|
|
|
|
Wallström began with an old Irish joke and acknowledged that citizens worry about globalisation. Open markets expose European businesses to competition from other continents – particularly from Asia, as was recently seen in the case of Chinese textiles. "And, of course, people worry about their future and their children’s future. Who will pay for their education and health care and pensions in ten or twenty years’ time?" Wallström said that "there is a feeling, especially in the Brussels-based community, that the Commission could do more to show leadership, a vision and more initiatives. There is nostalgia in Brussels for the Delors years – but a failure to recognise that times have changed." She said that on today Friday she will be travelling with President Barroso and Commissioner Spidla to the Czech Republic. "These will not be the traditional diplomatic visits with the usual round of handshakes with the Great and the Good. Instead we shall be making a point of meeting ordinary people – young people, people who run small businesses, working people. We want to listen to them, to understand their views and note their concerns," Wallström said. "Next year we will draw our initial conclusions from all that we have heard. Only then will the Commission put forward proposals for moving Europe forwards – in the direction the citizens want," she said. "Over the next year, I want to achieve number of objectives in my own area: Firstly, we have to cement the internal reforms in the Commission on communication policy. Here we are trying to instill “a culture of communication based on the three principles of better listening; better communicating and “going local”. Secondly, we need to take forward a wide-ranging consultation process on the White Paper on communication and democracy which we will present at the end of this year," Wallström added. This campaign is doomed to fail. Although the intentions of Barroso, Wallström et al, may be well meaning, it is the standard playbook of politicians who've got a bloody nose from the voters. More listening, less-know-it all arrogance and then back to business-as-usual after dispensing a few lollipops to voters. In fairness, Barroso has taken some practical measures to reduce needless regulation and there has been a cull of planned directives that were going to add fuel to the cynicism about Brussels. However, without proposals for fundamental reforms of EU structures, he might as well be whistling against the wind. European Commissioners would feel redundant unless they could continue to roll out new proposals and this week, the EU Court of Auditors said that it was not satisfied that satisfactory structures were in place to prevent fraud. The Court said that CAP expenditure of €43.6 billion in 2004 was "materially affected by errors" - in layman's words: fraud. The review of the 2004 Budget revealed that language interpretation (as distinct from translation) at the European Parliament costs more than €1 million each week. Apparently, much of the cost relates to interpretation services that are requested but not actually used. Small beer a reader may say...but... Proposal for Commissioner Wallström Focusing on the European Parliament, direct elections were to result in more engagement with European citizens but my impression from an Irish perspective, is that the institution is seen as an irrelevance. European Parliament members complain that the media ignore their proceedings but I doubt if more coverage would give Europeans a greater sense of connection with the €1 billion plus a year talking-shop. My guess is that most people haven't a clue what the institution actually does and the question that Commissioner Wallström should focus on, is to consider the scenario of its abolition and how European citizens would be affected by an alternative mechanism for scrutinising Brussels' directives? By looking at alternatives to the bureaucratic structures that have grown over the past half-century with a willingness, to challenge vested interests and sacred cows, Ms. Wallström and President Barroso, would increase the likelihood of getting the attention of European citizens. Otherwise their roadshow of photo opportunities, will just add to the disenchantment. The Louis XVI Prize Last June following the collapse of the summit on the EU budget and in the aftermath of the rejection of the EU Constitution by voters in France and the Netherlands, the then President of the European Council, Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, dismissed the suggestion that member countries should suspend referendum plans to ratify the Constitution. At the same time, Juncker with others including Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, confusingly spoke about the need to listen to the concerns of EU citizens. Under the heading The delusions of Mr Juncker, The Economist's Charlemagne columnist proposed a new European prize: Every year the city of Aachen, in Germany, awards the Charlemagne prize, to the person whom it deems to have done the most to promote the cause of European unity. This column, repeatedly snubbed by the good burghers of Aachen, has decided to start a new award: the Louis XVI prize, to be given to the European leader who seems most out of touch with reality. It is named in honour of the French monarch whose diary entry on July 14th 1789, the day the Bastille was stormed, read Rien (nothing).