Reden, Interviews

Rede von Staatssekretär Winkler "How is the Austrian Presidency addressing the EU’s Constitutional Agenda" (Englisch) bei der Wilton Park Konferenz am 6. Februar

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is a particular pleasure for me to visit to Wilton Park and participate in a brainstorming session in „one of the world's leading centres for the discussion of international issues“.

You asked me to talk on “How the Austrian Presidency is addressing the EU’s Constitutional Agenda”.

Let me put the question slightly differently: The main issue is not how the Austrian Presidency addresses the problem. The question is how the presidency can best filter the collective will of member states to proceed on this issue and help to steer a process that all member states are happy to go along with.

Let me begin by stating unequivocally: European integration has been a success story. It put an end to centuries of wars between European countries, it helped to rebuild Europe from the ashes of World War II, both economically and morally, it established the worlds biggest and best performing internal Market, it introduced a common currency for 12 countries and more than 300 million people, it managed to extend its zone of stability and prosperity to most of the European continent and brushed aside the scars left by the division of the Cold War, it is on its way to a Common Area of Freedom, Security and Justice and – it is developing a true Common Foreign and Security Policy.

In other words: Europe has become a factor in our lives. Or - as the Dutch writer Cees Notteboom put it in his book „How to become a European“: „Today nobody can break free from Europe without hurting himself. The structures built over the years – not least by the common labour of remembrance - cannot be unhinged so easily”.

However convincing this may sound, past achievements are not enough to inspire us for our way ahead and this is the problem we currently face. We need to achieve some success stories “of our time” and – as it were – do some stock-taking together and define a new consensus on where we want to go.

The Austrian Council presidency conceives its job not as “addressing the Constitutional Agenda” but rather as regrouping and trying to pave the way for a “new consensus”. So to start with, we have to identify the problems which give rise to people’s uneasiness and scepticism.

The debate about the Treaty on a Constitution as such was an interesting intellectual exercise, but ordinary people have other preoccupations than the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. I am of course aware that European issues do not look exactly the same on either side of the Channel but I would assume that the worries on peoples’ minds do not differ that much.

To put it in a nutshell: what matters most to citizens is to find concrete solutions for concrete problems they face in their everyday lives - in particular against the change of challenge due to globalization and global economic interdependencies.

Our citizens expect the EU to provide them with a kind of insurance policy against those changes for what one might call the “European way of life”. In my mind this is a wide concept which goes well beyond European preferences for certain pastimes or certain fashions: The European way of life stands for some of the most important achievements in 20th century European politics: peace and stability, the rule of law, human rights and the respect for minorities, solidarity, social inclusion, pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, equality of men an women, but also the goal of full employment, sustainable jobs, social security, healthcare, a healthy environment, education, security and last but not least a respect of our diversity.

It is not by chance that Austria has chosen as a logo for our presidency of the Council a design by a Dutch artist and architect Rem Kohlhaas which stands for “unity in diversity”.

It may sound ironic but it is still true: the European way of life was in fact outlined rather well by the draft European Constitution.

Recently there has been a lot of talk about allegedly different “social models” in different member states. I do not think it serves a useful purpose to distinguish between various models. In fact all these models have a lot in common. All of them have an unmistakable European tag and their essentials are common to all our countries.

I am saying this because the Austrian presidency agrees with what Prime Minister Blair said last week: the we have “demonstrate visibly the 21st century relevance of Europe“. We have to show that we are working to address people’s worries. Above all we have to convince them that Europe can make a difference, that the dark side of globalisation is not some kind of inescapable fate but that targeted joint efforts will allow Europeans to make the most of the opportunities provided by globalisation. After all: the economy is a bit like biology: the chances to assert oneself depend on the ability to adapt.

We have to start the debate on the future of Europe by regaining the confidence of our citizens. That is to say we have to bridge the “confidence gap” between Europe and its citizens before we can pass the next gear and think of the Constitutional process proper.

Together with our Finnish friends, who will take over the Council Presidency as from July, we have to deal with issues that might be grouped into the following priorities:

• Securing and creating jobs and enhancing growth,
• Securing and further developing the European Social Model,
• Winning the confidence of citizens in the European Project,
• Strengthening the EU’s role as strong and reliable partner in the world.

I trust that these priorities sound familiar to you. Basically they correspond to the agenda of the very successful Hampton Court summit organised by the British presidency last year and which we will now endeavour to carry forward.

The European Council in March 2006 will focus on the new partnership of growth and employment, that is to say: stepping up research and development – after all human capital is our most valuable raw material for the future - improving the economic environment - in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises, fighting youth unemployment, creating incentives for young people in order to give them a perspective.

You might say that all these tasks are better done at the level of Member States. True, this main responsibility lies on the national level. States have after all still the power to legislate in these matters. But there is also a role to play for the EU, It must ensure that the legal framework is inducive to a healthy economic environment and social climate, in particular for small and medium size enterprises. Which are the true “job Machines” in our economies? One of the aims of the European Council in March is to identify on the basis of national action plans the fields where States would engage themselves to make concrete progress along a concrete timetable. Those undertakings must be concrete if we want to convince people that this EU can indeed make a difference

At the same time we will have to show that Europe is better in dealing with challenges which concern all of us: energy security is just one example. The British Presidency of the EU has rightly made this issue one of its priorities. In the coming months we will work on that on the European level.

Other issues like Justice and Home Affairs including migration and Europe’s role in the world will equally figure high on our Presidency agenda. They all add up to what I would call the “context” of the Constitutional process rather than the text of the Constitution.

So our first priority is to produce concrete answers to concrete problems.

