The European Commission President Romano Prodi presented the political priorities for the Commission in 2001, during his speech to the European Parliament on 14 February in Strasbourg. Below we reproduce the full text of this speech, after our account of the plenary debate, which mainly focused on the "post-Nice" process (see EUROPE of 14 February, pages 4 and 6) and after the publication of the introduction to the Commission programme (EUROPE/Documents N°2229, annexed to EUROPE of 7 February 2001).
SPEECH BY ROMANO PRODI ON "STATE OF THE UNION IN 2001"
Madam President,
Honourable Members;
It is only right that once a year we have a general debate on the state of the Union. And today I want to look with you at the road we must travel in 2001.
There are, of course, a number of milestones along that road: major events and priorities I shall describe shortly. But the most important thing about this year's journey is that we are already I am tempted to say "at last" walking the road to Europe's future.
My Commission has always asked to be judged by what it does. That is why I want the co-operation between the Commission and Parliament, and the Commission's working relations with the Member States in the Council, to lead to practical achievements.
So let us use this annual debate not only as a forum in which we can discuss our successes and hesitations openly and freely. But above all constructively aiming to deliver concrete action on issues of real concern to Europe's citizens.
The hallowed tradition on these occasions is for the Commission President to present a detailed review of every single policy area. I am sure no-one in this House will be sorry if, today, I depart somewhat from that tradition. I want to confine today's discussion to our main priorities for 2001 and to the longer-term question of Europe's future.
But first, just a few words about the past twelve months.
When I stood before this House one year ago, I announced that my Commission had set itself four strategic objectives:
Promoting new forms of European Governance;
Stabilising our continent and boosting Europe's voice in the world;
Working towards a new economic and social policy agenda;
Ensuring a better quality of life for all.
The Commission immediately set about pursuing these objectives.
With regard to the quality of life in Europe, we published our White Paper on Food Safety and a draft Regulation laying down requirements and fundamental principles in food law.
We proposed setting up a European Food Authority which, I am happy to say, will come into operation next year.
We also proposed setting up a European air safety authority and we put forward tough new legislation on maritime safety, following the Erika disaster.
To promote a new economic and social agenda for Europe, we put forward detailed and ambitious proposals to the European Council at Lisbon. As a result, the EU now has an integrated strategy for transforming itself into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world.
The key to stabilising our continent is the enlargement of the European Union. Throughout 2000 the Commission resolutely pursued accession negotiations with the candidate countries, and we have launched a public debate on a genuine migration policy for the EU.
Finally, to promote new forms of European Governance, we immediately began work on our White Paper which is to be published this summer. I shall say more about it shortly.
Ladies and gentlemen,
The present Commission has always taken as its guiding principle the need for concrete action. And my Commission delivered on its essential commitments in 2000, seeking clear and simple courses of action.
Today, before this House, I want to say how proud I am of my staff, for whom 2000 was a year of far-reaching internal reforms. My fellow Commissioners and I are aware that we have made considerable demands of our colleagues. Not only in terms of their workload but especially because they have had to get used to changes in working methods and to taking greater individual responsibility for their action.
Internal reform, while obviously not a political objective in itself, is nevertheless one of the Commission's priorities for 2001. Every organisation has to continually adapt to a changing world. That is what we are trying to do right now.
However, no administration can be expected to live under so much stress for very long, however objectively necessary the changes are. I am therefore determined to bring the Commission's internal reforms to a swift conclusion, while fully complying with our undertakings in terms of consultation and transparency.
My Commission's policy decisions for 2001 are set out in the work programme that was adopted at the end of January and immediately sent to Parliament.
The key elements of this programme are structured around a number of major events.
These are not a random collection of disparate items. They are linked by my Commission's constant guiding principle that our action must meet the practical needs of Europe's citizens and respond to their deepest concerns.
This is also the fundamental purpose of the debate on the future of the Union, which I shall be saying more about shortly.
