FOREIGN MINISTER JOE BORG ADDRESSES COLLOQUIUM ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE IN BRUSSELS

The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Joe Borg returned from Brussels yesterday, where he participated in a Colloquium on the Future of Europe, organized by the Royal Institute of International Relations of Belgium. Present for the said colloquium were the Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers of the Candidate States where each gave their views on the debate on the future of Europe. The Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt, also attended the meeting and gave his views on the evolving debate on the future of Europe. President Romano Prodi together with Commissioner Barnier also attended the colloquium.

The intervention by Minister Joe Borg follows:

Statement by the Hon. Dr Joe Borg, Minister of Foreign Affairs at the Colloquium on the Future of Europe, organized by the Royal Institute of International Relations of Belgium - Brussels, 26th June 2001

First of all allow me to thank the Belgian authorities for the organisation of this Colloquium. The Future of Europe is an issue of fundamental interest to us all. Enlargement is in itself an issue central to the Future of Europe. Our involvement here today is another manifestation of the commitment of the Union to the involvement of Candidate States in this crucial matter.

Before going into the issues presented for discussion allow me to start with the basic presupposition which has sparked this debate on the future of Europe – a presupposition that the Europe of the future needs above all to be a renewed and reinvigorated reality. The objectives of this exercise is to bring the citizens of the European Union closer to its core. How we set about to do that will determine the success of our endeavour.

If it were possible to foresee the ultimate shape of a future Union right now, then such a fully predetermined target would hardly be worth pursuing with the enthusiasm that political leaders and different personalities have dedicated to it so far.

If the stated objective is that of building a Union of the future close to its citizens it is first of all necessary to listen to our citizens. We have heard different suggestions ranging from a ‘federation of states’, following the ‘community method’ and others.

We depart from the understanding that "Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity." Indeed, each step in the constitutional evolution of the Union has been marked as "a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen."

On this basis, there is a wide scope for continuing this historic project of building Europe. The Nice Treaty clearly paves the way for this to happen by setting the agenda for the next intergovernmental conference, which will be convened in 2004. Clearly, this debate will be shaping up in the run-up to 2004 and this event is a contribution in this respect.

However, the debate will also be taking place within the context of other developments that will be shaping the future of the Union.

One of these is the process of enlargement which has now gained a momentum which, as the EU leaders noting recently in Gothenburg, render it quite clearly, an irreversible process. In this regard, allow me to express the strong satisfaction of my Government at the decision of the EU leaders to the effect that the 2004 Intergovernmental Conference "will not constitute any form of obstacle or precondition to the enlargement process" and that "moreover, those candidate States which have concluded accession negotiations with the Union will be invited to participate in the Conference."

In assessing which system will eventually prevail in the development of the Union in future and what remains crucial to ensure in the finality of the exercise,

is that the European Union will continue to have as its basis the States which comprise it. We can continue to consolidate co-operation in the different and new fields, but these will largely continue to reflect the different traditions and societies we represent.

The European Union of the future will necessarily be a different and larger entity. Ensuring that effective measures are in place so that common objectives may be achieved, while continuing to promote the enrichment of diversity, is key to its survival.

What Nice and Post-Nice has demonstrated is that there is the need for a heightened awareness among our public opinion of the importance of the European Union and how it affects their lives. We have to find mechanisms whereby information but also consultation among respective citizens will ensure that our citizens consolidate their sense of belonging to the Union.

In my view this is why it is important that, as a start National Parliaments are involved in the discussions on the future of Europe. It is also important that national parliaments continue to play their role in the functioning of the Union in the future. How this is to be achieved will be the focus of our discussions in the coming years.

Transparency and consultation lie at the core of the accession processes of the States sitting here at the table. The Candidate States are perhaps more conscious of this aspect because the process of accession dictates it. In Malta’s case, different mechanisms and consultative agencies have been established so as to guarantee the participation of the widest spectrum possible in the preparation of our negotiations. This has the added value of projecting a sense of involvement and belonging by our citizens. Irrespective of whether some may agree or otherwise, to the different issues, they remain part of an ongoing process related to our membership of the Union, they consequently have an understanding of how the Union operates and what it represents.

We have been asked to comment on the necessity of a Constitution for Europe. Over the years and decades States in Europe and even more so of the European Union have build common standards and principles across a number of fields. If it were possible to extract those basic principles which have guided the development of democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights, into a constitution which would apply across the Union, this would be an important consideration in signalling Europe’s commitment towards its own citizens and those outside of Europe. Including the Charter of Fundamental Rights as part of this process is also viewed as a largely desirable development.

The same holds true for the question of the distribution of competences at different levels of government from the local level, the regional and the national, to the European level. If it is possible to achieve a clearer definition of the different levels at which European co-operation operates, this is a welcome step. What remains crucial is to recognise that in many instances, the development of the Union has been dependant on the sharing of competencies and the gradual evolution of institutional structures serving to maintain complex and often complicated procedures for co-operation. Casting a list in stone may hamper the flexibility required of moving forward in the same or even different areas.

In principle the answer to this question has long ago been formulated in the technical term that has become a basic theme of the Union: subsidiarity. The disagreement is about how to determine on specific issues which is the lowest level at which a matter is effectively tackled. This will undoubtedly remain one of the tasks to be tackled in the discussions ahead.

We have been asked about how the process is to be achieved in a most effective manner and with the involvement of public opinion. There have been many suggestions ranging from the more restricted ‘wise men’ formula to that of a wide-ranging Convention. What remains central is to guarantee that the public opinion in member and candidate States is ensured a mechanism where their views can be expressed and as far as possible reflected. The two suggestions are not however mutually exclusive.

We have to envisage a system which would be based on public discussion but which would be channelled through to a restricted group of persons to ensure effectiveness of results. Ultimately this would have to be submitted to a Convention such as that utilised in the formulation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This could be used as the model which would however have to reflect a number of changes such as the interventions of national parliaments and also the fact that Candidate States would also be involved as members in the Convention.

With reference to the issue of ‘enhanced co-operation’ between open groups of countries, the agreement reached in Nice makes it possible for a mechanism to effectively allow States to move forward in areas where they are prepared to do so. As long as the mechanism remain open to States who wish to join at a later stage this could prove to be a crucial mechanism in the development of the Union. The principle to underscore on this issue is that need to retain the principle of equality of status and solidarity between all EU countries irrespective of their different roles. This being the understanding, I see no radical objection to the proposed practice being extended from the economic to other areas. However, it remains to be seen what the debate will offer on this subject.

My suggestion is that a good deal of attention should be devoted to the ways and means in which electronic media can be used innovatively in order to democratise in depth the political process, at least when such foundational issues are involved.

Setting up such innovative systems may be just the admittedly very complex but perhaps unique way in which Europe could appear to be a truly a new and exciting prospect in the eyes of our people.

Thank you.

-----------------------

1   Schuman Declaration, May, 9, 1950.

2   Preamble, Treaty on European Union.

3   Declaration on the future of the Union (annexed to the Nice Treaty).

4   Ibid.,para8