Download - Europes Vision Thing
Please note that this is BBC copyright and may
Please note that this is BBC copyright and may
not be reproduced or copied for any other
purpose.
RADIO 4
CURRENT AFFAIRS
ANALYSIS
EUROPES VISION THING
TRANSCRIPT OF A RECORDED
DOCUMENTARY
Presenter: Quentin Peel
Producer: Simon Coates
Editor: Nicola Meyrick
BBC
White City
201 Wood Lane
London
W12 7TS
020 8752 6252
Broadcast Date: 17.07.03
Repeat Date: 20.07.03
Tape Number: TLN327/03VT1028
Duration: 2737
Taking part in order of appearance:
Lamberto Dini
Former Italian Prime Minister
Member of the Convention on the Future of Europe
Jnos Martonyi
Law Professor
Former Foreign Minister of Hungary
Jens-Peter Bonde
Danish Member of the European Parliament
John Bruton, TD
Former Irish Prime Minister
Member of Prsidium of the Convention on the Future of
Europe
Anne Van Lancker
Flemish Socialist Member of the European Parliament
Danuta Hbner
Polish Minister for Europe
Vicomte Etienne Davignon
Former Vice-President of the European Commission
Alain Lamassoure
Member of the European Parliament
Former French Minister for Europe and for the Budget
Javier Solana
High Representative for the Common Foreign & Security
Policy,
European Council
PEEL: First, a health warning. In this
programme, youre not going to hear any British politicians rehearsing
their interminable debate over Europe or repeating the familiar
arguments over Britain and the euro. Instead, well be focusing on how
the rest of the European Union sees its future.
Next May, the EU will expand from fifteen to twenty-five member
states. Its an historic moment, when the East-West divide will finally
disappear. But, to make it work, the twenty-five need to have some
glue: a vision to bind them all together. Europes response has been to
draft a constitution. Lamberto Dini, former Italian prime minister, was
a prominent member of the Convention on the Future of Europe, set up
to do that job. It finished last week, so whats it accomplished?
DINI:First of all, it defines European
citizenship through the adoption of the Charter of Fundamental Rights,
so we know what are the rights of being Europeans and this is a major
step forward. Second, Europe will become more democratic because
the European Parliament is going to have a great influence in the
legislative area and also in Europe more generally. So we are in this
way creating also the spirit of Europe.
PEEL: That spirit was first made flesh in
1957 when the Treaty of Rome was signed. Then, the big idea was to
bind France and Germany together, so they would never start another
world war. But whats the vision today that will hold the continent
together? For Jnos Martonyi, former foreign minister of Hungary,
joining the EU means reversing the fate of his nation. He remembers
all too well how Hungary tried and failed to break free from the Soviet
empire.
MARTONYI:For us Europe started as a dream,
which we couldnt join. So you just have to recall 57 when people
were imprisoned and executed in my country and, at the same time, the
Treaty of Rome was signed. From then on, it is an objective for many,
many Hungarians even if, of course, they didnt have a precise idea of
what the whole integration process was or perhaps still is about.
Europe for me is much more than a common interest or a single market.
Europe is a construction, its a process, and we do not know yet exactly
where this process will lead us. So, as the ancient Greeks said, gods
have hidden for us the future.
PEEL: The ancient Greeks have a lot to
answer for. They also invented democracy. And thats surely what the
core of this constitution should be about. The draft constitution is
ready. Itll be handed over to the EUs Italian presidency in Rome
tomorrow. Then the member states will sit down and thrash out a final
version.
Europe, as Jnos Martonyi says, is a process without a clear destination.
But if its to flourish, it must be effective. In this programme, Ill be
asking whether the Union can become more relevant, so that its citizens
actually bother to vote. And there are two other central issues: first, can
Europes nation states preserve their sense of identity as the new Union
grows stronger? And can the Union speak with a single voice, despite
the bitter falling out over the war in Iraq, in a world dominated by the
sole American superpower?
Lets start with democracy. Jens-Peter Bonde has been a Danish
member of the European parliament since 1979. Hes a leading
Eurosceptic, and a fierce critic of the lack of democracy in EU
institutions.
