OPR- Wednesday 5th April, 2006

Mr President,

President Barroso,

Honourable Members of the European Parliament,

It is a pleasure and an honour for me to address your institution.

As a representative of one of the countries that joined the European Union in 2004, I bring with me a recent experience of the meaning of enlargement both in terms of what a country goes through in preparing for EU membership but also in terms of what the first impact of EU accession means for a new Member State.

Natural home-coming

My country looks at EU membership as a natural home-coming to a European house in which we belong. We are proud to be part of the family of nations that is the European Union with its spiritual, cultural and humanistic heritage.

Our path to membership was not easy because we went through a long and tortuous debate until, three years ago, the Maltese people took a clear and sovereign decision in favour of membership through a referendum and subsequent general election.  Our lively debate allowed us to discuss the merits and pitfalls of accession in an open and frank way, carefully analysing the possible impact of membership not just in economic terms, but also in political and social terms.  In this sense, this was an exercise in communicating Europe to the people – an exercise that we would all do well to continue to pursue.

The success story of EU enlargement

The preparations for membership put a strain on the countries that joined at the last enlargement. It is true that there had never been an enlargement on such a scale. However, never before were candidate countries called upon to undertake such root-and-branch reforms as part of their preparations for membership.  I want to pay tribute to all the new members of the European Union for having successfully gone through such a difficult test. Equally, I also want to pay tribute to the European Union itself for its extraordinary catalyst effect in stimulating countries to embrace reform.

We often speak of the pessimism that has engulfed Europe following the two referenda held last year where the European Constitutional Treaty was rejected. On the other hand we fail to sufficiently acknowledge the resounding success of the European Union in absorbing enlargement in such a smooth manner.

Far from being Europe’s annus horribilis as some have claimed, 2005 was a major success for a Europe that proved capable of successfully meeting the challenge of its widest historical enlargement.  Today, we often overlook that enlargement actually took place less than two years ago.

This is not to say that life after membership has been easy. On the contrary, adjusting to the realities of membership is difficult for an economy as it is for society. It calls on decision-makers to take tough, often unpopular, decisions. Admittedly these decisions are necessary irrespective of whether a country joins the European Union or not.  EU membership merely makes them more compressed, more compelling, more inevitable.

What is certainly wrong is to blame Europe for unpopular reforms which, in reality, are decisions that every responsible government needs to take. It is wrong for governments to blame Europe for difficult decisions and then, later, to take credit for the fruit of these decisions.

Mr President,

I would like to share my thoughts with you on a number of other issues.

The EU Constitutional Treaty

Let me start with some reflections on the European Constitutional Treaty.

It has to be said that there have been some shortcomings in the way that the Constitutional project was proposed, even if these difficulties are more of form than of substance.

For instance, for new Member States the Constitutional project appeared to come too soon and too fast. Timing does matter. And indeed, for countries that had been painstakingly preparing for membership, the prospect of changing the treaty rules seemed to be an exercise in changing the rules of the game just when the finishing line of a marathon race was in sight.

Of course, I am aware that the Constitutional Treaty was supposed to facilitate decision-making in a Union of twenty-seven, but it is clear that citizens of some of the Member States saw it differently. The Union they grew up with had changed with the 1995 enlargement, it had changed even more with the 2004 enlargement and – with the background of globalisation – the Constitutional project appeared to be bringing with it a state of perpetual change.

In hindsight it may, therefore, have been wiser to give this important project more time, not just until the ten new states had settled in but also until all twenty-five members had time to adapt to the new realities of membership.

The question remains, however, as to how to we proceed from the current impasse.

Needless to say, the wishes expressed by the people in the two countries that rejected the Constitutional Treaty have to be respected. As must the decisions of the fourteen countries that approved it. In my country, for instance, the Constitutional Treaty was adopted by our national Parliament unanimously, thereby sealing once and for all our commitment to membership and drawing a clear line on past divisions.

This is the time to debate and to share views on the way forward with a number of scenarios which are not mutually exclusive. One scenario is to carry out the commitment made by the signatory Heads of State or Government to try and find a solution within the European Council if four-fifths of the Member States have ratified the Constitutional Treaty and one or more Member States have had difficulty. This would necessitate the continuation of the ratification process so that the agreed process is concluded before an assessment can be made on the way forward.

