I believe there are copies available. They are being circulated.
I hope the Laeken convention will be firmly set in train by the Heads of Government and State meeting in Laeken next month. The composition of this convention is likely to be largely based on elected representation, with two members of the national parliaments of each member state, one representative of each Government, 16 Members of the European Parliament and one representative of the Commission. This will give a total of 62 members, including 46 representatives of Parliament. Candidate countries will be fully associated. The Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee will be represented also.
The convention will meet from the beginning of next year to prepare for future reforms, and it must also seek to establish a link between work on reform and the expectations of society at large. Representatives of the regions and society generally must be fully involved and must help to define what the European Union is to become. The convention must listen to those expectations, say how it views them and explain frankly and clearly why it accepts or rejects proposals that are the product of grassroots discussions. In a wider context, the convention will have to meet the expectations of citizens. Often, quite rightly, they stress that the European Union should be effective in implementing policies they consider necessary. On the other hand, they express doubts and anxieties with regard to the European project, but surveys show that they want European answers, even above and beyond what is possible or necessary.
Given the background I have sketched, I believe the convention should have as broad an approach as is necessary to satisfy our citizens' concerns – for example, a Europe equipping itself better to meet the challenges of globalisation or to handle international crises, such as those that have confronted us since 11 September, and a Europe that is more consistent in its economic and employment policy. The Declaration of Laeken will establish the guidelines and raise the questions that will enable this to be done.
An important function of the convention should be to establish clear, simple and permanent tools for the treaties to adapt in the future according to needs as they arise. This could involve agreement on a fundamental text that will form the constitutional basis of the European Union. All necessary ancillary texts could then be approved through a simplified procedure not requiring repeated ratification. Of course, any change to the fundamental text would require full ratification.
Europe should be wary of concentrating all its efforts on its institutions and should break the never-ending cycle of reviewing its structures and operation. The Treaty of Maastricht made provision for the reforms of Amsterdam and, in turn, the Amsterdam treaty bequeathed us the Treaty of Nice. This non-stop activity suggests a real sense of collective dissatisfaction. We would have a better Europe for the citizens if we managed to bring about one reform with clear objectives and parameters.
The European Union now has the opportunity, perhaps for the first time, to reflect on a number of fundamental questions – what it wishes to become, the repercussions of doubling its size and how it can maintain the momentum of its founders as well as the unity required by the unfolding new international dimension. We need to strike the right balance of shared power between the member states, which will reflect national identities and interests, and the European Union, which will represent the shared interests of all Europeans. The European Commission has a key role in mediating the interests of all member states. This is particularly important in respect of smaller member states to ensure their interests are fully taken into account in the development of policy and legislation.
The European Union of the future will not come into being without the support of its citizens and the commitment of its national political leaders. It is true that the crisis of political legitimacy is making itself felt throughout political life. Turn-out at national, local and European elections is declining. In many member states political parties are emerging which are challenging the democratic foundations on which our societies are built.
People have different aspirations and different ambitions in Europe and for Europe. At present not all the member states want to adopt the euro. Some member states are not members of NATO. Not all want joint arrangements for defence with the same degree of commitment. Not all the member states have the same views on the issues of asylum and immigration. The treaties reflect these differing national perspectives. This shows that Europe has a flexibility to design common policies while accommodating real concerns of member states. While member states may clearly wish to retain competence in certain fields closely linked to sovereignty, we need to clarify to what extent the EU should be involved in, for example, military, social or taxation issues. On abortion, for example, there is no reason there should be an EU initiative, despite what some people claim.
Possible Union involvement in other fields of competence may well be difficult to define. For example, the field of justice and home affairs is closely linked to national sovereignty. However, the fight against cross-border crime or an efficient immigration policy necessarily requires co-ordinated actions at EU level. The role of national parliaments will be crucial in building the right connections. If Europe is to be more tangible than ever before, citizens and parliamentarians have to play a bigger role at European level.
The subject of the role of the national parliaments is not new and those who negotiated the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties will recall the debates which led to declarations and then a special protocol being drawn up on the role of national parliaments. What is worth highlighting, however, is the passion and level of detail with which various leading European politicians are now tackling this issue. This amounts to an inquiry into the democratic legitimacy of our system. The steady expansion of the powers of the European Parliament may not be enough to address the certain lack of legitimacy associated with our institutions.
There are three avenues which are seriously worth exploring. First, no doubt national parliaments need to play a more active part in monitoring European affairs. To exercise this role, it seems the national parliaments could have greater input to national positions when the Council exercises its legislative powers. I believe in the value of an early warning system for national lawmakers and this approach would be the most tangible expression of this principle. At any rate, it is important to ensure that the national parliaments are as well informed as possible. This is, of course, the responsibility of the member states and, indeed, is one of the reasons I am here today.
