|
|
|
16th September, 2005
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is an enormous privilege for me to be invited to address your Conference, and a particular pleasure to be here in such wonderful surroundings at Blenheim. It is of course a frequent risk for any Frenchman visiting England to find himself in a place named after a battle in which his compatriots were more or less defeated. But more recently Blenheim is better known as the birthplace of Winston Churchill. It was Churchill who, at one of the darkest moments in our shared history, proposed in 1940 the union of Great Britain and France. Had such a proposal become a reality, it would have certainly pulled the rug from under those who now advance the cause of euroscepticism!
But my theme tonight is not past conflicts, but rather the process of continent building. I would like in particular to look at the most recent developments in the process which has led to the Europe of today: a Europe of peace and stability.
Former French President, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who chaired the Convention on the Future of the European Union, making this speech at Blenheim Palace.
Throughout the history of the European continent many attempts have been made to bring a permanent end to conflict. Despite good intentions, they came to nothing. It took the massive destruction of the two World Wars to create the impetus and the vision needed to transform the dreams of Europeans into a reality.
The approach of the founders of the European Union was quite unique: they saw that the key to peace was not through traditional diplomacy, which had failed so often in the past, but through economic cooperation. In particular they took the two main resources needed to fight wars, coal and steel, out of the control of the nation state. Such an approach was innovative. But it was also realistic. It began with the acknowledgement that peace in Europe had to be rooted primarily in Franco-German reconciliation. That new relationship put Europe on the path to peace. Even in an enlarged Union, it remains the cornerstone of an integrated Europe. If that relationship were ever to crumble, it would take the whole system down with it.
From the beginning Britain's role was that of a concerned spectator. Its transatlantic and former colonial ties pointed it away from getting directly involved. Even since joining the European Community in 1973, these ties remain strong. I sense that they provide a welcome distraction from time to time, when Britain finds that dealing with her continental partners becomes too tiresome. When she is fully engaged however, Britain is a remarkably effective negotiator. If the British public really knew how much Britain gets its own way in Europe, the eurosceptics here would have retired long ago. I myself was a frequent witness to the quality of Britain's negotiating skills during the work of the Convention.
I must say, and it is not because I’m here, that the British team was the most brilliant at the Convention!
For most of the second half of the twentieth century, European integration took place against the background of a continent which was geographically divided, split along ideological lines, and riven with mutual suspicion. For four decades the cold war prevented the European Community from developing into anything other than an essentially economic organisation, even if from the beginning its ultimate aims were highly political.
The collapse of the iron curtain helped it move away from these purely economic roots. With the Maastricht Treaty the European Union was born. It opened the way for the development of a common foreign and defence policy and strengthened cooperation in the area of justice and home affairs. It also took the creation of the Single Market to its logical conclusion by creating a single currency. Europe was becoming a much more obviously political organisation. It lacked the proper institutions to function efficiently.
But if Europe was deepening, it could not avoid widening. The newly independent and free countries of central and eastern Europe turned to the European Union as a guarantor of their democracy, liberty, and prosperity. They turned to the U.S.A. to guarantee their security.
We could not ignore these perfectly legitimate aspirations. Their adaptation to the requirements of membership the Union has been remarkable. Despite understandable anxiety felt by some about the risks to their jobs, there is no doubt that the most recent enlargement has been a success story.
But there have been difficulties. They were not created by the new Member States themselves. The problems lay principally with the existing structures of the Union. How could these structures, designed originally for six members, and scarcely changed since, cope with a Union of twenty-five very different countries? The answer is clear - they could not. We see the effects of this every day !
A series of negotiations towards the end of the last decade failed to produce satisfactory results. The treaties of Amsterdam and Nice, although intended in part to come up with solutions, fell short of expectations. It was clear that a fresh start was needed. Hence the idea of a Convention.
The Convention was both ambitious and realistic. One of its objectives was to address the structural issues arising from enlargement. But it decided at the same to set out in a clear way the powers which the Member States have attributed to the Union. This means that, for the first time, it is possible to see at a glance in what areas, and to what extent, the Union can act. This is a major advance on the existing treaties But the Convention also simplified how the Union acts by reducing the number of existing rules and procedures. The outcome is a major improvement on the current complex system of decision-making. Finally, it decided to amend and reorganise the existing treaties into a single understandable text - the result was the Constitution for Europe.
Although drafting a Constitution consumed much time and energy, and was a difficult exercise, the Convention was able, after 15 months, to reach consensus on a text. Let 's not forget that at the end of the subsequent Intergovernmental Conference the governments of all twenty-five Member States adopted the text of the Constitution unanimously.
Since this evening I am addressing a largely British audience, I hope you will allow me a few comments on how British interests were taken into account during the drafting of the Constitution. Throughout the fifteen months of the Convention's work, I maintained close contact with Downing Street. I took the view from the beginning that the text being drawn up by the Convention should receive complete and unqualified support from the UK. That was both essential and entirely proper. As a result, none of the so-called "red lines" drawn by the British government were crossed, or even approached. If they had, I have no doubt that this would not have escaped the notice of the Secretary-General of the Convention, the highly talented Sir John Kerr (now Lord Kerr). And I am sure that, in the best tradition of the British civil service, he would have discreetly but purposefully drawn my attention to it. But there was no need: the perfectly valid objective of taking fully into account British concerns was fulfilled. And it has to be said, even to those who have not yet read the text, there is nothing in it which runs counter to British interests.