A second scenario could include the formulation of a “European Charter” from the first two parts of the Constitutional Treaty. This will give European citizens a clear and concise document with which they may more easily identify. The other part of the Constitutional Treaty could probably be considered to have already been ratified through the existing Treaties.

A third scenario could include a strengthening of the protocol on the role of national parliaments in particular in furthering their consultative role with regard to the European project.

There are, of course, other scenarios and more specific suggestions that could be considered. This is what this period of reflection is for. Let us not waste it.

Mr President,

Political leadership in Europe

All too often we speak of lack of political leadership in Europe. This is not due to a lack of initiatives, certainly not in Europe. If anything it may be due to an insufficient coherence between the initiatives.  For how can we claim political leadership if some of the initiatives lack coherence?

What coherence do we have in espousing solidarity on the one hand and failing to match it with sufficient financial means on the other? What coherence do we have if we remove borders on the one hand and re-erect barriers on the other? What coherence do we have if we call for collective action on the one hand but allow individual countries in difficulty to go it alone on the other?

I do not think that lack of political leadership can be attributed to individual Community institutions, whose initiatives and perseverance speak for themselves. If anything it is the incipient lack of trust in them that needs to be addressed.

For trust, unlike talent, is not innate, but must be earned. So we need to ask ourselves what we can do to regain trust in the European Union and its institutions?

Reconnecting with the people

Of course we can do so by reconnecting with the people. And here I welcome the work of the Commission in undertaking the daunting task of bridging the gap with citizens through its Plan D. As a directly elected institution at European level the European Parliament is ideally placed to support the Commission’s work. Reconnecting with the citizens is not about more talking. It is about more listening. And if Europe communicates better it will be in a better position to reflect the aspirations of Europeans and to deliver on their concerns.

Mr President,

Making the EU a voice of reason

Beyond communicating better, in order to strengthen trust we must also deliver better and more effectively on the tasks that the European Union has already been assigned. We can also strengthen trust by demonstrating that the European Union is able and willing to take new common initiatives in areas where we are facing new challenges which cannot be addressed by individual countries acting alone.  We must continuously ensure that the European Union adds more and more value to the Member States and to their citizens.

But most importantly we can strengthen trust by showing that, in adopting policies, in taking decisions, in interacting both internally as well as externally, the European Union is able to give a voice to reason. By this I mean a Union that consistently displays a sense of balance and even-handedness in its policy-development, in its decision-making but also in its interaction with other players around the world.

In this regard, there is ample evidence that leads me to be optimistic that trust can indeed be regained because the Union is demonstrating that it is prepared to stand for reason. Let me give you some examples:

The role of small states

Coming from Malta I am a keen observer of how the European Union strikes a balance between the interests of its large and small member countries. I have always been convinced that, in the European Union, it is not the size of the country that you come from that matters but the strength of your ideas and the clarity of your vision. Of course size matters too. But the European Union is unique in developing a model of governance that balances the interests of large and small and often fuses these interests into common interests.

This is a value that should not go unnoticed. It is an asset that makes Europe what it is, rich in diversity and respectful of the evident differences of its members. This may also explain why small countries are particularly attached to the European project and indeed to the “Community method”.

The European Union increases the influence of small countries; it strengthens their identity, not least their linguistic identity, and effectively opens to them the broad horizons of the wider Europe and the world.

The European Parliament too should continue to strike this balance and lend an attentive ear to the particular concerns of small countries. The European Union cannot and should not be a directorate of large countries.

The Services Directive

The Services Directive is another example where the European institutions are standing out as a voice of reason. I applaud the pioneering work of this Parliament in crafting a compromise on such a key initiative. The broad endorsement of the European Council also attests to the validity of your work. Now that a workable compromise has been found, it is time to bring the legislative process to a swift conclusion so that European citizens can reap the undeniable benefits of the internal services market.