Second, there is a need to improve the way national parliaments are involved in shaping European fundamental texts. As I mentioned earlier, this will be done this time by means of a convention. Finally, we have to think about the exercise of European legislative power. The national legislative body will gain respect if European laws focus on general objectives and leave as much leeway as possible on implementation. This means respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and making room for national parliaments. However, in special circumstances where technical issues may be involved, directly applicable regulations may be more appropriate.
We also need to identify more clearly the legislative role of the Council of Ministers. The decision making role of the Council is likely to remain an important element of the Union's institutional architecture. Improving the way the Council operates falls into the category of essential reform. Various ideas have been floated in various quarters, one of which is to appoint specific Ministers of European affairs regularly meeting in Brussels to ensure coherence in all legislation. This could help strengthen interministerial co-ordination within each member state and facilitate a better involvement of national parliaments. It could also ensure that each government takes greater political responsibility for decisions adopted by the Council. Regardless of the means chosen, the key issue is not to lose sight of the objective. Moreover, the European Council itself should become more focused on issues of principle and get less bogged down in the detail of specific issues. Unless this happens we are in constant danger of paralysis.
The Commission has often voiced its desire to expand the legislative role of the European Parliament, which represents the people of Europe. In the institutional triangle Parliament ought to play its full part on equal terms with the Council by representing the member states and the Commission, which in turn represents the European public interest. We must remember the very special role conferred upon the Commission by the current system. In reinforcing that role we need to reflect on how the Commission can be given greater popular legitimacy. One suggestion is the election of the Commission President.
These institutions should be examined with a view to consolidating the institutional triangle of Parliament, Council and Commission. The Union method should also be strengthened because it has been proven to be effective. The Union method can surprise and irritate because it works. It surprises by proposing legislation that is innovative and it irritates by taking court actions against those who fail to live up to their promises.
This method has worked in a highly satisfactory way for the Internal Market for goods and in terms of the free movement of persons and capi tal. Business is benefiting greatly from the European open market and consumers have greater choice. The Union method has also worked for the common currency which will become a reality across almost all Europe in only 47 days. These policies help to create a unified Europe rather than a standardised one while demonstrating solidarity. On the other hand, for some member states the issue of transferring foreign policy to the Community pillar is quite simply a non-starter. Any steps in this direction could prompt them to act outside the European Union's institutional structures. The EU needs to be vigilant against external challenges. In matters of trade the USA is an important partner. It is essential, however, that trade negotiations are conducted by the Union as a whole to strengthen our position and to guarantee a better outcome.
Another threat to Europe would be certain bilateral co-operations on political matters. This has been the case recently with countries such as the UK, Germany and France and that has been a cause of concern for smaller member states. A strong Commission fully supporting its President is an effective counterweight to emerging inter-governmentalism.
Ireland can represent, and often does represent, a model for Europe to follow. Ireland has succeeded in encouraging very many foreign companies to establish bases here. The country is often cited in Europe as a model, not just because of its economic advantages. Multinational companies find Ireland attractive for its efficient, flexible administration and for its capacity for speedy response. We are all well aware of the benefits Ireland has reaped since accession in 1973. That year our exports of goods and services accounted for 37% of gross national product. Almost 30 years later we are exporting just over 110% of GNP. Britain, our traditional export market, accounts for only 20% of exports, whereas the rest of Europe accounts for over 40%. Would this type of transformation have been possible without tariff free, unimpeded access to the Single Market? Would it have been possible without EU Structural Fund assistance? Would Ireland have had the strength to break with sterling in 1979 without the support of the Union? Twenty years later, could one envisage the Irish pound existing as a separate currency from the euro? I think not.
Sovereignty is a very difficult concept to define precisely. Certainly it involves the free giving of allegiance by citizens to a state and that state acting in the interests of its citizens on that basis. It also involves the exercise of self-determination. These are visceral concepts as we know only too well in the context of Northern Ireland. In many respects the arrangements set out in the Good Friday Agreement borrow very heavily from the Union method, including as they do intergovernmental co-operation, North-South bodies, the Council of the Isles and devolved administration. These are heavily influenced by the sharing of sovereignty in a balanced and agreed way.
What does sovereignty mean in the modern-day, interdependent world we inhabit? We have learned to share certain aspects of sovereignty. Even on the deeply historical "national question", the Irish people have foregone their constitutional territorial claim on Northern Ireland, but they did this in the context of the referendum on the Good Friday Agreement – something they saw as understandable, of benefit and manifestly fair. It is in such circumstances that I see people being capable of sharing sovereignty, that is, if they understand the issue and feel they have a personal stake in it. This is the challenge we face in reaching out to our citizens in the European Union.
