Ex-French PM Michel Barnier: ‘Trump would like to make separate deals with each EU country, to divide and conquer’

France has become increasingly unstable, and the political life expectancy of a prime minister may no longer exceed three months. This is what happened to Michel Barnier, 74, who held office from September to December 2024. The list grows longer if you look back. Even so, it’s still unusual for two of them to meet by chance in a restaurant. “How are you? Everything okay? I’ll call you one of these days,” Barnier says, seated at a table in a central Parisian restaurant, to fellow former prime minister François Fillon. “I lasted a little less than him,” he jokes in an interview with journalists from the European alliance Lena, which includes EL PAÍS.

Barnier — a former minister, European commissioner, but known above all as the famed EU chief negotiator of the Brexit agreement — was also the oldest politician to occupy the Hôtel Matignon, official residence of France’s prime minister. He holds the record for being the occupant who lasted the shortest amount of time there. He also has enough irony to accept this fact and calmly reflect on the causes that led to it, closely linked to a certain end of an era in French politics. His downfall was the result of the chaos sown by President Emmanuel Macron after the dissolution of Parliament in June 2024. But it was also because the political left, he notes, failed to accept that it lacked a majority. Today, from a calmer perspective yet without concealing his ambition to become president of the Republic if he has enough support, Barnier reflects on the trade war with the United States and the EU’s new rapprochement with the United Kingdom following the divorce he himself helped to certify.

Question: Why do you think Trump’s America is taking such a hostile stance toward the EU?

Answer: Trump is surrounded by billionaires and speculators who don’t like Europe because we are a union of 450 million people based on principles of regulation, governance and stability. We have an independent central bank, rules, banking supervision, and control mechanisms. Trump would like to make separate deals with each country, to divide and conquer. On the other hand, [Vladimir] Putin doesn’t like us either. He knows that the EU is a force of democratic attraction.

Q. You believe that the response to the international crisis must be European. Why?

A. These days, we must learn how to adapt, to react quickly, but above all, to defend our interests in an unstable world. The first lesson of our time is that we must be European. I have always been patriotic—I admit it—but also deeply European. It is precisely in times of crisis that the need to react together is truly felt. If anyone today is looking for a reason to be European, it is there: in our collective capacity to face challenges. To do so, we must rely on our greatest asset, whether we are French, Polish, German, Italian, or Spanish.

Q. What is that common asset?

A. The single market. During the Brexit negotiations, I firmly defended it, even against those who wanted, as they say in Germany, to “dance at two weddings at once”: to take advantage of the benefits without accepting the obligations. But the single market is immutable. It’s not just a free trade area; it’s much more. It’s an ecosystem with common rules, standards, shared regulations, coordinated oversight, and a common jurisdiction. It’s what gives us strength in global economic competition. And in a world of trade wars and geopolitical instability, it’s our greatest asset.

Q. You insist on the need for unity. Is it really possible today?

A. European unity doesn’t just fall from the sky. As a Brexit negotiator, I can say that it’s cultivated. It requires constant political effort. And it’s that unity that brings us respect, even in the face of powers like the U.S., China and Russia. I’m convinced that Donald Trump will end up respecting Europe. For now, he respects almost no one, judging by his words and methods. But they will respect us because we are the single market, the largest and wealthiest in the world. And you only enter it by respecting its rules.

Q. How can we defend European interests?

A. Methodically. European unity isn’t decreed, it’s built as we did during Brexit. It would require a clearly identified figure who speaks on behalf of the three EU institutions—the Commission, the Council and Parliament—who is accountable to everyone and takes the time to explain and convince.

Q. Should we be prepared to adopt more trade sanctions against the U.S.?

A. Yes, we must prepare. There is, for example, the European Anti-Coercion Instrument, which would allow us to temporarily close our market to certain American products. It’s an extreme measure, but it must remain on the table. We mustn‘t announce it too soon, but we must prepare it seriously. We must avoid hasty or disorderly responses. Don’t give in too quickly. And above all, don’t be fazed.

