Shaping Europe’s Future

Shaping Europe's future:
BY JACQUES SANTER

(President of the European Commission)

I am delighted to have this opportunity at the International Bertelsmann Forum 1998 to present a few thoughts on the future of Europe. In my view, this conference is taking place at an important time, for it is probably no coincidence that we are currently living through two major changes.

On the one hand we are about to complete two gigantic, historic steps on the way to European integration, namely the start of the third phase of economic and monetary union and the beginning of the process of enlarging the European Union to incorporate Central and Eastern Europe.

On the other hand, three weeks ago at the Cardiff European Council a new debate was launched on the future of Europe, a debate which, to a certain degree at least, revealed a widespread sense of unease and dissatisfaction. Sometimes one has the impression that the wind has changed. For many, integration has already gone too far. There are voices calling for less 'Brussels', whatever that may mean.

I am not sure that everyone really understands what sort of avalanche could be set in motion by such a debate. There can be no doubt that we need this discussion. We need a discussion on the future of Europe, about our goals and the ways to achieve them. The discussion must not be confined to the so-called elite in society, between the Europe experts, if you like. It must also take heed of and encourage debate between all Europeans. However, we must take care not to bite off more than we can chew.

Achievements so far:
Before we talk about the future, we should perhaps look at what we have achieved over the last few years and decades. For we have achieved a great deal:

- The Economic Community of the Six has become the Union of the Fifteen and enlargement to include a further eleven States is already under way.

- The internal market is nearly complete, offering a single market for what is already 380 million consumers.

- On 1 January 1999 eleven partners will enter the third stage of economic and monetary union, having decided to introduce a single currency for nearly 300 million people in Europe.

- And, last but not least, the European Union has already begun to address matters which are of concern to many members of the general public: employment, the environment, internal security and the representation of European interests outside the borders of the European Union.

This shows that the founding fathers' idea of European integration following the Second World War has been extremely successful. And yet, and perhaps for that very reason, we can sense the uncertainty felt by many people at the moment: Scepticism about Europe; Doubts about the way in which we are approaching European integration; Questions about the course we should take in the future.

Current scepticism:
Let us be honest: such doubts are by no means confined to the European Union. In a large number of countries many people currently view politics in general with distance, scepticism and sometimes even aversion. But since people do not feel the same emotional bonds between themselves and European institutions as they feel between themselves and nation States, these institutions are particularly vulnerable to such mood swings. That is our problem. But at the same time it is also our chance, for it means that we cannot avoid reforms at European level. The challenge currently facing us is therefore to allay these doubts. We must find the answers to the pressing questions, and the answers must be convincing. But how?

Firstly, in my opinion, we must come to terms with the changes which have taken place in the last ten years. Let me give you three examples of these changes:

- Firstly, the collapse of the Iron Curtain ended the Cold War and presented us with a unique opportunity to unite Europe in peace and freedom after almost five hundred years. We have a historical and moral duty to seize this opportunity.

- Secondly, the rapid globalisation of the world economy has increased the pressure of competition in Europe; completion of the internal market and the introduction of the euro will increase this pressure still further.

- And thirdly, the rediscovery of regional identities has forced national governments to cede some powers to their own regions at a time when they are handing over other powers to Europe.

I am not sure that everyone is aware of the full implications of these changes in Europe, as many things will only take on a tangible form for people in the next few years. But now is the time for us to take on board the fundamental changes which have occurred and make the necessary adjustments and reforms.

Need for institutional changes:
Public discussion frequently highlights the institutional aspects. Of course, I share the view that the Treaty of Amsterdam does not meet the requirements of an enlarged Europe. I also believe that we need a new Intergovernmental Conference before the next enlargement. But I urge caution. Let us not overwhelm the people of Europe. If we launch a public discussion about far-reaching new steps towards integration at a time when the Treaty of Amsterdam has not even been ratified in all Member States, let alone implemented, we are taking a definite risk. Some people still need to be convinced about what we have already agreed.

Therefore, the preparations for the next Intergovernmental Conference must be thorough. We must now sit down and discuss our priorities for the institutions. In my view we should concentrate particularly on those institutional reforms which are necessary to ensure that the enlarged Union can act efficiently. In my opinion, this implies, in particular, that the principle of majority voting should be extended and, consequently, that the weighting of votes in the Council must be altered.

There are of course a series of other areas where the next Intergovernmental Conference could and perhaps should provide a direction for the future of Europe. However, I believe we should not overburden the Intergovernmental Conference. Frankly, I do not consider at this moment that our difficulties are primarily of an institutional nature. Of course we need to reform the institutions. Who could deny it?

Other reforms needed:
However, many of the major reforms that are needed to prepare the European Union for the next century can be carried out within the framework provided by the Treaty of Amsterdam:

- for example, the reform of the workings of the General Affairs Council, which has transformed itself into a straightforward Council of Foreign Ministers and ceased to fulfil its original functions as a co-ordinator and source of inspiration a long time ago

- for example, the reform of Community policies along the lines proposed by the Commission in Agenda 2000. Our structural policy must abandon the watering can principle and concentrate on regions in genuine need. We must abandon a common agricultural policy which encourages production only to have to pay for the destruction of surpluses and replace it with a policy which focuses on quality and sustainability

- another example is the need to agree arrangements for revenue and expenditure which are seen as fair and balanced by all European Union Member States. In autumn the Commission will address this question by presenting a report on the own resources system so that a decision can be taken on the future revenue and expenditure of the Union at the same time

- and let me also mention Europe's role in the world. The European Union and its Member States provide almost 60% of all development aid and almost 80% of the financial aid to the States of the former Soviet Union, to quote just two statistics, but it is the United States which calls the political tune. At the same time, most Member States of the European Union will have a single currency in six months' time, but no one knows who should represent the currency at international level.

