Download Introduction

Malta Summer School 2006 prof. José Antonio Jáuregui
10/7/2006 – 29/7/2006
Masters – update course with 8ECTS accreditation
on
South/East dialogue, European Integration,
Development and Democracy
Prof. Pasquale Saccà
Jean Monnet Professor - President Scientific Committee
[email protected]
European Council summits to understand the
history and the future of the EU and the role of
Europe in the international context.
The European integration process has two principal challenges:
internal and external; the internal challenge regards only the
member States, the external challenge regards all the States that in
this fifty years have entered the EC and then EU.
The aim of integration has always been to build and reinforce peace
in Europe, encourage development and to affirm human rights.
Now we can divide this process into three parts. Before the 11
September 2001 however this integration process was divided into
two parts: that is to say before and after the integration fall of the
Berlin Wall.
European integration in the first period was an internal process and
an external challenge between Western European States.
The success of this process became clear when other States
wanted to join the EC. In fact in 1973 the UK, Denmark and Ireland
entered the EC.
And after that, Greece (1981) and Spain and Portugal (1986). This
is the first period. In this period we have the first reform of the EC.
Treaties and the first election by universal suffrage (1979) of the
European Parliament.
And the very important moment in this period was the Milan summit
in 1985 which agreed to set up the Single Market promising to do
so by 1992: this Single Market regarding the free movement of
people, goods, capital and services.
In this context we have the first reform of the Structural funds
(1989), but in 1989 we also had the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The first question that European Heads of State or Government
asked them selves was, what will happen to the Soviet Union?
Will it move towards a democratic system or will it be a strong
government? (meaning a military government), which would
maintain control over its nuclear weapons.
In this context it became imperative to respond to the requests from
Central and Eastern European countries to enter the EC.
In light of this situation the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 was the only
possible response to the changed political reality in Europe, which
resulted following the fall of the Berlin Wall.
We say that Maastricht was the only possible response because
promising and working towards future EC membership for these
countries was the only way to help them escape from Soviet
influence and to help them permanently enter the democratic world.
Maastricht can be seen in this way: first to respond to the demands
from Central and Eastern European countries;
Maastricht can also be seen as the need for the European Union to
speak with a single voice in the international context. A result of this
was the reinforcement and integration of European institutions so
that with the EC enlargement these institutions would be able to
function effectively.
However
to
reinforce
and
integrate
European
Institutions
necessitated member countries giving up national sovereignty but
not all States wanted to do this.
Maastricht is hence a compromise between the wish to keep
national sovereignty and the need to give up sovereignty so that an
enlarged EC could better function.
The result was the transfer of some sovereignty.
In Maastricht the European Union was born with European
citizenship and the single currency. It was natural to ask: can a
single currency exist without a strong European Policy?
The content of this new Treaty shows the level of compromise
between international challenges and internal challenges.
All Heads of State or Government saw that the compromise reforms
agreed upon were insufficient to face the challenges of a radically
changing world. Therefore at Maastricht it was also decided that in
1996, there would be a general revision of EU Treaties and that
January 1999 would be the start up date for the single currency.
In Amsterdam on 16 and 17 June 1997, the details were finally
worked out of how the single currency was to operate and all
participating Countries agreed on the Stability and Growth Pact
together with a Resolution on the Growth and Employment Pact.
The pillar of economic policy was completed with the tools of the
SME/EMS 2 and with the tools of social policy and employment,
with the strengthening of foreign policy and the enlargement of the
powers of co-decision of the European Parliament.
In Amsterdam it was said that the enlargement could commence.
The Nice summit lasted four days (7/11 December 2000) but it
should have lasted only two days 7-8.
In Nice a new role was given to the President of the European
Commission and to the members of the Commission.
A new method of voting for the Council was agreed upon together
with the extension of reinforced cooperation and the proclamation of
the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
It was clear that member States considered above all their own
national interests rather than the interests of the integration
process, and it was clear that the institutional reform favoured
internal interests.
In
Nice
the
European
Council
established
the
new
intergovernmental Conference in 2004, so we arrive at the new
Constitution.
What were the problems?
In Nice intergovernmental interests prevailed and it was clear that it
would be difficult to progress towards more integration with 25
States.
Nice helps us to understand the NO vote in the French referendum.
The first failure of President Chirac was in Nice.
The second happened when he was elected with a large majority,
but chose to form his own party. In this way, he missed the
opportunity to be the President of all French people.
For part of the French Left wing the referendum on the Constitution
was a chance to vote against the internal policy of Chirac.
But the European integration process was slowed down before the
French referendum.
This was also due to the decision of Nice and after that the
impossibility to reconcile together national interests.
It is clear that the EU has a history and a system of rules. The
Treaty of Nice governs all activities of the EU and the relationship
between European Institutions.
In Nice a demographic element was introduced for when the
Institutions have to make a decision, it is the first step towards a
European democratic system that supersedes local logic: to decide
as real European Institutions following the will and wishes of the
majority of European people. This means to accept that European
citizens have a democratic function.
In this democratic context it is possible to recognize that the EU
protects European interests.
If the majority of States and European citizens approve the
Constitution, we all have to share and accept the wishes of
European people and the rules of a democratic system. We all want
to maintain peace and this is possible and more certain with more
efficient European integration.
In this century young people march for Peace. We have an
obligation to them on this path.
This is a path towards a world that wishes to talk and doesn’t want
the violence of weapons. At present much research is done to
develop new armaments. Instead research must help to build better
health and welfare systems.
In this speech I have wanted to underline two fundamental
elements in this European process:
The role of history with regard to these internal and external
challenges and the role of States which persue their own interests. I
would like to make a final suggestion: the European Commission
has had and is having a positive central role in this process.
I suggest that my students follow the European Council summits to
understand the history and the future of the EU and the role of
Europe in the international context.
South/East Dialogue will be the process in which we can better face
African, European and Asian challenges: a process in which can
link together the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea and the
Caspian Sea.