Speech to the College of Europe, Bruges 'Redefining the Purpose of Europe'

Speech delivered on Tue 22nd Nov 2005

Jean Monnet once observed: "Each man begins the world afresh. Only institutions grow wiser".

That's a claim I'd like to ponder.

No-one can deny we've come a long way fast.

Within my lifetime we built the single market, bringing prosperity undreamt of by my parents.

We've established a world reserve currency to rival the dollar.

And we've laid the basis for peaceful co-operation in so many areas. In a Union now embracing 460 million people.

Centuries of tribalism and hatred had been Europe's ugly legacy.

Now, war on a continental scale in Europe is almost unthinkable.

The architects of European integration knew that the key to peace and progress lay in interdependence. They built institutions on a foundation of coal and steel.

Their successors took on the torches and deepened co-operation.

Their work in turn has been augmented by many -some of them graduates of the College of Europe.

Your unparalleled institution distills and infuses our Union, giving us men like Manuel Marin, David O'Sullivan and Jo Leinen.

But new threats and challenges are now upon us.

New responses are needed.

New countries are queuing up to join.

Our institutions, the building blocks of the Union, must be developed and adapted.

That is patently not happening at present.

Monnet, Schuman, Adenauer and others rose to the challenges of their time. Europe's present Leaders must rise to the challenges of ours.

Leadership is needed. By statesmen who define a vision and prepare the path towards it.

Not by politicians who pore over opinion polls and preach popular prejudice back to their citizens.

Where there is no vision there is no commitment. No looking forward. No sharing of responsibility. As WB Yeats wrote in the Second Coming: "The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity".

So what challenges do we face and how should the Union respond?

First, rapid population growth beyond our borders but decline within.

Second, a climate changing faster than at any point in recorded history.

Third, an unprecedented threat from terrorism and organised crime, plaguing this new century just as war did the last.

Finally, a sluggish economy at risk from newly emerging economies like China and India..

I will argue today that Europe is failing in its historic responsibility.

Because our institutions are failing.

Member States failing to put long term strengths and common concerns above short term interests and individual gain.

And a Commission lacking the courage to act.

Fear, fatalism and fanaticism are spreading in Europe. They threaten our social cohesion and the institutions of our economic and political success.

Add to this equation the way today's leaders seek to unite Europe without uniting Europeans.

And you see why we came off the rails at referendum junction.

But as Mark Twain said of Wagner's music, "It's not as bad as it sounds".

Help is at hand. But that's for later in this speech.

In June the European Council declared a year's pause for reflection on a Constitution which was a reasonable attempt to make Europe more effective, more responsive and more relevant.

It's principal failings were its length, its title and its marketing.

But the principal cause of its downfall was the lack of courage and conviction of national leaders.

The subsequent silence from Member States has been deafening. And the institutional response uncertain.

The pause for reflection is already more pause than reflection.

The Commission has given us a "Plan D" for dialogue. But we need a "Plan V for vision" and a "Plan L for Leadership".

Much must be done to show how the European Union adds value to our daily lives.

If we fail to communicate what Europe does, how it works and where it is heading we will lose the battle for people's hearts and minds.

It will not do to wait for better circumstances before engineering a re-vote in France and the Netherlands.

We did it in Denmark with the Maastricht Treaty, it's true.

We did it in Ireland with Nice.

But a nascent Constitution needs broader backing and further thought, not just a quick fix.

When the time is ripe to re-consult citizens there should be a Europe-wide, simultaneous debate and vote.

I argued this in a letter to Europe's newspapers, co-signed by an MEP from each of the fourteen member states - over three years ago.

As Pat Cox pointed out, the problem is less the text than the context. Before we take the matter further we have to get the politics right.

National governments cannot "attack Europe from Monday to Saturday, then expect citizens to vote for it on Sunday", as Mr Barroso so perceptively pointed out.

The word 'crisis' is widely over-used.

But not always.

