CONTRIBUTION BY MEP IOANNIS KASOULIDES (EPP-ED/CYPRUS) FOR THE NOTRE EUROPE STUDY ON DEVELOPMENTS IN THE UNION BY 2020

Brussels, March 2006

My vision of the EU in 2020

An observer standing at the beginning of the year 2006 may easily fall in the trap of being pessimistic about the future of the European Union. It is true that the preceding year, with its two rejections of the constitutional treaty by the electorates of founding member states and the difficult negotiations over the community budget for the next seven years, has been a year of crisis.

But crisis is the daily bread of the European construction! The two steps forward one step back dialectic has been the modus operandi over the last 50 years. Crisis is always a time of danger but it simultaneously provides an opportunity and challenge to move forward even stronger. In recent years the Union has been at work on three major building sites: Enlargement, the economy and the consolidation of the Euro, and treaty change. There have been successes and strong foundations laid in all fields, but work will continue well into the next decade and will certainly still occupy our agenda in 2020.

Enlargement

The reunification of the continent has been a tremendous achievement of the Union and the last two years have shown that despite the difficult parameters in the Treaty of Nice, the EU of 25 works and works well. In fact Enlargement, and the political and socio-economic transformation of neighbouring countries before (and after) joining, is in my view the ultimate success of the EU. And here I do not only refer to the Central and Eastern European states but also to older members such as Spain and Greece. Indeed the logic of Enlargement is unstoppable. Once a stable, democratic and prosperous area is established, it is natural for both those inside and outside to wish to continually extend it to cover more neighbours and reap more common benefits.  

However, there is a growing tendency in the Union (amongst governments and peoples alike) for the need to have certain limits fixed to this relentless logic. The main reasons are not so much geographic, nor cultural, or even religious. The reason is firstly the Union's 'capacity to absorb', both in terms of the workability and functioning of its institutions and decision-making processes but crucially in terms of finances too. The second reason concerns the widening vs deepening debate, or to put it more crudely the quantity vs quality of integration.

Arguably it would be very complicated to pursue further political integration with an EU of 35 members, not so much due to problems of speed, but direction. It has often been written that a multi-speed Europe is not a barrier because it already exists (participation in the Euro and Schengen areas are examples). The problem arises not because of variable speeds but rather because of members' variable visions of the final destination. Trying to achieve ever closer union with even more states and, in particular, large and powerful regional players, is nearly impossible as the identity change and convergence of political visions needed cannot take place in the short or medium term.

It is in this sense therefore that I foresee and support a significant increase in the importance of the European Neighbourhood Policy, and the ability of neighbouring states to have enhanced association agreements that are customised to their needs and political will, so that they can take cooperation to as high a level as possible, if they so desire. This brings us close to the concept of privileged partnerships, which may be particularly relevant to our future relations with Turkey, Ukraine or even the Caucasus for instance.

Turkey

I was amongst those who did not oppose the beginning of accession negotiations for Turkey. In fact, if there are two countries in the EU in whose strict national interest it is to have Turkey as a full member state, those are Greece and Cyprus. For a Europeanised, democratic and reformed Turkey will inevitably lead to the solution of national questions with neighbouring member states, as well as boost the stability and economy of the whole Eastern Mediterranean. Turkey's candidature naturally offers advantages to the Union as a whole too, whether these stem from its high growth rates and young workforce, the symbolism of having a Muslim country in the EU or the added value it brings with its strategic and military position. Yet the obstacles on the road are daunting: the questions of democracy and the role of the military, the treatment of minorities, the Armenian issue, the occupation of Cyprus, but also the huge size of Turkey and the subsequent impact that would have on the EU.

In this light I fear that, faced with a difficult period of negotiations and radical reforms to its national system and institutions, coupled with the scepticism of some EU governments and peoples to back its candidature, Turkey itself may eventually give up on the idea. Though this is something I personally do not wish for, a privileged relationship like that supported by some countries today, may be a halfway solution in as much as it would allow both the EU and Turkey to make the most of the advantages without many of the risks.