BONDE:Over some hundred years, I think
its possible to make a genuine European democracy, just like they
made an Italian democracy, a German democracy, a Danish democracy.
But I think its a process which is very slow because people vote for
national parliaments much more than for the European Parliament. And
I take part in a lot of trans-national debates Im the only Dane really
taking part in such trans-national debates. There is no audience and
theres no effect.
PEEL: And yet you personally are a
European politician. You have dedicated your political life actually to
the European level of politics, so in a way you are precisely what you
say doesnt say work!
BONDE: If I go in the street in London after
a BBC interview, no one will come and say, Hi, that was wrong what
you did; that was good what you did. When I go into a bus in
Denmark everyone would come and say it was good or it was bad. It
works at the national level; it doesnt work on the European level. I
cant imagine British citizens vote for Schrder or Chirac.
PEEL: But Jnos Martonyi says its work
in progress.
MARTONYI: The Constitution is not the end of
the history. In a way, its the starting point of a process and you cant
establish genuine European democracy without establishing or
developing a genuine European Parliament. I mean, this is democratic
culture. And, for the time being, member states are not willing to
constitute a genuine European Parliament because that would be, of
course, to the detriment of the national parliaments. So here you have a
basic conflict which is not necessarily or not only related to the concept
of democracy. Its also related to the power sharing between member
states and the Union.
PEEL: Its all about power, how to share
it, and how to restrain it. As things stand, democratic control should be
exercised by the European Parliament. National parliaments have little
influence. National governments retain ultimate executive and
legislative authority in the secretive Council of Ministers. And the
European Commission is a sort of government-cum-bureaucracy, but
with strictly limited powers. How does John Bruton, the former Irish
prime minister, think itll change?
BRUTON:The Convention draft constitution
does two important things in this area: firstly, it decides that, in future,
legislation passed in the Council of Ministers will have to be passed in
public rather than in private its already public when its passed under
the European Parliament; and, secondly, weve introduced a so-called
yellow card system where one third of the national parliaments can hold
up a yellow card and say to the European Commission, We dont like
this particular piece of legislation, its going too far. Review it. Now,
I think that the exercise of that power, which is going to be within a
fairly limited time frame, will require an intense scrutiny by all twenty-
five national parliaments of Europe of each EU proposal within the six-
week period to ensure that they decide wisely whether or not they
should use the yellow card. Thats going to create a much more
informed national debate on European issues. But, by virtue of the fact
that to actually make that debate effective youre going to have to
persuade at least one-third of the other parliaments to go along with
you, that debate will be a linked debate between all twenty-five
parliaments, and I think thats going to do a lot to create a more
democratic consciousness in Europe.
PEEL: Like football referees, national
parliaments can use their yellow cards to discourage excessive EU
regulation. But European democracy depends on the development of a
European demos, too: if citizens are going to vote in European
elections, they must believe it matters. That means delivering policies
that people care about. Anne Van Lancker, a Flemish Socialist in the
European Parliament, thinks that unanimous decision-making leads to
deadlock. She fears progressive policies will be blocked by national
vetoes. So she wants to see much more majority voting in the
constitution.
VAN LANCKER:It is not sufficient, I am very much
afraid, because people expect Europe not only to be transparent and
democratic, to have good functioning institutions; it also expects
Europe to deliver, for example, on social issues on the fight against
unemployment, on poverty and social exclusion, on non-discrimination.
And, as it stands now, Europe will not be able to deliver.
PEEL: But is none of that there?
VAN LANCKER: Very much on values and
objectives, but its like promising people something but then not being
able to deliver. For example, there are very strong clauses on non-
discrimination but, if you look at the Articles where real measures
should be taken, its still under unanimity. Now, you cant expect
twenty-five member states to say, Yes, to a piece of legislation. That
is simply not done. So we need qualified majority there. Another
promise is a good level of public health. Now, if you look at the actual
Articles of the treaty, there is simply no competence at European level
to safeguard peoples health. We can do much more about animal
welfare than about public health!
PEEL: She has a point. We just have to
think of the SARS epidemic; public health respects no borders. Nor do
economics. In Poland, the largest of the new member states, one in five
is out of work. Danuta Hbner, the Polish Minister for Europe, wanted
more in the constitution on economic policy co-ordination.