… Charlemagne proposed that Juncker be the first recipient of the new award. Bertie Ahern could be said to be in the running for the Louis XVI Prize but the odds are on Jacques Chirac for the next award. Bertie Ahern on the EU Constitution Earlier in November, Bertie Ahern gave this answer to a parliamentary question on the ratification of the EU Constitution: "The Austrian Presidency could get agreement that the other countries could go ahead. There is now a majority of thirteen or fourteen countries and all the indications are that another three or four will definitely move (to ratify). We are moving to a position where we are down to the last five or six next year. The Austrian Presidency might say the others should go ahead...with the exception of the two (France and the Netherlands). In that case, we would proceed. However, I do not think that is likely to happen," said the Taoiseach. So much for communication.... The European Forum The purpose of the European Forum is to encourage debate on EU issues in Ireland. The Forum says that "following the 'no' votes in referenda in two Member States and the ratification of the European Constitution in fourteen other Member States, the European Union is currently in a period of reflection. The National Forum On Europe has shifted its focus from the specifics of the European Constitution and is now debating the broader issues facing the Union and Ireland. Themes on the Forum's agenda include enlargement, the European Social Model, globalisation, security and defence, agriculture, environment, and human rights. With a view to continuing to provide a space for as many perspectives as possible, submissions are now invited from members of the public and organisations on the issues facing the European Union and Ireland into the future." Last September, the EU issued a detailed report on its 2004 Budget, which shows that Ireland's net receipts from the EU Budget rose by €34 million to €1.594 billion. The Irish at €396 per capita in net receipts from the EU, were the highest in the EU15 while the Dutch headed the net payers at €125 per head. Greeks benefited by €377 per capita, Portugal by €298 and Spain by €200. Germany paid $87 per capita into the EU Budget. Ireland's EU bonanza in 2004 amounted to 1.3% of GNI (Gross National Income) compared with 1.38% in 2003. Until Ireland has to pay into the EU Budget, EU issues for Ireland will continue to focus on the what we can get from it rather than on the choices that should be made with what should be viewed as scarce resources. The lack of debate in Ireland on the Doha Round trade talks is instructive. John Dillon and the Irish Farmers Association have hold of the public megaphone and virtually every other group from politicians, to business lobby group IBEC, to leading bank economists, have had nothing to say. According to the UN Human Development Report 2005, three-quarters of CAP support goes to the biggest 10% of subsidy recipients. Is there not a better way of rural development? Margot Wallström addresses meeting at the European Policy Centre Few subjects fascinate political commentators in Brussels as much as the question of the future of the European Union. Where are we heading? Do we know where we want to go? Have we got a road map? I am reminded of the story of the tourist in Ireland who lost his way and stopped to ask a local farmer. “How do I get to Dublin?” he asked. The farmer scratched his head and thought for a moment before answering “Well, if I were you, I wouldn’t start from here!” Here – of course – is precisely where we must start from. Here, in autumn 2005, one year into the Barroso Commission’s term of office, with the European Union in its present state and mood. So today, I want to examine the state and mood of the European Union, and I want to address three questions: 1. What has changed over the last 12 months? 2. What are the key challenges now facing us? 3. What must we do to meet those challenges? Let me begin by looking back over the first twelve months of the present Commission’s mandate. For the Commission as an institution, the first year has not been without difficulties. Politically, it got off to a bumpy start with the Buttiglione affair, even if I believe that the experience actually strengthened both the Commission and Parliament in the long run. We must remember that with the exception of three Commissioners, this is a totally new team. It has a very different political make-up from the Prodi Commission. No Commission can be judged on its first year alone. From the first year, I draw at least three main lessons. Firstly, the first year has shown that the Commission must represent the whole spectrum of positions in the European Parliament. The Commission must certainly be a more political animal, but as President Barroso has rightly pointed out, we must avoid to be seen to represent only one political group in the European Parliament hemicycle. Secondly, with a larger number of Commissioners, the principle of collegiality is more important than ever. With the multi-national, multi-lingual, cross-party nature of the Commission it naturally takes time to gel. It is also normal that different Commissioners have different views. But, on the main issues, full debate must take place in the College and then the agreed position must be defended by all Commissioners. Thirdly, the Commission is only as strong as the support it gets from the Member States. Sadly, this has been lacking in the first year. Frankly, this helps nobody. The new Commission is based on the principle of partnership – this needs to extend to all Member States. For the EU as a whole it has not been an easy year – either politically or economically. In late spring came the French and Dutch referenda rejections of the proposed EU Constitution. And in the summer the European Council failed to agree a deal on the Union’s future financing – the so-called ‘financial perspectives’. On the economic front, we are going through a downturn which sets back our drive for global competitiveness. Growth in the EU as a whole is slowing. It is now about 2% per annum, as against 10% in China and India. Growth is strongest in the new member states, where business costs are lower: but this gives rise to the well-known fears that “Polish plumbers” are taking jobs away from workers in the west. Unemployment in the EU remains high and inequalities are rising. The serious consequences – especially to young people and certain groups in society – have been brought vividly to our TV screens this month, as angry teenagers set cars ablaze on the streets of France. Against this background, citizens worry about globalisation. Open markets expose European businesses to competition from other continents – particularly from Asia, as we saw recently in the case of Chinese textiles. And, of course, people worry about their future and their children’s future. Who will pay for their education and health care and pensions in ten or twenty years’ time? * * * This brings me to my second question this morning: what are the key challenges now facing the European Union? Broadly speaking, they are economic, social, environmental and political challenges.
