URU, Alm.del - 2004-05 (2. samling) - Bilag 170: Speech to the European Parliament, Tony Blair

It is an honour to be here in the European Parliament today. With your permission,I will come back after each European Council during the UK Presidency and reportto you. In addition, I would be happy to consult the Parliament before eachCouncil, so as to have the benefit of the views of the European Parliament beforeCouncil deliberations.This is a timely address. Whatever else people disagree upon in Europe today,they at least agree on one point: Europe is in the midst of a profound debate aboutits future. I want to talk to you plainly today about this debate, the reasons for itand how to resolve it. In every crisis there is an opportunity. There is one here forEurope now, if we have the courage to take it.The debate over Europe should not be conducted by trading insults or in terms ofpersonality. It should be an open and frank exchange of ideas. And right at theoutset I want to describe clearly how I define the debate and the disagreementunderlying it.The issue is not between a "free market" Europe and a social Europe, betweenthose who want to retreat to a common market and those who believe in Europe asa political project.This is not just a misrepresentation. It is to intimidate those who want change inEurope by representing the desire for change as betrayal of the European ideal, totry to shut off serious debate about Europe's future by claiming that the veryinsistence on debate is to embrace the anti-Europe.It is a mindset I have fought against all my political life. Ideals survive throughchange. They die through inertia in the face of challenge.I am a passionate pro-European. I always have been. My first vote was in 1975 inthe British referendum on membership and I voted yes. In 1983, when I was thelast candidate in the UK to be selected shortly before that election and when myparty had a policy of withdrawing from Europe, I told the selection conference thatI disagreed with the policy. Some thought I had lost the selection. Some perhapswish I had. I then helped change our policy in the 1980's and was proud of thatchange.Since being Prime Minister I signed the Social Chapter, helped, along with France,to create the modern European Defence Policy, have played my part in theAmsterdam, the Nice, then the Rome Treaties.

This is a union of values, of solidarity between nations and people, of not just acommon market in which we trade but a common political space in which we liveas citizens.It always will be.I believe in Europe as a political project. I believe in Europe with a strong andcaring social dimension. I would never accept a Europe that was simply aneconomic market.To say that is the issue is to escape the real debate and hide in the comfort zone ofthe things we have always said to each other in times of difficulty.There is not some division between the Europe necessary to succeed economicallyand social Europe. Political Europe and economic Europe do not live in separaterooms.The purpose of social Europe and economic Europe should be to sustain eachother.The purpose of political Europe should be to promote the democratic and effectiveinstitutions to develop policy in these two spheres and across the board where wewant and need to cooperate in our mutual interest.But the purpose of political leadership is to get the policies right for today's world.For 50 years Europe's leaders have done that. We talk of crisis. Let us first talk ofachievement. When the war ended, Europe was in ruins. Today the EU stands as amonument to political achievement. Almost 50 years of peace, 50 years ofprosperity, 50 years of progress. Think of it and be grateful.The broad sweep of history is on the side of the EU. Countries round the world arecoming together because in collective cooperation they increase individualstrength. Until the second half of the 20thCentury, for centuries European nationsindividually had dominated the world, colonised large parts of it, fought warsagainst each other for world supremacy.Out of the carnage of the Second World War, political leaders had the vision torealise those days were gone. Today's world does not diminish that vision. Itdemonstrates its prescience. The USA is the world's only super power. But Chinaand India in a few decades will be the world's largest economies, each of them withpopulations three times that of the whole of the EU. The idea of Europe, unitedand working together, is essential for our nations to be strong enough to keep ourplace in this world.

Now, almost 50 years on, we have to renew. There is no shame in that. Allinstitutions must do it. And we can. But only if we remarry the European idealswe believe in with the modern world we live in.If Europe defaulted to Euro scepticism, or if European nations faced with thisimmense challenge, decide to huddle together, hoping we can avoid globalisation,shrink away from confronting the changes around us, take refuge in the presentpolicies of Europe as if by constantly repeating them, we would by the very act ofrepetition make them more relevant, then we risk failure. Failure on a grand,strategic, scale. This is not a time to accuse those who want Europe to change ofbetraying Europe. It is a time to recognise that only by change will Europe recoverits strength, its relevance, its idealism and therefore its support amongst the people.And as ever the people are ahead of the politicians. We always think as a politicalclass that people, unconcerned with the daily obsession of politics, may notunderstand it, may not see its subtleties and its complexities. But, ultimately,people always see politics more clearly than us. Precisely because they are notdaily obsessed with it.The issue is not about the idea of the European Union. It is about modernisation.It is about policy. It is not a debate about how to abandon Europe but how to makeit do what it was set up to do: improve the lives of people. And right now, theyaren’t convinced. Consider this.

