André Brie, May 8, 2006, Spoken contribution to the Common Parliamentary Meeting of the European Parliament and of the national parliaments of the member states on the future of Europe

 

Without common content, no common policy

 

Very esteemed Mr. Co-Presidents, dear Colleagues, 

Our referee has asked us for openness on the topic “The Union in the World, the Borders of the European Union”. I am grateful to Professor Hänsch for his clear and really open words and agree with much of what he said. However, openness also means admitting to one’s own inner conflicts. One colleague from the German Federal Parliament has rightfully demanded to also take into account what happens when we refuse an application for entry. Of course, much is at stake. Even if it is only a matter of a brief postponement of the entry of Bulgaria and Rumania upon which we shall debate and decide shortly. The criteria are actually unambiguous: First of all, the EU is, according to its treaties, open for every European country that wants to become member. Second, the acquis communautaire must be taken over and implemented. Third, the Copenhagen criteria must be fulfilled. And nonetheless, we are in many cases after all also confronted with other criteria: on the one hand, the question, what might be unleashed in the case of refusal or even just a postponement in the respective country, in other countries, as for instance those of the Western Balkan, where it is as before a matter of the basic problem of peace and stability, and on the other hand also with the question, whether the European Union itself will also digest the enlargement. It is easy to say that the deepening of European integration and its enlargement are two sides of the same coin. There are certainly grave contradictions here that are not indifferent to someone like me who holds continued integration to be necessary and desirable. After all, there are very serious advocates of enlargement who in fact pursue the goal of disintegration of the EU. The danger that European integration ultimately will burn down to a free trade zone with an antisocial competition of the states against each other for the lowest taxes, wages and other costs is anyway not negligible. 

I consider continued accessions to the European Union to be correct if the concerned people desire it and if the democratic, human rights and other prerequisites are fulfilled. On the Western Balkan, this can make a decisive contribution to conflict resolution; for Turkey, for example, the EU perspective – at least for a while – has been a decisive moment for long overdue efforts at democratisation. Yet an enlargement that would threaten the capacity for deepened integration is from my perspective unacceptable. Yet this may not be an argument for refusal and discrimination of states willing and capable of entry. To that end, a European constitution is of decisive importance, all the more so because the existing treaties also do not allow any additional entries beyond Bulgaria and Rumania. By way of the contents and objectives of European integration, the question for the borders of EU as well would be answerable earlier and in a more organic way than by way of a geographical definition. The existing Constitutional Treaty, however, does not do sufficient justice to this claim. Certainly, we need the reform of the institutions and other things. From my point of view, we also need common European foreign policy institutions, financial means, and a European legal personality. 

Yet neither the increasing scepticism of women and men citizens face to European integration nor the regrettable incapacity of the EU to speak with one voice in decisive international questions (Iraq, Russia, China, Near East) have to do primarily with the lack of these common institutions, but rather with the absence of a common policy that would do justice to the expectations and existential interests of the people. They expect mainly jobs guaranteeing their existence, a secure health and old-age care system, a modern and social educational policy and an effective contribution of the EU to peace, security, and democracy in Europe and in the world. Such a common policy can only be achieved in a dialogue with the women and men citizens, in democratic and public discussion and by giving strong rights to the Parliament. The free market in Europe and the free competition for location by the member states one against the other will only achieve the contrary. It would in my opinion, therefore, be desirable to pick up again the former proposals by Jacques Delors on elements of a European economic government and on a European social union. And with regard to the common European foreign and security policy, we should debate mainly on the specific European “value added” of such a policy. This could, I am convinced – in all brevity –  only consist in a strong and cooperative international multilateralism, in a strict orientation taken from international law, mainly the UN Charta, and a policy on human rights and other matters without double standards, in our contribution to the strengthening of the UN as well as in cause-guided conflict prevention by strong, effective, civilian methods. In the question of institutions, up to and including a European foreign minister, most of us are in agreement.

 

Translated by Carla Krüger, May 16, 2006