A reformed EU but still missing Iceland?

Speech by Speech by Diana Wallis MEP, Vice President of the European Parliament on Thu 17th Apr 2008

Speech by Diana Wallis MEP, Vice President of the European Parliament

Institute of International Affairs, Reykjavik, Iceland

Thursday 17th April 2008

Thank you for inviting me to speak here today - it is always a pleasure to be back in Iceland.

I had hoped to come in a couple of weeks time when there will be the meeting of the EEA Joint Parliamentary Committee, however, an engagement in Slovenia prevents me from attending. Yet, I was interested to see how things were going - Iceland's economy is so much in the press in Europe at this time and I am starting to worry what this means for high streets and shopping centres especially in my own country given that much (even a couple of football teams) is now owned by Icelanders! So when you're in trouble we worry.

But I wanted also to share some thoughts about the changing dynamic of our relationship; the relationship between Iceland and the EU, ahead of the awaited ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, otherwise known as the Reform Treaty, and which we expect to come into force on the January 1st 2009. A reform treaty now, not a constitutional treaty, but still with huge implications for the decision making structures within the EU and the balance of power within the institutions. The impact for us in the European Parliament is large, indeed I think we are only just beginning to realise as we start to try to prepare ourselves. And of course any change for us will inevitably impact on you and the way you have to relate to a reformed EU. But just as these changes will present challenges for you I would also like to suggest a few reasons why this new reformed Europe might be missing Iceland.

Of course in some ways things could just jog along as they are. At the up coming EEA Joint Council and additional interparliamentary meetings, I have no doubt that everyone will sit down cosy and comfortable with old friends, go through the requisite annual reports, have a nice meal and some drinks and conclude happily that the 'EEA agreement is functioning well'. And in many ways it is and has served you well.

As your Foreign Minister has recently said: 'the Althingi has opted to keep its European cooperation at the administrative level without participating in the formal political cooperation of European nations'. Albeit that you opted for that more limited participation, it seems to be generally agreed that participation in the EU's Single Market, through EEA membership, has been beneficial. However, the challenge for us and you is that the EU that you decided to relate to in an administrative way fourteen years ago has now changed out of all recognition and is about to change again in terms of becoming both a more political and, thankfully, democratic body. So a purely administrative relationship is difficult or, at the very least, in tension.

As I have said, the real nature of these coming changes is only really now beginning to sink in for me and my colleagues in the European Parliament. Two weeks ago I was in Washington with a small, fairly senior cross-party delegation of parliamentarians to look at the legislative processes in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Whilst it can be dangerous to compare the EU and the US, this should send a signal as to where our Parliament is heading in terms of competences and legislative power. The most obvious difference with the US related more to our multi-party system and their two-party system than anything to do with our function. You only have to look at the number of lobbyists now in Brussels (including Icelanders I have to say) to get a feel for the importance of the work of our Parliament.

This importance is set to increase even more. The European Parliament is set to become a full co-legislator; that is to have full co-decision with the Council in the additional areas of agriculture, fisheries, transport and structural funds. Also we will have total parity with the Council on the budget process. Our budgetary power is critical.

For Iceland, fisheries, agriculture and transport will of course be sectors of key interest. Areas where we in the Parliament will miss the input of Icelandic MEPs - input where you have so much to bring to the European debate; a different perspective, but experience and expertise that would be relevant and helpful to the fishing interests in many other Member States

You know only yesterday and this is not the first time this has happened - I and a Bulgarian MEP colleague had a visit from one of your Ministers concerned about the impact a certain piece of EU legislation might have on Iceland. He is placed, unwittingly, in the position of a lobbyist. He had some interesting ideas on the legislation, but they might not coincide with the views of my electors, or more likely just have no relevance. But these ideas may of course be critical to the effect of that piece of legislation on Iceland. So your embassy is faced with trawling the relevant MEPs as though they (your ministry) were some kind of industrial lobby!

Of course you can always try through your friends in the Nordic Council but they may not always have the same view point - you might also try with more success to find common cause among MEPs from other island countries. Yet there is no guarantee or no obvious reason why they should take up the Icelandic position on any particular issue.

So, clearly this will become increasingly difficult for you as the range of subjects on our table increases and as those subjects and issues are of more critical importance to you as in relation to fisheries, agriculture, food and transport. I predict it will become increasingly difficult to disentangle what is EEA relevant and what is not. And what is a challenge for you will be a loss for us because we will not have your direct input on these issues.

We can of course listen to you politely as you continue to talk to us from the outside, but I wonder if that in the longer term will not prove to be frustrating and wearisome for all concerned.

I note with great interest you have constructed your new EU Committee in the Althingi. It follows a model also adopted by the Norwegian Storting. I think this is a great development and I am meeting one of the co-chairs of that Committee later today.

I know also your Foreign Minister has rightly suggested deepening Parliamentary cooperation. These are positive steps. But again the new Treaty changes the rules again and puts Member States' national parliaments several steps ahead of you. The construct you have devised was a positive step under the current system but could soon look out of date.

For the first time under the new Treaty of Lisbon, national parliaments get to be part of the action. This is under the so-called protocol on the role of national parliaments. So national parliaments will be able to scrutinize a draft law and to object on the grounds of a breach of subsidiary - in football parlance it is called a 'yellow card'. Again in our preparations we have been considering carefully our relationship with national parliaments, it will need to be more extensive, more formalised, to allow both dialogue to avoid the yellow card and cooperation when it is appropriate. Some have suggested that this system which is more thoroughgoing than I have the time to explain here will now create a fourth European institution alongside the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission - something which has been named the 'National Parliaments Jointly'. 'Jointly' in the sense that, they will be able to act together as one body or institution and so have an effect on the legislative process. This is quite outside of any dialogue or questioning of their own government. National parliaments will really have the chance to flex their muscles as a stand alone group - we are waiting to see what this will mean.