HUBNER:I regret really that, for example, on
the economic issues, we spent so little time on that because I believe
that today in Europe this is the most important failure of Europe, is the
economy, and we dont seem to introduce changes into the way the
Union functions from the point of view of its economic efficiency.
PEEL: But is a constitution about the
economy? Isnt a constitution about more fundamental principles?
HUBNER: Well, it is, of course, about more
fundamental principles, but its also about the co-ordination of
economic policies. And I know that in UK you would probably have a
different approach to the issue of how much union you would like to
have in the economy because you are not yet in the euro zone, but for
those who function within the economic and monetary union, the way
the policy also the fiscal policy is co-ordinated is probably much
more important than in the UK.
PEEL: So, there are still very mixed
feelings both on the democratic underpinning of the new Europe, and
on how far it can or should deliver more relevant policies. And more
majority voting the so-called community method of taking
decisions leads straight to the other great debate over the preservation
of national sovereignty in a more integrated Union. Britain sees the
new member states as potential allies in the struggle to protect that
sovereignty. How does it look from their point of view? Danuta
Hbner again.
HUBNER:I dont think we can envisage a
Union which would not be a Union of sovereign states. But, at the
same time, I think we would need a move forward towards more
integration, towards more importance of the community method. I
think with this diversity, if we dont have strong institutions that are the
guardians of the treaties, of the law being European rules and standards
and the law being really observed, if we dont have much closer co-
operation on issues which in a natural way become cross-border issues
like security the internal security, external security if we dont go
deeper into co-operation on those issues then we will probably fail.
PEEL: Poland wants the EU to finance
the policing of its long frontier with the former Soviet republics. Thats
now the eastern border for the whole Union. Yet all too often the EU
seems to blunder into such obvious common policies by default.
Etienne Davignon, one of Belgiums top businessmen, learned that at
first hand when he was a vice-president of the European Commission in
the 1980s.
DAVIGNON:The whole strange way in which
Europe builds itself up is based, number one, on the assessment that
there is a fundamental need which can no longer be addressed
exclusively by individual states. Immigration very touchy, very
complicated, very sensitive so everybody says, No, no, no, no, no,
no, no, we dont want immigration to be dealt collectively! Then you
find out that you are totally incapable of dealing with it individually
and the problem is so important and the dissatisfaction is so great if you
dont do something about it that you are obliged to bring it in through
the back door. And then it becomes an essential part and piece of the
story! Same thing, terrorism. Why for years did one do nothing on the
justice side? I mean, who could trust courts of another country? I
mean, impossible to trust them! Then you find out that you are totally
inefficient. So a lot of things are done in the Union, I would say, by
default of the capacity of the national states. Then, when that is done,
the finding is made, yes, it has become an essential part of the Union!
[chuckles]
PEEL: Its ironic, but awfully European,
when the member states pretend their accidental initiatives are entirely
intentional. Yet one of the biggest changes proposed in the draft
constitution is to bring justice and internal security into the heart of EU
decision-making. Its a change that Britain supports because it wants
EU help to curb illegal immigration and the flow of asylum-seekers.
But what of external security? The splits over Iraq seem to have dashed
any hopes of having a common foreign policy. Europe is more deeply
divided over how to deal with America than about any other issue.
Wont that sabotage the whole exercise?
LAMASSOURE:It was a terrible shock in the short-
run and we feared the final failure for the convention during the Iraq
crisis. In the long run, no.
PEEL: Alain Lamassoure, member of the
European Parliament and a former French minister for Europe.
LAMASSOURE:The Iraq crisis revealed that there
are divisions among our governments clearly on what could be or
should be common European foreign policy. But there is also and
that is reassuring for the long-term a division between the peoples and
their governments. In the Iraqi crisis, for the first time, came up a kind
of common European sentiment in all the member states in Britain as
well as in France or Spain or Poland, etcetera whatever the stands
taken by their governments. A huge majority seventy percent,
sometimes eighty or ninety percent in Spain of the European citizens
were in favour of a peaceful solution and expected a voice expressing
their common sentiment. This voice, this spokesman does not exist in
the current European system, and my conviction is that in London as
well as in Paris or Berlin everybody is now conscious in the national
governments that this kind of crisis cannot happen again without very
serious consequences against the governments. The public opinion
understands the differences of views, but cannot understand and accept
that some European countries or governments take action against others
or negotiate with third states. Thats why in the constitution a small
piece of progress which does be underestimated will be the creation
of a so-called European Minister for Foreign Affairs.