But first, let me describe in greater detail the main things my Commission intends to do in 2001.
Madam President, Honourable Members,
Our work since the Lisbon Summit and in preparing for Stockholm has one constant aim: to create and preserve the conditions in which we can leave to our children a dynamic, just and prosperous Europe.
A Europe where people have new skills, good jobs and an active role in community life.
On the basis of the Commission's input document, last year's Lisbon Summit produced a strategy for achieving this goal.
At Stockholm next month, on the basis of the Commission's report, the European Council will review progress to date - where it has been good but also where it has been too slow.
One of the key goals of the Lisbon strategy is to restore the right conditions for full employment.
We are seeing already some encouraging progress: over the last year, 2.5 million jobs have been created, and more than two thirds of them taken up by women.
However, in some areas, as our Stockholm report makes clear, progress has been far too slow.
European leaders need a greater sense of urgency and greater political will to fulfil the promises made on, for example,
the Community patent,
the Galileo programme and
the liberalisation of gas and electricity.
Nor do we yet have a coherent strategy on life long learning.
What we need now is fresh energy to accelerate action in some key areas.
We identify ten such areas in our report for Stockholm, in particular:
frontier technologies,
integrated financial markets and
new skills and mobility in the new European labour markets.
At Stockholm I will urge Heads of States to seize the opportunity and not be complacent.
We need to push ahead with real determination along the path of reform agreed in Lisbon.
To give you the flavour of our Commission report, here are just three of its detailed recommendations:
First, barriers that discourage people from entering the work force or restrict their mobility should be eliminated. This requires more efficient tax systems, more investment in education and life long learning and specific measures to address the skills gap. It also requires action to ensure the portability of professional qualifications and of pensions.
Second, economic reforms should be accelerated. Services represent three-quarters of our GDP but there is still no complete internal market in services.
And third, Europe must be at the forefront on innovation to ensure that we create a European Research Area.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen:
There has to be a sustainable balance between our policies to ensure that all Europe's vital assets our economic assets, our social and human capital and our environment are preserved for future generations.
To get that long-term balance right requires a strategy for sustainable development.
The Commission is working on just such a strategy, and it will be discussed at the culminating point of this Presidency the Gothenburg European Council.
We are aiming to translate the rather abstract concept of sustainable development into concrete terms our citizens can grasp and concrete action they can see.
It will be a strategy for innovation and investment, exploiting the potential of frontier technologies.
A strategy for getting prices right so that they better reflect the costs of environmental degradation.
Long-term policy design of this kind requires effective prior consultation.
To promote this discussion, I have written to you, Madam President, suggesting a major debate in the European Parliament on these issues. The views expressed by this House will be very helpful to the Commission in finalising its strategy proposal for Gothenburg.
We intend to stimulate lively discussion not only within the European institutions but as broadly as possible among our citizens, by issuing a consultative document.
Our aim is to achieve an overarching, coherent, and long-term orientation for the conduct of European affairs.
Let me turn now to the Union's relations with the rest of the world.
The signals from our citizens are unmistakable: harnessing globalisation for the good of all means we have to be ready for positive action.
In the short term, that means setting a new trade Round as a high priority for 2001.
A new Round is the best way of strengthening the multilateral system, with further trade liberalisation matched by new rules that address the concerns of civil society.
We should also negotiate in crucial new areas like competition and investment, and focus more sharply on the interests of developing countries.
Developing countries are the key to the whole process. Trade policy cannot just tackle the business agenda: we have to ensure that it brings good things to the world's poorest people.
So the Commission sincerely hopes that, this month, the Council and Parliament will agree to our proposal to allow the world's 48 poorest countries to export Everything But Arms to the EU quota free, tariff free, across the board.
We also stand ready to work on trade issues with the new US Administration and Congress. Naturally, President Bush has a regional agenda. But I know he also understands the importance of the multilateral system.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen,
One of the major milestones on the road ahead is, of course, the introduction of EURO notes and coins at the end of this year.
