I think the problem stems from the fact that the renewal of social-democracy, represented by Tony Blair, has completely driven into the wall, in its practice of social policy as much as with the Iraq war. But Blair was the incarnation of the renewal of social-democracy. Apart from that, nothing was happening. That's why, faced with the crisis, the voters don't know who to turn to. Because there is no real alternative. Take the French presidential election. When Sarko says "Work more to earn more", the French don't really believe in it, but they think: "Why not? If he can make a success of it, that's OK. We can always give it a try, because on the other [political] side, nothing's happening." What's all the same interesting in this [European] election, if we look at the Netherlands, Germany, France, is that all those who have been saying the same thing after the crisis as they were saying before the crisis, have failed. People say: "Who do you think you are?" The crisis is very deep, but the left, ultra or socialist-type reformist, has held on to the same software. I think this is the great problem for social-democracy.

The Greens have a hope of doing something, and it's not by chance: their ideological hard disk was already opposed to productivist capitalism and to social democracy, in its radical communist version or its soft version. From the start, it was possible for them to take up a modern discourse. And I think the good news of these elections, on the ideological plane, is that the argument levelled against us at the beginning of the campaign turned out to be false. We were told: "It'll never work, your thing, because in an economic crisis no one has time to wonder about global warming." It's now proved that the response to the economic crisis must also be an ecological response. And today everyone, from the IMF to the World Bank, says we can't separate the two. I don't think Jean-Louis Borloo [French Environment Minister] is just an opportunist, that's meaningless. They can feel, on the right too, that a responsible policy today - and I don't see why the right would not want to be responsible - cannot exclude this problem. The funny thing is, that before we were told: "There's no need for an autonomous ecological force [in politics] because, anyway, no one's listening to you." Now they tell us: "There's no need for an autonomous ecological force, because now everyone else is saying the same thing."

Of course, there's talk of redefining the left, entering discussions with the other parties and groups, which seems much more within our grasp now that the PS, in crisis, can no longer pretend to hegemony over the left side of the political scene.

We need to evolve towards a modern form of political organisation. The job ahead is not to create another party in the same way as they all exist, and don't work. The problem with parties is you do nothing but that, you have a cell meeting, a this meeting, a that meeting, and you're no longer part of society. I think a modern political force needs to develop its existence at the European level. If we look at the crisis of social-democracy, it can only be solved by proposing European alternatives in opposition to national alternatives. And that's where the PS has failed. It had a wide open door on the European response, but it only spelled out its proposals nationally.

At the European level, why want to oppose Barroso for Commission president?

Why I want to get Barroso out is a simple matter. If you want to understand who Barroso is, don't listen to us. Read Jean-Pierre Jouyet [French Minister for European Affairs], who was no less than the craftsman of the French presidency [of the EU]. He says: "This guy is a cameleon, when you talk to him, it's the last one who spoke with him who's right. It's always like that. You reach an agreement with him about something. The next day, he happens to meet somebody else, and he goes over to the contrary side." Two tremendous examples. When the Environment Commissioner proposes a plan called "European climate", we say: "We'll back it". Two hours later, the Economy and Industry supercommissioner holds a press conference to say: "This package is unacceptable for German industry. I reject it." Barroso, who is Commission president, should have told him, since the climate plan was a collective decision: "You can shut up and get out. That's the way it is, it's the Commission's position." But he just lets it happen. Second example, Sarkozy makes a big speech before Parliament: "We need to moralise capitalism, we must regulate..." Barroso adds his bit: "We must regulate." Perfect. Everyone has tears in their eyes. Two hours later, a European commissioner says: "No way! The only way out of the crisis is deregulation."  What does Barroso say? Nothing! Having a Commission president like that, in a difficult situation, is just not possible. It's not simply because he's a liberal [economic sense], but because he's incapable of holding to a position. If we can get a majority, we should do it! [throw him out]. It would be a strong political signal. I'm not saying the next Commission will be the one that will set up the peasant works councils. I'm simply saying it would be a signal. I don't know if we'll manage it. But we must try.

Cohn-Bendit is reminded of his line about being a liberal-libertarian, and he says he said that at a different time, and was being deliberately provocative. (He's of course aware of varying sensitivity to these terms in different European countries, and quite different meanings given them across the Atlantic).

What are you? I'm a Keynesian, I always was. The traditional Keynesian plan is stimulus through redistribution and consumption. This century's Keynesianism is changing, it's ecological and social. And it's not the same thing. Take the hard disk of the PS, it came up with a plan based on stimulating consumption alone. You have to be crazy to limit yourself to only that! Later on, they said: "It means green kind of stuff." But it's not true! While there's an incredible need, in Europe over the next ten years, for tramways. All cities, especially in the East, must renew their tram systems. So you have an immense field for investment, that will create jobs. Where should this be prepared and how? Discussing these things is difficult. But if we don't get round to dealing with problems like that, we'll end up like we did with steel. We invested billions in it. Where is there anything left of European steel today? If we don't get round on the left to facing up to these problems properly, we'll end up in ten years' time saying: "We didn't find the right answer to the crisis, and now there are all these people [and/or projects] on the scrap heap."