Liberal Democrat Member of the European
Parliament for Yorkshire and the Humber
|
Diana Wallis Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament for Yorkshire and the Humber |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Speech Delivered to the Politics Association Annual Conference 30/09/2000 |
|
Life as a Euro MP is not always so marvellous, you arrive as I did on Thursday evening at Leeds Bradford at 11 o’clock at night, your luggage does not arrive, you get in your car and the hand brake is jammed on and it won’t move forwards or backwards, and then your husband rings your to tell you the Danes have voted ‘no’ in their Euro referendum and you wonder why you are putting yourself through this unfriendly lifestyle, whilst trying to convince an unwilling European populace of a message that they don’t seem to want to hear.
But it was Europe that brought me into politics and after 15 months in the European Parliament my enthusiasm is in no way diminished. However, what I think we do have to be clear about is, that the future shape of the European Union is an open debate, there is not, as some would have you believe a defined endgame to arrive at a federal United States of Europe. I believe that this was perhaps never so true as now, as we grapple with the urgent challenges of globalisation, technological change, and enlargement, accompanied by increased questioning of established democratic structures and processes. Against the general backdrop of ‘enlargement of the Union’ I want to speak more specifically around three themes. Governance; Harmonisation;Regulation Next week when the Parliament meets in plenary session in Strasbourg the issue which will dominate our debates for the week is enlargement. Indeed it will continue to dominate the agenda of all three European institutions until at least the Nice summit at the end of the year when the French presidency comes to an end. I am sure we all remember the euphoria that greeted the collapse of the Berlin Wall – now 11 years ago. The west of Europe encouraged this ultimate rejection of communism by the peoples of central and Eastern Europe and there was a sense that the whole of Europe, not just Germany would soon be reunited within the European Union. Whilst next week will see the Parliament debating no less 12 reports on the progress of various applicant states, there is a sense on both sides that the process has run into the sand. The first wave of 6 applicants who had expected to be in, in the next couple of years see entry dates disappearing over the horizon and apparently new hoops to jump through being created at every turn. The Union itself is faced by a growing unease in some Members States about the implications of enlargement, further whipped up by the extreme right, predicting floods of immigrants and growing crime waves. The European Council seems paralysed by an inability to get to grips with the necessary internal reforms to allow the Union to function with at least a minimum of 6 new members if not 12 or 13. This was not dealt with at the last IGC – Amsterdam and it has to be dealt now. The hope is that the French presidency will clear up the so call Amsterdam leftovers and complete the task of preparing the Union for the next wave of enlargement. I wonder. Lets see how the task is further complicated by reference to the three themes I highlighted. Governance, in April of this year the president of the European Commission President Romano Prodi gave a very interesting speech announcing that early next year 2001, the Commission will be publishing a White Paper on European Governance to provoke public debate and to ask fundamental questions about what institutions are needed for the 21st century, what should be handled at European level and what should be done by the Member states, the regions or civil society. He said, I quote, ‘ The real challenge is to radically rethink the way we do Europe’. The speech was sub-titled ‘Reviewing governance in an Enlarged Union,’ and mastering technology to create a new economic and social agenda: two EU challenges at the dawn of the 21st century. Ten out of ten for identifying the problems, the current enlargement debate I have outlined, but what about the new economy or rather its global reach for this is its challenge to all governments and legislatures. We have become so used to the concept of dealing with those things that appear neatly within the geographic boundaries of a nation state, if anything renders the nation state legislature impotent it is the Internet. How do you legislate against the unscrupulous business that locates itself somewhere in cyber-space or merely in an unpoliced or lax jurisdiction? I have spent the last year in the Parliament struggling with a report on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgement in civil and commercial cases which ran up against e-commerce implications, the European level comes into its own, it can set a framework for all member states and we can negotiate with one voice with the USA, and believe you me whatever we do has to be flexible enough to mesh with other legislatures world wide. It would be difficult if not impossible for individual states to achieve what the EU can achieve in this field. But whilst the process of globalisation presents compelling arguments for supra-national levels of governance there are also equally compelling arguments for enhancing sub-national levels of governance, most notably, but not exclusively at regional level. Devolution is unravelling before us in the UK, Blair has