John F. Kennedy once observed that, when written in Chinese, the word "crisis" is composed of two characters - one representing danger and the other opportunity.

That is how I see the EU at present. Becalmed between threatening storms and the winds of opportunity.

2. POPULATION GROWTH AND MIGRATION

Today's big challenges are supranational.

Take world population growth.

If you're poor, you need kids. To provide for your old age. And with five billion poor, population is rising dangerously. So we need to pull people out of poverty. Pronto.

How?

Education, especially for women.

Micro-credit for business.

Investment in good governance.

Development policy must do these.

But market access too. Because the hungry vote with their feet. So either we accept their produce or their migrants. That's what's at stake in Hong Kong.

Of course, Europe needs some migrants.

Our population is in free fall.

By 2050, on current trends, Italy will lose a quarter of its people.

By 2050 - unless your generation is particularly prolific ! - people over 65 will account for nearly half the EU population.

Putting an intolerable strain on pensions and social services.

So Europe needs workers.

To pick our crops, drive our trucks and staff our care homes.

To help create the wealth which pays for social policy.

Developing countries need emigrants too, remitting valuable earnings back home.

"Migrations are necessary", as Kofi Annan said recently.

The time has come for national governments to put in place an immigration policy which serves our needs and those of others.

Not just the current sticking plaster solutions.

To shut the gates of Fortress Europe is not just, in the words of poet John Gray, "to shut the gates of mercy on mankind". It is to shut the gates of opportunity on ourselves.

But migrants, and the children of migrants, must feel welcome in Europe.

Burning cars, looting and rioting do not emerge from nowhere.

And they are not found from Glasgow to Marseille unless something, somewhere, is seriously wrong.

For 300 years, Europe was a continent of net emigration.

In the last 30 years we've seen net immigration. Have our perceptions kept pace with this process?

Hands up everyone here who's from Africa!

All EU communities are of immigrant descent.

Many have successfully settled and integrated. By and large, the longer they've been here, the better.

But religion is the old bugbear. And where once we ghetto-ised the Jews, now it is the Muslims. An ever increasing number of young people is out of work and out of luck.

Tolerated until the war on terror and subjugated since, they are turning on society, looting the stores and burning the banlieue.

If these people had been treated with dignity from the start, would we be facing such phenomena today?

Why has it gone wrong for Europe? Because for all the fine words at the Tampere Council, there's no policy run by institutions.

Every Member State is lost in the fog, feeling its way gradually from tolerance to inclusion.

Addressing the socio-economic problems is half the answer.

The other half has to do with citizenship, identity and the attitudes of their fellow Europeans.

Europe cannot be a white Christian club which reserves no place for others..

That approach is both intolerant and illiberal.

But it can expect immigrants to abide by universal values of respect, tolerance and the Rule of Law which are the fundament of our political system.

Only then can we enjoy the "Unity in Diversity" promised by the Constitutional Treaty.

These values, and not the traditions of individual Member States, are the values which define what it means to be European in a Union of 25 different countries. They apply as much to Europeans moving around as to those joining us from elsewhere.

And it is these values which will create a European civic identity to which those of immigrant descent can adhere- whether or not they identify with the culture and norms of their host nation.

The smartest political thinker of the 20th century was not the socialist Karl Marx with his theories of class. It was the Liberal, Woodrow Wilson, with his emphasis on identity.

3. CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE ENVIRONMENT - PRESENT AND FUTURE CHALLENGES

Another key challenge for Europe is to address climate change.

In the last fifty years the Earth experienced its fastest period of warming in two millennia.

Almost certainly linked to greater use of fossil fuels, particularly oil.

If we'd all heeded the warnings a quarter century ago we might have prevented it. If America acts in concert with us now, we might yet control it.

A hole in the ozone layer, severe weather patterns, increasing desertification. Problems affecting our capacity to grow crops to sustain life.

That's why tackling Climate Change has been at the heart of the EU agenda since Kyoto. Led by our institutions: Council, Commission and Parliament.