But having said this, we are of course conscious of the fact that we also need a broad discussion on what kind of Europe we are aiming for in the long run, where our common European journey should take us. What should the European project be? What makes up the European identity? What is the best way to find a balance between our unity and the diversity between our countries? Is Europe just a ticket to prosperity or is it more? Is Europe just the smallest common denominator or is it more than the sum of its components? Can it go on acting as a power-station for a much larger region and if so under which conditions? All these and more questions need to be addressed.

As you know the European Council of June 2005 initiated what it called a “reflection period” of one year to address questions like these. This means that by June 2006 the European Council expects to assess the results of this discussion and decide on how to proceed further.

The best way of steering any discussion is to ask the right questions. This is why the Austrian presidency has proved special opportunities to inspire debate during this reflection period. Let me mention just 2 of them:

You may have realized that we took the anniversary of Mozart’s 250th birthday 2 weeks ago as an opportunity to organize a major event to discuss the essence of the European project. This was – among other things - a way of stressing that our Europeanness needs to be seen as the product of a long term development.

Mozart’s 250the birthday was the occasion for holding a conference called “The Sound of Europe” in Salzburg, the birthplace of Mozart which brought together representatives from all walks of life – politics, business, academia, arts, the media, you name it. There was one thing in particular which struck me about this debate: this conference was different from our regular discussions about Europe, because it allowed us to explore a wider picture. The usual reporting on Europe reflects only part of the whole story: it concentrates on the small stones rather than seeing the mosaic which these stones have to fit into. Putting things into perspective can make a difference.

In April we shall organise an event which will focus on a different aspect, i.e. on exploring ways of legislating more closely to the citizens. In fact, this is just another side of the same coin, of the question what Europe should stand for. Europe should focus on matters where it can provide some added value. Europe needs to get rid of the image of over-regulating and interfering.

A single market needs a certain amount of common rules but there needs to be a constant check on just how much is necessary. We think this is an important debate: all opinion polls basically boil down to saying that citizens feel this debate has never been conducted properly. In this respect we also support the initiative by the European Commission on “Better Regulation”.

Other events will follow. The debate about the future of Europe has many different aspects and we need to highlight all of them in order to get the full picture.

As you can see we are trying to respond to the request of scrutinizing European activities more thoroughly. We are of course aware of the fact that the current problem is more than just the consequence of a communication or information deficit. However, we are doing our best to establish contacts with as many people as possible – by all sorts of means including the Media, the Internet, open debates in public places, etc.

Having said this we are equally conscious of the fact that governments, too, have some homework to do when it comes to defining what we want to do about the “Constitutional Agenda”.

In fact after the European Council last December under the British presidency managed to find a compromise on future financing, there was an almost immediate request – both by the media and by quite a lot of political quarters - for reverting to the debate about the future.

We felt it was our task to show our readiness and give an impulse to this kind of debate. We therefore started sounding out our partners in the different member states. This is an exercise that is still going on. Needless to say, we must have the full picture before we can make, specific proposals on how to proceed.

There is no such thing as an instant solution or a quick fix or a shortcut. We have to conduct an honest and open debate. It is obvious that opinions still diverge and that member States will not be ready in the next few months to take a clear-cut decision about what exactly should happen to the draft Constitutional Treaty. After all: citizens sounded a wake-up call precisely because they felt that they had been rushed too many times. So this time we have to proceed with care an patience.

The Austrian presidency considers it important to make sure that all member states are kept on board and not left behind. The common achievements of the last 50 years are a very valuable asset which we should not put at risk. It is a fallacy to think that things get easier if some countries try to move faster than others.

What we would like to achieve by the end of our presidency, is a clearer idea on how we should proceed and on a tentative roadmap setting out some issues the EU needs to concentrate on in the near future. However we want to create a framework for interaction, not a rigid schedule or time-table without creating false expectations.

Let me now come back to what you call the „Constitutional agenda“.

The Constitutional Treaty was conceived as a document to establish clearer and more democratic rules of the game which would allow the enlarged Union to use its enormous potential more effectively, more democratically and in a more modern way. People in France and the Netherlands did not think this way. Since than, we started to understand that good intentions are not always enough and that misunderstandings might have been created.

Be that as it may: one thing seems rather clear to me: 13 member states have ratified or are close to ratification, 2 of which by successful referenda. Two more could follow in the next months (B, EST). 2 referenda failed. The remaining member states are waiting to see what happens. Of course its is impossible to ignore the 2 negative referenda but at the same time, if we are serious about democracy, we must also take account of the successful ratifications.

The problems which the draft Constitutional Treaty tried to address will not vanish by themselves, as Prime Minister Blair confirmed last week when he said „I accept we will need to return to the issues around the European Constitution. A European Union of 25 cannot function properly with today's rules of governance. Having spent 6 months as EU President, I am a good witness to that.” Already after one month dealing with issues like searching agreement with the EP on the Financial Perspective, dealing with matters like VAT and other important questions, we know what PM Blair was taking about.

Let me add that the difficulties mentioned by the Prime Minister are likely to become even more visible as enlargement negotiations go on.

A word on enlargement which has often give rise to many misunderstandings and concerns in the past. I believe  the process of reintegration of those countries which for reasons that are well known were left out of being included in this integration process must continue. The European perspective of the countries of South Eastern Europe, must be confirmed and this will be one of the priorities of the Austrian Presidency. This does not mean that we propose to establish a concrete schedule for membership of those States but it means encouraging them to continue their paths of reforms and to bring them again closer to Europe and the European structures.

We are facing today difficult questions, important decisions lie ahead of us. Let us not forget however, that the European Union has quite a good record of solving problems eventually. In fact, quite often a crisis actually helped to clear people’s minds. We shall do what we can to make a first contribution to this.

Alois Mock, the Foreign Minister who negotiated Austria’s way into the European Union had a habit of saying “politicians have to lead but they must not disappear behind the horizon”. It helps to recall this once in a while.