opened Pandora’s box, but with no particular blueprint or end in view, we know we are in a process but as with Europe it is ongoing and up to us to help shape the future. It is perhaps noteworthy that the Committee of the Regions, that somewhat underrated consultative body in the European process has been the first to get is blow in – publishing its thoughts on governance, so as to pre-empt Prodi’s. Larger national governments could find themselves caught in a pincer movement between Europe and its regions. Regional administrations are nearer to their citizens; they often deliver European programmes. Many European programmes like Inter Reg encourage regions to reach out to one another across Europe and work together on projects, by-passing national governments. Regional identity and a sense of belonging to an area close at hand becomes increasingly more important to the citizen in an ever expanding global context. I have witnessed somewhat enviously the enthusiasm and delight released by Scots devolution, they now have Scotland House in Brussels and there is a real buzz about the place. There is some real power being exercised there, rather than the meagre but welcome Yorkshire and Humber operation, but even there with the joint forces of the local government Regional Assembly and the RDA things are beginning to happen. Earlier this year I was asked to deliver a keynote speech to a meeting of the Nordic Council in Finland on the future of Europe 2050, our own DTI gave me a good line indicating in one of its future scenarios that Scotland could leave the UK and join with Scandinavia – so I suggested why not Yorkshire after all we have more historic and trading links especially through the port of Hull to the Baltic which we are now rediscovering. I say this to indicate that we have to be flexible about the shape of boundaries and governance in the future, I prefer the concept of spheres of governance not the hierarchical tiers that we have become so wedded to. We must also remember that some of the current member states of the Union and many of the applicant ones have populations that are smaller than the region of Yorkshire and the Humber. In some ways I was not surprised by the out come of the Danish referendum – if you are small it is easy to feel threatened or submerged, but the truth is in an enlarged Europe it is more likely than not that the smaller nations will be able to make common cause and gang up on the bigger ones. But whatever sphere of governance you use, small nation state or region, the central conundrum remains how do you legitimately, link and feed the citizens views into the European legislative process or indeed a world-wide process, how do you give everyone a voice. At the moment in Europe we have consultation of regions, co-decision on some matters for directly elected MEPs, and still much decided by Member State governments in Council behind closed doors. In other words we are back to Prodi’s simple question how should do we do Europe in the 21st century? With that thought I want now to move to my second theme, harmonisation. Harmonisation within the context of the present discussion about Europe in the UK has become a dirty word, perhaps on a par with that other no go word ‘federalism’. Harmonisation of laws within the EU is often perceived as a threat to our national identity, to our culture, and particularly to our nation state sovereignty. The process is thought likely to lead inevitably and inexorably to the creation of a uniform and centralised European super state. It is European legislation passed in the quest for harmonisation that is most often seen and portrayed by the popular press as the most interfering and unwelcome side of the EU, stopping us from using pounds and ounces, threatening our traditional beer, sausages and cheeses. Harmonisation, or approximation of laws within the EU, was originally and for the most part still is justified by reference to the Single market project, or rather now the Internal market. Essentially seeing various differences in national legislation, regulation and standards as potential barriers to the proper functioning of the European Internal market and thus the need to harmonise them wherever possible to achieve a level playing field. However the original market justification has gradually extended itself in to all sorts of unforeseen areas of legislation. This mix of the market and law has been brought together for the first time in this legislature on the main committee I sit on - Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. The Institutions often go to extreme lengths to justify a apiece of legislation, in terms of its treaty base as Internal Market – when they might just do better to admit it is either a subject matter that has received many petitions or is dealing with an issue of popular concern best remedied at a European level. Now within the context of enlargement the applicant states are having to incorporate all the Internal market legislation into their own systems – having had no input into the legislative process – it is part of the community aquis that comes with membership. This they were willingly to do – despite having had to rewrite and reform their legal systems. Perhaps less known is the fact that the developed economies in the EEA countries of Iceland and Norway also accept all this legislation with out a murmur – with no input – so why do we make so much fuss? I always find it difficult to understand those who say they just wanted the Common Market, as it is this element that