keep the sustainability of the stock, meaning we need quotas in some way, not just to share the fish, but also to limit, because if we – in the next four years, we fish all the fish that exists, there is no more fish for the coming 20 years. And, third, we, that’s more EU business, we need to keep, as we said, the quotas, the [mother tongue – 38:00] the shares we have in the EU, so, as you know, the Dutch don’t come in waters and to fish everybody – everything, and then the French – that’s not EU business. But we need to keep this ongoing.

When you go to Boulogne, you see that more than 80% of the business is from fish that was exported from UK fisheries. It doesn’t mean that there is no future for UK fisheries and transformation capacity in the UK. It just means that tomorrow, on the 1^st of January 2021, if we say, okay, we stop access, the reciprocal response is that we stop taking your fish, I’m pretty sure we all lose. So, I don’t want to enter in a lose/lose game. I think, and I was very, very impressed by the Normandy fishing, you know, union and so on, they are very calm. They are very precise. They are very focused, but they are very calm because they know that at the end, people will be reasonable, and this is why I say that, this Brexit phase should be about reason, it should be about citizens, businesses.

We are – you know, the political part, for me, the biggest part is done, it was done by UK leaving the European Parliament, leaving the EU Commission, leaving, you know, the Council of Ministers. Now, we need reason and I think on fish we can manage.

Bénédicte Paviot

And the collision course?

Amélie de Montchalin

Monday, things will start. David Frost will meet with Michel Barnier teams that there is – there are ten tables on negotiations. We presented our mandates. Things are on the table and if we have reason and if we keep in our mind the interest of people, which on both side have done sovereign choices, they have done the sovereign choice to get out of the EU, they have done the sovereign choices to stay in the EU, we have to work for them. And if we work for them, I guess, as we discussed today, there are many common grounds that we can find.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

I’m going to take two questions from here, a gentleman first, lady just behind, and then I’ll come over here.

Chris Morris

Hello, Chris Morris from the BBC, I have two questions. First of all, on the two autonomous decisions you mentioned, on financial services and data, when British officials say they want to see good progress by June, otherwise they’re going to go full Australia and cuddle koalas or whatever that means, they’re talking about those two decisions really. So, are you going to make those decisions early, as gestures of goodwill, or are those decisions on financial service and data going to be kept in your pocket as bargaining chips until the last moment?

And then just one brief second question, you talk about the EU position not being ideological, being one of economic rationalism and are you not worried that you may be talking past each other, for the next few months, ‘cause a lot of things ion Brexit weren’t about economic rationalism, they were about sovereignty? You talk about reason in the fishing debate, it’s a profoundly emotional debate, and perhaps you need, on the EU side, to understand a bit more where the British officials are going to be coming from when they’re sitting at the table.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Just pass the microphone behind you to the lady there, please, yeah.

Sylvia De Mato

Sylvia De Mato from CNBC, it’s just a follow-up on the fisheries issue. The mandate from the British team clearly states that they want annual negotiations. I have spoken with different fishermen and they – in Europe, and they don’t want that because that would bring more instability. Do you see any sort of leeway from the European Union to actually negotiate this every year? Thank you very much.

Amélie de Montchalin

So, if decisions are autonomous, they’re not, you know, by definition, predictable in the way there is no scenario or pre-reason scenario. So, it will be discussed, I think, as soon as Monday with Michel Barnier and David Frost and the teams, but it’s an autonomous decision. It means that that country, say, Switzerland, at some point the equivalence was withdrawn, it was just done for good reasons, so I cannot tell you which date it will be provided or withdrawn, because if I could say so, it mean that there is a script and there is no script.

By definition, it’s decisions to be made autonomously by EU members. With a roadmap, with criteria, that you at the UK will know very well because most of it was designed by UK influence, so you know the rules, so if I didn’t challenge since the last three months, so…

Chris Morris

But you can make autonomous decisions quickly or slowly.

Amélie de Montchalin

Yes, this has to be discussed, indeed, but, as I said, if it’s autonomous, it’s autonomous, so I cannot tell you when it comes, because if I tell you it’s not autonomous anymore, it’s scripted, so…

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Or French.

Amélie de Montchalin

Emotion and passion, I understand your point. My message was today indeed to say that we are in a different phase, it’s a different time. This was your agreement, and I see some members of the Parliament here, which played an important role in negotiating and acting and speaking about this withdrawal agreement.