In all these areas it is not shortcomings in the present Treaty that prevent us from taking action. And besides, we have new scope for closer co-operation under the Treaty of Amsterdam. We cannot, then, hold up institutional weaknesses as an excuse. Nor do we need an intergovernmental conference to carry the reforms through. All we need is some measure of political courage. The courage to give up certain benefits that we might have grown accustomed to. But if we fail to find that courage now, then all our declarations of support for enlargement of the Union will amount to no more than empty rhetoric.

Perhaps the reforms could be more easily implemented if we could succeed in strengthening people's sense of solidarity and identification with Europe. For this is what I consider to be one of our weakest points at the moment. Let me explain by reference to three issues: subsidiarity, solidarity and identity.

Subsidiarity, solidarity and identity:
As far as subsidiarity is concerned, I can hardly imagine anyone seriously opposing the principle. Throughout my life I have worked for its application and have endeavoured to act in accordance with the principle in the various posts I have held. I have to admit, however, that I am unhappy with the current public debate on this subject. I have the impression that the Union today is sometimes criticised using the arguments of yesterday - as if the Union's legislative activity had not changed dramatically over the last few years. Let me quote just one example: in 1990 the Commission presented over 60 proposals for new legislation, whereas last year the number did not even reach double figures! Yet there are some who now seem to be demanding an end to European competition policy in the name of subsidiarity, while others are calling for Community directives on the keeping of animals in zoos. There is something wrong here.

Let me be quite clear: I am open to any options for improvement, including an explicit definition of competences. But I am not sure that this is the ready-made answer that some people seem to think it is. We considered the issue when drafting the Treaty of Amsterdam: Who ought to be responsible for environment policy or internal security - to quote but two examples? Here I think there still needs to be more discussion. Subsidiarity must not be used as an excuse for evading politically unpopular decisions such as cutting back subsidies for structural support. It must not be reduced to the status of a joker that we keep up our sleeve to play whenever things do not go our way.

The second issue I want to consider is solidarity. The European Union has always been built upon the notion of solidarity. And yet nowadays one sometimes has the feeling that it is being called into question. The problem here, I believe, is not so much that the givers are actually overstretched, but rather that they feel overstretched. Nevertheless it is the feeling that conditions political action.

Again this is not a phenomenon confined to the EU sphere alone. In many Member States the more prosperous regions seem to feel that their contribution to domestic solidarity is unacceptably high. Social security systems, too, have come under criticism in many Member States, with talk of 'welfare feather-bedding'. So perhaps it is time to bring the issue of solidarity into the debate on the future shape of Europe.

This is where the third topic I want to raise should help: identity and a sense of belonging together in Europe. For I can see tensions developing over the coming years. On the one hand, the return to regional identities - highly commendable in itself - will probably not make the emergence of a sense of community any easier. While on the other hand, economic trends - the internal market, monetary union, globalisation - will tend to restrict regions' room and freedom for manoeuvre ever more narrowly. At the same time explicit co-ordination mechanisms in a Union with 20 or 25 members and 70 or maybe even 100 regions will quickly become stretched to the limit.

Nor do I believe that we are already on the way to overcoming our national information filters, as the background paper for this forum appears to suggest. I fear that public discussion still means a mainly national public discussion. There is practically no such thing as 'European public opinion'. Regrettably! Because that is something that needs to change - through people getting to know and understand one another across frontiers. Economic integration alone will not, in my view, be able to bring this about. We need to come up with better ideas. The excellent background paper speaks of 'making the sense of community positively tangible for Europeans'. It could hardly be put better. But the crucial question is: How? And I am afraid that we have not found a clear and fully convincing answer yet.

But if we fail to find one, I can foresee that we shall face problems - on the political and economic front. Let us be under no illusions. The euro calls for a high degree of convergence of economic thinking in the common currency area. And when I say economic policy, I include the policy line taken by the social partners on wages. Any deviation from convergence will bring a penalty in the shape of high political and economic adjustment costs. That is precisely why mutual understanding is so vital.

Conclusion:
We still face a daunting task. So I am not sure whether it might not be too early to speak of 'Completing the process of European integration' or 'Putting in place the final stone in the edifice of integration', as the background paper puts it. I personally do not think Europe is on the point of completion yet. Rather, I believe that with the enlargement of the European Union and the deepening of integration, the next ten years will leave us still some distance from the end of the road.

Of course, that does not mean that things will - and can - simply go on as they have in the past. But even when all the current candidates for membership have joined the European Union, we will probably not have reached the end. Perhaps it is the very fact that we do not yet know what the final stone will be that is at the root of our current anxieties; the fact that we have no clear guideline for the future. Perhaps, then, we also need to discuss where Europe's limits lie - its limits in every sense. And this year's Bertelsmann Forum could offer a major contribution to the debate. Such a debate should enable us to find a common approach for Europe in the coming century. An approach that will be supported by the majority of our citizens, enabling the great, unique project of European integration to continue advancing successfully into the new millennium.

The text of a speech given by Jacques Santer, President of the European Commission, at the 1998 International Bertelsmann Forum 'Europe on the eve of completion', Berlin, 3 July 1998.

For further information sources on EU institutional developments and the future development of the EU see Sections 2.1 and 2.2 in 'Recent references' of each issue of European Access.