PEEL: Having one person to talk for
Europe is certainly a first step. And the European protests against the
war in Iraq showed the beginnings of a genuine demos in search of a
common voice. Of course, Iraq divided the governments: on the one
hand, the pro-American Atlanticists in London, Madrid and Rome and,
on the other, the anti-war sceptics in Paris and Berlin. But it also split
France and Germany so-called old Europe from almost all the
pro-American new member states. Thats what Donald Rumsfeld,
the US Defence Secretary, so unhelpfully reminded us of in the spring.
Does Javier Solana, the EUs High Representative for foreign affairs, a
sort of Foreign Minister Lite, see that as an irreconcilable division?
SOLANA:Well, I think that youre posing a
very interesting and, at the same time, delicate question. Now I know
very well the new countries that are going to be part of the European
family. I when I was Secretary General of NATO I dealt with them,
I helped them to be part of NATO some of them and I know the big
concern that they have about security but security understood in the
old, classical manner. They are still concerned about the countries they
have to the East. We dont think that this is a problem today, it is not a
threat today, but for them it still is a question that remains open.
Therefore, their priority is more linked towards security and being more
linked towards security is more linked towards NATO, and being more
linked towards NATO as a consequence is more linked to the United
States. But, as time goes by, as these countries are part of the family,
enter into the European Union completely with all rights, analyse the
type of relationship that are created in so many fields when you are part
of the European Union this concern, this fear of what is going to
happen to the East, it will no doubt will diminish and they will
become normalised members of the European Union.
DINI:There cant be any clear divides.
PEEL: Lamberto Dini, Italys former
prime minister.
DINI:I think that the candidate countries
that are so sensitive vis--vis their security, there is a feeling I have
discussed with a number of them, of the key people that their feeling
is our security can best be assured by the United States. Now, they will
have to come to realise that their future depends largely on their links
with Europe and the European Union. Their future economic and social
development depends on Europe because the resources will come from
Europe, the flow of goods and services will come from Europe, and it is
from that you would likely to have say raising the standard of livings in
these countries along the lines of what has happened to Ireland or
Portugal or other countries.
PEEL: Thats a blunt message on EU
realities, although presented rather more delicately than it was by
President Chirac, when he told the new members who backed America
on Iraq that theyd missed a good opportunity to shut up. But can
twenty-five member states really be expected to agree on all foreign
policies? Wont they be tempted to pick and choose their partners?
Javier Solana again.
SOLANA:On security, yes, it probably will
be necessary. But that is something thats very easily understood not
only for political reasons but for practical reasons. And remember that
the European Union at large, about eighty percent of their population is
concentrated on six countries. I say that because, if you want to have
military capabilities, it is very difficult that many of the countries that
belong to the European Union with a million, two million people, the
amount of contribution they can do to security, to military will be
probably not very big, and I dont think we should ask them to do it.
They should participate in the definition, but probably they will never
be able to participate in a major military operation.
PEEL: Indeed, a common European
defence policy without Britain and France is almost inconceivable. If
theres to be closer co-operation on that score, it wouldnt be serious
unless both were involved. Theyre the only two with a global view,
with permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council and with
the military capacity to send their soldiers on far-flung expeditions.
Traditionally, both have defended the national veto on such issues. But
there are signs that, in the face of enlargement and the threat of
legislative gridlock, the mood in Paris is changing. Majority voting on
foreign policy is no longer taboo. Is France perhaps becoming more
federalist?
LAMASSOURE:Yes, clearly. It was not very
dramatic for the public opinion, but its true and its very important and,
in my view, positive.
PEEL: Alain Lamassoure, a close ally of
the French prime minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin.
LAMASSOURE:The French authorities and
particularly President Chirac used to be very Eurosceptic twenty years
ago. When the principle of the election by universal suffrage of the
European Parliament was proposed by President Giscard dEstaing, Mr.
