Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen MPs,
At the European Council of 22 and 23 June, the European Union was desperately seeking a way out of the two-year period of introspection.
We had to put an end to the two years of perplexity and disappointment.
We needed to take a step in order to win back the citizens’ trust in a European Union that will have both the powers and the ability to overcome crises and resolve deadlocks.
This was the first major challenge that we needed to meet in Brussels.
The second, equally important challenge was to have an outcome that would not alter the substance of the “Treaty establishing a European Constitution”, which had already been ratified by the majority of the member states, including Greece, which was among the first countries to ratify this treaty.
Marathon sessions, constant bilateral consultations and intensive corridor diplomacy were needed to meet this dual challenge.
Given the circumstances, the outcome – unquestionably a product of compromise – was successful in the end.
Here, I would like to point out that if it was within our power, the European Constitutional Treaty would remain exactly as it was ratified by the Hellenic Parliament.
We are, however, satisfied with the outcome of the European Council. In the end, all the member states took a step forward together; a step in the right direction. If we take advantage of it, this step could help the EU leave behind the introspection, embarrassment and insecurity of the last two years, once and for all.
However, for this to happen – and I am being categorical here – we must observe what was agreed upon to the letter, both in terms of its substance and in terms of the timeframe set.
In the opposite case, there will be a new cycle of introspection. And this time, it will be even more painful, even more dangerous, even more corrosive for the European Union.
I hope – and the message will have to be loud and clear – that no member state would want to be held responsible for such a negative development.
Ladies and Gentlemen MPs,
All the above set the general framework for our evaluations, thoughts and pursuits with regard to the decisions taken by the European Council and the prospects they have opened up for the European Union’s further institutional development.
However, a more detailed briefing on what was decided at the European Council is needed.
The European Council decided to immediately call an Intergovernmental Conference under the Portuguese EU Presidency – which started on 1 July - with a view to drawing up a new treaty as soon as possible.
EU leaders gave a clear mandate to the Intergovernmental Conference. They defined the exclusive framework of its proceedings. Their decision has to be respected and abided by. Their political commitment has to be turned into a legal text that will lay the foundations for a new common European future, and not a pretext for more time-consuming discussions and interpretations.
The IGC’s work will have to be concluded by the end of 2007, in order to allow enough time for the treaty’s ratification before the next European Parliament elections, due to take place in June 2009.
The Portuguese Presidency has made a commitment to keep to this dynamic agreement, and already announced that the Intergovernmental Conference is due to start its proceedings on 23 July. Its objective is to speed up the process decided upon even further, in order for the IGC to complete its work under this Presidency and, in particular, by October.
Greece will be its ally and supporter in this effort. We have already started the relevant preparations within the Foreign Ministry.
The resulting text will be called a “Reform Treaty” and it will modify and not replace the existing Treaties, i.e., the Treaty for the European Union and the Treaty for the European Community which will be renamed to “Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”.
Ladies and Gentlemen MPs,
You see therefore that in order to overcome the institutional deadlock, European leaders have agreed to abandon the “constitutional endeavour”. References to terms such as “constitution”, “European law”, as well as European symbols, a European anthem, etc., have been deleted.
We were not pleased with this and together with all the other member states that have also ratified the constitutional treaty tried to prevent it. In the end, we accepted it under one important condition: that all the substantial modifications and institutional innovations that were included in the Constitutional Treaty would be kept.
Our objective was to preserve the substance of the Constitutional Treaty and at the same time give the European Union the necessary tools to enable it to function effectively and smoothly, with 27 members or more. This objective has been achieved.
First of all, the conditions for a more coordinated and cohesive external action of the European Union are preserved. This is achieved through the following:
- the single legal personality of the European Union,
- the provision for a “High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security”, who will coordinate foreign policy. Of course, the term Foreign Minister, which was provided for in the Constitutional Treaty, will not be used, but his competences will remain the same.
- the creation of an External Action Service.
Secondly, we have ensured that the democratic legitimacy of the Union and the effectiveness of its institutions will be strengthened.
In particular,
- The European Parliament’s competences will be increased – particularly in the fields of co-decision, the Union’s budget, and political control over the activities of the other institutions. It becomes an equal legislator within the European legal system. In future, it will also be able to elect the President of the European Commission.
- The role of national parliaments within the legislative process will be strengthened. This means that national parliaments will have the ability to oppose any legal proposals of the European Commission that they deem are going against the principles of subsidiarity. They have a stronger say.
- The participation of European citizens in the decision-making process and the provision of information to them are substantially upgraded. It is worth noting that the democratic foundations of the Union have been laid for the first time and a real possibility for European citizens to undertake legislative initiatives has been established.
- Through the reform treaty, the European Union stays committed to defending and strengthening European citizens’ rights and the special relation between the European Union and its citizens. With the inclusion of a reference to the “Charter of Fundamental Rights” and the acceptance of its binding legal character, the values, principles and rights of European citizens are defined for the first time. The United Kingdom is the only member state not bound by this Charter.
Thirdly, there are substantial possibilities for specific actions in certain fields and actions relating to the citizens’ everyday lives, as well as regarding tourism, energy, humanitarian aid and social cohesion issues, particularly with regard to insular regions.
There are new references to tackling climate change, to solidarity between member states in the field of energy and the promotion and interconnection between energy networks.
