If Britain’s June 2016 vote to leave the EU shook the European project, the outcome of France’s 2017 presidential election will have profound implications for the future of the bloc. The importance of the result cannot be overestimated. It will show whether the EU will move on after Brexit or descend slowly down the path of disintegration.
It is impossible to predict who will enter the Élysée Palace after the second round of voting on May 7. According to opinion polls, the two front-runners are Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Front, and Emmanuel Macron, leader of the new centrist movement En Marche ! (On the Move!).
Both are indefatigable campaigners. But they have very different views of what direction France and Europe should take. Le Pen advocates a French exit from the eurozone, a move that would effectively break up the EU’s single currency besides dealing a huge blow to the bloc’s credibility as France moves away from this post-1945 project. Macron has a completely different view of how to revitalize Europe and, particularly, the Franco-German relationship, which has until recently driven Europe forward.
But over the past decade or more, the economic and political imbalance between Berlin and Paris has become so great that it fell to Germany to steer the EU through the euro crisis and several other major upheavals, including the refugee and Ukraine crises. In short, France’s economic and political malaise diminished its influence as well as the ability of Berlin and Paris to work together and set an agenda for Europe.
To discuss Macron’s views about his country, Europe, and Germany, I spoke to Sylvie Goulard, who is in charge of European affairs in the Macron team.
Goulard, a former foreign ministry official and a former adviser to the European Commission, has been a prominent member of the European Parliament since 2009 and a staunch supporter of the EU’s federalist movement. She is also passionate about the importance of the Franco-German relationship: she was a member of the French team that negotiated the reunification of Germany. It was that relationship that we broached first.
Judy Dempsey: Why is the French presidential election important for Germany?
Sylvie Goulard: Because we have the same currency. We draw prosperity from the same market. We share the same future.
JD: But the relationship is in bad shape. What is needed to kick-start it?
SG: The first thing is that France needs to introduce structural reforms and put its public finances in order. Second, it is necessary to look at the national level and then to look at options together [with Germany]. There is a window of opportunity to develop common options. There is a need for a cool analysis of the challenges, how to strengthen the eurozone post-Brexit, how to define a strategy for and after the German parliamentary election, and how to involve other countries. We need a comprehensive approach, whether on internal security or on defense. The point is that we need to begin in 2018.
JD: And Brexit’s impact?
SG: Brexit shows that national politics still play a big role.
JD: What does that mean for traditional democratic practices?
SG: There is a need to get back to the basics of democracy. To connect, to ask, to involve people. To make people own the results of elections. To listen to the people. It has to be a bottom-up, grassroots approach. To make people be aware of their responsibilities.
JD: This brings us to the EU. What kind of Europe does Macron want?
SG: This is not an easy question to answer in just a few words. Macron considers that in many fields, sovereignty can only be exercised at the supranational level. He wants to relaunch Europe with the Germans first and all willing countries, and he is ready to cope with the duties linked to the next steps. A comprehensive approach is needed—not only to fix the single market and the euro area but also to address internal security and defense. This must be done step by step, but there is no time to lose. It is urgent to get the Europeans on board. There is also a need for democratic conventions as soon as possible in 2018.
JD: Getting back to France, what is at stake for your country?
SG: What is at stake is the continuation of the European project. You have to remember that people are focused on internal issues and social frustration. Some Le Pen supporters do not realize or take into consideration the consequences of their votes on the future of the euro, even though many of them want to keep the euro.
JD: And the impact of the French election on Europe’s future?
SG: Seventy years of the common project might be destroyed unilaterally. Depending on how France decides, it could mean the end of the European currency project.
This blog post is the second in a set of contributions providing insights into the 2017 French presidential election.
Comments(1)
On a side note I must disagree with Germany’s steering through the refugee and Ukraine crises. Ukraine should have been already on track of receiving 30-40 billion in EU integration funds each year, roughly what Poland got; if the concern is corruption get EU administrators. Moreover, the first thing offered to Ukraine after Maidan should have been immediate free movement of people, which will be eventually granted anyway. Refugee crisis, let’s see what Erdogan decides now, and let’s look at how many refugees are in Lebanon. Brexit is the Stalingrad of the EU, a turning point which could mark the end of the beginning of dissolution. In a century, the Indian and Chinese political scientists will try to understand how a 52/48 vote put an end to one of the few worthy collective efforts in the killing fields called Europe. How was it possible for the Yes vote not be subject to withdrawal if the billions promised for NHS will not materialize? This is illogical democracy, if at all. A Le Pen or Melenchon (polls show this possibility also) victory will be the Kursk of the EU, the beginning of the end. It is a pity, as they are the only ones actually saying something, but exiting the eurozone or the EU altogether should nullify their candidature. The interview rises an alarm bell in the sense so why exactly was a French team discussing the right of the German people to be united?! It is not clear what SG has in mind when she mentions a common defense, that is already NATO. Both could be any minute be at war with Russia over Narva or Tiraspol (some of our red lines). It is not clear how the EU will compensate for the EU integration funds originating in the UK. After all these years Poland should have been ready to carry the burden, but is no way near. The EU will also need hundreds of billions to integrate Ukraine, and Brexit or not, the UK should pay a major part of it; FM Johnson is very active, so he should also oblige when it is facts, not posturing. In terms of democracy, it is also not clear what exactly SG means, and good luck with Poland and Hungary. What exactly means bottom up democracy, connect to people, people aware of their responsibilities?! Globalization has brought arbitrage, and all the democracy in the world will not bring back the Whirlpool factory from Lodz. The EU is the last chance for Europe, including the UK (including Gibraltar); it is risible that a travesty of a referendum might have ended it.
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.