We've not only cut emissions from cars and other greenhouse gases.

European Emissions Trading came into force this year.

And from 2008, aviation will be included. To offset a forecast 83% rise in aircraft emissions by 2020.

Our Renewables Obligation has forced governments to invest in sustainable energy sources.

The EU's collective response to environmental challenges has been an undisputed success.

Some see "greening Europe" as more burdens for business.

But it can bring economic reward.

In green technologies, opportunities for the future abound.

Already, investment in cleaner energy has brought new jobs and new technology and driven down energy prices.

Think of 'Smart' energy meters, soon to be in every home, allowing consumers to save money and monitor the impact of their energy use.

Can we do more of the same? Look at the REACH proposals!

Registering, Evaluating and Authorising up to 30,000 chemicals.

Essential to protect human, animal and plant life..

But it will also boost the market for greener goods. A market which exists already. And will continue to grow - giving Europe's industry competitive edge.

Are we on the threshold of a Third Industrial Revolution, as predicted by Jeremy Rifkin? Able to resurrect the European Economy on the back of sustainable new technologies?

Perhaps, if our institutions prevail. But we'll not achieve it on a budget of 1% of GNI.

Doubling the budget for the 7th Framework Research Programme, offers huge opportunities .

Within ten years, for example, we could have a hydrogen economy.

That makes not only environmental sense.

It makes political and business sense too.

Remember 1973?

Looking around, maybe not.

Read about it?

Reliance on fossil fuels could hold Europe's governments to ransom and knock our economy for six. It is imperative to reduce our dependence on oil.

Hybrid cars have already been successfully trialled.

And if the home of the motor car, California, plans to cut emissions by 30% in ten years, why can't we?

Nor do the possibilities stop there.

Think of things we can do with pooled R & D money.

Things no country could do alone.

Fund research into bio-mimicry.

That's inventing processes which mimic life.

The Americans have found a butterfly in the desert.

Which strains water from the air through its wings.

They have copied its technique for the walls of tents.

Providing water for refugees.

We use enormous energy to heat kilns to fire porcelain.

But the abalone grows a shell both stronger and finer.

And it's made from?

Pure sea water.

Could we do that? We think we could.

But not if Europe cuts its research budget.

The Commission proposes a European Research Council. To encourage our scientists to come up with the unexpected.

Geared towards groundbreaking discoveries, taking a creative approach, exploring new directions.

It is in these new discoveries that sustainability and prosperity -our environmental and economic futures- will merge.

4. OPEN BORDERS AND SECURITY IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY

But to build a successful economy Europe must also confront political challenges.

Our borders now stretch as far as the Ukraine.

They may go further yet.

Bulgaria and Romania will take us to the Black Sea. Turkey would take us to the Middle East.

Robert Schuman said that a country's European vocation is determined by the European spirit of its people.

Perhaps the limits of enlargement lie not between the Atlantic and the Urals but wherever people share, and live by, European values.

That is a debate for the future.

In the meantime, abolishing internal borders is not only a boon to tourists and legitimate business people.

It makes life easier for criminals too.

Criminal gangs are sometimes more powerful than national governments.

Producing and selling drugs on the rich world's markets.

Trafficking people for the sex trade.

Trading in arms and sometimes in nuclear materials.

Counterfeiting luxury goods.

And increasingly linked to terrorism.

Experts say that up to 8% of the money passing through our financial systems is the proceeds of crime. Running into trillions of dollars.

Combating crime needs more multilateral cooperation than has ever existed before. And it needs effective institutions. Not bickering over who will lead Europol.

The tragedy of 9-11 gave some much needed impetus.

Actually, I've never seen the Commission move so fast.

Five days before that fateful day, Parliament adopted an own-initiative report on where Europe was failing in the fight against crime and terrorism.

It would have lain on a shelf for months. But, as its author, I'd put in it some practical proposals. Like the European Arrest Warrant - turned into law in less than four months and now Europe's chief asset in the fight against cross-border crime.