With the adoption of the Convention, the continent of Europe was moving forward: there were good reasons to be optimistic. I was pleased and happy.
Or so it seemed until earlier this year. The referendums in France and the Netherlands put a temporary brake on this momentum. The results of course had little to do with the content of the Constitution itself, and everything to do with domestic policy. Though not surprisingly politicians are more comfortable with the explanation that it is Europe which is being rejected rather than them or their policies!
Now we are left in a vacuum, with no sensible alternative to the provisions contained in the Constitution, and a Union which will be increasingly unable to function under the existing institutional arrangements.
Europe has lost both its capacity and its political will to act. The cynical claims made during the referendum campaign in France that there was a secret "Plan B", better than the Constitution, was not only unfounded, it was a complete distortion of the truth which misled many voters.
If we give up on the Constitution now, we would in effect be giving up on integrated Europe . We would run the risk of a Europe stagnating just as it needs to be exerting an ever greater influence on the wider world. A united Europe has over the years been able to negotiate as an equal with the United States on trade issues and in other international negotiations. It would be strange to risk undermining that strength just as countries such as China and India, and tomorrow Brazil, are emerging as equally formidable players in the world. In short Europe needs more than ever to have the capacity to speak and act as one. We cannot do that with twenty-five or more Member States under the existing system, which is neither efficient nor effective. Every experienced Statesman recognizes this !
It will not be possible to renew the progress on building the continent of Europe for as long as France has notapproved, in one way or another, the Constitution. Nor until the United Kingdom has not chosen exactly in what way and to what extent it wishes to participate.
What does the Constitution offer? Firstly it provides an alternative at the level of the European Council to the rotating Presidency, which has made it so difficult for the Union to maintain consistent and effective leadership. Under the existing system the British Prime Minister will not be in the chair again for another 13 years!
Every day we see that the rotating Presidency is ineffective. Today the European Council is chaired by the British Prime Minister, who has to try to combine that function with his responsibilities at the national level. These take up both time and energy. Since the beginning of the British Presidency the Prime Minister has had to concentrate his efforts on the consequences of the tragic terrorist attacks in London in July. That is perfectly understandable to all of us. However great his talent and commitment to Europe (both of which I acknowledge and respect), the task of leading the European Union through this six month period inevitably takes second place to his responsibilities as Prime Minister.
We have to separate out these two functions. Combining them no longer makes any sense in a Union which is the world’s most powerful trading bloc and which comprises 450 million people.
Under the Constitution, instead of a Presidency which changes every six months, the Union will have a full time permanent president of the European Council to help give the Union direction, leadership, and most importantly, continuity !
The Constitution also creates the post of Foreign Minister - a person who can coordinate the Union's foreign policy instruments and act as a single interlocutor for our partners instead of the multitude of voices which currently exist. It also ensures that the Commission will be manageable and able to operate effectively in the future by reducing the size of the college. None of these innovative provisions were really contested in the French or Dutch referendum campaigns. They are collateral damage from separate, and largely domestic, disputes.
The road ahead for Europe is already mapped out in the Constitution. We cannot afford simply to drop it. Since there are no other obvious options, the way forward is clear.
Firstly, there is no need or possibility to reconvene the Convention! It has done its work, and done it well. The text of the Constitution is balanced, and any formal reopening would run a high risk either of no agreement on how it should be amended, or a complete unravelling of the text. That would take us nowhere. Yet there is unease about some of the more detailed aspects of the text. These particularly concern the powers which have been attributed to the Union, and those which remain with the Member States. This is an area to which the Convention devoted considerable effort, much more than the Intergovernmental Conference. The governments of the Member States now need to look seriously together at how the provisions of the Constitution in this area might better address these concerns. This means clarifying rather than renegotiating the text. With political will, I am sure that this can be achieved.
The Constitution will of course still need to be ratified. There is a case for submitting those elements which are properly constitutional (essentially Part I and the Charter of Fundamental Rights contained in Part II) to a popular vote. Much of the rest of the text is largely unchanged compared with the existing treaties.
I would hope that, once Parts I and II have been endorsed, the text as a whole could then be submitted for parliamentary approval.
I am convinced that, if the text, once it had been clarified and carefully explained, which has not been done during the campaign, were to be submitted to approval in France, after the great choice which will take place in 2007, it would receive the necessary support.
Once ratified by all Member States, the Constitution will have to be made to work. That will need some further reflection on several aspects of detail. For example, we will have to define the profile of the future President of the European Council. We will also need to look carefully at the details of the procedure for nominating members of the Commission. Once the Constitution enters into force, we will have the responsibility for ensuring that it is properly and effectively implemented.
Relaunching the ratification process will necessarily involve a vigorous debate here in the UK. But you are used to vigorous debates about the European Union. Indeed they have become as much a part of the British way of life as tea and football. Those debates have frequently involved serious questioning about Britain's role in Europe. In the same way, people will need to ask themselves whether they are really ready to sign up to the Constitution as a whole.
Personally I hope that the British people would in such circumstances give it their resounding endorsement.
So far no one has come up with an alternative to the Constitution . The reason is simple: no alternative exists, but confusion and stagnation.
We have to find a way to bring the text of the Constitution back onto the table. We must avoid the distractions of national politics in any ratification debate. And we must commit ourselves, once the Constitution is ratified, to ensuring that it is properly and fully implemented.
We owe this to all of those, including that great statesman whose birthplace was here in Blenheim, who dreamed in the past of a Europe, strong in its diversity, at peace, prosperous, free and united.
Their legacy is our responsibility.