Within this framework, we did all that was necessary to safeguard issues of particular Greek interest, such as issues relating to the mutual assistance and solidarity provisions, and, of course, tourism and insularity issues.
Ladies and Gentlemen MPs,
A Europe of 27 – and, in future, more - member states will have to be able to be effective. All of the constitution’s provisions that ensure the flexibility and effectiveness of its work and a realistic representation in its bodies have been preserved, i.e., the following:
- the new allocation of seats in the European Parliament, with a maximum of 750 MEPs.
- the reduction of the number of the Commission’s members to 2/3 of its current membership, with a system of equal rotation. The Commission President will be elected by the European Parliament upon proposal of the European Council.
- The European Council will become an institution and the post of President, with a 2.5-year mandate, is established. As a result, the rotating Presidency of the European Councils and the Councils of Foreign Ministers is abolished. Having a permanent President gives the European Council the time necessary to carry out its work and come up with the right policy to effectively meet the challenges with which the European Union is faced.
Here, I would like to stress the importance of the agreement concluded in terms of the way in which decisions are made, and with regard to the extension of qualified majority.
As you know, one of the hurdles that the German Presidency had to overcome was the demand on the part of Poland to preserve the current system of weighing votes. A new system of qualified majority was finally agreed, i.e., decision-making by a qualified majority of 55% of the member-state votes representing 65% of the Union’s population. Due to Poland’s reactions, there will be a transitional phase until 2014 or 2017 if a request is approved by qualified majority. The decision-making systems that were agreed upon in Nice will remain in force until then.
The complex three-pillar construction with its different levels of coordination and different procedures will be abolished.
However, there will be special procedural provisions in the field of Common Foreign and Security Policy. National competences on drawing up and implementing foreign policy, as well as international representation, remain intact.
In the field of Justice and Home Affairs, the United Kingdom’s opt-out will extend to chapters on judicial cooperation on penal matters and police cooperation.
London decided to opt out of certain European Union policies. It is logical that, in a Union of 27 member states, there are different approaches. Greece belongs to the core of states that need closer cooperation. The institutional framework is there; it is safeguarded by the new treaty. We can move forward with open and transparent processes through enhanced cooperation; processes that do not exclude anyone who really wishes to take part.
Apart from that, there is another important element with regard to the policy on further enlargements. The institutional strengthening that will result from the resolution of an issue that has been pending for two years will enable the continuation of the enlargement process. Here, I would like to remind you that Greece’s answer to the dilemma “widening or deepening?” is: “both widening and deepening”.
Of course, our position on this matter does not neglect the importance of other views, such as Nicolas Sarkozy’s view.
We are, in any event, expecting a discussion on the European Union’s borders. And there could be agreement in principle that the enlargement process cannot be an open-ended process in time and space.
However, depriving certain countries of a European perspective and incentive is neither advisable nor useful. And to make it even clearer, I do not think that the decisions taken unanimously on Turkey and Croatia should be altered.
It is particularly important to keep the European perspective open for Western Balkan countries.
Closing this reference to the crucial issue of the EU’s future borders, I would like to point out that the Hellenic Parliament and Greek society will have to take part in this discussion, whenever it takes place, probably around December 2007. It would be useful if political parties put forward their own views.
Ladies and Gentlemen MPs,
Over the past few days, I repeatedly heard a question on the part of the opposition: Where was Greece? What was our contribution? I heard the examples of Poland and the United Kingdom being mentioned. I heard the agreement concluded was not enough.
Let me make it clear once again. We are staunch Europhiles. We want more Europe. And when I say “we”, I mean the Greek people, who at every opportunity express their support for the vision of European integration.
We cannot be compared to other countries that have their own reservations and reactions. Their concerns are known. We respect them, but we do not share them. We belong to the majority. We belong to the 18 member states that have ratified the Constitutional Treaty and have fought for the preservation of its acquis.
The result achieved reflects the level of compromise. This compromise, however, incorporates the bulk of the reforms introduced by the Constitutional Treaty. We may have lost the title of “Foreign Minister”, but we preserved his competences. We may not have incorporated the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the treaty, but its binding character has been safeguarded.
These results have not been achieved with the touch of a magic wand.
They are the outcome of an intensive and strenuous coordinated effort, based on a firm negotiating line. This outcome is thanks to the “18” firmly standing by their views.
Greece offered its support and close cooperation to the German Presidency, which took over the tough task of reconciling those different views following the preparatory work of the Finnish Presidency. Our country also played a leading role in the formation of a group of countries, including Italy, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and Hungary, which systematically examined alternative proposals and was taking initiatives up until the last moment, in order to achieve as little alteration as possible of the provisions ratified.
Here, I would like to mention the activity and work of the competent Deputy Minister, Mr. Y. Valinakis.
The core of these countries gathered the support of others, too, and gave the German Presidency – which I would like to congratulate once again – the incentive and determination necessary, given the circumstances, to preserve the content of the previous Constitutional Treaty and reach an acceptable compromise.
A compromise that will put an end to the vicious cycle of introspection and uncertainty, and open up new opportunities and prospects for a strong, democratic and effective European Union.
In closing, I would like to wish the Portuguese Presidency good luck with the difficult task it has undertaken.
Thank you very much.
July 6, 2007