For four years Europe conducted a debate over our new Constitution, two years ofit in the Convention. It was a detailed and careful piece of work setting out thenew rules to govern a Europe of 25 and in time 27, 28 and more member states. Itwas endorsed by all Governments. It was supported by all leaders. It was thencomprehensively rejected in referendums in two founding Member States, in thecase of the Netherlands by over 60 per cent. The reality is that in most MemberStates it would be hard today to secure a ‘yes’ for it in a referendum.There are two possible explanations. One is that people studied the Constitutionand disagreed with its precise articles. I doubt that was the basis of the majority‘no’. This was not an issue of bad drafting or specific textual disagreement.The other explanation is that the Constitution became merely the vehicle for thepeople to register a wider and deeper discontent with the state of affairs in Europe.I believe this to be the correct analysis.If so, it is not a crisis of political institutions, it is a crisis of political leadership.People in Europe are posing hard questions to us. They worry about globalisation,job security, about pensions and living standards. They see not just their economybut their society changing around them. Traditional communities are broken up,

ethnic patterns change, family life is under strain as families struggle to balancework and home.We are living through an era of profound upheaval and change. Look at ourchildren and the technology they use and the jobs market they face. The world isunrecognisable from that we experienced as students 20, 30 years ago. When suchchange occurs, moderate people must give leadership. If they don’t, the extremesgain traction on the political process. It happens within a nation. It is happening inEurope now.Just reflect. The Laeken Declaration which launched the Constitution wasdesigned “to bring Europe closer to the people”. Did it? The Lisbon agenda waslaunched in the year 2000 with the ambition of making Europe “the mostcompetitive place to do business in the world by 2010”. We are half way throughthat period. Has it succeeded?I have sat through Council Conclusions after Council Conclusions describing howwe are “reconnecting Europe to the people”. Are we?It is time to give ourselves a reality check. To receive the wake-up call. Thepeople are blowing the trumpets round the city walls. Are we listening? Have wethe political will to go out and meet them so that they regard our leadership as partof the solution not the problem?That is the context in which the Budget debate should be set. People say: we needthe Budget to restore Europe’s credibility. Of course we do. But it should be theright Budget. It shouldn’t be abstracted from the debate about Europe’s crisis. Itshould be part of the answer to it.I want to say a word about last Friday's Summit. There have been suggestions thatI was not willing to compromise on the UK rebate; that I only raised CAP reformat the last minute; that I expected to renegotiate the CAP on Friday night. In fact Iam the only British leader that has ever said I would put the rebate on the table. Inever said we should end the CAP now or renegotiate it overnight. Such a positionwould be absurd. Any change must take account of the legitimate needs offarming communities and happen over time. I have said simply two things: thatwe cannot agree a new financial perspective that does not at least set out a processthat leads to a more rational Budget; and that this must allow such a Budget toshape the second half of that perspective up to 2013. Otherwise it will be 2014before any fundamental change is agreed, let alone implemented. Again, in themeantime, of course Britain will pay its fair share of enlargement. I might pointout that on any basis we would remain the second highest net contributor to theEU, having in this perspective paid billions more than similar sized countries.So, that is the context. What would a different policy agenda for Europe look like?

First, it would modernise our social model. Again some have suggested I want toabandon Europe’s social model. But tell me: what type of social model is it thathas 20m unemployed in Europe, productivity rates falling behind those of theUSA; that is allowing more science graduates to be produced by India than byEurope; and that, on any relative index of a modern economy – skills, R&D,patents, IT, is going down not up. India will expand its biotechnology sectorfivefold in the next five years. China has trebled its spending on R&D in the lastfive.Of the top 20 universities in the world today, only two are now in Europe.The purpose of our social model should be to enhance our ability to compete, tohelp our people cope with globalisation, to let them embrace its opportunities andavoid its dangers. Of course we need a social Europe. But it must be a socialEurope that works.And we’ve been told how to do it. The Kok report in 2004 shows the way.Investment in knowledge, in skills, in active labour market policies, in scienceparks and innovation, in higher education, in urban regeneration, in help for smallbusinesses. This is modern social policy, not regulation and job protection thatmay save some jobs for a time at the expense of many jobs in the future.And since this is a day for demolishing caricatures, let me demolish one other: theidea that Britain is in the grip of some extreme Anglo-Saxon market philosophythat tramples on the poor and disadvantaged. The present British Government hasintroduced the new deal for the unemployed, the largest jobs programme in Europethat has seen long-term youth unemployment virtually abolished. It has increasedinvestment in our public services more than any other European country in the pastfive years. We needed to, it is true, but we did it. We have introduced Britain'sfirst minimum wage. We have regenerated our cities. We have lifted almost onemillion children out of poverty and two million pensioners out of acute hardshipand are embarked on the most radical expansion of childcare, maternity andpaternity rights in our country's history. It is just that we have done it on the basisof and not at the expense of a strong economy.Secondly, let the Budget reflect these realities. Again the Sapir report shows theway. Published by the European Commission in 2003, it sets out in clear detailwhat a modern European Budget would look like. Put it into practice. But amodern Budget for Europe is not one that 10 years from now is still spending 40per cent of its money on the CAP.Thirdly, implement the Lisbon Agenda. On jobs, labour market participation,school leavers, lifelong learning, we are making progress that nowhere near