But a lack of powers for the European Parliament and absence of unanimity in Council have led to impasse on several matters of importance.

Like plans to share criminal intelligence information. Making it easier to track down and convict people threatening the security of our citizens.

Or plans for data retention and other forms of intelligence-led policing; powerful tools in combating crime.

For three years I had the honour to chair Parliament's committee on citizens' rights and freedoms, justice and home affairs. I saw what member states mean when they talk of freedom, security and justice.

At the time I backed Minimum Procedural Guarantees in criminal proceedings, intended to avert potential human rights pitfalls.

Blocked by the Council in 2001, they remain unratified. With a Framework Directive sitting at the bottom of the Council's in tray as I speak.

The same fate befell a Framework Decision on Data Protection.

This counteract concerns over data privacy which lie at the heart of the debate on Data Retention legislation.

Parliament has fought the Council tooth and nail for the right of co-decision.

Too many rights are being eroded without proper parliamentary scrutiny.

Whereas legislation in the first pillar, with transparent policy-making and guaranteed rights, would enhance the moral standing of Europe's response to terror.

Just as harmonisation of foreign policy in security and defence -too often gridlocked by the third pillar need for unanimity- is essential to preserving Europe's security.

Of course, there is a trade-off between liberty and security.

But we risk making Europeans both less free and less safe.

Pressures for deportation of third-country nationals to places where they may face torture or worse...

or the threat of arrest for "speech crimes" like glorifying terrorism...

...are more likely to fuel than to douse the fires of fanaticism.

A civil society must treat everyone - even suspected terrorists - according to the Rule of Law.

Everyone has the right to a fair trial.

And to non-violent questioning by the police.

Even suspected terrorists have the right to legal counsel and to representation in a court of law.

And, if convicted, to be imprisoned in a European jail.

Failure to uphold these rights 'cheapens our right to call ourselves a civilised society'.

Who said that?

The British barrister Cherie Blair.

Failure to uphold these rights destroys the essential value of what it means to be a European.

And then the terrorists will have beaten us.

5. BOOM OR BUST? THE FUTURE DIRECTION OF EUROPE'S ECONOMY

The final challenge confronting Europeans is the state of our economy.

To compete we must reform expensive social models. And build a dynamic marketplace for goods, services, capital and labour.

But member states are shirking economic reform. As Jean-Claude Juncker said in March, "We all know what we have to do. We just don't know how to win elections afterwards".

Europe's growth rates are less than half those of America or Japan. We are losing ground every year. And losing our best brains to their companies.

Can we double our rate of growth?

Yes, and Frits Bolkestein told us how.

The trouble is how he did it. In typical Bolkestein style. If you're going to explode a firework the instructions say "Light the blue touch paper and retire". And that's exactly what Frits did.

If we could create a single market in services to rival our single market in goods, we could double growth rates easily.

All that is missing is the political will.

I hope Parliament's shows the way forward this afternoon with agreement in committee on the Bolkestein directive.

It is not by turning inwards that we will overcome our sluggish economic growth and compete with emerging economic giants like China or India.

Certainly there will be hard decisions to take on whether we can maintain our competitiveness in some sectors.

But the world is on the move and so must we.

Jobs may have to go in one sector to be created afresh in another.

Look at this summer's so-called "bra-wars" with China.

How can we exhort China to open up its economy to our businesses when we re-impose quotas on Chinese exports?

After years of quotas there was bound to be a surge in in-bound trade when they were lifted.

Just as with footwear.

Southern European shoemakers have had the Commission open an investigation. Into alleged dumping from China and Vietnam.

Why?

They're being priced out of the market.

By whom?

By the northern European shoemakers who've re-located production.

All EU countries knew quotas would be lifted. Some manufacturers planned ahead. They've brought cheaper shoes to shoppers. Others are now crying foul. The Commission would be fools to heed them.

