Anders Fogh Rasmussen is prime minister of Denmark.
To read a shortened version of this interview, please click here .
Prime Minister: these are challenging times for Europe as recent months have given us the financial crisis, the invasion of Georgia and the Lisbon Treaty dilemma, to name but a few. How well are Liberal political philosophies and specific policy prescriptions suited to dealing with all this turmoil?
Well, I prefer to focus on the Liberal platform – talking about what we would like to do – rather than focusing on differences vis-à-vis other parties.
I can tell you what I consider to be the main challenge for a liberal right now: dealing with the financial crisis in such a way that we stick to free market principles. This is a real challenge, as there are political forces that would like to abuse the financial crisis to introduce protectionist measures to protect domestic industries.
Therefore, priority number one for us is to continue the development of free trade, for the EU internal market as well as the global market. In my opinion, free trade and the free flow of capital are prerequisites for creating new jobs, for promoting growth and for spreading prosperity all over the world.
We know from experience that during the last 20-30 years, free trade has dragged hundreds of millions of people out of deep poverty globally.
Do you think the EU, during the financial crisis, has succeeded in achieving consensus and speaking with 'one voice' to assert a collective European political force?
I think so. Thanks to a very strong and determined French Presidency, the EU has demonstrated global leadership in handling the financial crisis as well as the Russia-Georgia crisis. These two very important events during the second half of 2008 have been handled perfectly well by the French Presidency, and are an example that the EU can play a strong role on the international scene if there is determined leadership.
What, then, do you think of the French desire to install President Sarkozy as president of the Eurogroup?
Well, Denmark is not a member of the Eurogroup, unfortunately. I would very much like Denmark to join the euro, but until then, we're not going to interfere with structures within the euro zone. It's for the euro members to decide. I can say that I appreciate very much the way President Sarkozy has handled the presidency of the European Council, and I think he has been a very effective leader.
Let's look at next year's European elections. It seems likely, given the situation in Ireland, that they will be fought on the basis of the Nice rather than the Lisbon treaty. Do you think this is a major problem for Europe?
Well, I strongly regret that the Lisbon Treaty was rejected in Ireland because we need that treaty – it is more democratic, more transparent and more directed towards citizens than the current Nice Treaty. It would provide us with a more efficient decision-making process, and last but not least, the instruments necessary to give the EU a stronger role internationally.
Of course, we have to respect the outcome of the Irish referendum. If Ireland can't find a solution before the elections, then they must take place on the basis of Nice. We know this is possible under Nice, but it is a weaker treaty than Lisbon.
You mentioned Ireland: there appear to be strong parallels between Ireland and Denmark in terms of past referendum defeats and various European issues. Do you think a Danish-style solution could be mooted for the Irish Lisbon dilemma?
While we do respect the outcome of the Irish referendum, this also means that we expect the Irish government to present ideas for a solution.
Whether they will choose a Danish solution, with a number of opt-outs, or whether they will prefer other solutions, is up to them. I won't interfere in the internal situation in Ireland.
The most likely scenario currently seems to be a second referendum in the autumn of 2009, allowing for the potential extension of the current European Commission's mandate.
It's a bit complicated. The question is whether there is a legal basis for an extension. I don't know myself – it's up to the legal experts to elaborate on that. Otherwise we have to appoint a new Commission on the basis of the Nice Treaty, which is also very complicated. We should remind everybody that according to Nice, we have to reduce the number of commissioners from 1 November 2009, so that the number of commissioners is less than the number of member states.
That's a paradox, because one of the arguments in Ireland against the Lisbon Treaty was the reduction in the number of commissioners, which would have been introduced in 2014. Now, because they were against, they may get it already in 2009!
But the Nice Treaty does not specify by how many commissioners and according to which principle of rotation among member states the reduction should take place. So the appointment of a new Commission can take place on the basis of Nice, but it would be very complicated and a decision has to be taken unanimously so I foresee very complicated negotiations during the spring of next year.
How do you feel the current disarray due to the Lisbon dilemma may impact upon next year's European elections? Will it lead to even lower turnout or an increase in euroscepticism among voters?
There is, of course, a risk that the Parliament could see an increasing number of right-wing eurosceptic politicians elected. But, if I use my own country as an example, I don't think the Lisbon dilemma will necessarily affect the turnout or the makeup of the Parliament.
We will do our utmost to increase the turnout because, seen from a democratic point of view, it's a problem that the turnout generally is so low in most European countries. But honestly speaking, I don't think the discussion on the Lisbon Treaty will have a significant impact on the turnout – this usually affected by a lot of domestic issues.
What is the likelihood of an electoral pact between the centre-right EPP and the European Liberals for next year's elections, effectively shutting out the Socialists and potentially giving the Liberals a 'kingmaker' role in the Parliament?
Well, I cannot comment in detail but I would like to say this: I favoured strongly the past alliance between the EPP and the Liberals in the Parliament. They cooperated during the term of Pat Cox (as European Parliament president), and in my opinion, this is the natural cooperation in the Parliament. I will work in that direction.
Finally, you are here in Stockholm to speak to European Liberals from across Europe as they prepare the party's manifesto for next year's elections. How far have the Liberals gone in developing a pan-European campaign and do you think you could go further?
I think we can go further, but I still think campaigns should primarily be national. There are still so many differences between member states that each individual member party of the ELDR should organise its own campaign based on national issues and interests.
In conclusion, while I agree we can do more, and coming here to Stockholm to prepare a common platform is a good first step, I think we should still pursue national campaigns.
I would not exclude the possibility of genuine pan-European lists in the future. I think new generations may be interested in that as it's also a question of language skills. If you are to have a common European public, so to speak, you must also speak the same language. I think future generations will deal with that more easily, but here and now, and in the foreseeable future, we should stick to national campaigns.
