The EU path of truth leading to peace, progress and prosperity

Date: 20/10/05

Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate, presented by European Commission Vice-President Margot Wallström on 12 October, is a road map in accordance with the wishes of the EU's heads of state and government.

They declared on 17 June that there was a "need for us to reflect together" and have "a broad debate to take place in each of our countries, involving citizens, civil society, social partners, national parliaments and political parties".

Four months have elapsed since the French and Dutch voted down the constitutional treaty and so far, the period of reflection has been wasted. No one has come up with any clear idea of how to persuade the younger generation to 'buy in' to Europe. In France and elsewhere, support for the EU is often at its weakest with this generation. The road map set out in Plan D is no more than a delivery system. There is still no agreement as to the substance of the messages to be delivered.

It is now time for the President of the Commission, José Manuel Barroso, to forget his former club, of heads of state and government, and to state that, without excusing 'Brussels' its mistakes, the constitution cannot be ratified because member state leaders have not told their electorates the truth about Europe for as long as can be remembered. Instead they have used Europe for their own short-term, often opportunist, domestic reasons. Is it surprising that, after being told for years that Brussels was to blame for economic and other ills, and not being told the good things done in Brussels, the European publics have come to believe this?

In many ways, the problem at EU level is an extension of the national problem: the huge gulf that has opened between the political classes and the electorates. While up to 25 national parliaments would ratify the constitutional treaty, a large number of electorates would reject it. And paradoxically, the four policy areas of greatest concern to citizens - growth and jobs, personal security, the environment, a single external European voice - are all areas in which close co-operation is essential. Europe cannot make any real progress unless more - not fewer - powers are given to Brussels.

The president of the Commission, when asked by the European Council to reflect, should have replied: "You reflect and act. You got us into this mess and only you can get us out of it".

The substance of the message to the EU's citizens is clear: no individual country can tackle alone the four big challenges facing society today: terrorism (with the privatisation of the power of mass destruction), economic globalisation (with its impact on jobs and growth), poverty (which is threatening stability) and environmental degradation.

Today's world is no less dangerous than the world of the 1950s. The EU was then the solution and has brought unprecedented peace, prosperity and progress to Europe. It is the only feasible way forward.

The Union is America's equal in matters of trade policy because it has the necessary - indeed exclusive - competence. There is no doubt that the Union can far better manage globalisation and negotiate with China or India than individual member states.

But the EU is little more than the sum of its constituent parts on stimulating growth and creating jobs: the Commission can cajole and name and shame but only member states can deliver on reforms.

The same can be said about forging a common foreign, security and defence policy, despite the valiant attempts of Javier Solana, the EU's high representative for foreign policy.

It is time for action. Member states' leaders should tell the truth to their electorates about the true role of the EU and the Commission should make it clear that only by member states living up to their responsibilities can Europe continue along the path of the three Ps: Peace, Progress and Prosperity.

• Stanley Crossick, founding chairman of the European Policy Centre, writes here in a personal capacity.

Author, who is founding chairman of the European Policy Centre, suggests that the 'period of reflection', begun after the negative referendums in France and the Netherlands on the European Constitution in June 2005, had been wasted so far.

• Primary Source