Harlem Désir - France's Minister for European Affairs HARDtalk

Welcome to HARDtalk from Paris, with me, Stephen Sackur. Two months ago

this country was put on a war footing by President Hollande.

Troops were deployed, security measures taken and legislation

tabled, all of it aimed at confronting the so-called Islamic

State jihadist terrorists. Has France, has Europe, drawn the right

lessons from those November atrocities? My guest today is

France's Europe minister, Harlem Desir.

Just how vulnerable is the French Republic?

I think we have to begin with the security situation in Paris just two

months after the terrible attacks in the city. Your president, Hollande,

has declared war on terrorism. That will echo the words of George Bush

all those years ago. Do you think it was a wise thing to do? I think we

have a situation where we have been attacked. Terrorists have killed

people. They assassinate innocent people, cartoonists, people because

they are policemen or Jews. They aim at killing our way of life, freedom

and open society. That is a fact that we have two fight them. Outside

of Europe, because of the situation in the Middle East with the Islamic

State, who have declared war against not only us, we have seen the

terrorist attack in Istanbul, Jakarta, again in Tunisia a Russian

plane -- to fight them. We have to fight against foreign fighters who

are coming to Europe. But I think there is a very important difference

with the reference you have made with George Bush. He has not

designated the axis of evil. He has not said there is a war against all

Muslim communities. Sure, but what he has done is put the authority of

the French state into this concept of a war of being at war with

so-called Islamic State, which is precisely what they want. They want

this war. It is a war against terrorism. This terrorism now is

organised by different groups. The main one being Islamic State. We

have seen it in other countries, those who are still affiliated with

Al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups. We have to live with it. It means

that we have to take security measures. We also have to remain

able to go back to the concert halls, to go back to the. It is a

different kind of war. Does it worry you that senior members of your

Socialist Party, a former Foreign Minister, said that Hollande's words

were a mistake, it was a mistake to respond, he had fallen to a trap and

was playing into the hands of the killers who want to divide us and

push our country into a civil war. I have read this position but I

disagree with him on this point -- back to the terrace. When you are in

the face of such an attack against a mock sea, against open society,

against pluralist society, you have to face it, you have to recognise we

have not chosen this enemy. Let us focus on the internal factors,

because in this country right now today there are so many Muslims,

children of migrants who have come to this country and our French

citizens who do not feel a part of this country -- are. That is the

situation in which the terrorists are playing to. Absolutely. They

play on this. They recruit young people in our country, in France,

but not only. There are foreign fighters coming from all over

Europe. Of course but I want to talk to you about what is happening here

and your government, some of the proposal since the November attacks

appear to me to be sending the message to those people, the

children of migrants, those who have their origins overseas but who are

French citizens, the message is - you are not fully French citizens in

the way the rest of us are. That is the message that comes from Mr

Hollande's proposals to deprive those who are dual citizens of

France but of another country too, of their French citizenship if they

are involved in serious crime. The message seems to be that you are not

full French citizens. No, this condemnation will only be a

condemnation for those people who will be condemned by just as because

of their dissipation in terrorism. It is not condemnation or

designation of all of those who have foreign origin as a suspect. Not at

all. The point is it is treating those with dual citizenship of

foreign origin differently from those who are just French citizens.

There is a different treatment. However terrible crimes committed by

a solely French citizen, they could never have that citizenship stripped

from them. A dual citizen could and that seems to many French people of

outside origin to be deeply unfair. Yes. There is debate on this. Do you

think it is unfair? No, I don't answer at all. On this proposal of

the deprivation of nationality. It already exists. It is very rare to

use it because it is such an exceptional situation. Deciding on

this deprivation of nationality. It has been already used. The

difference is that it is possible for those who acquired nationality,

French nationality, and those who have kept their previous

nationality. In this proposal it will also be possible for those who

acquire the French nationality by birth, but to keep, if they are, and

after having condemned for terrorist crime. You make it sound quite

complex but it is actually quite simple. A lot of socialist,

including the former Prime Minister, the Mayor of the city of Paris, and

indeed your own organisation, the one you found those years ago, SOS,

they all say, they all say, this proposal a terrible mistake, SOS

says it is a huge betrayal of French principles. Well, I hope we can

convince them. It is an NGO. It is your NGO. You seem to have moved an

awful long way. You once said to the French government, do not take

measures which appeared to differentiate between immigrant

French people and those who have been French for many generations.

Now your message seems to have changed. I just want to tell you,

Steven, that the white majority of immigrant people becoming French

citizens are not involved in terrorism. For terrorist activity.

