The future development of the European Union: The debate continues with speeches by Romano Prodi, Strasbourg, 3 October 2000 and Tony Blair, Warsaw, 6 October 2000

Following earlier speeches by German Foreign Minister Fischer and President Chirac of France outlining their visions for the future development of the European Union, further important contributions to the debate were given this week by European Commission President Romano Prodi in the European Parliament, Strasbourg, 3 October 2000 and by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair in the Polish Stock Exchange in Warsaw, 6 October 2000. A speech given by Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstafdt at the European Policy Centre, Brussels, 21 September 2000 is also covered.

Background

The main mechanism for negotiating changes to the Treaties governing the objectives, processes and institutions of the European Union is through the establishment of what is called an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) (IGC). The latest IGC was launched in February 2000, with the aim of adapting the policy making processes of the EU Institutions to accommodate the substantial number of new countries that are likely to join the Union in the next few years. This IGC has on its agenda a limited range of subjects to discuss including the size of the European Commission, the reweighting of Member States' votes in the Council, the extension of Qualified Majority Voting and other necessary amendments to the Treaties arising as regards the European institutions in connection with the above issues and in implementing the Treaty of Amsterdam. The IGC is due to present a report to the December 2000 meeting of the European Council at Nice.

Note should also be made of the parallel negotiations during 2000 by a 'Convention' to compile a Charter of Fundamental Rights. The final text [PDF] of the draft Charter will be examined at the European Council in Biarritz, 13-14 October 2000 and possibly adopted in some form at the European Council in Nice in December 2000.

Despite the work of the current Intergovernmental Conference seeking to reform the Treaties, there is a perception amongst some that its limited agenda is not sufficiently ambitious to adapt the European Union to the challenges it faces in the future with the prospect of a large number of new Member States, new policy competences, and a European citizenry somewhat divided as to how they wish the Union to develop. Above all, what is the ultimate end of the current European integration process? German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has called for a major treaty reform to be negotiated in a further Intergovernmental Conference in 2003-2004. Consequently, a debate has begun amongst interested parties and taken up by key European leaders as to how the European Union needs to develop in the medium-term.

A speech in May 2000 by German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, speaking in a personal capacity, 'From Confederacy to Federation - Thoughts on the finality of European integration', generated considerable reaction in Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere, as to the future direction of the European Union. President Chirac of France responded during a state visit to Germany in June 2000 with a powerful speech 'Our Europe'. Details of these speeches and immediate reaction in the United Kingdom, and elsewhere, is given in an earlier In Focus.

Speech by European Commission President Romano Prodi in the European Parliament, Strasbourg, 3 October 2000

In a speech to the European Parliament in Strasbourg on the 3 October 2000 the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi gave what a number of commentators suggested was his best speech (SPEECH/00/352) since he came into Office a year ago. After discussing the immediate priorities of the current IGC and enlargement process, Mr Prodi turned to the wider debate about the future of Europe. He said that the choices were:

the maintenance of the status quo, which would mean in effect a step backwards for Europe. Or a partial but deceptive increase in intergovernmental cooperation. Or, alternatively, we can continue to build on the institutional architecture of the Union in a way that is consistent with the principles of democracy, the balance of powers and subsidiarity.

He then went on to praise the success of the 'Community method':

This system, revolving around the institutional triangle of the Council, Parliament and the Commission, has proved extraordinarily successful. Its originality lies without doubt in the Commission and its right of initiative . . . The European system is one of checks and balances, in which the smooth running of each institution serves the common interest. Any weakening of these institutions weakens the whole.

and worry about the increasing talk amongst some towards advocating a greater intergovernmental approach to European co-operation. Mr Prodi said that the weakness of the intergovernmental model is:

either it will turn the Community into an international talking shop, incapable of producing a real pooling of sovereignty around the common interest; or it will deceive people by constantly creating new bodies which are exempt from any form of democratic scrutiny -- a real government of bureaucrats.

Giving new powers to some sort of committee of ministers, serviced by an unaccountable secretariat, would not represent any sort of progress either for democracy or for effective decision-making. To claim, as some do, that the individual legitimacy of the participating governments somehow provides, on its own, a sufficient guarantee of democratic accountability for the intergovernmental model is misguided.

