(June 23,2005)
Mr. President, collegues,distinguished guests:
It is an honour to be here in the European Parliament
today. With your permission, I will come back after each European Council during
the UK Presidency and report to you. In addition, I would be happy to consult
the Parliament before each Council, so as to have the benefit of the views of
the European Parliament before Council deliberations.
This is a timely address. Whatever else people disagree upon in Europe today,
they at least agree on one point: Europe is in the midst of a profound debate
about its future. I want to talk to you plainly today about this debate, the
reasons for it and how to resolve it. In every crisis there is an opportunity.
There is one here for Europe now, if we have the courage to take it.
The debate over Europe should not be conducted by trading insults or in terms
of personality. It should be an open and frank exchange of ideas. And right at
the outset I want to describe clearly how I define the debate and the
disagreement underlying it.
The issue is not between a "free market" Europe and a social Europe, between
those who want to retreat to a common market and those who believe in Europe as
a political project.
This is not just a misrepresentation. It is to intimidate those who want
change in Europe by representing the desire for change as betrayal of the
European ideal, to try to shut off serious debate about Europe's future by
claiming that the very insistence on debate is to embrace the anti-Europe.
It is a mindset I have fought against all my political life. Ideals survive
through change. They die through inertia in the face of challenge.
I am a passionate pro-European. I always have been. My first vote was in 1975
in the British referendum on membership and I voted yes. In 1983, when I was the
last candidate in the UK to be selected shortly before that election and when my
party had a policy of withdrawing from Europe, I told the selection conference
that I disagreed with the policy. Some thought I had lost the selection. Some
perhaps wish I had. I then helped change our policy in the 1980's and was proud
of that change.
Since being Prime Minister I signed the Social Chapter, helped, along with
France, to create the modern European Defence Policy, have played my part in the
Amsterdam, the Nice, then the Rome Treaties.
This is a union of values, of solidarity between nations and people, of not
just a common market in which we trade but a common political space in which we
live as citizens.
It always will be.
I believe in Europe as a political project. I believe in Europe with a strong
and caring social dimension. I would never accept a Europe that was simply an
economic market.
To say that is the issue is to escape the real debate and hide in the comfort
zone of the things we have always said to each other in times of difficulty.
There is not some division between the Europe necessary to succeed
economically and social Europe. Political Europe and economic Europe do not live
in separate rooms.
The purpose of social Europe and economic Europe should be to sustain each
other.
The purpose of political Europe should be to promote the democratic and
effective institutions to develop policy in these two spheres and across the
board where we want and need to cooperate in our mutual interest.
But the purpose of political leadership is to get the policies right for
today's world.
For 50 years Europe's leaders have done that. We talk of crisis. Let us first
talk of achievement. When the war ended, Europe was in ruins. Today the EU
stands as a monument to political achievement. Almost 50 years of peace, 50
years of prosperity, 50 years of progress. Think of it and be grateful.
The broad sweep of history is on the side of the EU. Countries round the
world are coming together because in collective cooperation they increase
individual strength. Until the second half of the 20th Century, for centuries
European nations individually had dominated the world, colonised large parts of
it, fought wars against each other for world supremacy.
Out of the carnage of the Second World War, political leaders had the vision
to realise those days were gone. Today's world does not diminish that vision. It
demonstrates its prescience. The USA is the world's only super power. But China
and India in a few decades will be the world's largest economies, each of them
with populations three times that of the whole of the EU. The idea of Europe,
united and working together, is essential for our nations to be strong enough to
keep our place in this world.
Now, almost 50 years on, we have to renew. There is no shame in that. All
institutions must do it. And we can. But only if we remarry the European ideals
we believe in with the modern world we live in.
If Europe defaulted to Euro scepticism, or if European nations faced with
this immense challenge, decide to huddle together, hoping we can avoid
globalisation, shrink away from confronting the changes around us, take refuge
in the present policies of Europe as if by constantly repeating them, we would
by the very act of repetition make them more relevant, then we risk failure.
Failure on a grand, strategic, scale. This is not a time to accuse those who
want Europe to change of betraying Europe. It is a time to recognise that only
by change will Europe recover its strength, its relevance, its idealism and
therefore its support amongst the people.
And as ever the people are ahead of the politicians. We always think as a
political class that people, unconcerned with the daily obsession of politics,
may not understand it, may not see its subtleties and its complexities. But,
ultimately, people always see politics more clearly than us. Precisely because
they are not daily obsessed with it.
The issue is not about the idea of the European Union. It is about
modernisation. It is about policy. It is not a debate about how to abandon
Europe but how to make it do what it was set up to do: improve the lives of
people. And right now, they aren't convinced. Consider this.
For four years Europe conducted a debate over our new Constitution, two years
of it in the Convention. It was a detailed and careful piece of work setting out
the new rules to govern a Europe of 25 and in time 27, 28 and more member
states. It was endorsed by all Governments. It was supported by all leaders. It
was then comprehensively rejected in referendums in two founding Member States,
in the case of the Netherlands by over 60 per cent. The reality is that in most
Member States it would be hard today to secure a 'yes' for it in a referendum.
