INTERVENTION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
AT THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Dear Mr. President, dear Deputies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
This is a crucial moment for the future of Europe and European construction. It is with this awareness and genuine emotion, that I address you today. I thank you Mr. President Hans Gert Poettering for giving me this opportunity.
Europe’s future is at stake from now to the 2009 elections. Within one month, the European Council shall deliberate the start of an Intergovernmental Conference. At the end of the Conference, we wish we can say that we were up to the tasks undertaken, all together, in Berlin last March 25.
We have to decide what Europe needs, what we all need, to cope with the world challenges. It seems an abstract issue, but it is very concrete. At this point, it is probably clear that, as Europeans, our capability to understand the globalized world and take its opportunities depends on our capability to improve the effectiveness of common institutions.
Let me say, right now and sincerely, that I disagree with those opposing the need to achieve results to the need to enhance European institutions. It is to achieve more results that I have always wished and worked for stronger and more effective common institutions!
This time we do not start from zero. We do not have to re-invent anything new. In October 2004, almost all European Countries signed a Treaty and 18 Countries even ratified it. In the last two years, almost only Euro-sceptic views have been listened to. It is time to listen to those who ratified the 2004 Treaty. Those who are publicly committed, also towards fellow citizens, to carry on that way.
The process started a few years ago in Laeken, and was based on a fundamental and irreprehensible assumption, i.e. that Europe cannot achieve ambitious results without equally ambitious reforms.
Well, in my opinion, that assumption is still valid. Therefore, we have to start again from October 2004, forgetting the last two years failures and breaks of reflection and thinking, seriously and with responsibility, to ours and our children’s future.
It is not only a question of agreeing on new necessary rules. There are other crucial priorities, without which Europe cannot function: an adequate budget, effective policies to cope with main contemporary challenges: energy, climate change, North-South divide… But let’s start today from the top priority issue, i.e. the overcoming of constitutional impasse and the institutional reforms.
This result can be only achieved applying a principle on which the European Union is based. A so important principle which summarises the ethics of our choice to live together.
It is the principle according to which, in developing European construction, we always have to make efforts to understand the reasons of the others, to take them over. We have always made this effort, and will continue in the future.
But we expect the same attitude from “the others”. We expect that these others take on our aspirations equally. In this case, as you all well know, our aspirations are to get to a more integrated union.
Bearing in mind this principle, we will make any efforts to help the German and Portuguese Presidencies to preserve, as much as possible, our ambitions of union, attaching the greatest importance to the reasons of the others.
After this introduction, I would like to say what, in my opinion, we cannot afford at the European Council in June and at the subsequent Intergovernmental Conference.
First of all, let’s remember that this time the respect of timetable is directly linked to the respect of democracy. In fact, in 2009 European voters will have to know on which kind of democracy they are called to express their opinion: which will be the role of the European Parliament? What its tasks? Will be there a stable Presidency and a European Minister of Foreign Affaires? How the Commission will be formed, etc…
For this reason, the mandate of Intergovernmental Conference has to be precise and selective. It has to indicate the few significant points at issue and, above all, their solution. Only in this way we can fulfil the promise to establish new rules by 2009.
With an open mandate, the Conference can be hardly closed by late 2007, and the time necessary to pass the new agreement at national level would make it impossible to complete the process by early 2009. So impasse would be automatic.
At this point, I would like to make a consideration, a spontaneous one emerged from my recent rereading of 2004 Constitutional Treaty – I invite all of you to reread it, now that some time has passed and more detachment is possible…
Well, the 2004 text is beautiful, with a wide European vision. Especially in its first part, it clearly explains the sense and vision of the great common venture we have embarked on.
Therefore, let’s reflect well before rejecting it and turn down the way of total or partial inserts into existing treaties. Moreover, we would lose an asset in terms of simplicity and readability, reducing citizens’ understanding and, consequently, their adhesion to the European project!
But, above all, we would lose a text which fulfils a coherent concept of Europe. A text able to connect the ideal aspirations of many of us with the need – practical and perceived by all – to supply our Union with more solid rules and adequate tools to cope with new challenges.
Unfortunately, considering the progress achieved so far in the negotiations, I think we will have to change the 2004 text. However, I want to declare today before you all, my conviction that, doing this, we will lose something very important! For us, who believe in the European project, it would be an enormous sacrifice, a very high price to pay for those who ratified and democratically invested in ratification. Let’s bear this in mind.
For this reason we cannot accept radical changes in the existing set of institutional reforms. We believe that the strengthening of foreign policy and common security by means of a European Minister of Foreign Affairs, a stable Presidency of the Council, the extension of qualified majority voting, the abolition of three-pillar structure, the Union’s juridical personality are essential elements that must be preserved.