Energy Policy

Equally, the initiative for a common Energy Policy that takes on the huge challenge of adequate energy supplies is another welcome development for which the Commission should be applauded and supported. It is initiatives such as these that demonstrate that Europe can indeed be deserving of trust.

But there are other challenges where Europe has been slower to act and where action on a European level is increasingly warranted. In these areas, we need to work harder to give a voice to reason; to strike a fair balance and therefore to strengthen trust.

Maritime Policy

I find the European Commission’s work on developing a future Maritime Policy for the Union particularly important in that it seeks to put Europe’s intrinsic maritime advantage as a priority item on the agenda. Coming as I do from an ancient maritime nation, however, I can state unequivocally that Europe’s maritime heritage is still insufficiently exploited at a European level.  We must adopt a holistic approach. We must not allow short-term concerns in some areas lead to the throwing away of our leadership position in maritime questions as a whole. We must strive to lead the maritime world rather than try and create our own privileged space within it.

The Euro-Mediterranean Region

Trust must not only be earned from within but also from outside the Union. And here too we must demonstrate that we are able to strengthen trust through even-handedness. Our Euro-Mediterranean policy is a case in point. The complexity of this region, which we share with our neighbours, and its intrinsic linkage with the Middle East peace process, calls upon us more than ever to stand as a voice of reason. The recent incidents on the publication of certain cartoons have sadly been a step backwards in this regard. But they give us a new opportunity to re-build trust even on this level.

The challenge of globalisation

Another challenge stems from the obvious but inevitable consequences of globalisation. The answer to this challenge cannot be found in a retreat to protectionism or in rolling back what has already been achieved. It must be a fair balance between the inevitable consequences of free trade on the one hand and the affirmation of Europe’s core values, not least its social model, on the other. To be sure, finding this balance is easier said than done. But ultimately we must not forget that it is Europe’s sense of balance and reason that is increasingly distinguishing it from other actors in the international arena.

The challenge of irregular immigration

Another challenge which is more visible at the human level is the challenge of irregular immigration. Only a few days ago, we welcomed a delegation from your institution to my country as part of your ongoing work to visit countries in Europe and outside in order to assess the extent of the challenge of irregular immigration. This is a problem that is currently putting a harsh test on the capacity of a number of Member States, not least my own, to cope with the seemingly incessant influx of people particularly from Sub-Saharan Africa.

As your delegation could directly attest in my country, by talking directly to the immigrants and asylum seekers themselves, the problem is as real as it is urgent. The Mediterranean is facing a human catastrophe with hundreds of people perishing in their quest to reach Europe and thousands others living in uncertainty and in difficult conditions once they do so. At the same time, the countries receiving a mass influx are seeing their capacity and their resources stretched beyond limits.

It is clear that the problem is not Malta’s alone, nor is it the problem of any other country alone. It is a common challenge that requires a collective effort. Yet, I should point out that the problem for Malta is more acute since it is by far the most densely populated Member State. Europe urgently needs an Immigration Policy that can deliver a more concrete response to this problem in all its complexity. A response that offers Europe’s trademark solidarity with the people involved in this drama; with the countries of origin, but equally with the countries of first arrival in Europe that are unable to deal with this problem on their own.

So I must thank the European Parliament and the members of the visiting delegation in particular, for putting this item on your agenda and for echoing my country’s call for urgent action.

Mr President,

If we are to strengthen trust we must be seen to be responding effectively to the concerns of the people. And to do so, capturing the mood of the people is crucial. Political leaders should not follow the people but lead them. But equally, they should not forge ahead too rapidly lest they leave the people behind and cut themselves off from the realities in the world outside. Here too a balance must be found.

There are a number of values that distinguish Europe from other continents and the European Union from other projects of regional integration in the world. Europe is already distinctive for its unequivocal attachment to the values of peace, tolerance, human rights and solidarity. The European Union is also increasingly becoming distinctive as a voice of reason in its neighbourhood and in the world.

Being a voice of reason necessarily calls upon us to transcend the confines of our selfish national interests and to work together selflessly for our common good. We must continue to preserve this value both in our interaction among ourselves and with other countries. It is this Europe that citizens want from us and it is this Europe that they are ready to trust.