Enhancing the intergovernmental model at the expense not only of the Commission but also, ultimately, of the Council would therefore undermine the democratic nature of the whole European structure and would be a seriously retrograde step.

However, the Commission President did accept that there was a need for a clear definition of responsibilities ('competences') between EU, national, regional and local levels of government and suggested that the European Commission will outline its views on this in its forthcoming White Paper on Governance.

Mr Prodi also argued that the post of High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy should be integrated within the European Commission and not, as at present, with the Council of the European Union (the present incumbent, Javier Solana, shares the High Representative post with that of being secretary General of the Council), and that the Council should not be allowed to set up agencies which it then confers executive powers upon, without any democratic accountability. In that, and other contexts, he stressed the vital role played by the European Parliament.

Speech by Guy Verhofstadt, Prime Minister of Belgium, at the European Policy Centre, 21 September 2000

One of the arguments put forward by those advocating the 'Community method' is that it helps protect the interests of small EU Member States against that of larger Member States. A representative of a small Member State, Guy Verhofstadt, Prime Minister of Belgium, presented his 'Vision for Europe' in a speech to the European Policy Centre thinktank in Brussels on the 21 September 2000. In his speech, Mr Verhofstadt called for closer European integration and a strengthening of the European Union's institutions through the Community method - rather than a drift into the intergovernmentalism approach. Now was the appropriate time, he said, to have a serious debate about the ultimate destination of European integration, both in terms of a 'vision for Europe', but also in terms of institutional structure to make manifest this vision. The strengthening of the Community method was the way forward, but with reforms to ensure its 'transparency, efficiency and democratic legitimacy'.

Mr Verhofstadt feared:

that an explicit choice for the intergovernmental approach in a European Union with 28 Member States will inevitably take the form of a "Directoire"; a virtual government by a restricted number of larger Member States.

Intergovernmental co-operation can be an initial impetus, and sometimes an intermediate stage towards integration, but it can never be the actual objective. Whereas a community approach may be based on qualified majorities, an intergovernmental approach can only be based on a consensus and the strict unanimity rule. In many cases this boils down to a situation of impotence and indecisiveness.

The Community method was needed to strengthen EU effectiveness in a number of specific areas such as foreign and security policy, economic policy management and the euro, migration issues and food security.

The Belgian Prime Minister went on to comment on the concept of 'enhanced co-operation' (or 'reinforced co-operation'), whereby a group of individual Member States might group together and launch new integration initiatives outside of the formal EU institutional framework. The Schengen Agreement was one such example in the past, although that has now been brought within the Community framework. President Chirac with his suggestion of a 'pioneer group' of countries is a strong advocate of enhanced co-operation. He said in June 2000 in his Berlin speech:

We must also ensure that, in the enlarged Europe, the capacity for forward momentum remains. There must constantly be the possibility of opening up new avenues. For this, and as we have done in the past, the countries which want to integrate further, on a voluntary basis and on specific projects, must be able to do so without being held up by those who, and it is their right, don't wish to go so fast.

In his September 2000 speech Mr Verhofstadt said that he feared that enhanced co-operation:

is slipping further and further towards an intergovernmental approach. Indeed, enhanced co-operation should never become an intergovernmental instrument that allows a number of Member States to tear themselves loose in a number of fields, with a secretariat that functions outside the community institutions. It should not be an instrument to create a two-speed Europe. I am in favour of enhanced co-operation. I believe that it can be a means to speed up integration and to involve Member States, which did not join in during the first phase.

In other words, enhanced co-operation can never be a mechanism to withdraw oneself from the Union. It is an instrument to strengthen the Union from within, an instrument of integration, not exclusion. An instrument that is aimed at attracting Member States, not rejecting them.

This also implies that enhanced co-operation can never become the standard. At first sight, this may seem an attractive thought, but in fact it would be a way to conceal that we do not want to increase the number of areas where majority decisions are the rule. For that reason alone, I argue in favour of transforming enhanced co-operation into a mechanism that is managed and controlled in and by the Commission. That is why I am also in favour of linking a number of catch-up mechanisms to enhanced co-operation, which will facilitate the integration of those countries which could or would not participate in a first phase.

Mr Verhofstadt also said that there is a need to 'regulate the Kompetenzabgrenzung (delimitation of competences). In other words, each level - the Union, the Member States, the regions and the federal states - should know its competences', and that there should be a bicameral system in the European Parliament.