Q. What do you think about Marine Le Pen’s provisional disqualification from running for political office?

A. I’m clear on one point: there was embezzlement. Four and a half million euros were stolen, and there must be sanctions. There’s no room for debate about that. And I recommend not questioning the independence of the judiciary. However, the general framework can be questioned: the law provides that a disqualification ruling can be enforced before all appeals have been exhausted. This is an important institutional issue that deserves serious debate in Parliament, and not fast-tracked to resolve a particular candidate’s situation.

Q. Should this provision be reviewed?

A. Perhaps. Not for Le Pen, but for the future. I’m against circumstantial laws. But is it fair that a defendant, whoever they may be, can be hit with a disqualification sentence before the end of the proceedings?

Q. What are the main lessons you have learned from your time at Matignon?

A. First, the fragmentation of the parties: today there is no longer a stable majority, as there was during the Fourth Republic, but there is also no spirit of compromise. The Socialist Party (PS) refused any discussion from the start. They told me: “We’ll vote for the motion of no confidence because you’re not left-wing.” Second lesson: how difficult it is to reactivate the state in France when it has come to a standstill.

Q. Don’t you have the feeling that the Fifth Republic is exhausted, with a president who has lost some of his power?

A. No, I don’t think the Fifth Republic is dead. It works, but we need to return to its original spirit: a president who presides and a government that governs.

Q. What were the reasons for your short-lived tenure?

A. There was no majority. I knew I could fall at any moment. That’s why I didn’t move to Matignon with my wife. I was cautious. The Socialist Party had no real reason to censure me, except for its commitment to [La France Insoumise leader Jean-Luc] Mélenchon: to vote against any prime minister who wasn’t “left-wing.” It was an ideological position.

Q. Wasn’t that a mistake on President Macron’s part? Should he have appointed someone from the left?

A. He should have tried a coalition with the Republicans (LR) much earlier. He appointed me at the last minute, against the ropes.

Q. Is there a real rapprochement between the EU and the UK?

A. There are signs of that, and it’s as much in their interest as it is in ours. I’ve always considered Brexit a grave mistake, contrary to the British national interest. I don’t know of any other nation, in peacetime, that decided to abandon the single market and the customs union. They could have left the EU and stayed in the single market, like Norway. But they quit everything, solely for ideological reasons and political rhetoric. And today they are paying the price.

Q. What specific areas of cooperation do you see with London today?

A. At least five or six: European security, the fight against terrorism, defense organization and financing, foreign policy, cooperation in Africa. To this I add two more with an economic dimension: energy and artificial intelligence.

Q. Could the UK then participate in the major European investment plans, especially in defense?

A. Of course. Several companies are already Franco-British or Euro-British. It’s in our interest to cooperate in armament, industrial capacities and research. The United Kingdom already participates in certain European research programs. And I think that, given the Ukrainian crisis and the new U.S. attitude, it’s time to organize this cooperation politically.

Q. What do you propose?

A. I propose the creation of a European Security Council. An intergovernmental body, outside the European Union’s institutions, that would include the United Kingdom and, for example, Norway. This Council would coordinate our common security and defense policy. It could bring together countries that so wish, starting with those that contribute the most to the European budget: France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain.

Q. Is U.K. reintegration a medium-term option?

A. It’s their decision. The door remains open. They can return to the customs union, to the single market, or even to full membership in the European Union. But they know the conditions. The further they move away from European rules in time and form, the harder it will be to return. Because you don’t return to the Union without accepting its rules.

Q. Do you want to play a role in the future presidential campaign?

A. I’m not going to tell you I don’t have the ambition. When you’ve been prime minister, you’re always ready to serve.

Q. Within the European People’s Party (EPP) family, there are two visions of the far right. There are countries like Spain, where the traditional right makes deals with the ultranationalist party Vox. This is also the case in Italy.

A. You can’t build a European coalition with extremes. In some countries, there may be local, temporary alliances, but at the European level, it would be a strategic and moral error. The values of the EPP are not compatible with those of Vox or the National Rally. A self-respecting right cannot ally itself with those who deny the rule of law, reject Europe, or sympathize with [Vladimir] Putin. This isn’t a tactical debate; it’s a question of political identity.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition