Mur Lura
CLOSING SPEECH BY THE HON. EDWARD FENECH ADAMI, PRIME MINISTER, AT THE ‘FUTURE OF EUROPE CONFERENCE’ - FLORIANA
18/10/2001
| Over these last two days, this Conference has been examining a | subject that, while particularly topical at the present time, has constituted an underlying theme throughout the life of the European Union. |
| The theme of the Future of Europe is embedded in the | very concept of the European process. From the outset, this process rose above the traditional patterns of co-operation among states, where objectives are clearly defined and demarcated in advance. On the contrary, even in its origins in the mid-fifties, the then European Economic Community was premised on the assumption that what was being fashioned was an evolving political and institutional reality, which would redirect a troubled historical process into new avenues of regional peace and co-operation. |
| The question of how and whither - the question of | "finalité politique" - is inherent in this process. In the early years, the vision, and what one may call the historical justification inspiring the process, were sufficiently vivid and immediate as to obviate the need for any extended debate on its future. The founding fathers of the EEC used this situation to concentrate attention on the practical building blocks rather than on any formal definition of the process. |
| Nevertheless, the issue of finalité politique | was always present, and was indeed at the root of the creation of the rival, much less ambitious, European Free Trade Association. However, within the EEC itself, questions regarding purpose and direction were, for an extended period, kept very much in the background. What was essentially an intensively political process, unfolded through a series of seemingly very technical and pragmatic measures of legislation and institution building. |
| For some years now, the immediacy of the original | vision and sense of historical necessity behind the European process has been blurred. At the same time, what is now the European Union has become a well-recognised and robust political and institutional reality. In the popular mind, the familiarity of this reality has in many respects replaced the appreciation of what went into its origins. A situation has now developed where, while new candidates negotiate to enter the Union, established Members have the time and inclination to take up the always underlying and fundamental questions of direction and purpose. |
| One should remember that the present debate on the | Future of Europe constitutes the fourth concerted attempt by the Union within a single decade to tackle these questions. A dynamic process, that for the first thirty years of its existence rarely stopped to ponder on its own nature and purpose, has developed the practice of introspection as a major element of its continuing growth and development. |
| The three intergovernmental conferences that took | place during the nineties have brought about significant changes in the scope and mandate of the Union. The Union of the year 2000 was indeed very different from the European Community of 1990. The institutional developments which accompanied these changes were however perhaps not as radical and far-reaching as the circumstances required – also taking into consideration the fact that, in the meantime, the Union was in the midst of an as yet unfinished process of more than doubling its membership. |
| The last IGC, concluded at Nice, was an attempt to | tackle the institutional question primarily from the perspective of a growing membership. There is an uneasy sense in some quarters that the results of Nice were somehow partial and incomplete. The reality is that Nice was reasonably successful in achieving its primary objective - that of preparing the ground, in purely institutional terms, for the biggest ever single enlargement of the Union. |
| The results of the Nice Summit confirmed that the | direct linkage between the objective of institutional reform, and the question of enlargement, is only part of a much larger cluster of issues. A long-standing candidate country like Malta has always shared the view of those who are convinced that enlargement is primarily a source of new strength and vigour for the Union, rather than a complicating reality, in both institutional as well as substantive terms. |
| The frequently asserted parallelism between the | readiness of a candidate country to become a member, and the readiness of the Union to take on new members, in many ways distracts attention from the main issues of direction and purpose. Nice recognised this by inserting the launch of a wide-ranging debate on the Future of Europe as an element of its own conclusions. |
| This debate which is now taking place needs to deal | with three distinct, though closely related, questions - how to make the Union more relevant and comprehensible to its citizens, how to ensure that the Union's institutional and administrative infrastructure remains viable in the context of a greatly enlarged membership and a significantly widened mandate, and how to manage the issue of finalité politique. |
| Many voices are today heard asserting that the Union | has distanced itself from the citizens of its member states. It is felt that Europeans do not understand what is happening in Brussels, and even more seriously they do not feel involved in what is taking place there. These concerns are encapsulated in extended debates over the issues of transparency and democratization. |
| One idea aimed at ensuring greater transparency is to | streamline and simplify the Union's legislation. The simplification of the treaties, together with a clearer definition of the status of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, are indeed two of the four specific issues which Nice identified as needing to be taken up in the Future of Europe debate. The objective here is to clarify the treaties without changing their meaning. |
| As a candidate country involved in negotiating the | details of the Union's acquis,Malta can well understand and appreciate the value of a more simplified and coherent presentation of the existing legislation. At the same time, we can also appreciate the fact that the issue of transparency lies more in understanding the process of how legislation is formulated and enacted in the first place, rather than of comprehending it after it is completed. |
| In this sense, the issue of transparency is only a | component of the issue of democratisation. The very low turnout resulting in a negative vote in the recent Irish referendum on the Nice Treaty, and the low level of participation in the elections to the European Parliament, may be viewed as clear reflections of the poor sense of popular involvement in the European process. |
| At the same time, one must take note of the fact that | a popular distancing from the formal political process is progressively becoming a worrying tendency of the democratic process in general. The factors working towards a low level of popular involvement in the workings of the European Union are a key aspect of the debate on the Future of Europe. Measures involving much more extensive public information programmes, on a continuing and participatory basis, would no doubt help to reverse this process. In Malta, we have made the process of information very much part and parcel of the entire accession process. However, more far-reaching measures are also necessary. These need to be considered in conjunction with the second major question which forms part of the Future of Europe debate, namely how to ensure that the Union's institutional and administrative infrastructure remains viable in the context of a greatly enlarged membership and a significantly widened mandate. |
| A further two of the four specific issues identified | by Nice for the Future of Europe debate pierce the very heart of this question. The first concerns the delimitation of competencies. The second concerns the role of National Parliaments. |
