Margot Wallström
Vice-President for Institutional Relations and Communications strategy

More democracy, more rights - we need the Constitution for Europe

European Parliament, Constitutional Affairs Committee
Brussels, 25 November 2004

Chairman, Honourable Members, Representatives of Civil Society,

Thank you for the invitation and the opportunity to address, not just the committee, but also this session with representatives of civil society.

Like any new adventure we begin with hope and a sensible dose of realism. Realism because I do not pretend that we have all the answers - no single individual or single institution after all can alone turn this around. Hope - because I believe that with hard work we can demonstrate the tangible benefits that Europe brings to our daily lives.

And, together I think we can make a difference. That is why, subject to your invitation, I should like to be a regular visitor to this committee. We share many goals, and with a strengthened partnership we can deliver on the priorities of those we represent.

Our first common goal is to ensure that the Constitution for Europe sees the light of day. As Jo Leinen recently said "Neither the European Parliament nor the Commission can lean back and take a neutral stance on ratification". The Barroso Commission will not stand on the sidelines. The Irish poet, W.B.Yeats said that "In dreams begins responsibility". We intend to exercise our responsibilities and work to ensure that national ratification strategies are developed and implemented. We will make our view clear at the European level.

While we are not here to issue propaganda we are here to ensure the case is made and the facts are heard. This is not just a case of brochures and pamphlets. My fellow Commissioners and I are committed to entering into this debate - and not just in the countries we know best.

Chairman,

I welcome the excellent report prepared by Richard Corbett and Inigo Méndez de Vigo. This highlights the benefits and also the deficiencies of the Constitution for Europe and sets out in clear language why we all would benefit from its ratification.

This is the latest in a long line of core institutional texts produced by the European Parliament. A look back at previous reports shows us how far we have come. If I compare this report to those produced by Messrs Planas; Martin; Méndez de Vigo-Tsatsos and Méndez de Vigo-Seguro - this is the most positive assessment on the outcome of an Inter-Governmental Conference.

I notice that this is the third time that Inigo is preparing a report on the outcome of an Inter-Governmental Conference. I do not want to put him out of a job, but I hope this is the last IGC for some time.

In truth, we are not analysing a standard Inter-Governmental Conference. The Constitution for Europe would not have been achieved without the work of the Convention on the Future of Europe and the role played by members of the European Parliament.

The report rightly points out a number of controversial issues at the Inter-Governmental Conference on issues like extension of qualified majority voting, the formula for weighting of votes and the revision procedure.

The report also demonstrates the additional rights the Constitution brings with the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the clarification of values, principles and objectives, the strengthening of the democratic legitimacy of the EU through extension of the co-decision procedure and the increased role of the regions.

Overall, our view is that from a symbolic point of view the Constitution is fundamental. It is also important from an institutional perspective. From a policy content viewpoint, we would like to have gone further.

I applaud the report for stating so categorically how the contents of the Constitution should not be misrepresented. The Constitution does not create a centralised `superstate', lead to a loss of statehood or weaken the social dimension of the Union. We have to tackle these misrepresentations head on.

If we are to deal with the knowledge gap and in some cases general apathy, we have to find a way to demonstrate the concrete changes that the Constitution brings. As may now quote, Monnet reminded us, "the European Union is not an end in itself but a means to an end". The Constitution must also be a means to an end.

We have to look at the individual articles of the Constitution that will change people's lives. I am thinking here of the programmes we can bring forward on public health, on anti discrimination, on sustainable development and the fight against organised crime.

While our thoughts focus on the benefits of the Constitution and the efforts to ensure its ratification we face a wider challenge. We need to explain the common European narrative that draws us together - which explains the social, environmental and economic benefits of Europe.

A debate is needed on the future direction of Europe without the obsession of constitutional "navel gazing". We do not need a new Inter-Governmental Conference or a new Convention but a new way of explaining the benefits that the European Union brings.

At my hearing, I provided five key areas where I hope to make progress. To recap these are to:

• Establish a culture of co-operation where the European institutions work together;
• To increase a shared ownership of the European project by working with the network of parliamentarians, including national Parliaments;
• Achieve the entry into force of the Constitution for Europe;
• Reconnect to people with an effective communications strategy;
• Help to build a democratic infrastructure so that the people we represent have a meeting place to debate.

Today is not the occasion to set out in detail my programme of work for the next five years. But we must not rest on our laurels. As I am quickly discovering - you and I have a full work programme.

One task will be to up-date the framework agreement on the relations between the European Parliament and the Commission. I understand that a number of important reports are currently being prepared by your committee, including that by Andrew Duff on the evaluation of the hearings' procedure and by Elmar Brok on the creation of the European External Action Service.

These are just a few of the examples where we need to work in unison. Over the coming weeks, I intend to take contacts with the political groups to work together where our interests merge. I hope to have the opportunity to address the Committee, in good time so we can discuss this in further detail.

At the centre of my role - both on institutional relations and on communication strategy - is to find a way for Europe to reconnect with the people it represents. I will need the help of members of this committee to achieve this.

While we will not anticipate the ratification procedure, one area where we can do more is the preparation for the implementation of Article I-47 on participatory democracy.

This calls on the Commission and other institutions to give citizens and representative associations the opportunity to exchange publicly their views on all areas of Union action. It also allows for one of the main innovations in the Constitution: the right for citizens to take the initiative of inviting the Commission to submit a proposal, where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required to implement the Constitution. We now have to work together to determine the procedure and conditions required for this initiative from citizens.

I have spoken in my hearing also about the need to build democratic infrastructure. This is not a fanciful idea to create more buildings or newspaper headlines. The idea is quite simple but at the same time challenging. By the end of my mandate, I want to create a number of centres where citizens can come together and meet. I am not talking about the usual Brussels based lobbies or political elite from the Member States. I would like to create a programme, an education, where teachers, students, trade unionists, young people and bus drivers can come together to debate the future of Europe.

In conclusion, Chairman, all these elements come back to the concept of democracy. The former Mayor of New York, Alfred Smith once said "All the ills of democracy can be cured by more democracy". We may be some way off this objective, but on a day when people are on the streets to ensure their democratic rights are respected, we must recognise that we must listen to those that represent civil society.

If I may, I would now like to listen to the members and civil society representatives here today.