DONNEZ-MOI UN BREAK

Pascal Lamy tells Boris Johnson where Britain's destiny really lies

PASCAL Lamy makes a noise; a cross between a gurgle and a bark. It is the sort of noise you might expect to hear from a French paratroop sergeant on seeing a new recruit. It is a deep, dark sound; and for ten years, whenever they heard it in the corridors of the Brussels Commission, the officials would jump in their suits, and the photocopying would tumble from the trem- bling fingers of the typists. M. Lamy is laughing. 'Ha, ha, ha,' he says, and his spokesman, a sleek-haired young English- man called Anthony Gooch, laughs too.

`Nafta! Ha ha ha!' they both say, rocking on the padded upholstery of the EU Com- mission office in Storey's Gate. `Nafta is not a bloc. Let us be serious,' says Lamy. 'It's a free-trade agreement,' says the man who incarnates the French vision of a fed- eral Europe.

For a decade the crop-headed Lamy was the chef de cabinet of the European Com- mission's president and he sat at the right hand of Delors. It was his Marque brain that controlled the network of largely French officials, who pushed through the single market, dreamed up Maastricht, and who finally succeeded in capturing the Bundesbank for Europe and for France. Now, after a spell in banking and an unsuc- cessful stab at politics, he is back, as EU trade commissioner, and he has come to London to strangle an idea at birth.

As readers of the last few pages will have discovered, the forces of moderate Euroscepticism have finally come up with a vision that is bigger, grander than any- thing currently being produced by Brussels. Yes, Britain's future may be in trade with Europe; but why not also with America? Why not have our cake and eat it?

'Postcode?' Lamy seems to think the notion absurd, as is the US senator who has advocated a British link with Nafta. 'Phil Gramm is a joke! Ha ha ha.' Come on, Pascal, I say, why be so unimaginative? Why shouldn't we have an agglomeration of the EU and Nafta, with Britain in the middle?

'Because the EU is the way you get more of your influence. It's all a question of knowing which side your bread is buttered.' Lamy is the EU's trade negotiator, which means he has sole and absolute authority to cut deals — on behalf of Britain and all other EU members — with America, China and the rest of the world. 'If we want to punch our weight in the world, we have to be more cohesive on a number of topics. It's the old question of what European integration is really about.'

Yeah, but suppose British interests aren't the same as those of Continental Europe? I point out that in the last world-trade talks. Europe and America ended up in dispute about two areas, agriculture and Hollywood movies; and in both cases, Britain's real interest was with America, not Europe. Too bad, says Lamy. 'In order to get consensus, to reap the advantages of being together, you can't always stick to your own point of view. It's the whole. You sometimes have to compromise for the sake of the big game,' he says.

But how far are we supposed to go in lay- ing down British interests? Lamy, like Delors, approves of an elected European president. 'It's a good idea,' he says, 'because it's trying to find an answer to democratic accountability in Europe.' Pas- cal, mon brave, I say, at the risk of sounding hysterical, this is a Euro-government you are proposing! Where is the democracy?

'Democracy has to live locally, regionally, nationally, at a European level, and at some stage it will have to live worldwide.'

But what's the point of electing MPs in Britain, if taxes are eventually to be decid- ed by a majority vote in Brussels?

'But if you elect the British Parliament there is a majority and a minority,' he says. Er yes, I say, but the point is that the majority is British, and the minority accepts their rule. As far as I can see, there is no such acceptance that we should be ruled by a majority of other European countries. Or perhaps we all need to change our mindset, and think of ourselves as European?

'Well you have a number of solidarities, and among those solidarities is that the nation-state in Europe will stay as it is. But when I was a child I happened to spend quite a lot of time in England in summer- time, and the first European militant I ever met when I was eight, nine, ten, 11 years old — and who preached to me about European integration, was a British woman, Rosemary Smitherland, who was a good Tory woman in Godalming and Haslemere. The first adult I ever met who taught me about the United States of Europe was a Brit!'

Bien je jamais, I say: but not everyone feels the same as the good Mrs Smither-

land. Isn't EU integration a bit dated, 50 years after the war? And what is Europe, anyway? What is its geographical logic? The trade commissioner thinks Romania is part of Europe. What about Moldova, just over the border? 'Don't know . . no . . . I've no strong views about that because I've never been there.'

And there's another thing: according to Pascal, the paradox is that we are already breaking down trade barriers between the EU and the USA. Tariffs are tiny, he says, and 'in ten, 20 years' time we will have at the world level the same rule-based system that we have in Europe'. In fact, he goes so far as to predict a world-competition authority by 2020. In which case, why do we need all this political integration in Europe? Why give up our individual national sovereignty to Brus- sels, if free trade is to be guaranteed by glob- al authorities?

'Because the British weight in these bod- ies will be extremely small. I mean, the EU is a grouping. It's like in everyday life. Unity makes strength, and more unity makes more strength. We need it because history and geography has made us small things in today's world. The Chinese are 1.3 billion people.' But Pascal, be honest: is it really that you want a united Europe in order to have a Powerful united voice in negotiations with

China? Or isn't it really that you are a clas- sic French enarque, obsessed with Anglo-

Saxon dominance, and you conceive of a tightly unified EU as a way of sticking it to the Americans.

'Not me. Not me. It is nothing to do with that. . • .

Pascal Lamy has changed since he was Delors' chef de cabinet. He speaks English far more fluently, and he is clearly making a big effort to woo the hard cases of the Eurosceptic media. But, when we discuss his vision of Britain's future, we reach the bedrock of his assumptions. 'It's all about who do you want to side with, who do you want to share your destiny with, in order to keep your sovereignty?' In the case of France, he obviously thinks the answer must be Europe. In Britain's case, might there not be an additional destiny?