Constitution

Despite the constitutional project being temporarily frozen during this current period of reflexion, there remain several positive factors. Firstly, we have a text that has been elaborated by a body with much more legitimacy than an intergovernmental conference (IGC) and agreed and signed by 25 governments. Secondly, it has been ratified by a majority of them, including two by referendum, and thirdly, the necessity of most of the institutional changes proposed is acknowledged by all concerned. Whether some parts of the treaty will be implemented by a future IGC, or a modified text will be agreed upon and resubmitted, or the current ratification process will continue at a later stage, remains to be seen.

What is essential is that the basis for future reform is there, and is unlikely to change. In trying to envisage how I would like Europe to function in 2020, the main elements of the constitutional treaty point the way: more power to European citizens through strengthening the competences of the European Parliament, with co-decision becoming the normal way of legislating, and through increased involvement of national parliaments, amongst others; a more important political voice for Europe internationally with a foreign minister and a diplomatic service.

It is also very likely that by 2020 we may have more than one treaty change. Though the next treaty is likely to be a comprehensive one in terms of clarifying procedures and facilitating decision making, the new rules and policies may well need another revision before 2020. The one constant in our globalising world is change, and the EU should be able to continually adapt itself in order to defend its global interests. But for further treaty changes to be fully supported by all European peoples, we require and should strive for two dynamics: Ownership and Results.

The former will only be brought about by better communication and dialogue with citizens. An upgraded role for national parliaments in the EU process will be useful, but most important of all is for member state governments to own up and be frank about what goes on and what is decided in Brussels. The establishment of Europe-wide mass media, and an effort by local media to look beyond national micro-politics is critical if European citizens are to understand the value of the EU and become familiar with it on a daily basis, and not just during summits or elections.

Economy

Results on the other hand must essentially come in terms of economic and social dividends. This ties in directly with the improvement of the EU's economic performances and the creation of new jobs. Our current efforts in this domain, the Lisbon Strategy, has largely remained on paper so far, but it does provide the framework for governments to implement measures that will shift the economy from manufacturing and traditional production into a knowledge-based and service-oriented economy. It includes many measures that are absolutely necessary but which national governments might not have the political courage to implement on their own, without peer pressure. Spending 3% of GDP on research and development, for instance, will be a serious sacrifice for many member states, but one which will go far in creating more jobs and sustainability. Investing in innovation and technological advances with the establishment of a European Institute of Technology (a larger and decentralised EU version of the MIT), is another such initiative.

The global challenges that we face today and which will inevitably intensify in the future, such as migration pressures from outside Europe, the ageing of the European populations and the rise of India, China and Brazil, among others, as global economic players, make cooperation and concrete action in the economic domain even more urgent. The 'open method of coordination' used in the Lisbon process needs to be extended to other policy domains that are currently outside the community decision making. Moreover, decisions in the area of immigration, both from a judicial and an economic perspective, must be common. Not only can immigration further enrich our multicultural societies, it will also provide answers to our pressing economic and demographic problems.

Conclusion

Current features of the international context, such as global terrorism, the self-fulfilling prophecy of the clash of civilisations and the relative divergence in US-EU foreign policy methods, also make the case for more, not less, Europe. But we cannot have more Europe with less money. New member states, both current and future, must be in a position to benefit significantly from cohesion funds in order to consolidate enlargement and cement its success.

Coming from a small member state, the prospect of more Europe is not a threat but on the contrary a safeguard of sovereignty and a more effective means to defend national interests. Though as a European I wholeheartedly support deeper political integration, as a Cypriot I would like to see the deepening and widening reconciled so that Turkey remains as anchored to the EU as possible.

Next year we will celebrate 50 years of the Treaty of Rome. What has been achieved since, common borders, common justice, and a common currency, is remarkable if not miraculous. But the EU is still very young, and 50 years is just a drop in the ocean of European history.

Ioannis Kasoulides is a Member of the European Parliament.

He served as Foreign Minister of the Republic of Cyprus from 1997 to 2003.