is probably responsible for most of the elements they most dislike. They therefore argue that we should be able to pick and choose what bits we adhere to. Lets examine this idea. Copyright – Europe has been grappling with this for the last year or so, it also has a local link, differing regimes of copyright, mean differing charges for access to information and research, the internet opens up all sorts of possibilities, inappropriate legislation could close those down. The British Library at Boston Spa receives requests for documents and copies worldwide and has links worldwide, it has to impose and adhere to different regimes and charges throughout Europe. That means within the internal market there is no equality of access to research material and therefore no level playing field for innovative business. The European Council has arrived at an agreement on this – the agreement – for the citizen a cop out, the member states will still be able to use their own regimes so where Europe could have worked to our benefit national governments have failed to take it on. Another issue recently brought to my attention, corporate fines for infringement of Health and Safety legislation, fines imposed in a British Court on a company from another member state cannot be enforced in that other state. The fines are criminal in nature – and if any one suggests harmonising Europe criminal law – well that’s bound to bring the europsceptics out into a state of hyperventilation. But the present situation undermines the internal market to say nothing of the lack of justice. Lastly as recent example, the dreadful accident in Greek waters this week, it has been suggested that the Greek shipping industry had negotiated derogation from compliance with European safety requirements. Do I have to say more – do we really want a pick and mix Europe? Why not consider that it could be much ado about nothing, especially if applicant states and advanced economies in Iceland and Norway accept all this without a squeak of protest as worthwhile price to pay for being part of and having access to the Internal Market. The European Institutions, especially the parliament, the ombudsman and the right to petition give us more than a semblance of the democratic or legitimate linkage between citizen and governance at a supra national level. It is certainly more than we have at a global level – I don’t remember electing the WTO – and as evidence of the disenfranchisement people felt they took to the streets in Seattle. Yet what we have to do in Europe is get people to take to the ballot boxes! Especially at European election time. Which brings me to my last them regulation. There is much being said and written at the moment in Europe about so-called soft law, or self-regulation or co-regulation as a way of moving away from an endless stream of unpalatable legislation. Regulation also is apparently less bound by nation state boundaries. Of course business has often argued for this, but we have to proceed with caution for several reasons. Firstly at least with our present system of legislation we more or less know who the lawmakers are and what the process is and therefore within reason how to influence it. Soft law or co-regulation may by pass this route. The Commission has set up stakeholder or core groups – how were they selected. who is in on the process, will the result come to Parliament for endorsement or scrutiny ? However we do it there must be transparency and openness. Enforcement – where industry regulates, who enforces, enforcement is a real problem in the EU, because of subsidiarity it takes place at the Member State level and is therefore patchy, everyone thinks everyone else plays to the rules better than they do – it will be even more problematic in some of the applicant states. We do not seem to want to let the Commission act as policemen – in any event it has not the resources or the staff to do so. Yet the model that is most often held up is the US – but they have a formidable enforcement agency in the FTC. So if we want co-regulation we may have to accept more Europe! Lastly publicity, the point about law or legislation provided by the state is that everyone should know about it, its is common, if we move towards a confusing patchworks of sectoral regulation, how will the consumer or citizen know where to turn or go to seek redress, this is not to say that the problem is insuperable, but common or harmonised systems can sometimes give more access to justice. If citizens feel disenfranchised by the present political systems in Europe, they may fell even more distanced from a hidden legislative process whose lawmakers they cannot vote out. We will see more protests of the pan European fuel protest type. So in drawing to a conclusion I have probably raised more problems about how we do Europe than I have solved but I hope I have lead you away from the normal debate about how many Commissioners does each member State have, how many judges in the Court of Justice and QMV, that’s not to say that these engaging technical arguments are not important but rather that there is a wider debate about Europe in the 21st century and we would do our citizens a service if we promoted it and recalled the original words of the treaty ‘to bring about an ever closer union amongst the peoples of Europe’ That to me has always seems the most laudable of goals bringing inevitably in its wake peace and stability in our continent and it is why I love the job I do now as a European parliamentarian. |
| Back to Speeches Contents Page |