I would like to warn on the appeals to “realism” usually issued on the eve of an important European Council, inevitably oriented to minimalist solutions. Conversely, I would like to say that, if it is true that major global challenges can be coped with only at European level, the only authentic realism is to build a Europe able to keep up with challenges, not the contrary!
At domestic level, I refer to the defence of European social model and to the realization of European space of freedom, security and justice. How do not see that this is an unavoidable completion of European citizenship which is not limited to economic dimension.
At foreign level, I refer to wars, fight to international terrorism, global challenges of energy and climate change (hydrogen). How to deny that the only way to assert our choices and values on the international scene is to express an adequate foreign policy, communicating it with a single voice to the rest of the world?
As to the structure of European Union, do not think it is only a theoretic question. In fact, its complexity keeps the citizens far from the Union. Therefore, how do not see the advantages – above all in terms of clearness and understanding by the public - of abolishing the three-pillar structure?
As to these points, the 2004 Constitutional Treaty gives convincing replies. We really want to sacrifice them on behalf of a minimalist approach, to pursue minimal common denominations? We really want to take the risk of increasing system’s complexity renouncing to radical changes and limiting to some superficial corrections? We really want to continue proceeding “with masked face”, as Delors said, fearing to show the real Europe to our citizens?
Therefore, dear Deputies, Ladies and Gentlemen, representatives of European citizens, we should avoid supporting negative rhetoric on Europe. Let’s not continue hiding it to our fellow citizens.
Conversely, let’s show this Europe. With pride. Let’s show to everybody what it was able to give us in terms of peace and prosperity; let’s explain how fundamental it is for our lives. Let’s say once for all to our fellow citizens that, in a world which is a continents system, it is senseless for a State and its citizens to remain out of an economic and political formation, which is strong within its internal borders and authoritative at foreign level.
Italy will work in this negotiation to get a high compromise.
I am sure we can make it, we have to make it all together.
Of course, in case an agreement of 27 member States results to be impossible, there would be the problem of how to proceed. And this problem can be only overcome appealing to the fundamental principle I referred to at the beginning of my intervention: according to the Union’s ethics nobody can curb, too much and for too much time, other members’ aspirations.
It is for this reason that Italy – a Country which has always trusted in Europe – today feels to have one more duty. That is to imagine, or begin to imagine, how to allow those Countries who want to, to proceed effectively in building the European unity.
I believe we do not necessarily have to proceed all together at the same speed. I wish it was so, and I will work for that. But I understand that it is not always possible. Already now, some significant European projects, such as the euro or the Schengen zone, have been realized by only some member States. Not against somebody, without excluding the others; on the contrary maintaining open doors. And this choice was respected by those States unwilling to proceed quickly in a certain direction.
Well, I wish that this constructive approach will prevail in the future, too. And that it overcomes any temptation of veto.
As you know, Italy has always believed that being “Europeist” is the best way to be farsighted.
But, nowadays, farsightedness does not only mean to conceive ambitious scenarios for the future of European construction. It also means to allow nations who want to realize their ambitions of union at the speed and in the way best suited to them.
If nobody takes over this hypothesis, we risk to bury the European project, to frustrate the ideals of those who have so far believed in it. Even Countries as mine, that have invested without reservations for 50 years in the European construction, could exhaust their vital charge.
I want therefore to close with a twofold message.
Italy will grant the widest possible support to the German Presidency, and later to the Portuguese one, so that the European Council on 21 and 22 June and the following Intergovernmental Conference will achieve successes recognized by all member States.
Likewise, Italy is aware that a compromise is not itself a goal. Therefore, if this compromise does not convince us, we will not sign it. At this point, a vanguard of Countries could result to be the best way to proceed towards a more integrated union, on condition that door remains always open to those Countries willing to join later.
Finally, let me launch a strong appeal to the members of Parliament, direct representatives of citizens. Above all, I address Euro deputies representing the European populace. You play an irreplaceable role to help citizens understand what is at stake.
Only if the Governments’ work will be sided by your work, it will be possible for us to create the conditions for constitutional negotiation.
We must be aware that we cannot fail, otherwise it will be the idea of advanced Europe to decline; the idea of a Europe which manages to become a protagonist of world, thanks to the values on which it is based. The risk is to return being the small Western appendix of the Asian continent, as dictated by geography.
I thank you.
Romano Prodi
Strasbourg, May 22, 2007
BEAR IN MIND THE PRONOUNCED SPEECH
