Brussels, 09/05/2005 (Agence Europe) - The best way to respond to current European disenchantment with European construction is “more of a political Europe”. On 4 May in Aix-la-Chapelle at the European Dialogue - What Europe Do We Want? organised by Amb Generali on the eve of the Charlemagne prize-winning awards by the President of the Italian Republic Carlo Azeglio Ciampi (see other article), Bronislaw Geremek, former Polish minister for foreign affairs and former Soldidarity leader said that they needed to explain to citizens, particularly the youth that the European Constitution makes “the policy of solidarity possible and allows Europe to tackle education (rather than too much pathos and state that it is enshrined in marble”). The 1998 Charlemagne Prize-winner said that to make Europe more interesting and more visible they needed some genuinely European political parties as well as a European tax. He added that sooner or later “we have to do it”' in the knowledge that it will not be another tax added to national taxes but one which is deducted. Mr Geremek was welcomed by the former German finance minister Theo Waigel, a major voice of the pro-Europeans who said that in order to respond to Euro-sceptics is would be useful to ask where we would be without European construction and where we would be without the Euro.
Mr Geremek asked why there was so much distrust among citizens about Europe (he spoke in German, French and English). He explained that in order to deal with this problem, they needed to meet several challenges: achieve Community and intergovernmental balance. Geremek said that the European Constitution would allow for this balance, but in practice everything would depend on the politicians. He said that they only had to think of the “the trio of great Europeans” formed by Mitterand, Kohn and Delors to see how that could work; to overcome national selfishness, which leads to populism. Geremek considered that this would require “political instruments” which truly sought genuinely European parties. He asked why they did not have a European referendum on the Constitution, even if it were “consultative” on the same day everywhere in Europe or a declaration on the “state of the Union” on 9 May to representatives from all European parliaments and millions of television viewers, which would give a “social and political dimension” to the EU and to reflect on a “new integration strategy”. Mr Geremek notes that the dilemma lay in the question of adapting the model of European integration to developments in society. He referred to the: beginning and the objective of political integration - peace - but the instruments used are economic, the adaptation to globalisation but that they demand the EU have political means. A Union that responds to these challenges could be a strong “community”, stated Mr Geremek (who on several occasions used the original word, Community). Another challenge raised by Mr Geremek in his answers to the range of questions was that of making Europe succeed. The MEP recognised that, “what happens in the European area is not a subject of interesting conversation for a family; the only remedy is more politics…the beginning of a European people” is needed.
Asked about Europe's Eastern borders, Geremek admitted that “Europe is tired of enlargement” and had to take stock and not rush in. He considered that future enlargements would be a task for the “next generation…which has to inherit its values from us”. He admitted that “in the East, these criteria are not respected”. But he immediately added, “we should not say no but not say yes straight away. We have to think in terms of preserving the acquis” (even if they should avoid “killing hope” and if they wanted to hope that the “orange or Georgian revolution” could become contagious, even in a country like Belarus.
Geremek pointed out that the political situation in Poland was marked by an economy that was going very well and politics that was going badly. He said that he was quite confident that when the economy “is stable, politics adapts” (even if the opposite were preferable). Geremek said that Poland was going in a direction that was for ever European. He underlined that relations between Germany and France would have a major influence on Poland's attitude.
Pat Cox said that it was absurd that anti-globalisation supporters attacked European construction, which is the only attempt to “democratise the transnational” former president of the European Parliament and Charlemagne prize winner in 2004. Recalling that in his country, Ireland, there had been six referendums since 1972 on European issues, Mr Cox explained the turn taken in the discussions on the Constitution in France by the fact that most of its adversaries focused on the third part, which is just in fact the “consolidation” of the acquis (where as the first and second parts, what Europe wants to do and how, and citizens' rights, lean more to mass consultations). In reply to Tony Blair's affirmation that the United Kingdom would have no reason to hold its referendum if the French voted no in theirs, Mr Cox exclaimed that each European country had to “do its duty” and be able to express themselves. Mr Cox explained the “failure of transmission” at some length and the “noble” European idea. According to Cox, it was, obviously the jargon used, but also because of the difficulty in explaining what was “in between” (federal/national, Community/intergovernmental) and the lack of ability in explaining the European story on a daily basis. He also underlined the political elites who take credit for all “enlightened” decisions but blame Brussels for the failures. Mr Cox was adamant that this should cease. In connection with a very burning issue dividing Member States, financial for 2007-13, he admitted that he would have preferred that they did not “lock” agricultural spending, because it was not by paying 40% of the EU budget that they could make Europe the most dynamic economy in the world. However, he did add that without such a decision, they would perhaps not have had the last enlargement and that he preferred this Union enlargement to failure at a European level.