The first chamber would seat the directly elected Members of Parliament, on the basis of the respective populations, the second chamber would seat the representatives of the Member States with a fixed and equal representation of those Member States, exactly like the United States Senate.

Finally, he advocated a maintenance of the powers of the European Commision, albeit with some reform:

. . . I do not see how Europe could benefit from a weaker Commission. We need a strong Commission that can exercise its right of initiative to the full.

Speech by United Kingdom Prime Minister, Tony Blair, at the Polish Stock Exchange, 6 October 2000.

The speech given by Tony Blair had been heavily promoted beforehand in the UK media as a major contribution by the UK Prime Minister to the current debate about the future development of the European Union: indeed, some commentators said that it was the most important speech by a UK Prime Minister on Europe since Mrs Thatcher's famous Bruges Speech in 1988.

Mr Blair starts by emphasing that enlargement of the European Union is both absolutely necessary and welcome, and that there should be no slowdown in the current negotiations. He said that:

supporting enlargement in principle but delaying in practice is not good enough.
So I am determined there should be a breakthrough on enlargement under the Swedish Presidency. I will be urging Europe's political leaders to commit themselves to a specific framework leading to an early end of the negotiations and to accession. I want to see new Member States participating in the European Parliamentary elections in 2004 and having a seat at the table in the next Intergovernmental Conference

Europe is 'widening and deepening simultaneously'. An enlarged EU will thus need to reform the way it makes decisions so that it:

delivers real benefits to the people of Europe, addressing the priorities they want addressed; and does so in a way that has their consent and support.

After outlining the classic opposite models of how Europe should develop:

One is Europe as a free trade area, like NAFTA in North America. The other is the classic federalist model, in which Europe elects its Commission President and the European Parliament becomes the true legislative European body and Europe's principal democratic check.

Mr Blair goes on to suggest that, in reality,

. . . the primary sources of democratic accountability in Europe are the directly elected and representative institutions of the nations of Europe - national parliaments and governments.

That is not to say Europe will not in future generations develop its own strong demos or polity, but it hasn't yet.

On institutional matters Mr Blair says that the European Council (which brings together the heads of state of the Member States) should be the Institution which sets the agenda for the EU in a much more organised and structured way than at present. It should do this by way of a published annual agenda. Mr Blair insists that this is not an attempt to weaken the European Commission's power of sole initiative.

Like the previous speakers mentioned above, Mr Blair advocates a clarification of the powers at each layer of government:

What I think is both desirable and realistic is to draw up a statement of the principles according to which we should decide what is best done at the European level and what should be done at the national level, a kind of charter of competences. This would allow countries too, to define clearly what is then done at a regional level. This Statement of Principles would be a political, not a legal document. It could therefore be much simpler and more accessible to Europe's citizens.

Mr Blair then moves on to propose a new second Chamber for the European Parliament composed of representatives from National Parliaments:

A second chamber's most important function would be to review the EU's work, in the light of this agreed Statement of Principles. It would not get involved in the day-to-day negotiation of legislation - that is properly the role of the existing European Parliament. Rather, its task would be to help implement the agreed statement of principles; so that we do what we need to do at a European level but also so that we devolve power downwards.

and to discuss the concept of enhanced co-operation:

Efficient decision making in an enlarged Union will also mean enhanced co-operation. I have no problem with greater flexibility or groups of Member States going forward together. But that must not lead to a hard core; a Europe in which some Member States create their own set of shared policies and institutions from which others are in practice excluded. Such groups must at every stage be open to others who wish to join.

Mr Blair concluded by saying that he wanted the European Union to be a superpower, not a superstate.

A further contribution to the debate is provided in a statement 'We are serious about the future of Europe' by German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato issued on the 22 September 2000.