Agriculture - Europe's bastion of protectionism- is starting to show the way forward.

Until recently producing more quantity than quality - with more concern for EU cash back than for the demands of the market place.

Now much improved, as the 2003 reforms which replaced price support mechanisms with direct farm payments have changed the equation.

Now farmers can direct their efforts towards high-quality products and environmentally sound production methods.

Which is just as well since Europe's agriculture is under the spotlight in the Doha Development Round of World Trade negotiations.

The Lisbon Agenda offers the chance for Europe's economy to pull itself up by its bootstraps through a virtuous circle of action at EU and national levels.

But let me end here with a warning.

Strategies are all very well.

But Member States have demonstrably failed to live up to their fine declarations and commitments made under the Portuguese Presidency in the spring of 2000.

Its headline goal of creating the world's most dynamic and knowledge-led economy by 2010 has become a standing joke.

If Europe is to succeed, Member States must do much, much better.

Don't just take it from me.

Concluding the High Level Group's Report on the Lisbon Strategy in November last year, Wim Kok wrote:

"much of the Lisbon Strategy depends on the progress made in national capitals: no European procedure or method can change this simple truth.

Governments and especially their leaders must not duck their crucial responsibilities.

Nothing less than the future prosperity of the European model is at stake"

I couldn't have put it better myself.

CONCLUSION

Six hundred years ago the Chinese explored and mapped our world. Followed by Arabs, Ottomans, Europeans.

We are living in the early age of globalisation.

A new age demanding new approaches to offering citizens the security, prosperity and opportunity they expect.

We cannot turn back the clock to the era of Nation States -

• flexing their muscles around the globe with scant regard for their neighbours.

In many respects that approach - and the mistakes - are repeated by the United States today.

Arrogant unilateralism backed up by military force that risks winning more enemies than friends.

Are States condemned to repeat history?

Have we Europeans finally learnt our lessons?

There are signs that we see the significance of soft power. we need yet to harness it. And the imperative of unity.

Hitherto, the drive for European Union has come from within.

Now it comes from beyond our borders.

Today's challenges cannot be addressed by Member States alone.

Europe, more than ever, must act in concert.

President Barroso cannot co-ordinate disparate and ill-disciplined Member States.

Yesterday he completed a year in office dogged by indecision and undue deference to Council.

After underestimating Parliament's readiness to veto a Commissioner ill qualified for his job.

It is to Parliament that Europeans must look.

A Parliament resurgent and out-spoken.

Holding the Executive to account like never before.

Taking legal action against Council for by-passing procedures and ignoring parliamentary prerogative.

And winning, as today's decision in the European Court of Justice has shown.

Parliament has its own views on major and complex pieces of legislation ..

.. and are not afraid to throw them out if they are unworkable. Like software patents or regulating exposure to sunlight.

We have our own proposals for the future of the Constitution.

In short, Parliament has come of age.

Ideology has surpassed nationality as the main determinant of voting behaviour.

Politicians look to Strasbourg for a career, not as a step on the ladder towards national office or a comfortable rest home thereafter.

Debates with Council are no longer about schedules and procedure but about strategy and politics as the 22nd and 23rd of June clearly showed.

And Parliament's Party leaders orchestrate their political families, co-ordinating networks from the centre of attention.

That's why I convene six prime ministers before each summit.

And why Poettering of the EPP proposed Barroso as President of the Commission.

It's why Martin Schulz is better known than before his debate with Mr Berlusconi. Only the previous day a headline in the Frankfurter Rundschau had read; "WerKennt Martin Schulz"?

The following day, everyone knew his name. And they continue to hear it.

Parliament does not yet possess a right of initiative or to propose the President of the Commission.

The difference now is that neither is unthinkable.

The Union is not leaderless.

But critics must learn to look for leadership in an unfamiliar place.

I contend the European Union is still going strong. And that we can look forward with Victor Hugo "to the day when the only battlefields will be those of markets open for business and the human spirit open for ideas".