Remarks by Mr. John Bruton
Appointed Ambassador of the European Commission to the United States
On the Occasion of
The European Institute’s 15th Anniversary Gala Dinner
Tuesday, December 7, 2004
Jacqueline, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, it is a distinct honor
to join you in celebrating the Fifteenth Anniversary of the
European
Institute. It is not necessary for me to have been in this town for long
to know already that Jacqueline and the Institute she created have made
extraordinary contributions to transatlantic understanding.
To be clear, I have not quite yet officially begun my tenure as
Head of the European Commission
Delegation. I met with Secretary Powell last Friday and will
formally present my credentials to President Bush in two days.
I speak to you tonight more in my capacity as a member of the
European Convention which drafted the
Constitutional
Treaty approved by the
European Council.
Yet, following the remarks of Ambassador van Eenennaam, and in the
collective attendance of the distinguished Ambassadors from the other EU
Member states, I feel that I am attending my first Heads of Mission
meeting.
This leads me to a comparison that may require some explanation – I see
distinct similarities between the role that Jacqueline has played in
Washington and which President Giscard d’Estaing played in the
Convention.
Giscard’s sheer presence and natural authority commanded consensus in a
Convention that, with such a diversity of institutions and societal
interests represented, was on its face extremely unlikely to reach
complete agreement on a final draft Treaty. The successful conclusion is
a tribute to his political skill and tremendous energy. He played an
indispensable role.
Now, no one would confuse Jacqueline with Giscard. If I may say so she
is a lovely and charming woman. But through her political skill, keen
insight and tenacity she has similarly commanded the respect of the
diverse transatlantic policy community in Washington.
Time and again she has brought the European diplomatic corps,
Administration officials, Congressional representatives and members of
the business community to the table to discuss the shared objectives and
policies that define the transatlantic relationship.
Jacqueline may not always command a consensus. I am told this can be a
formidable task in Washington, even when compared to the European
Convention. But she has commanded the respect and active participation
of movers and shakers in establishing a unique forum for constructive
dialogue.
We are deeply in her debt. I wish Jacqueline and her colleagues at the
European Institute many more years of good health in occupying a special
place in the transatlantic relationship.
The Constitutional Treaty
As I said, as a newcomer to Washington, I want to focus tonight on an
important development in Europe with which I have been closely
associated, namely our new Constitutional Treaty.
In 2002-3 I was privileged to be a member of the Presidium of a yet
entirely new creature of the European construction, the European
Convention, which drew up this new draft Constitutional Treaty.
The Constitutional Treaty, if adopted, will have a number of benefits
for the people of Europe and I believe for the United States too:
simplification, efficiency, a Human Rights Charter, new and stronger
role of national parliaments are some of the novelties.
A more efficient global partner
Through the consolidation of all
treaties in one text, the European
Union will become a little easier to understand at home and abroad.
Our ways of making decisions will become clearer and more efficient:
distribution of competences is clearly spelled out and the legal
personality of the EU is established for the first time, eliminating the
previous confusion between the communities, the 3 pillar structure and
the Union.
Improvements to our foreign policy-making and overseas representation
will help the European Union become a more effective
partner of the
United States in tackling the many regional and global issues we face
together.
Please allow me to give you some concrete examples:
The Constitutional Treaty will allow Europe, when it has agreed on what
it wants to say, to do so through the voice of a single Foreign Minister
– rather than through two different institutions, as at present. Mr.
Kissinger’s request for a single phone number –
1-800-JAVIER – will be
answered so completely that it will hopefully never again be mentioned
in a dinner speech.
A European Armaments Agency, proposed in the draft Constitution, will
enable us to achieve cost effectiveness and economies of scale in
defending ourselves. This will ultimately help Europe to assume its
responsibilities in the world scene.
Systematic intelligence sharing is also vital in the battle against
crime. Ad hoc cooperation, after a crime has been committed, is not as
effective as prevention of crime by prearranged routine pooling of data.
Apparently trivial data may prove ultimately to be the most useful.
Cross-border crime must have no safe havens anywhere in the European
Union.
The present system, whereby the EU can only move forward on cross-border criminal issues on the basis of unanimity, is not viable. In the
draft Constitution there is a tightly defined proposal for majority
voting on a limited range of cross border crimes – notably
terrorism,
drug trafficking and people trafficking – crimes which are often carried
out as joint enterprises by highly sophisticated crime multinationals,
of which Al Q'aeda is just one example.
All of these developments will enhance the EU’s ability to act as a more
effective global partner and face the challenges of the 21st century.
Closing the Democratic Deficit
We also worked hard in the Convention to find ways to bring the EU
closer to its citizens and to close what is known as the democratic
deficit. I believe the new Constitution improves democracy in several
ways.
It will strengthen the position of national parliaments in regard to EU
legislation and will allow them to ensure that, in accordance with the
principle of
subsidiarity, the EU does not undertake to regulate, at EU level, things that can better be regulated at the level of the
Member State.
It provides that each national parliament will be asked to decide,
within six weeks of its publication, whether each draft EU law
breaches the principle of subsidiarity, the terms of which were set out
in the Treaty.
If a Parliament thinks a proposal does breach subsidiarity it could, if
this Treaty is accepted, present a "reasoned opinion" to that effect.