Chirac spoke of a plot from abroad, a plot from abroad and the
problem was Germany! But now, he has turned into something like a
federalist apart from the name! but France now accepts co-
legislation for the European Parliament; the election by simple majority
of the President of the Commission by the European Parliament; the full
budgetary powers for the European Parliament; the community method
elsewhere. It is very important and positive. But there is, oddly
enough, a counterpart. The Benelux are less federalist as they used to
be: its the syndrome of the small countries. And there is a syndrome of
the big countries, which affects positively France now, and maybe
Britain tomorrow.
PEEL: Thats very interesting.
Enlargement has made the big countries a little bit more federalist and
the small countries a bit more nationalist?
LAMASSOURE: Yes, yes!
PEEL: Mind, Belgium, the Netherlands
and Luxembourg wont go far from federalism. They have too much to
lose. But alarm bells should be ringing in London about France.
Britain thinks enlargement is going its way. The UK shares lots of
common ground with the new member states. The central Europeans
are not only pro-American. Theyre also keen to defend their national
identities. At least, up to a point. Danuta Hbner, Polands Minister
for Europe.
HUBNER:When the British say looser
European Union, they probably think about the right of the UK to
decide on the social policy or not to have the harmonisation of taxes.
And here we are with you because we also believe that, for the
newcomers, who are much less developed, who if we join the euro and
if we dont have fiscal flexibility, it will be a failure for us. And we are
still facing the challenge of building the competitiveness of Polish
economy, of completing the restructuring, the modernisation of the
economy, and we cant afford to be part of a fully harmonised tax
system because it would be against us, against our economy and,
through this, against the Union, against the interests of the Union. So
here we are.. we would like to be in a looser system. So, I guess that
for some things we would be probably with you, but for many others
we would be fighting for more and more integration.
PEEL: The EUs locked into a twin-track
process: widening and deepening. A queue of new members is standing
at the door, stretching all the way to Turkey. Thats widening. But
theres deepening with more majority voting, and more common
policies. How does John Bruton, the former Irish Taoiseach, see the
EU in ten years time?
BRUTON:I think the European Union will
have a much stronger involvement than it now has in the area of law
and order basically ensuring that organised crime doesnt exploit the
internal market. I expect it will have taken over a considerable amount
of the defence of its own territories, which is currently provided in part
by the United States. I expect it will be a Union that will contain about
thirty-two or thirty-three members. I think we will see Croatia, we will
see most of the former Yugoslav countries, plus Bulgaria and Romania
in the Union.
PEEL:
Will we see Turkey too?
BRUTON:
The question is: will there be
sufficient political glue uniting people living in Anatolia with people
living in Connemara to make this a Union where there will be a sense
of common identity? that it will be sufficiently strong to withstand a
crisis, and the European Union may have to withstand crises in the next
ten to fifteen years.
PEEL: That sounds like an awfully
unwieldy Union, dangerously close to failing one of the key tests about
enlargement: namely, effective decision-making. Would the successors
of those who signed the Treaty of Rome back in 1957 give up the idea
of ever-closer union? Former Commissioner, Etienne Davignon, our
shrewd assessor of European development.
DAVIGNON: The Union is too important to
those who are members of the Union today to give up something for
which they have no replacement. I think I would be stupidly
complacent if I said theres no risk, no problem and so on and so forth.
It will not be the same Union, thats obvious there will be more
policies which re-group a number of countries. The real question will
be: will that be inside the Union structure or will it be outside the Union
structure?
PEEL: The EU has flourished against the
odds, but today its facing an existential crisis. If it cant reach
decisions, smaller groups of states will be tempted to pursue co-
operation on their own. That could be on defence or tax harmonisation,
you name it. But it would be coalitions of the willing run wild. And
that sort of variable geometry would be far more difficult for European
citizens to understand or support.
For an EU of twenty-five or even more than thirty member states to
function democratically and effectively, more deepening is essential. In
fact, each enlargement gives a new impetus to integration. The future
has to be federal, like it or not. Britain doesnt like that, but its hang-up
seems to be more about the word than the substance. The Union will
always be a hybrid structure never a superstate. Its a complicated
club that needs complicated rules. And its members are often more
venal than visionary.
3