IP/00/1344
Brussels, 22 November 2000
The European Union:Contrasting experiences and
common hopes in Britain and Germany
Speech by Chris Patten to the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige
Politik, the Deutsch-Englische Gesellschaft and the Institut für
Europäische Politik, BERLIN, 22 November 2000. Mr Patten concedes
that at present people in both Britain and Germany feel alienated from
the European project. He looks at various suggestions for re-engaging
them – primarily by finding better ways of connecting national and
regional political institutions with European ones. Despite their very
different experiences of the EU the German and British people are
asking similar questions about how much Europe they want and need.
Mr Patten looks at how these questions are being answered by the
Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The EU does not aspire
to a single foreign policy, but if we are to achieve a more effective,
more coherent and more visible CFSP, Member States need to accept
that mere inter-Governmentalism in CFSP is a recipe for weakness.
Mr.Patten concludes by looking at recent experience, notably in South
East Europe and in Russia. The EU has much to offer around the world
– and through the process of its own enlargement - as model of
regional integration. It needs to carry forward the project, which has
been one of the great achievements of the C20th, “with sensitivity for
the delicate balance that needs to be maintained between the Union
and its separate members”.
Mr.Patten first acknowledges his debt to Ludwig Erhard, whose concept of the
‘Soziale Marktwirtschaft’ was of such “importance to the… development of an
intellectually invincible Centre-Right philosophy in the later years of the last century”.
He goes on to compare the very different experience of Germany and of Britain in
the EU. For many years in Germany European construction amounted almost to a
secular religion: unquestioned and unquestionable. The British, by contrast, have
never felt glad-hearted about Europe. They have focussed on sovereignty, as if there
was choice to be made between the nation and the EU. But this is a fallacy. As
Churchill said in 1930: “…from every man will some day be required not the merging
or discarding of various loyalties, but their simultaneous reconciliation in a complete
or larger synthesis”.
The more important question is how democracy should operate in such a large
construct. At present people feel a lack of ‘emotional commitment’ to the EU.
Joschka Fischer recently suggested that the way to re-engage them was through a
directly-elected President of the Commission, and a European Government which
might emerge, for example, from the Council or from the Commission.
Mr Patten is concerned that many might feel “further threatened and alienated by
such developments”. It is national Parliaments, and lower levels of Government such
as the Laender, that are Europe’s democratic bedrock. The question is how they
might provide a more potent source of legitimacy for the European enterprise.
Mr.Patten looks at various mechanisms that have been proposed, including a
Second Chamber of the European Parliament, and a charter of competences.
The Council, too, needs give thought to “issues of transparency and public
communication. It is corrosive that decisions ripen and are taken behind closed
doors, and then blamed on a wicked dragon called ‘Brussels’ when they prove
problematic or unpopular”.
Despite their very different experiences of Europe, Germans and Britons are starting
to ask similar questions about how much Europe they want and need. Mr Patten
looks at how this question is being answered in the field of external relations.
Efforts to fashion an effective foreign policy have been frustrated by the
determination of the nations to maintain their independence of external action. “I do
not make this point in a spirit of recrimination,” because “foreign policy goes to the
heart of what it means to be a nation”. But “It means that we should be clearsighted about the limits of CFSP. The EU does not, and cannot, aspire to a single
foreign policy.” At the same time, if we want a more effective, more coherent and
more visible CFSP, “Member States need to accept that mere interGovernmentalism is a recipe for weakness and mediocrity”. “My job, working closely
with Javier Solana, is to contribute to the policy-making process and to deliver
Community instruments more effectively in the service of Europe’s external
objectives”.
Mr Patten goes on to look at recent experience in South East Europe where the
efforts of the EU are making a real difference. “We must honour our promise…to
help them to rebuild their countries economically and institutionally, and on that basis
to welcome them back into the European family”. If Russia is to re-emerge as the
great power it should be, it needs “strong and effective institutions to underpin the
rule of law”. The EU can help to build such institutions, but “real partnership will only
be possible if Russia shows its own commitment to individual rights…Events in
Chechnya have continued to cast a long shadow”. The EU’s own enlargement
“constitutes the single greatest contribution the EU can make to European – even to
global – stability”. The EU also provides a model of regional integration which is
relevant to many other countries, from Asia to Latin America “struggling to evolve
economic, legal and political frameworks that will contain the passions of states, help
to manage relations between them, and channel the process of globalisation in
beneficent directions”. Finally, Mr Patten looks at the EU’s relations with the United
States. We have huge mutual interests. “But there are also many areas in which I
think the US have got it wrong…We need to develop a candid relationship in which
we can explore the antipathies as well as the sympathies of honest neighbourliness”.
Europe will not win arguments with the US unless it is itself taken seriously. “So we
need to carry our share of the defence burden as we already carry much more than
our fair share of the burden of external assistance”. By developing the CFSP “we
may hope to contribute to a healthier global balance”.
Mr Patten concludes by observing that the debate over the EU’s future development
can arouse strong emotions and concerns. “But let us never lose sight of our
common ambition, and of the value of what we have inherited. The development of
the EU was one of the great achievements of the C20th. We have a heavy
responsibility to carry forward the work with sensitivity for the delicate balance that
needs to be maintained between the Union and its separate members”.
2