It was a highly political moment because what we were discussing was a political decision, was to politically exit some institutions. Now, we are building a relationship and this building of relationship, we’re not building for Politicians, we’re not building it for members of Parliament in so ever country. We’re building it for companies, for people, for farmers, for fishermen, for start overs, for researchers, we’re building it for people, for, yeah, for real people. So, the real people are the ones we have to listen to and we have to take care of, in this moment, because this is for them now we’re working. We’re not working anymore for Politicians. We need to be, I think, very reasonable, very pragmatic, very realistic.

I will meet today the CBI leader, what I read in the press, but I prefer rather than just read in the press, even though you are all very good Journalists, to have a discussion, is to see, you know, in the debate, what are the reasonable, not just because they are tame, but what are the arguments of reasons, what are the arguments of facts that the UK business wants to put in the discussion? So, that’s, you know, that’s – and, indeed, if we stay with some talking with passion and some talking with reason, we might not come too close, and I think Greek Philosophers have some ideas on how this two level of discussion might not join at some point and there, we come to the collusion. I’m not even sure you can collide, because you stay on two different levels.

For CNBC and the question on the leeway, we are starting the negotiations. So, I know, and some people say we can have an annual review, I’m not – you know, fish stocks are negotiated yearly in the EU because fish stocks, you know, they’ve always – temperature, with movements, with the sea salt levels, so with things which change. So, naturally, we will not, you know, sign a paper with quotas for 20 years because it makes no sense. Again, let’s be factual, pragmatic, realistic. But you imagine that the hundreds of thousands of jobs, which are in the EU to treat the UK fish, then to have businesses, these guys are SMEs owners, we cannot just say, stop and go every December.

So this is why we need some kind of predictability and we need in the whole process, predictability. Also, in the interests of UK actors, as I said, on state aid and the question just before, business will not invest in the UK, if they are not protected against massive subsidy in the EU. It would make no sense. So, this reciprocity, I think, is very important and we have to negotiate, that’s what we have to do.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

So, where for the British the equivalence decisions on finance, that can be taken in 30 days from what is a very large part of the British employment base, will have a counter argument. But, as you said, that’s autonomous decisions, so I’m not going to make you say anything more about autonomous decisions.

A question right at the back and the young person here and then I’m going over to this side of the room again. Yeah.

Elisabeth von Hammerstein

Thank you. My name is Elisabeth von Hammerstein. I’m with the Körber-Stiftung based in Berlin, and I would like to ask a question about Germany, about the upcoming EU Presidency. What impact do you think will the German EU Presidency have on the Brexit negotiations ad if you had to make one wish, when it comes to the Presidency, what would that be, with regards to Germany?

Amélie de Montchalin

Well, Presidency’s other role, a role of convening. We will have the Presidency of the EU in 2022. Having the Presidency is not so much a role of leadership, it’s a role joining. It’s a role of unification. So, I think the role of Germany is as a different Presidency so far in the last quite four years, is to keep the unity of the EU and there is a lot of diplomatic work, there is a lot of listening to be done, and there is a good co-ordination with the Commissioner, with Barnier. So, I think it’s both important, but we should not overplay the role of Presidencies. The most role they have is not so much on content, it’s on the capacity to keep the unity of the whole system.

Well, I think Germany’s Presidency come at a time of high stakes. The European elections will be one year in the back. We need an agreement on the EU budget. We have this be Commission having a full roadmap and we need now action. And there are many debates, which are open on migration, on the budget, I said, on agricultural policy, on China, on digital, there are many, many big topics of sovereignty, so it’s a keyword apparently, of sovereignty, things we want to set as rules for ourselves that we need – that we’re open.

That was very good, very, I think, positive, that we open these debates among Europeans. They will have to be closed because we need then action. We need to move on, and I think the German Presidency, for me, should be a moment where we close the boxes we open for good reasons. Not because we don’t know how to close them in content, but we move on and I think that Germany can have there a role of initiative and energising our debates, so as we move on.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

We’ve got very little time. I’ve got three questions I saw, which I nodded to.

Amélie de Montchalin

Yeah, and we answer them with keywords.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

No, no, it’s good, and I think if you keep answering the way you were, we’ll get all three in. So, I’ve got the gentleman there, I’ve got the lady there and the person right here. So, yeah, please, and we’ll take them together.