Over the next ten and a half months, my Commission will be working hard with both the Swedish and Belgian presidencies to complete our preparations for this extremely important event. This will take a huge and unprecedented effort.
The euro as hard cash in people's pockets will have an enormous impact on the lives of Europe's citizens. It will make European citizenship a tangible daily reality.
However, not everyone welcomes the idea of giving up an old and familiar currency for a new and unfamiliar one. And I'm sure there will be some initial difficulties and misunderstandings.
So we need to work hard to inform and reassure the public. People need to understand the benefits the Euro will bring us all. It will be the symbol of a vigorous economy and a bright future. And it is a European project, carried through on time and exactly as planned, by Europe and for Europe.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I want to conclude today by returning to the issue I raised earlier the debate on Europe's future.
The Treaty of Nice has, to my mind, two great merits.
First, its sheer existence. As far as we are concerned, there are now no further obstacles to enlargement.
Second, it opens up the broader "post-Nice" debate on the question of where we want the European Union to go from here.
As I said to you last month, and in line with the Declaration annexed to the Treaty, the first stage of this process will be one of "open reflection".
This will enable the December European Council to initiate a second stage, which I have termed "structured reflection", leading ultimately to a brief and decisive Inter-Governmental Conference.
I am convinced this is the right approach, and there seems to be widespread agreement on it.
It is chiefly the first stage the "open reflection" stage that I want to speak about today, because it will definitely occupy us in 2001.
This stage has already begun and there are three reasons why I consider it crucial:
First, we are facing a paradox. A paradox that is becoming more obvious every day from the words and deeds of Europe's citizens. It is this: Europe is increasingly necessary, yet it is seen as increasingly remote. If we are to relaunch and complete the grand project of creating a European Union, we need a very public debate about where we are going. And it must involve all levels of society.
Second, the disappointing outcome of the IGC at Nice. What was missing in the run-up to Nice was, above all, an in-depth discussion about what we want from Europe and for Europe. This discussion can be postponed no longer!
Third, there is an increasingly widespread impression which I share that we cannot go on building Europe through a succession of "constructive" ambiguities, leaving important things left unsaid. That approach has passed its "sell by" date. The basic questions about Europe have to be faced, and faced now.
Since 1981, first the Community and then the Union have been going through a continual process of adjustment, restructuring, enlargement and adaptation. For almost a generation, a constant seismic shock has been shaking our institutions and sweeping away the old, familiar landmarks.
As a result, the general public is no longer sure what Europe is all about or whether it is headed in the right direction.
But we have recently taken historic decisions that will reunite our continent. It would be not only paradoxical but actually dangerous if this unity were to be constructed around a vague agreement, fuzzy undertakings and conflicting hidden agendas.
So, what public debate are we talking about?
It has to be a no-holds-barred constitutional debate on the fundamental nature of the Union.
I am not among those who think that such a debate, once opened, can only lead to stalemate.
On the contrary: I trust the judgement of our citizens and their elected representatives provided the discussion is pitched at the right level.
This is not about the curvature of cucumbers! It is not about euromyths and distortions. It is about real issues and the questions actually asked by people in Europe most of whom want the Union to do more, not less.
The questions people actually ask are certainly not about cucumbers.
But nor are they about the institutional issues we have been discussing ad nauseam since Maastricht and which we chased in circles at Nice!
Ladies and gentlemen,
I think the real problem is that, somewhere along the way, we lost the thread of the agreement among our Member States about where we were all going. Behind our subtle protocols and our increasingly complex formulae, our disagreements are less and less easily hidden.
These disagreements arise partly, I think because the debate has been poorly conducted in recent years. Too often it has been an argument purely about power.
What we need instead is a frank and open discussion about the substance of our Union.
There are bound to be some disagreements on the ultimate purpose of the Union. And quite rightly so: after all, Europe is by nature diverse. But I hope, and believe, we can at least agree on the essentials.