This is a principle. The message of President Hollande, and other Prime

Minister, since the first terrorist attack last January, and the attack

in November against that Bataclan was to unify the country. That is

what the terrorists were aiming for. With the greatest respect it has

unified no one. Left-wing members of the National Assembly say that what

the Socialist government is doing today in its response, the Draconian

response to the November atrocities, is gifting the far right. In fact,

she goes all of the way to say that it reminds her of Vichy France, that

the Socialist government today is doing things that remind her of what

the Vichy administration did in collaboration with the Nazis of the

second War. That is not acceptable. What was made in that Vichy regime

under the Nazi occupation was the decision to withdraw the nationality

of the Jewish people just because they were Jewish, not because they

were condemned for anything they had done, but for what they were. The

fact that French citizenship is very open every year - 80,000 or more

people become French citizens either by birth or by acquisition or by

marriage - and this will remain, this is the conception of

nationality. It is a symbolic measure which says that if you kill

French people, if you take part in the terrorist activities against our

nation and democracy, against Europe, you are not part any more of

the French community. If you look at the number of attacks, for example,

Islamophobe and anti semitic attacks, recent incidents, and you

see that year on year France is experiencing greater levels of

racism. I won't say there is no problem of racism or an Thai

Semitism or xenophobia in France. That is part of my commitment --

anti-semitism. Are you not worry that your movement to eradicate

racism from France has failed? One of the reasons Muslims feel alienate

it in this country today is because they don't feel that a huge number

of their fellow French people want them in this country at all --

alienated. Yes, but I will ask to make a distinction between the fact

that there is a problem of racism, of discrimination, and we have to

fight it. The president of the Republic chose, before this

terrorist attack of January, that this year, last year, was designated

as a year of fighting racism and anti-Semitism, because we are

absolutely sure that this is a poison in society. With respect, you

have been saying that for years. I could go into the suburbs not far

from here, ten miles from here, and I could talk to young Muslim and

young African immigrants in this country who have French

citizenship, who have no chance of getting a job, who feel the police

discriminate against them every single day and these are the kind of

angry, alienate it at isolated young people who are France's greatest

problem today -- alienated. This is a very great problem and that is why

it is a priority. To fight against any kind of urban and social

ghettoisation, the Prime Minister uses this word which is very strong.

I think the Prime Minister talks about apartheid. Social apartheid.

It is wanting to talk about it but what is he doing?! Apart from making

laws to withdraw citizenship, what is he doing? That is why I was in

policy, mixing in school, all of these policies are priority. One of

the big features of the year since Charlie Hebdo has been the migration

crisis in Europe, across Europe. Do you believe that the migration

crisis has exacerbated the polarisation of opinion when it

comes to how to deal with immigrants, how to run a society so

that it is for the benefit everyone, and would say that now is the time

for Europe to develop a different sort of immigration policy? I think

that this immigration refugee crisis, of course, is putting Europe

under a test, a test of credibility for giving protection to those who

are escaping from a war, or from a dictator, in Syria... Yesterday, the

German transport minister said that his own leader, Chancellor Merkel,

could no longer viably maintained the open borders policy. He said to

his own boss, Chancellor Merkel, he said - I urgently advise, we must

prepare ourselves for not being able to avoid border closures. Germany

closing its borders. Do you in France believe that national borders

now need to be closed, say between your country in Italy, say between

Denmark and Sweden - are we returning to a Europe of national

border security? Yes, we have seen that Schengen is in danger now. If

you don't ensure the control of the external common border, then you see

many countries, you have mentioned Germany, but you can see what

happened in Denmark, in Sweden and many other countries,

re-establishing of the national border. So, France believes Schengen

is dying and Schengen is dead? We think we must save Schengen. It is

in very big danger. The only way to do is to implement the kind of

decisions that has been taken but not implemented now, which is to

reinforce the capability of European Union to control external borders.

Right now, to you believe national border controls will have to be

re-enacted? Your own Prime Minister said, we cannot accommodate any more

refugees in Europe. If they are still coming, and Jim Nibley France

believes national border security has to be imposed? -- presumably.

What we want is to reinforce the control of the external border...

But that's not happening. In some countries, where there has been an

influx of refugees, which has not been stopped, we are just adding

this kind of decision. One of the reasons they kept coming in such

enormous numbers and are still coming is because Chancellor Merkel

sent the message, she called it the friendly face of Germany. Open

borders. Did the Germans make a terrible mistake? I don't think so.

If you look at the first causes, like Europe, which is surrounded by

the most important international crisis. There was the crisis in

Ukraine, it's a matter of instability. You have what happens

in the Middle East, especially the war in Syria. These factors are

there, the question is how Europe deals with it. We don't have much

time, I just wonder if you are ashamed that France, only the

recipient of several thousand refugees at any one time, struggles

to give them any sort of decent accommodation? For example, in

Calais there are 5000 people living in atrocious conditions. We have

seen in Germany over the past year the German government has

successfully given shelter and accommodation to 1 million refugees.

