Speaking in the European Parliamentary debate in Strasbourg on 17 January on the Swedish Presidency, European Commission President Romano Prodi set out his ideas on how to organise the debate which, according to the Conclusions of the European Council of Nice, must begin on Europe's future. In this context, Prodi suggested an approach in three distinct phases (for his address and the debate, see EUROPE of 19 January, pages 13 and 14). EUROPE/Documents here publishes the text in full of his address.
* * * * * *
Speech by Romano Prodi
Madam President,
Prime Minister,
Honourable Members,
It gives me great pleasure to stand before you today at the start of a new Council Presidency and to wish you all a Happy New Year.
In welcoming your incoming presidency, Mr Persson, I can only express my satisfaction with Sweden's choice of a very effective slogan revolving around the letter E.
E is first of all for Europe, our shared objective, in which Sweden will be investing its best efforts over the next six months to achieve progress in the fields of Enlargement, Employment and the Environment.
E is also for the Euro.
This year will be the final stage before the actual notes and coins are in our pockets. It will also be the last year of existence of the national currencies, some of them well over a hundred years old.
The Swedish Presidency will be guiding us some of the way towards the historic date of 1 January 2002.
I would like to pause a moment on the three Es which are the focus of the Presidency programme which Prime Minister Persson has just set out.
These three priorities are well chosen, for they are all areas in which the Union and Europe as a whole face enormous challenges and opportunities. They are not only priorities for six months, to be forgotten thereafter; they are long-term challenges which the entire five-year legislature has set as its prime objectives.
1.Enlargement: As I have always said, Enlargement is the single greatest challenge facing the European Union. We are at a crossroads in the history of Europe: we are establishing an area of peace, prosperity and stability for 500 million citizens who share the same values of humanism and democracy.
We needed to adopt a number of internal reforms so that this Enlargement process would be possible. The Treaty of Nice is - to say the least - not entirely satisfactory. But it is a step in the right direction and will allow us to continue the course we have already embarked on.
For this reason, and also because Nice - aware of its limitations - provides for a post-Nice, I would urge this House to recommend to its national counterparts that they ratify the Treaty of Nice when the time comes.
It is clear to me that peace, stability and prosperity cannot stop at the borders of the European Union but must also benefit as far as possible all our friends and neighbours.
I am glad to see that relations with Russia are also among the incoming Presidency's priorities.
My own recent visit to North Africa was part of this same strategy of building a substantive neighbourhood policy. While reunifying our continent, we must be careful not to neglect this dimension. The Euro-Mediterranean partnership is also vital to our interests and we are looking at various ways to relaunch and strengthen it.
Nor shall we - and of course the Presidency - forget the Northern dimension of the Union.
2. Employment
This priority is very much in line with the new economic and social agenda for Europe we agreed at Lisbon, and I fully support your commitment to carrying that agenda forward.
In particular, the Commission welcomes your emphasis on modernising the labour market and ensuring equal opportunities for women and men in our society. Modernising our economies today means more jobs tomorrow. This is a key part of the Lisbon agenda. And promoting gender equality is an important aspect of our fight against discrimination.
The Commission intends to work closely with the Presidency to help ensure the success of the Stockholm Summit, which will be largely devoted to these aspects. In this connection the Commission intends proposing a new strategy for creating a European Labour Market by 2005, the details of which will be contained in the Summary Report now being prepared for the Stockholm meeting.
3. Environment
Our citizens are rightly concerned about environmental and consumer protection issues, including food safety. The recent events surrounding the BSE crisis provide the starkest possible reminder and the Commission has already set about taking measures to deal effectively with this emergency.
We bear the responsibility towards future generations of guaranteeing the sustainable development of our societies and making our economies compatible with the long-term balance of the planet.
I am looking forward to working together with the Swedish presidency in order to ensure an effective and coherent EU strategy for sustainable development. The Gothenburg summit must take concrete and operational decisions on this crucial issue.
The EU must remain determined to show leadership on the issues related to climate change. We must honour our Kyoto commitments and maintain the pressure on our international partners to honour theirs.
E is also for a more judicious use of Energy, and careful thought is needed on all aspects of the supply, utilisation, conservation and environmental compatibility of energy sources.
I therefore welcome the Presidency's emphasis on these matters.
On a number of occasions when addressing this House I have spoken of my desire for a stronger European policy on transparency. Public participation both in major decisions and in the everyday life of Europe and its institutions is one of my priorities.
I therefore fully support the Presidency's efforts to promote openness and transparency.
Madam President,
Prime Minister,
Honourable Members,
The action planned for the next six months is ambitious and will, I feel sure, make a big impression on our citizens.
However, I do not see the six-monthly Presidencies as one-off exercises produced in isolation from each other, but rather as part of a continuous process which will have a lasting impact.
I therefore fully appreciate the efforts made by the Swedish Prime Minister to reassure us that he will be building on the solid foundations laid down by the previous Presidency so that the next Presidency can effectively continue Europe's global action.
This is all the more true if we consider the decisive issue of what has come to be called "Post-Nice", or put more clearly the debate on the "future of the Union".