Let me take the economic issues first, starting with the fundamental fact of globalisation. This is not the first time we have faced the issues of globalisation. I remember the time when we called it internationalisation. But, this time the impact is quicker, it affects more people and as jobs move to other parts of the World, it is less obvious that Europe will gain from it. Therefore, globalisation – like change itself – is a fact of life. It is a process driven by the desire of billions of people to create a better life for themselves and their families. Its energy comes from human creativity and it is made possible by technological progress. Of course, globalisation is a challenge as well as an opportunity. Competition forces some businesses to close, or restructure, or relocate, and their employees in Europe lose their jobs. A good many people see “Brussels neo-liberalism” as part of this problem, not part of the solution. They want the EU – or even their own individual country – to pull up the drawbridge and retreat behind protectionist walls. But Europe cannot stop the world and get off. Either we put up barriers between ourselves and world markets and face marginalisation and a long decline; or we open up to the world and modernise our economies and societies so as to manage the consequences of change. We should not be trying to block change but seeking to take advantage of the opportunities it brings. At the same time, we must look after the individuals who lose out. We must equip them to adjust to change. This is why the Commission has proposed setting up a new EU fund for this very purpose. We should be protecting people. And we should be creating the favourable environment where business can flourish and create the jobs we need. In the EU today we have over 20 million people unemployed. That is unacceptable. It is unacceptable, first and foremost, to the individuals concerned: and from the purely economic viewpoint it is an unacceptable waste of valuable human resources. EU member states must get serious about reforming their economic and employment policies. They also need to get serious about investing in research and technological development – because without it there can be no such thing as a dynamic knowledge-based economy. So Europe urgently needs to invest much more in knowledge, creating new jobs and a skilled work-force. Modernising does not mean Americanising – we have a “European way” that must be maintained. Nor does it mean imposing one model on all EU countries. It means preserving European values – including social justice – in the competitive 21st century world. It means making our European model of society sustainable for generations to come. A truly sustainable Europe requires a successful combination of economic growth, social justice and environmental protection. In fact, these three goals can mutually reinforce each other. The right environmental policies can be good for innovation and competitiveness, and for achieving our social goals. An example close to my heart is chemicals policy. I am now waiting for the first manufacturer to volunteer a complete safety dossier to the chemicals agency. The fourth category of challenges facing the EU is political. Perhaps the biggest political challenge of all is the crisis of representative democracy in Europe. There is an increasing tendency, in all EU countries, for people to distrust politicians and to drop out of the political process. This is a general problem affected all democracies with falling party membership and lower voter participation rates. The problem is most acute at EU level. All too many people see the EU as remote from their daily lives, unconnected with their daily concerns and run by unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats living in ivory towers. We have a breakdown of trust, with the French and Dutch referendums exposing the gap between Governments and there citizens. We urgently need to connect the EU with the citizens it was created to serve. And we need to build a new consensus on Europe’s future. I have outlined this morning a formidable set of challenges. Never before has the European Union been so questioned. But I put it to you today that never before has the European Union been so needed because of the nature of the problems we face. * * * My third and final question for today is: what must we do to meet those challenges? Let me say straight away that the Commission has no magic wand which, with a single wave, can make unemployment disappear or make the future secure. Harry Potter is not (yet!) a Commissioner and the Berlaymont is not Hogwarts. However, the Commission has a key role to play – and we are determined to play it properly. There is a feeling, especially in the Brussels-based community, that the Commission could do more to show leadership, a vision and more initiatives. There is nostalgia in Brussels for the Delors years – but a failure to recognise that times have changed. When I look at the recent Hampton Court Summit, the financial perspectives, avian flu, the terrorism package after the London bombings, the period of reflection, the Tsunami response, the Doha Round etc, I do not accept that