If one-third of national parliaments present such reasoned opinions, the
Commission will then have to review the proposal and possibly drop it.
This mechanism, especially the six-week time frame to concentrate minds,
will dramatically increase the influence of national parliaments on the
EU legislative process. Rather than being taken by surprise by the
implementation of EU "directives" long after they had been passed,
national parliaments and through them national public opinions will be
required to examine them in advance.
Furthermore, the EU
Council of Ministers will, if the new Constitution
is adopted, be required to meet in public when drafting legislation.
This is a major step forward for democracy at European level.
Another major step forward will be incorporation of the Charter of
Fundamental
Rights as an integral part of the Constitutional Treaty.
This will bring explicit human values into the heart of the EU's work.
It will guarantee that the EU will respect human rights in its own
work in all member states.
A further protection of human rights is to be found in the fact that the
draft Constitution provides that a country may be suspended from EU
membership if it fails to respect EU values, which are stated to be
"human dignity, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for
human rights." This new provision is an important bulwark for democracy
in Europe. Rogue states will be expelled from the EU.
The new Constitution will be much simpler, and easier to read, than
previous Treaties, which have been complex and confusing because each of
them referred back to another Treaty and one could not understand one
EU Treaty without access to all of them.
Now everything will be brought together in a single document. Simplicity
and accessibility of basic documents are important to the quality of
democratic discussion. The new document will allow the EU to conclude
international Treaties in its own right within its own field of
competence.
This Constitution is the latest in a series of European Treaties. Is it
really a constitution? Is it such a big deal? Most organizations have a
constitution in effect. I am sure the European Institute, for example,
has a constitution. In reality, a constitution could be defined as a set
of basic rules that have primacy in a case of dispute, over rules that
are made on a day-to-day basis.
By this definition the EU has always had a constitution, right back to
the Treaty of Rome because all EU treaties have, from the beginning,
rested on the assumption that, in its field of application, EU law
would have primacy over the law of any member state.
I do not think we could ever have created a European single market for
goods and services without this principle of primacy of EU law in its
field being built into the EU legal system, because we would otherwise
have had twenty-five different legal interpretations of the standards that goods
or services must meet in the single market. This latest Treaty will more
precisely define the field of application of EU law, thereby limiting
the area in which EU law will have primacy.
All that is really new is that this particular consolidating Treaty is
being given the formal title “Constitution.”
In that fundamental respect it differs from Philadelphia, which was a
truly new departure.
Let me say a few words about what the draft EU Constitution will not
do. This will help distinguish it from the Constitution drawn up in
Philadelphia in 1776.
Unlike the American Constitution, it will not create a Federation.
It will not create a Union that could be called a "Superstate," or even
a "State."
The Union will have no right to raise taxes autonomously.
It will not have the right to run a budget deficit.
It will have no right to raise a military force distinct from the
resources of its Member States.
It will only be able to act within competences that have been conferred
on it by Member States.
These competences could be withdrawn by any Member State at any time, by
that state withdrawing from the European Union.
Finally, the Union may spend, at maximum, only 1.27% of the combined GDP
of all Member States, and that limit may not be raised without the
unanimous agreement of all twenty-five states.
Contrast that meager 1.27% with the spending of member state Governments
who, on average, spend nearly 40% of EU GDP.
The European Commission has fewer employees than the District of
Columbia Government.
Far from being a "Superstate," the European Union, under this
Constitutional Treaty, will be a legally strong cooperative arrangement
between States, who have voluntarily decided to limit the exercise of
their own sovereignty in certain areas, so that they can achieve more
together than any of them could ever achieve separately.
This voluntary limiting of sovereignty was sensible when the first six
States of the European Community got together in
1956. It is even more
sensible today, when even the biggest nation states are too small to
cope alone with otherwise uncontrollable global forces in economics, the
environment, in crime and in disease.
Let me conclude by returning to broader themes.
We are trying to create a “demos” in Europe, a European democratic
space, with which all Europeans can identify, while further retaining
their individual national identity as well.
Recent events in the European Parliament, which brought about changes to
the new European Commission as originally presented by President Barosso,
demonstrate the beginning of such a European “demos.” This demos is in
an early stage of formation, peacefully and slowly.
Throughout history many of our nation states in Europe forged their
"demos" by means of wars, wars sometimes stretching out over decades or
even centuries. Go through the list of states of Europe or of the
Americas, and you will see that most of them emerged out of a war or a
civil war.
In the European Union, we are trying to do something completely
different. We are trying to create a "demos," without a war. Perhaps for
the first time in history. Certainly for the first time in history, on
this scale – a scale of 450 million people and dozens of different
nationalities.
Now that "demos" has been extending across Europe, consolidating peace
through areas that were not so many years ago at war and serving also
to help stabilize and modernize countries in our immediate neighborhood.
The prospect of EU
accession has, for example, been a great incentive
and catalyst for reform in the Balkans and in Turkey. Without the
potential prize of EU membership, would those countries be making the
same effort?
The truth is this.
We need local democracy. We need national democracy. But if we are to
manage the forces of globalization, we also now need supranational
democracy. The European Union is not perfect, but it is one of the best
attempts yet at supranational democracy, anywhere in the world.