This brings us to the heart of the matter to the fundamental questions I want publicly discussed. For example:
Are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a world power? In other words, not just a trading bloc but a political entity?
Are we all aware of the vital issues that are at stake here and that have implications for the future of our peoples? Do we realise that our nation states, taken individually, would find it far more difficult to assert their existence and their identity on the world stage?
Another question: how much social and economic solidarity are we prepared to show one another? Not just to prevent monetary shocks or to prevent the internal market breaking up but because we believe that our peoples should help one another, taking part in a joint enterprise.
Some more questions. Are we prepared to show the same solidarity when it comes to internal security? External security?
And what sort of environment shall we leave to future generations?
Finally, what are the most effective ways and means for European peoples to protect and affirm the values of democracy, solidarity and justice?
To my mind, these are the questions to ask first. They are eminently political, not institutional, and they determine the level at which we wish to cohabit and co-operate.
By opening this great debate, and choosing these subjects, I am not asking you and the people you represent to start redesigning Europe from scratch. It is not a case of "back to the drawing board"!
We are talking about a Europe that has accomplished an immense amount of useful things during the 50 years since the Community was founded. We are talking about a Europe that has achieved peace and prosperity and most recently of all established its own currency.
Ladies and gentlemen,
These are the questions that you and the citizens you represent, together with our national parliaments and governments, should now start asking and answering.
Let me be clear on this. I am not confusing the public debate which must be wide open to civil society with democratic representation.
European and national parliaments have the legitimacy of being elected. When the time comes for a structured reflection leading to concrete results, the method we follow must take account of that fact.
We shall then be entering the second stage of the discussions the stage following Laeken. No-one now imagines that this stage can proceed without European and national parliaments being closely involved.
Why? First, because Europe is not just a matter of co-operation between States: it is also about relations between peoples and has long been so.
But also because the vision and imagination needed for a fundamental rethink of Europe cannot come from simply getting nationalistic thinkers to put their heads together.
It seems to me that, after Laeken, and once suitable preparations have been made, the structured reflection should take place in a forum where all the players are represented: the European Parliament, the national parliaments, Europe's governments ands the Commission. Laeken and the subsequent European Councils in 2002 could give this forum increasingly precise terms of reference.
The right questions could thus emerge from this ongoing dialogue between the European Council and the Convention - or Conference, or whatever we choose to call it. (Let's not get into the dangerous territory of terminology!) And, finally, institutional implications could be drawn from it.
Clearly, then, there can be no question of limiting the scope of this exercise to the four topics listed at Nice. I fully endorse what Michel Barnier said to your Constitutional Committee that what must emerge from the post-Nice debate is a coherent and durable design for our enlarged Union.
The Commission will, of course, contribute its share of the work and take a number of initiatives.
It has already done so by, for example, proposing a reorganisation of the treaties. A draft text is already on the table.
It will do so again by helping Parliament and the successive presidencies to organise the "deeper and wider debate" called for in the Nice declaration.
It will also do so via the White Paper on Governance. Let me be clear on this too: do not expect the White Paper to deliver a ready-made "charter of competencies", listing the powers and responsibilities of the Union et its Member States! The White Paper will not take a position on constitutional questions. What it will do is help by proposing ways of decentralising the administration of the Union and ways of ensuring that our common policies are applied at the appropriate level as closely as possible to the citizen.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen;
It is sometimes said and I tend to agree that the European project was the most important development of the second half of the 20th century.
And with dependable regularity, at every stage of Europe's construction, certain commentators have decried the project as an untenable and even laughable utopian dream.
When the single currency was first conceived, those same commentators greeted the idea with predictable scorn and the kind of comments I shall refrain from reminding you of.
But at the end of 2001 we shall see coins and banknotes being issued in that very currency.
We have got to where we are, and we should be proud of it!
Thank you.