There are two possible explanations. One is that people studied the
Constitution and disagreed with its precise articles. I doubt that was the basis
of the majority 'no'. This was not an issue of bad drafting or specific textual
disagreement.
The other explanation is that the Constitution became merely the vehicle for
the people to register a wider and deeper discontent with the state of affairs
in Europe. I believe this to be the correct analysis.
If so, it is not a crisis of political institutions, it is a crisis of
political leadership. People in Europe are posing hard questions to us. They
worry about globalisation, job security, about pensions and living standards.
They see not just their economy but their society changing around them.
Traditional communities are broken up, ethnic patterns change, family life is
under strain as families struggle to balance work and home.
We are living through an era of profound upheaval and change. Look at our
children and the technology they use and the jobs market they face. The world is
unrecognisable from that we experienced as students 20, 30 years ago. When such
change occurs, moderate people must give leadership. If they don't, the extremes
gain traction on the political process. It happens within a nation. It is
happening in Europe now.
Just reflect. The Laeken Declaration which launched the Constitution was
designed "to bring Europe closer to the people". Did it? The Lisbon agenda was
launched in the year 2000 with the ambition of making Europe "the most
competitive place to do business in the world by 2010". We are half way through
that period. Has it succeeded?
I have sat through Council Conclusions after Council Conclusions describing
how we are "reconnecting Europe to the people". Are we?
It is time to give ourselves a reality check. To receive the wake-up call.
The people are blowing the trumpets round the city walls. Are we listening? Have
we the political will to go out and meet them so that they regard our leadership
as part of the solution not the problem?
That is the context in which the Budget debate should be set. People say: we
need the Budget to restore Europe's credibility. Of course we do. But it should
be the right Budget. It shouldn't be abstracted from the debate about Europe's
crisis. It should be part of the answer to it.
I want to say a word about last Friday's Summit. There have been suggestions
that I was not willing to compromise on the UK rebate; that I only raised CAP
reform at the last minute; that I expected to renegotiate the CAP on Friday
night. In fact I am the only British leader that has ever said I would put the
rebate on the table. I never said we should end the CAP now or renegotiate it
overnight. Such a position would be absurd. Any change must take account of the
legitimate needs of farming communities and happen over time. I have said simply
two things: that we cannot agree a new financial perspective that does not at
least set out a process that leads to a more rational Budget; and that this must
allow such a Budget to shape the second half of that perspective up to 2013.
Otherwise it will be 2014 before any fundamental change is agreed, let alone
implemented. Again, in the meantime, of course Britain will pay its fair share
of enlargement. I might point out that on any basis we would remain the second
highest net contributor to the EU, having in this perspective paid billions more
than similar sized countries.
So, that is the context. What would a different policy agenda for Europe look
like?
First, it would modernise our social model. Again some have suggested I want
to abandon Europe's social model. But tell me: what type of social model is it
that has 20m unemployed in Europe, productivity rates falling behind those of
the USA; that is allowing more science graduates to be produced by India than by
Europe; and that, on any relative index of a modern economy - skills, R&D,
patents, IT, is going down not up. India will expand its biotechnology sector
fivefold in the next five years. China has trebled its spending on R&D in
the last five.
Of the top 20 universities in the world today, only two are now in Europe.
The purpose of our social model should be to enhance our ability to compete,
to help our people cope with globalisation, to let them embrace its
opportunities and avoid its dangers. Of course we need a social Europe. But it
must be a social Europe that works.
And we've been told how to do it. The Kok report in 2004 shows the way.
Investment in knowledge, in skills, in active labour market policies, in science
parks and innovation, in higher education, in urban regeneration, in help for
small businesses. This is modern social policy, not regulation and job
protection that may save some jobs for a time at the expense of many jobs in the
future.
And since this is a day for demolishing caricatures, let me demolish one
other: the idea that Britain is in the grip of some extreme Anglo-Saxon market
philosophy that tramples on the poor and disadvantaged. The present British
Government has introduced the new deal for the unemployed, the largest jobs
programme in Europe that has seen long-term youth unemployment virtually
abolished. It has increased investment in our public services more than any
other European country in the past five years. We needed to, it is true, but we
did it. We have introduced Britain's first minimum wage. We have regenerated our
cities. We have lifted almost one million children out of poverty and two
million pensioners out of acute hardship and are embarked on the most radical
expansion of childcare, maternity and paternity rights in our country's history.
It is just that we have done it on the basis of and not at the expense of a
strong economy.
Secondly, let the Budget reflect these realities. Again the Sapir report
shows the way. Published by the European Commission in 2003, it sets out in
clear detail what a modern European Budget would look like. Put it into
practice. But a modern Budget for Europe is not one that 10 years from now is
still spending 40 per cent of its money on the CAP.