| The delimitation of competencies concerns the | question of which tasks are to be carried out centrally by the Union, and which tasks are to be left for the individual action of the Member States. This calls for a closer look at the principle of subsidiarity. |
| Article 5 of the Treaty Establishing the European | Community states that "In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community." |
| Reading this sentence from the European Treaty, one | appreciates the validity of the call for simplification. Probing behind the language, one does however perceive that the notion of division of competencies between the Union and its members is one of the key issues that will have to be addressed in all its complexity as the debate unfolds. |
| The identification in Nice of the question of the | delimitation of competencies as a main issue in the Future of Europe debate, also relates to another dimension of the principle of subsidiarity. This concerns the role of regional structures within Member States in the European process. From Malta's point of view, this is an important issue that however needs to be dealt with very carefully. There should be a clear separation between the issue of regional competence and the status of individual member states. One understands, however, that decisions related to the nature and extent of regional competencies should remain the prerogative of individual Member States. |
| A discussion of the role of National Parliaments in | the European process touches upon many of the aspects of the issue of democratisation within the Union. Malta is very much in favour of examining ways in which the elected representatives of the people should be involved in bringing the Union closer to its citizens. In its wider dimensions, this is an issue which touches upon other major aspects of the institutional debate - in the first instance, the role and structure of the European Parliament itself, and then the division of competence and responsibility between the various central institutions, and in particular the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. |
| An interesting aspect of the institutional debate as | it has already emerged so far, is whether any meaningful reform of the institutions can take place in the absence of common ground on the third major question facing the Future of Europe debate - that of finalité politique. In many ways, this is a dilemma analogous to that of the chicken and the egg. Agreement on how to approach this dilemma will perhaps be a critical element in determining the success of the Future of Europe debate. |
| One necessary way forward in this regard relates to | the use and meaning of words and phrases that take on the allure of formulas. There are at least two such formulas I have in mind. One concerns the notion of federalism. The other concerns the notion of the Community method. |
Federalism is perhaps the more elusive of the two. For a German citizen, federalism is a positive notion highlighting a careful balance between central and regional competencies, thereby ensuring the desirable balance between the Union and its member states. For a British citizen, however, federalism raises the spectre of the erosion of state sovereignty, through a device that disturbs the existing balance between the Union and its members in favour of the former. For many, both within and outside Europe, federalism suggests analogies with a system, that of the United States, which for historical, cultural and a whole host of other reasons has no relevance whatsoever to the European process.
The reference to the Community method, by which we understand the specific or sui generis model on which the European Union has evolved, appears to provide a more promising basis for discussion. However, appearances could be deceptive. We must in the first instance ensure that we all mean the same thing when using this phrase, and that we draw convergent conclusions from the main premises.
From Malta's point of view the Community method includes three fundamental ingredients:
- firstly, that through the Union, member states are effectively pooling their national sovereignty, and not diminishing it;
- secondly, that the Union's decision-making process remains a balanced partnership among the three main institutions - the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament; and thirdly,
- that the thrust into new areas of the Union's competence and activity remains a pragmatic process open to all Member States on the basis of shared responsibility and opportunity.
The discussions that have taken place during this Conference have certainly underlined the complex and far-reaching nature of the issues that need to be considered in the Future of Europe debate. They have also no doubt highlighted the relevance and importance of these issues.
At this juncture, the process is still in its formative stage. The main issues to be resolved for eventual adoption by the Laeken Council in December primarily concern procedural aspects. These include a decision on the manner in which the substantive discussions will be conducted over the next two and a half years before final decisions are taken in a specially-convened intergovernmental conference in 2004. In this context, there is already agreement within the Union that the first phase of the discussions will be undertaken within the framework of a Convention, that will bring together representatives from a wide cross-section of opinion within the Union.
In this context, an understanding has also been reached that candidate countries will be participating in this Convention. The General Affairs Council of the 8th October has agreed on the form which this participation will take, however the precise terms of reference of the Convention itself are still to be determined. From the point of view of candidate countries, their participation in the Convention must be both relevant and effective. Even more important from the point of view of candidate countries, is full participation in the second phase of the Future of Europe debate - the intergovernmental phase in 2004 - where the final decisions will be taken.
Beyond the procedural questions lie the substantive issues of the Future of Europe debate, the resolution of which will inevitably have a significant impact on how effectively the Union will function in the coming years. This will not be the last debate of its kind. As I have said, the theme of the nature and purpose of the Union continually underlies this whole process.
However, for many reasons both internal and external, the Union is today at an important crossroads. It has already proved its value as an indispensable factor in the peace and prosperity of part of the European continent. It is now poised to encompass a larger part, and eventually perhaps the whole, of the continent. It is also on the point of taking up its role as a key player in the international arena, not only in economic, but also in political and strategic terms.
The present challenge is for the Union to undergo the necessary internal transformations while retaining its original characteristic - that of a process which takes collective decisions while at the same time safeguarding the individuality of its members. One that draws unity from diversity, and, in metaphorical terms, speaks a common language, while in practice promoting and enhancing the different tongues and identities of its members. And finally, one that asserts the uniqueness and value of the many positive elements of European heritage, at the same time as it extends a hand of co-operation, friendship and understanding to other cultures and peoples.
Stqarrijiet Oħra:
PR261926
STQARRIJA MILL-UFFIĊĊJU TAL-PRIM MINISTRU “Sodisfatt bil-qbil bejn il-mexx...
PR261925EN
PRESS RELEASE BY THE MINISTRY FOR EUROPEAN FUNDS, SOCIAL DIALOGUE AND CONSU...