the Commission has not shown leadership and initiative. The follow up to Hampton Court is important. The climate of common purpose, which must now be translated into an agreement on the Financial Perspectives. We need that, urgently, to provide us with the means to bring about our objectives for the EU. This will not be achieved without a substantial review of the UK rebate. Perhaps even more importantly, Hampton Court saw a consensus on areas where people want Europe to lead – where people see a case for more Europe not less: a Europe of science and innovation, a Europe of talent and opportunity in higher education, a Europe with a new approach to energy, a Europe managing effectively its borders and its policies on immigration. And it showed the central role which the European institutions must play in this process. What about the political challenge? How is the EU to regain its sense of direction and purpose? How is it to recover the trust and support of the people? We have to recognise the contradiction in opinion. While I hear political commentators in Brussels asking “Why isn’t the Commission leading from the front?” I hear the people on the streets asking, “Why isn’t the Commission – and the EU in general – listening to us and finding out what we want?” It’s time to focus on our policies and promises – including the promises made in Lisbon. I firmly believe that it is time for politicians and policymakers to ask people there views on the key policy questions. Their answers may surprise us – but woe betide us if we ignore them! Last June the European Council called for a period of reflection and a broad debate on these issues in each EU country. Before the Commission made its contribution to the period of reflection, virtually nothing was happening. We are now starting to see signs of a more serious commitment from Member States. We also have an agreement to organise a genuine feedback process. Tomorrow, we undertake the first national visit under Plan-D. I shall be travelling with President Barroso and Commissioner Spidla to the Czech Republic. These will not be the traditional diplomatic visits with the usual round of handshakes with the Great and the Good. Instead we shall be making a point of meeting ordinary people – young people, people who run small businesses, working people. We want to listen to them, to understand their views and note their concerns. Next year we will draw our initial conclusions from all that we have heard. Only then will the Commission put forward proposals for moving Europe forwards – in the direction the citizens want. Over the next year, I want to achieve number of objectives in my own area: Firstly, we have to cement the internal reforms in the Commission on communication policy. Here we are trying to instil “a culture of communication based on the three principles of better listening; better communicating and “going local”. Secondly, we need to take forward a wide-ranging the consultation process on the White Paper on communication and democracy which we will present at the end of this year. President Barroso and I will also prepare a paper for the June 2006 European Council bringing together our reflections following the initial stage of the feedback process on the future of Europe debate. I also want to ensure that we deliver on the thirteen actions set out in the Plan-D paper. Fourthly, we have a range of issues where more can be done by the Council. I hope we can see real progress on the forthcoming Presidency options paper on transparency. The Council must open up which is also a way to end the blame game mentality. We also need to take forward work on comitology and the application of subsidiarity by the Council. Fifth, I want to take our relations with national Parliaments to the next level. Much can be done under the existing treaties to improve relations with the Commission. At the same time, the focus must remain on improving the scrutiny by national Parliaments of their national Governments. I know that the European Policy Centre is working hard on the inter-institutional aspects of the better regulation agenda. This has a clear impact on my portfolio responsibilities and I will make this one of my priorities for next year. A final priority is to strengthen our ties with the European Parliament based on the new framework agreement. I want to leave those early confrontations in the past and consolidate the consensus which we have worked so hard to achieve over the past year. These are just some of the priorities for action next year. A year when we need to focus on delivery not “grandiose plans”. To sum up. This is not about rescuing the Constitution. It is about democracy, dialogue and debate. It is about putting the citizens’ concerns at the heart of EU policy. We need to move from diplomacy to democracy. We need a balanced solution which enables us to deliver the Europe that Europeans want:
Europeans want a Europe that is light on bureaucracy but a heavyweight in defending common European interests and value. They want less paper and more action. Off The Wallstrom, Interview with HotPress, published in issue April 2005 [pdf - 417kb] RELATED: © Copyright 2007 by Finfacts.com |