Your Althingi Committee will of course have no place in that new formal structure. And if you imagine we are engaged in getting this new structure to relate to our own parliaments - just how much time will we have for the parliaments of third countries such as Iceland? It is clear that those of us that take legislative reports through the EU law making process will now have to spend more time working with colleagues in all the national parliaments - probably more travel! But in the circumstances of coping with such a new structure I am not sure that Reykjavik will be on the itinerary!

On top of the increase in parliamentary powers and structures within the EU, there will also now be extensive involvement from the citizens of the EU.

Under the title 'participatory' democracy - one could even say about it direct democracy - European citizens will themselves have a right of legislative initiative. This means in the sense that a petition of one million signatures coming from a substantial number of EU states will be able to require the European Commission to come forward with a legislative proposal that is within the EU's powers. This is quite something. We have no doubt, especially given the activity of environmental and other lobbies, that this will be taken up. Indeed some have already tried before the formal system exists. This is really a potentially very exciting development in terms of democratising Europe. We are hopeful that the Commission would hope to come forward with the implementing legislation as soon as the treaty ratification is clear. I would hope that in Iceland that it might be an appealing prospect for your citizens to actively participate. Certainly the extra signatures from your population might be welcome in many deserving cases! There can be no doubt that we must do all we can to stop our politics becoming distant and this is one way of allowing our citizens to push or activate what may sometimes appear to some as a distant bureaucracy in Brussels.

It is of course a truism that the world we live in is more and more interconnected; that the distinction between international affairs and domestic matters is almost converging in politics. This is particularly true in a European context, hence the importance of any structures that deliver more power into the hands of our citizens. But let us take one 'internal/external' area that is of concern for you. That is the Arctic, a geographic area that brings together a whole cocktail of topical political policy issues: pollution, climate change leading to the opening of hitherto closed seaways, security of energy supply, sustainability, rural development, migrating fish stocks, amongst others. In short, scarce resources coupled with valuable resources that require management. I would challenge whether old style foreign relations or international law can deal with these issues that in their extent and implications concern most of the citizens of the globe. In the recent report 'Climate change and international cooperation' published by High Representative Javier Solana and Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner they warn of 'one of the most significant potentials conflicts over resources arises from intensified competition over access to, and control over, energy resources'. They conclude that a possible action for the EU would be to 'develop an EU Arctic policy based on the evolving geo-strategy of the Arctic region, taking into account inter alia access to resources and the opening of new trade routes.' As one who has been pushing hard for along time for the EU as a whole to take on a more crosscutting Arctic policy, I think this change of heart is timely.

Civil servants in Brussels are already meeting to draw up a Commission communication on the Arctic which we expect anytime. I want Iceland's input into this Arctic policy. And arguably you need us up here in this rather lonely part of the globe, where increasingly all types of unpredictable events look possible. The EU already has three Arctic nations. Surely these are resources that we need to oversee together. The old structures, or even the new Northern Dimension partnership, are not up to this task. So again we are missing your direct voice.

Of course, the other global issue that concerns us all these days is the extreme turbulence in the world's financial markets. We all feel vulnerable, both as nations and as individual citizens. People have less certainty about the future, about employment, about their housing and about their savings. As an economic bloc, Europe with its internal market and successful currency, should, with the right policy choices, be able to weather the storm. In comparison to the USA, the European economy, and certainly our currency the Euro that so many doomsayers predicted would fail after its arrival, looks a good bet. Indeed I hear there is even some interest here!

Of course, even in my own country which chose to stay outside the Euro zone, the current uncertainties have sparked some early discussion in the UK. We have the EU without the Euro. Some amongst you I understand fancy the Euro without the EU! Yet how could you possibly have the Euro without being involved in the economic and monetary decision making that goes with it? I know in the UK, with its important financial market, we regret the fact that our Ministers are absent from the European table when these discussions go on. Surely, to put as it were the management of the currency you use and the monetary policy that surrounds it, into foreign hands would be unthinkable to such an independent state? That is even if it were an option without membership of the Union itself. From an EU perspective this is unthinkable; even Members States have to qualify to meet criteria. Yes, the UK has the option of the EU without the Euro but for Iceland the Euro without the EU? I don't think so - sorry.

So there we have it a fast changing European Union in an uncertain world. Doubtless you will feel the impact of these changes and your Government and Parliament will do their utmost to keep up. It is of course a valid choice to remain on the outside looking in, to wait on the edge. I believe your Embassy in Brussels does good service on many levels. Only the other night I attended an exhibition of your beautiful drinking horns, as apart of the 'Iceland on the Edge' programme. As evidenced by the exhibition, you are definitely trying to make your mark in Brussels but still there is the ambivalence. For example, there was a presentation about your wonderful new conference centre and concert hall then a further presentation from Icelandair - impressive but if you want to travel to and from Brussels to Iceland for a meeting then allow three days! There is no direct flight from Iceland to Brussels. Why not? Are you really serious about influence or are you rather teetering on the edge? Will you topple or will something deliver a push?

You have good examples that could point the way: your Nordic neighbour Finland, your Celtic friends in Ireland and even your fellow islanders in Malta, all make their way in Europe with confidence and success. Knowing Iceland as I do, I am sure that you too would more than meet the challenge.