Summary: June 8, 2005: MEPs debate the EU after referendums, Council and Commission statements - Preparations for the European Council, including the future of the Union after the referenda on the European Constitution (Brussels, 16-17 June 2005) (Strasbourg)
Speaking for the Council, Luxembourg's Deputy Foreign Minister Nicolas SCHMIT told MEPs that people in France and the Netherlands had voted 'no' for several, perhaps contradictory reasons, but there should be full respect for the democratic choice of the majority of French and Dutch voters. He recalled the European Parliament's clear vote in favour of the treaty and the fact that it had been ratified by ten countries, including one by referendum. There was now a new situation which
needed tackling, to address the concern and disappointment expressed by the citizens voting 'no'.
The European Union had helped build peace and prosperity for decades, he said. Many of those voting 'no' were keen on the European idea, but wanted Europe to act in a different way. The European Council should listen to this democratic debate, he said, though there was no easy way out of the situation. The Member States needed jointly to analyse the whole position.
"It is clear," he said, "that the EU must not slip into constant uncertainty and paralysis. Despite the shortcomings of the Nice Treaty, we can continue to work and to take into account the social and security concerns of our citizens. But we need to broaden the scope of the exercise, not just looking at procedural issues. The only way to achieve results is to build a real European democracy."
He warned that failure to agree on the financial perspective would lead to a dangerous situation. While it was not possible to meet all expectations, there was a chance to agree a budget framework to enable action for competitiveness, cohesion, security and external action. This would give a new political thrust to the European project which was now essential. It would be a signal of encouragement. "The presidency will by doing its utmost to reach an acceptable compromise," he said.
Mr Schmit also mentioned the other items on the agenda of the summit: EU leaders were aiming to adopt the integrated economic and employment guidelines to take forward the Lisbon Strategy. They were also due to make a joint statement on sustainable development, allowing a new strategy to be drawn up by the end of the year. It was essential for Member States to adopt the measures agreed under the programme for an area of freedom, security and justice, with an overall assessment of measures taken
against terrorism. The summit would consider reform of the UN, as well as other external affairs matters, such as the EU/US conference on Iraq. He concluded: "Europe must show it has kept the ability to act and decide. Your debate should point us in that direction."
Commission President José Manuel BARROSO began by stressing the need for EU leaders to deal with development aid to help meet the millennium goals. "Our internal problems cannot make us forget our external responsibilities. Europe must be in the vanguard of the fight against poverty in the world. 25 000 people die each day of hunger or thirst - this is unacceptable, it is a fundamental challenge for our continent."
On the financial perspective, he repeated his call for the Council to follow this line set out in Parliament's report on the subject and for the Commission and Parliament to maintain a close alliance in negotiations ahead.
The results of the referendums were a source of concern, he said, but it was possible to overcome difficult times, as European leaders had done fifty years earlier after the rejection of the European Defence Community project. "A democratic vote after a lively debate is a good thing. We must respect the expression of the people's will ... even if some of the debate was contaminated by other subjects, it clearly reflects a dissatisfaction with the Union and with European construction. European
and national leaders must do better in explaining to people what is really at stake and which are the problems to which only Europe can offer a solution. They must also listen to the citizens and reconnect with them."
The urgent question was how to reach a political consensus among the 25 governments. They would need to decide whether to continue or abandon the project. Two extreme positions should be avoided, he said: "It would be wrong to pretend nothing has happened and continue as usual. This would be an autistic, unimaginably arrogant attitude. We must respect the views of the voters of the two countries. But it would also be wrong to abandon the whole thing immediately, ignoring the views of the ten
countries which have already ratified the treaty. There is not bureaucratic or technocratic solution - we must start building the conditions for a new political consensus."
There really was no plan 'B', he said, but: "There could be a plan 'D' for democracy and dialogue. We need to listen to people and go through an exercise of debate, listen to civil society, study, diagnose and find a way forward through consensus."
It would be wrong to enter a "blame-game" he said. While the EU institutions were not perfect - and could and would be improved - leaders should beware of blaming 'Brussels' for all unpopular choices: "If you attack Europe six days a week from Monday to Saturday, how can you ask citizens to vote for it on Sunday?" he asked. Another mistake would be to concentrate on ideological differences: "The monotheism of the market or of the state will not solve Europe's problems. An intelligent synthesis
of the two is needed to help Europe win the battle of globalisation."
Finally, he called for a new gathering around European values and culture, and support for a new dynamic and constructive consensus. Europe, he said, was the part of the solution, not the problem.
| Top |
European Union Member States
Alerts by email
Email this page
Print this page