|
With the French and the Dutch electorate rejecting the ratification of the EU constitution, where do you see its future? Will the rejection halt the process of expansion and unification of Europe?
The result of the referenda in France and the Netherlands are certainly a very serious setback for France and the Netherlands and for Europe. We are certainly entering a period of uncertainty. But the EU will continue to function on the basis of existing Treaties. It is the future direction of the EU, and its capability to act effectively, which are now the challenge.
The Commission, as well as the other European Institutions and the Member States are united in their aspiration to go forward to deliver on issues that matter to people across Europe; more and better jobs, economic growth, sustainable development, preserving and modernizing the European social model and providing more security for citizens.
We need the European Union to deliver effectively on these priorities; we need it to act decisively on the world stage. It is possible to act in many of these areas on the basis of existing Treaties, but with less efficiency. The Constitution will make the EU more effective, stronger and democratic and will help deliver the essentials that people expect.
Do you think it will have an adverse effect on the ongoing economic integration of EU? And does the rejection suggest a growing disillusionment among wealthier European Union members?
The economic integration of EU is already largely complete. The Single Market as well as the Euro, the single European currency, continues to perform on the basis of the existing legal and institutional framework.
The reasons behind the “No” votes in France and the Netherlands need closer examination and analysis. It is widely reported that there was a lively debate over a wide range of issues as well as about the provisions of the Constitution and how it would matter to them. Eventually the Constitution became a victim of many factors including linking up of extraneous issues to the Constitution, and – as reported in the press- the “anti-establishment” sentiment in these countries.
The right wing press of Britain has hailed the French for the rejection. Will this have an impact on other EU members going for referendum? Also, is there a possibility of a subsequent referendum in France and the Netherlands?
That remains to be seen. As you know, soon after the French and the Dutch votes, the Parliament of Latvia, one of the 10 countries that joined the EU in May 2004, has ratified the Constitution. It is not necessary that people in one country will follow the example of the people of another country.
It is too early to talk about the next steps in France and the Netherlands and moreover it is for these countries to decide, not for the EU institutions.
Was the outcome in France a reflection of the electorates’ anger at the President of the Republic for failing to improve the country’s economy or a general rejection for a unified Europe?
The reasons behind the French “Non” are multiple. It would not be correct for me to comment on one reason or another.
2005 is the halfway stage of the Lisbon Strategy where ambitious reforms and goals were set to make the European Union “the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world” by 2010. How much has been achieved?
The main concerns of Europe’s citizens are jobs, growth, the environment, and a proper social net. The current lack of economic growth is a cause for major concern and if we do not act immediately, our valued social and environmental model will become unaffordable. In the face of international competition and an ageing population, growth could soon decrease to 1 percent per year (more than half of today’s growth).
To avoid this, Heads of State and Government of the European Union met in Lisbon in 2000 and launched a series of ambitious reforms at national and European level. By establishing an effective internal market, by boosting research and innovation and by improving education, to name only a few reform efforts, they aimed to make the European Union “the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world” by 2010.
We are now half-way through the process and the results are not very satisfactory. The implementation of reform in Member States has been quite scarce. The reform package consists of 28 main objectives and 120 sub-objectives, with 117 different indicators. The reporting system for 25 Member States adds up to no fewer than 300 annual reports. Nobody reads of all of them.
To remedy this lack of commitment of Member States, the Commission proposed to establish a new kind of partnership with Member States. It also decided to focus efforts on two main areas: productivity and employment. To make things simpler and more coherent, there shall be just one national growth programme and one EU growth plan.
The European Union cannot boost productivity and employment if Member States do not do their part.
What steps can the EU and India take to ensure multipolarity and multilateralism in the world economic and political order?
Both EU and India are committed to multilateralism and we are both important actors in our own regions as well as globally. The EU and India have decided to upgrade their relations to a Strategic Partnership level in line with the ideas and proposals contained in a paper put out by the European Commission in June 2004. This paper which was welcomed and endorsed by the Indian government, welcomes the fact of both EU and India being important actors in a multi-polar world and sets out a number of steps to strengthen cooperation between the EU and India at the multilateral fora. It has been suggested to have bilateral consultations on the sides of the UN meetings. Similarly, both EU and India are strong players in their own right and partners committed to each other to make a success of the multilateral negotiations. An action plan for the implementation of these ambitious goals is under preparation and is expected to be submitted for approval at the next EU-India Summit in New Delhi on 7 September 2005. The action plan will contain the detailed answer to your query.
|
