Toespraak Vanackere over de rol van België in de EU (en) - Hoofdinhoud

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is my great pleasure and indeed an honour to speak to you today.

I thank the Konrad Adenauer Foundation for inviting me and for assembling such a distinguished audience. As co-founder of the CDU and the first Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Konrad Adenauer united Christian-social, conservative and liberal traditions. His name is synonymous withthe democratic reconstruction of Germany, the firm alignment of foreign policy with the trans-Atlantic community of values, the vision of a unified Europe and an orientation towards the social market economy. That is why Konrad Adenauer’s name still resonates today, in Germany where - let us not forget - he was elected “greatest German” even 36 years after his death, but also elsewhere in Europe through his legacy that contributed to the foundations of the Europe that we live in today.

For Konrad Adenauer and, with him, the founding fathers of the European Union, reunifying and integrating Europe was a means to regain and consolidate peace. Building Europe was an end in itself. Unfortunately, the debate today is more about what Europe can deliver, less on what it should be like. Every day now, the European Union is challenged to prove its own relevance - and indeed its cost-effectiveness! For some the cost-factor even seems to have become an absolute issue that tends to disregard a proper benefit analysis. In short, it is clear that the visionary ideals about European integration that drove the founding fathers have been replaced by a prevailing utilitarian view on the European Union.

Reducing our vision of the European Union to a utilitarian exercise is certainly regrettable, but the reality of what is happening makes me believe that there is no reason for despair. As a matter of fact, this year 2010 showed quite clearly that further integration is very much on the agenda! Not anymore as an end in itself, but as a valuable answer to the concrete problems we are confronted with.

Let me give you an obvious example. Earlier this year we faced an unprecedented crisis within the euro zone that threatened the Union itself. Our answer was precisely our quick, determined and consensual decision to strengthen our common economic governance and coordination, to give more substance to the “Economic” pillar of the Economic and Monetary Union - in other words, our answer to the crisis was our decision to pursue further integration where it was not yet sufficiently in place.

I personally believe that this evolution illustrates the inherent and irreversible strength of the house we have built together over the past sixty years. The gentle irony, then, is that in these utilitarian times, “further integration” seems to be the answer to the challenges we are facing. And therefore, an irrevocable process has been shown to be at work. Let me end my introduction here.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

To explain my vision of the role Belgium can play in what I just called the irrevocable process of European integration, I must first say a few words on the new institutional context we have been operating in since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. A few of these essential institutional innovations have not only changed EU i policy making on a daily basis, but also the way in which a rotating Presidency now operates, and therefore the role Belgium can play.

The first essential novelty is the remarkable gain in power of the European Parliament. Some even say it has become the most powerful parliament in the world. (I wish we will see this reflected in the turn-out figures of the next elections for the European Parliament!) The co-decision procedure has now become the “ordinary” legislative procedure, with more than 90% of all EU legislation being adopted by the European Parliament as co-legislator with the Council. The Parliament also has its word to say on international agreements, as, for example, the United States very quickly realised when the Swift regulation was first rejected and was only approved after accommodating certain concerns from the Parliament. And of course, the Parliament approves the budget, which makes many Governments in Member States capitals extremely nervous, taking into account the austerity context we are all experiencing. In my view, the European Parliament may well become the new driving force of European integration. Belgium has always defended the extension of powers of the European Parliament in order to create a real democratic Union, and we are confident to find in it a responsible and powerful partner in safeguarding and advancing integration.

The second important innovation is the creation of the European Council as a fully-fledged institution. The European Council is to set the strategic political orientations and define the priorities. The six-monthly rotating presidency at the level of Heads of State or Government was replaced by a longer-serving President who has to ensure the continuity and keep strategic focus, which was - let’s admit it - a challenge under six-monthly presidencies. A lot has been said about the rise in power of the Heads of State or Government in running Europe “top-down”, through the European Council from which they provide strategic guidance. But is it true, as some claim, that this has weakened the Commission and thus the “community method”? Is it true that “intergovernmentalism” is on the rise?

Personally, I do not understand very well this sterile debate on the perceived rise of “intergovernmentalism” to the detriment of the “community method” in this context. Clearly, the Treaty did not reduce the Commission’s role at all. The Commission remains the guardian of the treaties and keeps the very powerful and discretionary right to initiate all legislation. In addition, the European Council has no legislative power at all! That power resides with the Council and the Parliament. On top of that, more and more legislative proposals are voted with qualified majority, and not with unanimity. This, in effect, amounts to the strengthening of the Commission’s role, because it means that it has become more difficult to reject a Commission proposal. Turning to the European Council, it is appropriate to point out that its semi-permanent President does not represent a Member State and can invest his time and energy exclusively in searching consensus between the twenty-seven and in the “common interest”. In this way, the President of the European Council plays a similar role as the Commission.