Summing up

The debate on the future direction of the European Union by European leaders is developing in a fascinating way. While the UK media often portrays the UK being isolated from a Franco-German axis on such issues, in reality, the situation is more complex and fluid than that. Mr Fischer's advocacy of:

the transition from a union of states to full parliamentarization as a European Federation, something Robert Schuman demanded 50 years ago. And that means nothing less than a European Parliament and a European government which really do exercise legislative and executive power within the Federation. This Federation will have to be based on a constituent treaty.

is not at all the same as President Chirac's promotion of a 'pioneer group' of Member States, possibly with a small secretariat outside of the present institutional structure, pursuing enhanced co-operation. Of course, Germany and France, as the traditional motors of European integration, do see the value, and recognise a sense of responsibility, in pushing forward progress towards closer European unity. However, it is also apparent that there are differences of nuance and substance between the two countries on these issues. As a recent article in European Voice says:

While Fischer's speech proposed a reworking of the classical European federation with a government at Union level and a parliament with full legislative rights, Chirac sketched out an Union which would work on an intergovernmental rather than Community basis.

The French President even proposed the biggest threat to the European Commission's power to date by calling for a new secretariat to be set up to assess whether new forms of cooperation would clash with existing treaty rules. The European Parliament would also be increasingly sidelined, with national assemblies given a stronger role in overseeing new legislation agreed at European level, as already happens in France.

Just as all sides of the debate can advocate the articulation of the subsidiarity principle through the clarification of policy competences, equally most participants in the debate can define a form of enhanced co-operation that they could support. Similarly, most debaters are keen to stress the continued importance of the European Commission and European Parliament. The disagreements emerge more subtly when the detailed implications of some of the proposals are analysed. Certainly, Mr Prodi and Mr Verhofstadt, are keen to protect and strengthen the role of the Commission and Parliament, while President Chirac and Mr Blair are more keen to develop the national dimension in policy-making.

All of these considerations are complicated by the question of when should the current applicant countries to join the European Union be allowed to join in practice, and should they be actively involved in these discussions regarding the future direction of the EU.

Further information within European Sources Online:

European Sources Online: In Focus:
- Launch of the Intergovernmental Conference 2000, February 2000, 20.2.00
- Franco-German summit meeting, Mainz, 9 June 2000, 11.6.00
- The European debate: Germany, France and the United Kingdom, July 2000, 1.7.00

European Sources Online: European Voice
- 29.6.00: Answer to Schröder's problems lies at home- 6.7.00: Searching for a common vision of the EU's future- 6.7.00: Barnier calls for stronger Commission- 20.7.00: Paris under fire over plan to boost big countries' role in Commission- 27.7.00: IGC must not be distracted from 'core' task- 27.7.00: Hopes rise for enhanced cooperation deal- 7.9.00: Paris calls for wider use of majority voting- 14.9.00: MEPs threaten to block EU expansion in power-share row- 21.9.00: France risks plunging treaty talks into crisis- 21.9.00: Averting a crisis at the IGC talks- 5.10.00: Prodi attacks moves to undermine Commission
(Earlier articles can be located in the In Focus features listed above)

Further information can be seen in these external links:
(long-term access cannot be guaranteed)

BBC News
- 13.5.00: Storm over federal Europe call
- 27.6.00: Chirac pushes two-speed Europe
- 6.10.00: Blair attacks two-tier Europe

Germany: Die Bundesregierung
- We are serious about the future of Europe - Gerhard Schröder and Giuliano Amato, 22.9.00

European Policy Centre
- Fisher's Views on the Finality of Europe: Some Reasons For Concern - Andrew Duff, 19.5.00
- The Europe we need: Is a Franco-German Initiative Emerging ? - Stanley Crossick, 27.5.00
- Overcoming the division of Europe - Vaclav Havel, 15.6.00
- Joschka Fischer's challenge to Europe: integration or erosion? - Max Kohnstamm, 19.6.00
- British humour, European integration and possible misunderstandings - Giovanni Grevi, 18.7.00
- Intergovernmental Conference 2000 - the end of the beginning or the beginning of the end?, Alexander Stubb and Mark Gray, 12.9.00
- Key challenges facing the European Union - Peter Sutherland, 20.9.00
- 'A Vision for Europe' - Guy Verhofstadt, 21.9.00

Centre for European Reform
- A new institutional vision - Charles Grant, CER Bulletin, October-November 2000

Ian Thomson
Executive Editor, European Sources Online
Compiled: 07 October 2000

Following earlier speeches by German Foreign Minister Fischer and President Chirac of France outlining their visions for the future development of the European Union, further important contributions to the debate were provided by European Commission President Romano Prodi and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair in October 2000