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