Riley Sword

Riley Sword from SE Strategy. I wanted to ask you about the E3, which you mentioned being more regularly used, do you see it as a more regular and formalised structure for co-ordination between defence and security policy between the UK and Europe and, if so, where are the kind of the key areas that you’d be looking to co-ordinate further?

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

And give the microphone to the lady there in the, yeah, corner, thank you, and then this, we’ll take this. Yeah, please.

Lisa O’Carroll

It’s a question and not a trade question, but – it’s Lisa O’Carroll here from The Guardian. I wonder how you think the negotiation on the remaining rights for British citizens in Europe will go, and they weren’t included in the documents yesterday and they don’t really feature in anything you hear coming out of Brussels? Obviously, there’s a lot of British citizens in France and they’re very, very worried that their remaining rights, that they’ve been forgotten, their remaining rights are going to be abandoned.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

British citizens’ rights. Yeah, last question.

Si Mar

My name is Si Mar this month, Trump administration removed more than 20 countries from the list of developing countries. The question is, I would like to ask you, what is the French Government reaction towards this? My question really is during – after the Brexit transition, in what way, how special it is for French Government to co-ordinate with UK, in response to most important international issues, such as safeguarding multilateralism and the WTO reform? Thank you.

Amélie de Montchalin

Very good, because the third question goes with the first question. So, where is we can co-ordinate? I think it’s on all multilateral issues, all the UN, WTO, all the international bodies, where we try to manage, or overcome crises, can be geopolitical crises, defend crisis, humanitarian crises, what’s happening in Syria, needs E3 co-ordination. What’s happening in Seoul needs E3 co-ordination. What’s happening at the WTO needs E3 co-ordination. So, these are, you know, things that have consequences, which are much beyond borders, trade agreements, which goes to protecting our values, peace and security. And on these topics, for sure, what’s happening at the UN Security Council will stay and France and the UK will indeed be two EU, you know, two European powers, but not anymore, two EU powers. So, we need then to co-ordinate.

On your question on the citizens’ right, it’s interesting because it’s also a question that is being asked by French Politicians at the Senate, for instance, in France, regarding the rights of French living here in the UK. Most of it, 99% of it, was solved by the withdrawal agreement. So now, the question is not anymore a question of negotiation, it’s a question of implementation and what we have to do, and you can count on the European side, in France, we have – now we are organising now the process with which citizens, which are living, British citizens, which are living in France, can ask for the equivalent of a settled status, it would be a bit different because it will be a paper, then how the social rights will come along with this.

So, all this is planned, it has been voted, we have even put the money in front of these new rights to be funded outside the EU, you know, citizens’ rights budget. So now, it’s, from my understanding and what we see, 99% was solved by the withdrawal agreement. Now, what comes is implementation and this is where, I think, for the trust we need to convene a trustworthy and productive discussion, we need to have not only signs of love, but proofs of love. Meaning how do we in concrete, and I will admit today the associations representing the French citizens living in the UK, how do we now move to settled status for everybody? I think the report that was presented yesterday, highlights a few groups that still need some, you know, active reaching out to make sure that they have the right procedures done, so they can stay in the UK and so on, so the same in France.

We are working very closely with the Consul and the Consular, I don’t know how you say it.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Consulate.

Amélie de Montchalin

The Consulate in Paris. I think, on the French side, many questions are asked, we try to provide very clear answers, and if there is any doubt, I am pretty sure we can go into details with the authorities on both sides.

So, thank you very much.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Miss de Montchalin, you mentioned right at the beginning a number of anniversaries. Chatham House has its 100^th anniversary today, and I think it was great this year. It was fantastic to have you with us and therefore, looking to the long-term of what has been one of the critical relationships, certainly for the United Kingdom, at a time when this country is making a pretty historic decision, and one that will carry reverberations for a long, long time.

So, I want to thank you very much for coming and welcome, also Ambassador Colonna, we could have welcomed as well at the beginning and should have done. Thank you for bringing cartesian rationality at a moment of pretty high emotion, I feel, here in London. And you may have contributed to some of the emotion, but you brought the cartesian today, so thank you very much, a strong hand for Miss de Montchalin [applause].