Is that not shaming for France? We will give shelter to people in

Calais and that's why we've changed the structure. I also want to say,

another reality is that France last year, figures just published show,

we have given protection to more than 17,000 people. We have a

specific problem in Calais because some people, refugees, wants to go

to UK. Of course we are not telling them they can go in the tunnel and

just be blocked on the other side of the channel. Let's talk about the

possibility, the real possibility, that in 2016, maybe as early as the

summer, the British could vote to leave the EU. If they made that

decision, would France withdraw all of the security and border

cooperation with Britain? Would you let the migrants travel across the

Channel? I hope after the referendum the UK will remain in the EU. At

this time of crisis, I think it is in the interest of the UK to remain

in the EU and it is in the interest of Europe to stay united. Because we

are facing so much challenges. What is at stake is our mother of

society. Are you saying that Britain would face a greater real migration

challenge? A bigger migration problem, if it withdrew from the EU?

I don't say this. I think it will be much more complicated for many

cooperation... We won't withdraw co-operation. The interior minister

told the British last year, last October, that if they withdrew from

the European Union they could forget about the kind of co-operation they

get now. We will co-operate, but it will be much more complicated. When

we are in the European Union we have a set of rules, we have a framework,

we have a lot of co-operation, we make decisions together. It was said

that the UK can expect countermeasures if it decides to

quit the EU. I don't think he was speaking about controlling the

board. Of course it is much easier to co-operate when you are in the

same political union, like the European Union. My point is that

Europe was not prepared to deal with this crisis, when security is

becoming the first issue for European citizens. Because of

terrorism, because of the refugee crisis. There is the issue of the

control of the border. There is also the external policies, but it is the

fact that Europe was built on economic issues. The internal

market, currency, not on the issue of security and defence. We have to

build this. Otherwise we will see every member state withdraw. Less

cooperation to fight against terrorism, there will be less

efficiency. It is in other ways that we have to welcome... So I wish the

UK will remain in the EU. But more generally I think we have to build

the European coastguard and we have to exchange more information on

terrorist networks. I think we have to defend together our open and

democratic society. You are saying to Britain, we want you to stay, but

Europe will require more integration, more common purpose,

whether it be on security, defence, whatever? You know that Mr Cameron

and the British are bringing a message to Europe saying, we will

stay but only if you give us concession so that we can be more

separate from integration. On some issues, like UK is not part of the

European currency, the euro... But Britain now wants to get permission

to impose new limits on access to benefits for other European citizens

who come to the United Kingdom. Now, Germany and the Netherlands and even

John -- Jean-Claude Juncker leave a deal can be done with the UK. The

French government hasn't taken that line at all. In fact, Mr Hollande in

2015 suggested that he could understand if Britain felt that it

-- felt the way it did about Europe but it's a logical path. Leave

Europe, leave Schengen and leave democracy. The question is, do you

really want to participate in a common state? That tone suggests he

doesn't really care if Britain leaves. I think it was very

respectful of the serenity of the British citizen. It is up to the

British people and its citizens to decide if he wants to be part of the

EU. But the point is the Germans really want us to stay. We want the

UK to stay. It is the same declaration, president of armed also

says he would prefer that the UK stays. -- President Hollande. But

only if the UK goes down this route. What he has explained in many

conferences is that we wish we will be an agreement at the next European

conference, in a few weeks. We wish there will be something which will

be an adequate answer to the demand of the United Kingdom. But not at

the expense of the fundamental principles of the EU and its policy

and there is a possibility for those who want a closer union to have it.

Some member states don't participate with the common currency, or the

Schengen. We don't have a problem with this, but we want respect for

the fact that some of them want more integration. The final question. I

wonder whether you would say that, given all of the challenges you have

outlined that Europe faces, security, defence, migration

challenges, all of these big issues, do you think the British question is

a dangerous distraction? I think that if you look at this year, 2016,

for Europe, it's a year of danger, because there is the risk of

dislocation. What is the British question, is that a dangerous

distraction from what really matters in Europe today? You know, if the

referendum were going bad it would be the first time that a member

state would leave the EU and it is one of the biggest member states. In

all other member states there is a very strong political movement, a

populist movement, who argue is sceptical, nationalist, campaigning

against Europe. -- who are Eurosceptic. Europe wants to

increase its performance. It has to improve. But I think it is very

important to preserve it. That's why of course we wish that the UK will

decide to stay, to remain, in the European Union. Not because it is

perfect, not because everything is solved, because we will be stronger

to solve the problem together. We have to end there. Harlem Desir,

thank you very much for being on HARDtalk. Thank you.

we can expect things to feel quite different.

But for the time being, we are stuck in a deep freeze again