When I last stood before this House I made clear my disappointment not only with certain aspects of the Treaty which had just been agreed but in particular with the atmosphere which had reigned throughout the Summit.
At Nice, fifteen Member States, each focusing on its national interests, were able to reach only an imperfect agreement which did not go far enough.
What is more, most of the Heads of State or Government were more concerned with blocking the future action of the Union than with seizing the opportunity of advancing the common venture. Nice was a clear demonstration of what is meant by agreement on the lowest common denominator.
It is unsound to imagine we can continue in this way.
And I came back from Nice with confirmation of a belief which I have long held and which I have already expressed here: it is sometimes said that the "Monnet method" has revealed its limits, but I believe, on the contrary, that it is the intergovernmental method adopted by the conference that is showing signs of weakness.
Some conclusions will have to be drawn for the debate on the future of the Union, which will take us up to 2004, even though it is still too early to have a clear idea of what will be involved.
The first conclusion is that nothing positive or lasting can be done to guarantee the future of Europe without the immediate involvement of the whole of Europe, including of course the applicant countries.
I see the period up to 2004 divided into three distinct phases:
The first phase, which has already begun, is one of what I would call "open reflection", during which there must be the widest possible debate at all levels of civil society and in political and scientific circles on the future of Europe.
And each of us must stimulate this discussion and encourage mass participation.
We must give some real substance to the objective we have set of achieving by 2004 a balanced and stable system which will allow an enlarged Union to operate democratically, legitimately and efficiently.
The contribution of the European democratic political parties is fundamental in order to give this debate a solid link to civil society. I would in particular like to organise an early meeting with the leaders of the political groups in this Parliament to discuss the matter.
My purpose is to have talks with them which will produce operational conclusions on the objectives to be pursued and the means we must employ to attain them.
The whole debate must be open, with no pre-set restrictions.
Obviously the worst way of going about it would be to focus exclusively on the four subjects mentioned in the Nice declaration.
These subjects - the Charter of Fundamental Rights, simplification of the Treaty, clarification of competencies and the possibility of a second chamber are of course very important. There has already been a good deal of work on some of them, notably the reorganisation of the Treaty. But these subjects are no more than components of a fundamental review, which must be more wide-ranging and more far-reaching and is best summed up by the title of the declaration of the Heads of State or Government: "What do we want for the future of the Union?"
I am relying on this House, through the European political parties represented here, to play its full role not only as the expression of the democratic legitimacy of the Community decision-making process, but also as the bridge, linking up with national political parties, and even the public opinion they represent.
I would strongly urge you to take on this task for which you can count on my support.
The Commission, for its part, intends to start a wide-ranging and open dialogue with all those active in European society and those involved in the Union's political system.
The second phase will begin after the Laeken Summit in December this year.
This phase, which I would term "structured reflection", is likely to be the most tricky and should crystallise around an operational synthesis of representative opinions canvassed in the previous phase.
This phase can no longer be confined to purely intergovernmental negotiations behind closed doors. In Laeken we will have to devise a formula which combines an open approach and legitimacy.
The third and unavoidable phase has to be that of an Intergovernmental Conference proper. I can see no need for it to be lengthy, but it will mark the culmination and decisions will be taken.
As I have already said, the reflection we are about to embark on will have to be open, for, as has been said in the last few days, what it boils down to is thinking about the structure of political life in a Union with 25 or more members.
But I would be betraying my beliefs and my duty if I failed to repeat yet again the fears I expressed to you on 3 October last year for they have lost none of their relevance: I strongly believe that the Community method, its rationalisation, its simplification and its extension are the Union's future and not its past.
The dynamic of the Union over the past 40 years, and more especially since Maastricht, has produced a unique political system which cannot be likened to any national model.
The Union is democratic. It is based on a dual legitimacy: that provided by the peoples of Europe which you, Honourable Members, represent; and that of the Member States represented in the Council, which is based on the democratic national vote.
The Union is effective because it is built around an institution, the Commission, which is an independent executive body but which is mindful of the necessary balance and watchful over the interests of all the member countries (large and small alike). It is the necessary condition for the pooling of sovereignty in the Community, capable of managing the great challenges of the future, such as enlargement.
The Union can be kept under control, as the Court of Justice is there to see that everybody abides by the common rules.
In this connection the debate about what must or must not be done at European or national level by way of concrete government action is most welcome.
The coherence and cohesion of the Union and of its Member States should emerge all the stronger. Any fragmentation of the Community decision-making process, in particular of executive action, must be avoided as being contrary to the objective we are striving for.
This is especially true as, wherever ideas diverge about the desirable degree of integration, we now have the instrument of enhanced cooperation made possible by the Treaty of Nice within the Community framework and method.
Only coherent action, reviewed in the light of the subsidiarity principle and of a clearer vision of the governance of Europe and operating around the institutional triangle by means of the Community method, can guarantee this result.
Madam President,
Prime Minister,
Honourable Members,
We are embarking on a journey rich in promises and action. The challenges are enormous, but so too is our determination. The Commission will work hand in hand with each of the successive Presidencies to bring to a successful conclusion this fundamental task.
I will be relying on all of you, European politicians and members of this Parliament, and your desire to work alongside us.
Thank you.