As a starting point, being sovereign should imply understanding the governing rules. I believe strongly in the need to clarify and simplify our fundamental texts. I believe this in spite of the undoubted complexity of treaties stemming from the various exceptions and derogations granted to certain member states or from the co-existence of Community and intergovernmental procedures. Also, as regards the national ratification process, it ought to be possible to reserve the formal procedure for the most fundamental amendments of our treaties. I favour making provision for a simplified procedure for minor amendments. I mentioned earlier the idea of giving such a power to the convention, in bringing forward a distinction between a constitutional text and ancillary texts.
This would be a significant change, but the question has to be posed. The question of powers and responsibilities brings to light various deficiencies in our method of decision making. However, in entering into such a debate, which I consider to be legitimate and necessary, a few points need to be borne in mind. First, Europe is not a state. Everyone in Europe is in agreement in condemning the prospect, or rather the myth, of a European superstate. Let us therefore avoid proposing for the European Union models copied from the practice of federal states, because the building of Europe is actually the building of a sort of hybrid community of peoples and states committed to diversity and the identity of their nations.
Second, the relative flexibility of the European Union's treaties should be preserved to facilitate subsequent stages in the development of Europe. This is a duty for generations to come. Can we, therefore, draw up a list of what the European Union should never do and which should consequently remain within the exclusive competence of the states? That would, on the whole, be better than adopting the restrictive list of our joint actions, but lists, whether negative or positive, are liable to become obsolete quickly.
Third, the diversity of national systems, pro tected by the principle of institutional autonomy, must be taken into account. Not all states are organised in the same way and each administers its territory as it sees fit. As I said earlier, Ireland is making a great contribution in Europe – as an economic model and as an alliance-builder with other countries, in particular with the so-called big member states. Its role will be even bigger after the next enlargement when it will be among the wealthiest member states.
Europe is not an edifice of big against small member states. It is, rather, a community of interests better served when pooled. International trade, third world development issues and competition policy spring immediately to mind in this context. Let us take international trade as an example. The World Trade Organisation is, as I speak, completing its work on launching a new round of trade negotiations in Doha in Qatar. In this context, we in Ireland find it very important to ensure that the interests of the less developed countries are taken care of at international level. In discussions with world powers, only the Community can be heard and conduct a policy favourable to these countries.
Another example of how Irish interests are better preserved through participation in the European process is in competition policy. By keeping in check the power of large multinational companies, rules on competition and mergers are essentially applied for the benefit of consumers. While some member states could easily resist the power of these big companies, only an authority representing the 15 member states can impose this in respect of consumers' interests. My area of responsibility also underlines the added value brought by Community action. There is a need for strong and efficient food safety measures and robust consumer protection. BSE, foot and mouth disease and the health issues we have had to face in recent times could not be dealt with only at national level. A European response is necessary. We are proud to have made a major contribution to addressing these challenging issues.
I have covered a lot of ground. Let me attempt to draw some conclusions. The debate upon which we are embarking concerning the future of the Union is vital for every man, woman and child in Ireland and throughout the Union. Unless we succeed in shaping a Union which captures our imagination and fulfils our dreams, we are on the road to nowhere. My famous train will simply run out of steam. The opportunity must now be seized to put our stamp on the future direction of the European Union.
Many of those who are no longer captivated by the ideals of ever closer integration fear with some legitimacy that the project lacks direction. As soon as they see one intergovernmental conference finished, more ideas for another one start emerging. Understandably, this causes anxiety and fuels suspicion about what is going on. Imagine if the Irish Constitution was to be amended radically every few years. How could people keep up with such developments? How would they know to what they were subscribing their allegiance?
The time has now come to put the procession of intergovernmental conferences behind us once and for all. The post-Laeken process now gives us all the chance to do this. Perhaps we will see proposals emerging within a few years for some type of constitution for Europe. Perhaps such a constitution or treaty would fix the broad issues of major importance for us all. This would give us our guiding light, our beacon of certainty, our unifying force. This type of development would leave subsidiary issues to be dealt with through the normal process of legislation.
I am convinced that, if shaping the future direction involves us all and we all feel we are being listened to, we can construct a powerful, dynamic and peaceful system of governance for Europe which sets clear levels of power and responsibility for the centre, national capitals and parliaments, the regions and individual citizens. The debate initiated in Ireland, partly as a result of the Nice referendum and the debate on the future of Europe called for by the Nice treaty, is welcome and timely. In many respects, perhaps it is a debate in which we all should have engaged before. We now have the chance and must exercise that opportunity vigorously. I see the opportunity to lay down a new track for Europe into the future. I hope Members will react to the issues I have raised and look forward to a lively exchange of views.