matches the precise targets we set out at Lisbon. That Agenda told us what to do.Let us do it.Fourth, and here I tread carefully, get a macroeconomic framework for Europe thatis disciplined but also flexible. It is not for me to comment on the Eurozone. I justsay this: if we agreed real progress on economic reform, if we demonstrated realseriousness on structural change, then people would perceive reform of macropolicy as sensible and rational, not a product of fiscal laxity but of commonsense.And we need such reform urgently if Europe is to grow.After the economic and social challenges, then let us confront another set of linkedissues – crime, security and immigration.Crime is now crossing borders more easily than ever before. Organised crimecosts the UK at least £20bn annually.Migration has doubled in the past 20 years. Much of the migration is healthy andwelcome. But it must he managed. Illegal immigration is an issue for all ournations, and a human tragedy for many thousands of people. It is estimated that 70per cent of illegal immigrants have their passage facilitated by organised crimegroups. Then there is the repugnant practice of human trafficking wherebyorganised gangs move people from one region to another with the intention ofexploiting them when they arrive. Between 600,000 and 800,000 people aretrafficked globally each year. Every year over 100,000 women are victims oftrafficking in the European Union.Again, a relevant JHA agenda would focus on these issues: implementing the EUaction plan on counter-terrorism which has huge potential to improve lawenforcement as well as addressing the radicalisation and recruitment of terrorists;cross-border intelligence and policing on organised crime; developing proposals tohit the people and drug traffickers hard, in opening up their bank accounts,harassing their activities, arresting their leading members and bring them to justice;getting returns agreements for failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants fromneighbouring countries and others; developing biometric technology to makeEurope’s borders secure.Then there is the whole area of CFSP. We should be agreeing practical measuresto enhance European defence capability, be prepared to take on more missions ofpeacekeeping and enforcement, develop the capability, with NATO or whereNATO does not want to be engaged outside it, to be able to intervene quickly andeffectively in support of conflict resolution. Look at the numbers in Europeanarmies today and our expenditure. Do they really answer the strategic needs oftoday?

Such a defence policy is a necessary part of an effective foreign policy. But evenwithout it, we should be seeing how we can make Europe’s influence count. Whenthe European Union agreed recently a doubling of aid to Africa, it was animmediate boost not just for that troubled continent, but for European cooperation.We are world leaders in development and proud of it. We should be leading thethe way on promoting a new multi-lateral trade agreement which will increasetrade for all, especially the poorest nations. We are leading the debate on climatechange and developing pan-European policies to tackle it. Thanks to XavierSolana, Europe has started to make its presence felt in the MEPP. But my point isvery simple. A strong Europe would be an active player in foreign policy, a goodpartner of course to the US but also capable of demonstrating its own capacity toshape and move the world forward.Such a Europe – its economy in the process of being modernised, its securityenhanced by clear action within our borders and beyond – would be a confidentEurope. It would be a Europe confident enough to see enlargement not as a threat,as if membership were a zero sum game in which old members lose as newmembers gain, but an extraordinary, historic opportunity to build a greater andmore powerful union. Because be under no illusion: if we stop enlargement orshut out its natural consequences, it wouldn’t, in the end, save one job, keep onefirm in business, prevent one delocalisation. For a time it might but not for long.And in the meantime Europe will become more narrow, more introspective andthose who garner support will be those no in the traditions of European idealismbut in those of outdated nationalism and xenophobia. But I tell you in allfrankness: it is a contradiction to be in favour of liberalising Europe’s membershipbut against opening up its economy.If we set out that clear direction; if we then combined it with the Commission – asthis one under Jose Manuel Barroso’s leadership is fully capable of doing – that isprepared to send back some of the unnecessary regulation, peel back some of thebureaucracy and become a champion of a global, outward-looking, competitiveEurope, then it will not be hard to capture the imagination and support of thepeople of Europe.In our Presidency, we will try to take forward the Budget deal; to resolve some ofthe hard dossiers, like the Services Directive and Working Time Directive; to carryout the Union’s obligations to those like Turkey and Croatia that wait in hope of afuture as part of Europe; and to conduct this debate about the future of Europe inan open, inclusive way, giving our own views strongly but fully respectful of theviews of others.Only one thing I ask: don’t let us kid ourselves that this debate is unnecessary; thatif only we assume ‘business as usual’, people will sooner or later relent andacquiesce in Europe s it is, not as they want it to be. In my time as Prime Minister,I have found that the hard part is not taking the decision, it is spotting when it has