Thirdly, implement the Lisbon Agenda. On jobs, labour market participation,
school leavers, lifelong learning, we are making progress that nowhere near
matches the precise targets we set out at Lisbon. That Agenda told us what to
do. Let us do it.
Fourth, and here I tread carefully, get a macroeconomic framework for Europe
that is disciplined but also flexible. It is not for me to comment on the
Eurozone. I just say this: if we agreed real progress on economic reform, if we
demonstrated real seriousness on structural change, then people would perceive
reform of macro policy as sensible and rational, not a product of fiscal laxity
but of commonsense. And we need such reform urgently if Europe is to grow.
After the economic and social challenges, then let us confront another set of
linked issues - crime, security and immigration.
Crime is now crossing borders more easily than ever before. Organised crime
costs the UK at least £20bn annually.
Migration has doubled in the past 20 years. Much of the migration is healthy
and welcome. But it must he managed. Illegal immigration is an issue for all our
nations, and a human tragedy for many thousands of people. It is estimated that
70 per cent of illegal immigrants have their passage facilitated by organised
crime groups. Then there is the repugnant practice of human trafficking whereby
organised gangs move people from one region to another with the intention of
exploiting them when they arrive. Between 600,000 and 800,000 people are
trafficked globally each year. Every year over 100,000 women are victims of
trafficking in the European Union.
Again, a relevant JHA agenda would focus on these issues: implementing the EU
action plan on counter-terrorism which has huge potential to improve law
enforcement as well as addressing the radicalisation and recruitment of
terrorists; cross-border intelligence and policing on organised crime;
developing proposals to hit the people and drug traffickers hard, in opening up
their bank accounts, harassing their activities, arresting their leading members
and bring them to justice; getting returns agreements for failed asylum seekers
and illegal immigrants from neighbouring countries and others; developing
biometric technology to make Europe's borders secure.
Then there is the whole area of CFSP. We should be agreeing practical
measures to enhance European defence capability, be prepared to take on more
missions of peacekeeping and enforcement, develop the capability, with NATO or
where NATO does not want to be engaged outside it, to be able to intervene
quickly and effectively in support of conflict resolution. Look at the numbers
in European armies today and our expenditure. Do they really answer the
strategic needs of today?
Such a defence policy is a necessary part of an effective foreign policy. But
even without it, we should be seeing how we can make Europe's influence count.
When the European Union agreed recently a doubling of aid to Africa, it was an
immediate boost not just for that troubled continent, but for European
cooperation. We are world leaders in development and proud of it. We should be
leading the the way on promoting a new multi-lateral trade agreement which will
increase trade for all, especially the poorest nations. We are leading the
debate on climate change and developing pan-European policies to tackle it.
Thanks to Xavier Solana, Europe has started to make its presence felt in the
MEPP. But my point is very simple. A strong Europe would be an active player in
foreign policy, a good partner of course to the US but also capable of
demonstrating its own capacity to shape and move the world forward.
Such a Europe - its economy in the process of being modernised, its security
enhanced by clear action within our borders and beyond - would be a confident
Europe. It would be a Europe confident enough to see enlargement not as a
threat, as if membership were a zero sum game in which old members lose as new
members gain, but an extraordinary, historic opportunity to build a greater and
more powerful union. Because be under no illusion: if we stop enlargement or
shut out its natural consequences, it wouldn't, in the end, save one job, keep
one firm in business, prevent one delocalisation. For a time it might but not
for long. And in the meantime Europe will become more narrow, more introspective
and those who garner support will be those no in the traditions of European
idealism but in those of outdated nationalism and xenophobia. But I tell you in
all frankness: it is a contradiction to be in favour of liberalising Europe's
membership but against opening up its economy.
If we set out that clear direction; if we then combined it with the
Commission - as this one under Jose Manuel Barroso's leadership is fully capable
of doing - that is prepared to send back some of the unnecessary regulation,
peel back some of the bureaucracy and become a champion of a global,
outward-looking, competitive Europe, then it will not be hard to capture the
imagination and support of the people of Europe.
In our Presidency, we will try to take forward the Budget deal; to resolve
some of the hard dossiers, like the Services Directive and Working Time
Directive; to carry out the Union's obligations to those like Turkey and Croatia
that wait in hope of a future as part of Europe; and to conduct this debate
about the future of Europe in an open, inclusive way, giving our own views
strongly but fully respectful of the views of others.
Only one thing I ask: don't let us kid ourselves that this debate is
unnecessary; that if only we assume 'business as usual', people will sooner or
later relent and acquiesce in Europe as it is, not as they want it to be. In my
time as Prime Minister, I have found that the hard part is not taking the
decision, it is spotting when it has to be taken. It is understanding the
difference between the challenges that have to be managed and those that have to
be confronted and overcome. This is such a moment of decision for Europe.
The people of Europe are speaking to us. They are posing the questions. They
are wanting our leadership. It is time we gave it to them.