Let’s return now to my earlier example on the Task Force on economic governance led by Herman Van Rompuy i. Many saw in it the proof of more intergovernmentalism, but we have to face the reality that, as we speak, the downstream legislative follow-up is being carried out entirely within the confines of the ordinary legislative procedure, meaning that the Commission proposes, and Council and Parliament decide. Parts of the six legislative proposals on economic governance submitted by the Commission are absolutely far-reaching and unprecedented. Even if we admit that this “quantum leap”, as Herman Van Rompuy likes to call it, is to be attributed to the strategic orientations by the European Council, we still need to face the fact that the Council work will inevitably be counterbalanced by the European Parliament. In the post-Lisbon Union, all institutions and the Member States have to work together and play their role in order to be mutually reinforcing and be effective.

The third visible innovation of the Lisbon Treaty is the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Cathy Ashton i is now coordinating and implementing the external policy of the Union. In order to be able to do that properly, she combines the positions of Vice-President of the Commission and Representative of the Council. She now even chairs the Foreign Affairs Council. She will have considerable means at her disposal and strives for coherent deployment of the means provided by the Commission and by the Member States.

In less than two weeks from now, we will witness the start-up of the European External Action Service, exactly one year after the entry into force of the treaty. This genuinely European diplomatic service will be at Cathy Ashton’s service and will consist of diplomats seconded by Member States and of experts from the European institutions. Never before has the potential for synergy between national diplomacies and external action of the Union been so high! Here again, I emphasise the word synergy. Some have stated that the External Action Service is a challenge to the Commission; others have claimed the opposite, that it is the national diplomatic services that will lose. I do not share those points of view. The aim is not to create the 28th or 29th European diplomatic service, the aim is to establish a sui-generis structure that should breed a new common strategic culture, incorporate synergies between national and community assets, and in so doing deliver added value, to all its contributing components and to the Union as a whole.

To sum up, the Lisbon Treaty brought us more powerful Parliament, top-down strategic guidance from the European Council with a permanent President, a Foreign Policy that is agreed in the Foreign Affairs Council that is chaired by the High Representative, and a Commission whose powers were not at all reduced. Of course, in such an environment, many have raised the question what a six-monthly presidency can still do in this new institutional set-up. Ladies and Gentlemen, believe me, there is a lot to do! But let me concentrate here on two concrete tasks - or rather missions - that, in my view, a rotating Council Presidency must fulfill in post-Lisbon Europe.

The first mission for a rotating presidency is to consolidate the new institutions, and make sure that they work closely and smoothly together. In other words, make the Union function by means of stronger institutions and better coordination. This is easier said than done but we have no choice: nothing will be possible without a harmonious relationship between the “G5” or the “Big Five” of Europe : 1) the European Parliament, 2) the Commission, 3) the permanent President of the European Council, 4) the High Representative for Foreign Affairs, and 5) the rotating Presidency of the Council.

The second task for a rotating presidency is to concentrate on concrete results in policy-making. Citizens ask us to be less declamatory and more focused on results. Many citizens see Europe as the vector of a badly-turned globalisation. They expect Europe to build dams against the economic turndown, job losses, environmental degradation, climate change and many other perverse consequences of globalisation. But dams are not built with words only.

In Europe, the result of political decisions is translated into legislation. That is why the Belgian Presidency aims at progress in European legislation in a number of key areas. We are not happy with soft “conclusions” only; we go for hard legislation. Of course, working together with the Commission and with the Parliament is crucial in that endeavour, and - again - we have all to gain from smooth interinstitutional cooperation. No legislation without the European Parliament, certainly, but no legislation either without the Council. And no decision in the Council without an active and proactive Presidency.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

These two principles, 1) institutions working together and 2) a result-oriented focus leading to legislation, constitute the essence of our Council Presidency, and I dare say that these two principles will continue to be the key principles guiding the European commitment of Belgium even beyond our Presidency, for the years to come.

Of course, talking about being concrete and result-oriented inevitably raises the stakes in terms of delivery. I can assure you that the Union indeed has been able to take a considerable number of important decisions in the last few months, in spheres as diverse as economic and financial policy (think about groundbreaking legislation on financial supervision and regulation of financial services and the decisions to enable more coordinated fiscal surveillance and structural reforms), environment and climate change (the preparations of the Nagoya and Cancun conferences on biodiversity and climate change), tools for external relations (the adoption of all legislation necessary to establish the European external action service), or international trade (the signature and provisional implementation of a very ambitious free trade agreement with South Korea). Of course, these are just a few examples, but - let me emphasise this once again - they are results that were achieved thanks to the excellent cooperation we enjoyed with all institutions and Member States.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the “old” Konrad Adenauer famously and very wittily said that “all parts of the human body get tired eventually - except the tongue”. Let me heed that wise counsel, conclude here, and thank you very much indeed for your kind hospitality and generous attention.